Recently Dr. Flowers participated in an online discussion with Calvinist Jason Mullet, of the Logical Beliefs Podcast (in the network of The Bible Thumping Wingnuts). They discussed the nature of free will, sovereignty and human responsibility as taught in the Bible.
Below is an article written by Dr. Flowers explaining his views on the freedom of the will in response to Matt Slick, who is also of the Bible Thumping Wingnut network of podcasts.
The Doctrine of Free Will
by Dr. Leighton Flowers
After defending the Traditionalist view of free will I was accused of “worshipping the idol of human autonomy” in a recent conversation with a Calvinistic believer. He went on to assert that there is absolutely no support for the concept of free will in the Bible. This particular Calvinist is an admirer of Matt Slick, of CARM ministries, who defines the point of our contention on his web site. I will go through each of Matt’s points here:
Free will is the ability to make choices without external coersion. There are debates as to what extent this free will is to be understood as it relates to people. There are two main views: compatibilism and libertarianism.
The compatibilist view is the position that a person’s freedom is restricted by his nature as is described in Scripture. In other words, he can only choose what his nature (sinful or regenerate) will allow him to choose. Therefore, such verses as 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 6:14-20 are used to demonstrate that, for example, the unbeliever is incapable of choosing God of his own free will since they say that the unbeliever cannot receive spiritual things, does no good, and is a slave to sin. …
The biblical position is compatibilism. Since the Bible clearly teaches us that the unbeliever is restricted to making sinful choices (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 6:14-20), then we must conclude that anyone who believes in God (John 3:16; 3:36) does so because God has granted that he believe (Phil. 1:29), has caused him to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3), and chosen him for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13).
Let’s look at Matt’s errors point by point in light of the scriptures:
- Matt wrote, “a person’s freedom is restricted by his nature as is described in Scripture. In other words, he can only choose what his nature (sinful or regenerate) will allow him to choose.”
While we would agree that mankind’s freedom to choose is restricted to confines of his nature, we disagree as to what those confines are in relation to sinful humanity. For instance, a man is not free to flap his arms and fly around the world no matter how much he may will to do so. He is confined by his physical abilities. So too, there are moral confines on the abilities of sinful man’s will.
We would agree that mankind is born incapable of willingly keeping the demands of the law so as to merit salvation. And we would also agree that mankind is in bondage to sin. We would NOT AGREE that a man is born incapable of willingly admitting that he is in bondage and in need of help — especially in light of God’s gracious, Holy Spirit inspired, clear revelation — by means of the law (a tutor) and the gospel (a powerful appeal to be reconciled).
Suppose a man were born in a prison cell and never told that he was in a cell. He was simply unaware of any thing outside the walls of his world. We would all agree that the man is born in bondage and incapable of even recognizing his position. But, suppose someone came into his cell and told him of the world outside the walls. Is the fact that he was born in bondage prove that he is incapable of hearing the messenger and believing his message? Of course not. You can acknowledge the bondage of the man from birth without assuming he is also born incapable of believing the testimony of the messengers sent for the purpose of helping him to be set free.
Belief that a man is born in a prison cell is distinct from the belief that the man is incapable of acknowledging that he is in a prison cell and accepting help to escape when it is clearly offered. Calvinists have pointed to passages that prove mankind is born in the cell while assuming mankind is incapable of humbly admitting they are in a cell and trusting in Christ to set them free.
No passage in all of scripture ever suggests that fallen men are incapable of willingly responding to God’s own appeal to be reconciled from their fallen condition.
- Matt wrote, “such verses as 1 Cor. 2:14; 3:10-12; Rom. 6:14-20 are used to demonstrate that, for example, the unbeliever is incapable of choosing God of his own free will since they say that the unbeliever cannot receive spiritual things, does no good, and is a slave to sin. … the Bible clearly teaches us that the unbeliever is restricted to making sinful choices (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 6:14-20)
The passages cited simply do not say what Matt asserts. Let’s look at each one and see exactly what they teach:
1 Corinthians 2:14 — “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
So, the lost man needs someone to spiritually discern the “deep things of God” (vs. 10), right? What are the means God uses to discern spiritual truths to mankind? Is not the very epistle that Paul is writing to the carnal believers in Corinth a means of “spiritual discernment?” And since the “brethren” in the Corinthian church are “not able to receive” these same “deep things of God” (1 Cor. 3:1-3) one would be hard pressed to suggest that Paul was intending to teach that no one is able to understand the simple gospel appeal to be reconciled unless they are first reconciled.
Again, this text never suggests that mankind is born unable to respond to God’s clearly discerned gospel appeal. It only affirms that the mystery of the gospel must be discerned for us, which it has been. As Paul states, “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Eph. 3:4
Neither side is suggesting that lost men can understand the deep spiritual truths of God apart from the means God has chosen to discern these mysteries. So, the question is whether God’s means of discernment through the apostles is a sufficient work of discernment that enables those who hear it to respond? More HERE.
Romans 3:10-18 — “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
No one is righteous according to the works of the law. No one is able to attain righteousness by law through works. But how does that prove no one is able to attain righteousness by grace through faith? In verse 21 of this same chapter Paul introduces the means for man to attain righteousness, which is separate from the law. Calvinists seem to think that proof of our inability to earn righteousness through our own works likewise proves our inability to trust in the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Proving that the lost cannot seek God does not prove that they are unable to respond to a God who is actively seeking to save the lost. Proving that I cannot call the President on the phone does not prove I cannot answer the phone if the President chose to call me.
Romans 6:14-20 – “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.”
While Paul certainly affirms that “you used to be slaves to sin,” he never remotely suggests that you used to be incapable of admitting that fact in light of God’s revelation through the law (a tutor sent to reveal our need) and the powerful gospel appeal (God’s offer to meet that need through faith). How does Paul describe the way in which one comes out of his enslavement in the passage above? He writes, “you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” He speaks of your obedience to the teaching that he and the other apostles had brought to you. Moreover, Paul speaks of your choice to “offer yourselves as slaves,” as if you are responsible for that choice. Nothing is said about some effectual or irresistible internal working presupposed by the Calvinist.
Nothing in the three passages listed even come close to suggesting that mankind is incapable of admitting they need help when God Himself offers it. Matt goes on to describe libertarian free will (LFW) in this manner:
- Libertarian free will says that the person’s will is not restricted by his sinful nature, and that he is still able to choose or accept God freely. Verses used to support this view are John 3:16 and 3:36.
This is an over-simplified and very shallow explanation of LFW. LFW (or contra-causal freedom) is “the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.” So, in relation to soteriology, LFW is mankind’s ability to accept or reject God’s appeal to be reconciled through faith in Christ. Given that mankind is held responsible for how they respond to Christ and His words (John 12:48), there is no biblical or theological reason to suggest that mankind is born unable to respond to His powerful, life-giving words (Heb. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; Rm. 10:17; John 6:63; 20:31*). It makes no practical sense to hold mankind responsible (response-able) to Christ’s words, if indeed they are unable-to-respond to those words, nor is it ever explicitly taught in Scripture.
*HERE is a great resource to support this interpretation of John 20:31 from the original language. (From Thomas “Willie” Adams, PhD)
In fact, many text suggest mankind is able to reason with God and freely respond to His revelation:
Matt continues: All the cults and false religious systems teach the libertarian view of free will…
This is factually inaccurate. Islam, naturalistic Atheism, and ancient Gnosticism, to name a few, all held to forms of determinism.
…that salvation and spiritual understanding are completely within the grasp of sinners (in spite of their enslavement to and deadness in sin). For them, salvation would be totally up to the ability of the individual to make such a choice.
This is a common error made by Calvinistic believers. They wrongly assert that non-Calvinists believe salvation itself is “within the grasp of sinners” because we teach that mankind is responsible to believe and repent of sin. Being capable of repenting in faith is not equal to saving oneself. Matt is conflating two separate choices as if they are one in the same.
- Man’s responsibility to believe and repent.
- God’s gracious choice to save whoever believes and repents.
By conflating these two very distinct actions, the Calvinist causes much unneeded confusion. It would be tantamount to suggesting that because the Prodigal son chose to return home that the father was obligated to accept and restore him BECAUSE of his choice to return. The son alone was responsible for his choice to return. Likewise, the father alone was responsible for his choice to accept and restore him. The only obligation on the father is one he puts on himself on the basis of his own goodness and grace. Nothing is owed to the son on the basis of his choice to return. When the Calvinist conflates these two choices as if they are one in the same it confounds an otherwise very simple gospel message.
Below are the passages Matt listed in support of his perspective. Let’s go through each of them:
Man Apart from God
- 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”
Does proof that a leopard cannot change his own spots also prove that a leopard cannot recognize that his spots need changing by the help of another? Once again Calvinists have assumed that mankind’s inability to save himself is equal to his supposed inability to admit that fact in light of God’s clear revelation.
For instance, a doctor may clearly reveal your need for a heart transplant. Your ability to submit to his recommendation and allow him to perform the transplant is not equal to performing the transplant all by yourself, which is exactly what the Calvinist is presuming onto our perspective when they say things like, “you believe that you can save yourself”…or “change your own spots.”
- 5:10, “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”
Matt will have to spell out why he feels this passage specifically supports his position. According to 2 Corinthians 5:20, Christ is making his appeal through us to be reconciled to God by faith. The Calvinist seems to think that one must be reconciled in order to willingly respond to Christ’s appeal to be reconciled, which clearly has the cart before the horse.
- 8:7, “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.”
Does proof that mankind cannot fulfill the laws demands also prove that mankind cannot humbly admit this fact in light of God’s gracious appeals? Just because mankind cannot merit his own salvation by works of the law does not mean he cannot trust in the One who did fulfill the law.
Verses related to free will choices of sinners
- John 1:13, “who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Clearly John is referencing the natural born Israelites who wrongly believe that their Israelite lineage (blood), and works of the law (willing/running) are the means of their salvation. This is made clear by looking at the context of this passage. In verses 11-12, the apostle writes, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”
Who are “his own” who “did not receive him?” Clearly he is speaking of Israel. Which is contrasted with those who did receive him and believed in his name. One is not even given the right to become a child until they “believe and receive” according to this passage. Yet, the Calvinist seem to suggest that one must be born as a child in order to believe and receive. Again, the Calvinists have the cart before the horse.
- 9:16, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” — “the man” is singular
- 9:18, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”
For the sake of time and space, I’ll refer you to my own commentary over Romans 9 to respond to this point of contention.
- 1:29, “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”
God does grant us the ability to believe and suffer for His sake. But “granting” or “enabling” faith is not the same as effectually causing it. Faith comes by hearing the powerful gospel appeal (Rom. 10:11-14), which is granted first to the Jew and then the Gentile (Rom. 1:16). In other words, God is enabling faith through revelation, which is sent first to the Jew and then the Gentiles. During the time of Paul, the Jews had grown calloused to God’s revelation, otherwise they might have seen, heard, understood and turned to God, so the apostles took the message of repentance to the Gentiles, who listened (Acts 28:27-28).
Free Will as “Human Autonomy” (the “separateness” of God)
Websters defines “autonomous” simply as “undertaken or carried on without outside control.” Autonomous describes things that function separately or independently. For instance, once you move out of your parents’ house, and get your own job, you will be an autonomous member of the family. This adjective autonomous is often used of countries, regions, or groups that have the right to govern themselves. Autonomous is from Greek autonomos “independent,” from autos “self” plus nomos “law.”
Some wrongly assume that the Traditionalist’s use of this term is meant to suggest that mankind’s existence, sustenance and natural abilities are independent of God altogether. This is absurd, of course. Paul asked his readers, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), which strongly implies that all our abilities, including the ability to make choices, is given to us by a gracious God.
We can affirm that “God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him,” (Ps. 115:3) while still holding on to the equally valid truth that, “the highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Ps. 115:16). This means it pleases God to give man a certain level of “autonomy” or “separateness.” This is a biblical view of divine sovereignty and human autonomy. As A.W. Tozer rightly explains:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
Some Calvinists have wrongly concluded that the Traditionalist seeks to downplay the sovereignty of God and highlight the autonomy of man, when in reality we seek to maintain the right biblical understanding of man’s autonomy so as to better highlight the Sovereignty, Love and Holiness of God.
I have already unpacked the attribute of God’s Sovereignty HERE and God’s Love HERE, so I would now like to turn our attention to the attribute of God’s Holiness. If you notice that the Tozer quote above is from his book, “The Knowledge of the Holy.” Tozer’s intentions, like that of the Traditionalist, is in defense of God’s Holiness, not an attempt to undermine other equally important attributes of our good God.
I suspect that Tozer, like myself, would wholeheartedly agree with John Piper’s teaching on God’s Holiness here:
“Every effort to define the holiness of God ultimately winds up by saying: God is holy means God is God. Let me illustrate. The root meaning of holy is probably to cut or separate. A holy thing is cut off from and separated from common (we would say secular) use. Earthly things and persons are holy as they are distinct from the world and devoted to God. So the Bible speaks of holy ground (Exodus 3:5), holy assemblies (Exodus 12:16), holy sabbaths (Exodus 16:23), a holy nation (Exodus 19:6); holy garments (Exodus 28:2), a holy city (Nehemiah 11:1), holy promises (Psalm 105:42), holy men (2 Peter 1:21) and women (1 Peter 3:5), holy scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15), holy hands (1 Timothy 2:8), a holy kiss (Romans 16:16), and a holy faith (Jude 20). Almost anything can become holy if it is separated from the common and devoted to God.
But notice what happens when this definition is applied to God himself. From what can you separate God to make him holy? The very god-ness of God means that he is separate from all that is not God. There is an infinite qualitative difference between Creator and creature. God is one of a kind. Sui generis. In a class by himself. In that sense he is utterly holy. But then you have said no more than that he is God.” – John Piper (emphasis added)
Notice the common term used to describe God’s Holiness and man’s autonomy? The word “separate” is referenced in both definitions. This is significant.
Some Calvinists fail to see that the Traditionalists defense of man’s separateness (autonomy) is actually in defense of God’s Holiness, or as Piper put it, God’s separateness “from all that is not God.” But, in a world of divine meticulous control of all things, what is left to be considered “separate” in any meaningful sense of the word?
One would think that sinful intentions would be included in “all that is not God,” yet many Calvinistic scholars affirm that man’s sinful intentions are unchangeably predetermined or brought about by God so as to glorify Himself (see HERE).
We must understand that John Piper, while holding to the same definition of Holiness as Tozer (or Traditionalists), comes to a very different conclusion about the nature of our thrice Holy God.
Continuing with the quote above, Piper concludes:
“If the holiness of a man derives from being separated from the world and devoted to God, to whom is God devoted so as to derive his holiness? To no one but himself.”
Piper fails to relate his understanding of God’s Holiness (separateness) to the nature of morally accountable creatures (as autonomously separate), but instead uses this attribute to emphasize his Calvinistic view of God’s self-seeking nature. Piper is arguing that God is all about Himself because there is no “higher reality than God to which He must conform in order to be holy.” In other words, God is all about God because there is nothing more Holy than God. But, what does this even mean unless you establish that which God has separated Himself from in the meticulously determined world of Piper’s Calvinism? How can one celebrate God being about God unless you separate that which is not about God from that which is about God? What exactly can be deemed as “separated” in a worldview where absolutely everything is brought about by God for God? Holiness loses its meaning in a deterministic worldview because nothing can be described in any significant way as being “separate” from God and His will.
It is senseless to speak of God’s Holiness (as separateness) unless there is something outside of God from which to separate. God cannot be separated from Himself or His own choices. And if you insist on the one hand that God is unchangeably determining all creature’s sinful inclinations so as to glorify Himself, then how can you on the other hand claim that God is wholly separate from those same sinful, yet self-glorifying means? You might as well be claiming A is not A (God is separate but not separate).
Listen, either God is implicated in moral evil or He is not. He is either Holy or He is not. He is either separate (an affirmation of both Divine Holiness and human autonomy) or He is not (a denial of both Divine Holiness and human autonomy). Do not allow the Calvinists to have their cake and eat it too on this point.
John Piper takes the attribute of Holiness to teach that “God is all about Himself.” Whereas, Tozer takes the attribute of Holiness to teach that while God would be perfectly just to be all about Himself and His own glorification, He graciously chooses to glorify undeserving creatures who have separated themselves from Him through autonomously sinful choices.
Traditionalists, like myself, simply believe that Tozer is right and Piper is wrong.
Leighton,
You misspelled Matt Slick’s name in the 2nd paragraph as “Matt Stick”.
You wrote, “Let’s look at Matt’s errors point by point in light of the scriptures:”… You then quoted him directly, and then wrote several things that you agreed with Matt regarding his statement, and then you wrote the following:
“We would NOT AGREE that a man is born incapable of willingly admitting that he is in bondage and in need of help — especially in light of God’s gracious, Holy Spirit inspired, clear revelation — by means of the law (a tutor) and the gospel (a powerful appeal to be reconciled).”
Where did Matt argue the above? Why are you attributing something to Matt that he did not say? What purpose does that serve?
In regard to the accusation that that you worship the idol of human autonomy, the LORD is the ultimate judge of that because He alone knows your heart fully and all of of your motivations. On the other hand, the scriptures instruct believers to carefully examine and test what is taught by teachers such as yourself…”And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ…” (Phil 1:9) Are you truly sincere and blameless in challenging Calvinists? Is your argumentation sincere and blameless?
Why do you oppose and criticize what is clearly seen in the scriptures by persons who honor and love the Lord Jesus Christ? What purpose does that serve? How many hours have you spent putting together and maintaining this blog? The amount of energy that you devote to this makes me wonder if you hope to convince people that the autonomous free will of man is the primary change agent that saves rather than God Himself. Why are you so devoted to the autonomous free will of man? Where do the scriptures exhort us to honor the free will of man?
Are you ready to be truly honest about this? Then I challenge you to read http://www.fivesolas.com/toplady.htm.
Where did Matt argue in favor of “Total Inability” as promoted by Calvinism? Is that your question?
Are you suggesting Matt doesn’t hold to total inability?
Why do I oppose Calvinism?
One of two reasons: I am wrong about man’s freedom and God has causally determined me to oppose Calvinism for some unknown reason. Or I am correct and man has genuine free will and I believe Calvinism misrepresents the biblical teaching.
“…this makes me wonder if you hope to convince people that the autonomous free will of man is the primary change agent that saves rather than God Himself.”
See my podcast on “the conflation of the Calvinist” because this is a prime example of the conflation between man’s choice to repent and Gods gracious choice to save the repentant. Treating those choices as if they are one in the same is conflating and makes our conversation muddled.
Dr. Flowers writes, “We would NOT AGREE that a man is born incapable of willingly admitting that he is in bondage and in need of help — especially in light of God’s gracious, Holy Spirit inspired, clear revelation — by means of the law (a tutor) and the gospel (a powerful appeal to be reconciled).”
Absent knowledge of the law or hearing the gospel, we seem to agree that a person is incapable “admitting that he is in bondage and in need of help.” Yet, even with the law, the Jew seemed to have this problem. They had so distorted the law, that they were in bondage, needed help, and were incapable of admitting it – as demonstrated in Jesus’ discussions with the Pharisees. Not everyone hears the gospel preached and for those who do, not everyone “hears” the gospel as not everyone is saved. Something else is going on. Nonetheless, Dr. Flowers seems to agree that all people are born “incapable of willingly admitting that he is in bondage and in need of help” and this condition continues until a person comes into contact with the law or the gospel, and even here, something else is needed.
According to the Traditionalist’s perspective, humility and ability to admit one’s guilt before a holy God “activates” the process by which a person is saved. How do we know this? Well ask the Traditionalist two questions:
1) DOES God save anyone absent their humility/ability to admit their guilt?
2) WILL God save anyone who doesn’t first humble themselves and admit their guilt?
If the answer is “no” to both questions, then we KNOW that salvation has its origins in man’s autonomous free will according to the Traditionalist’s perspective. In other words, God REACTS to mankind’s choice to humble and admit their guilt. So salvation DEPENDS on mankind’s moral choice! So, instead of saying that , “Salvation is of the Lord”, we say “Salvation is of Man” because God’s freedom of choice must first bow to mankind’s freedom to first humble and admit his guilt.
Prof. Flowers keeps harping on this concept of mankind’s ability to “admit their guilt”. But this is TOTALLY irrelevant to the argument between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. The overwhelming majority of Calvinists believe that sinners admit their guilt before God everyday. However, admission of guilt doesn’t disprove total depravity or inability.
Inability simply means that the unregenerate CANNOT believe the Gospel UNTO SALVATION! Admitting guilt is not a precursor to genuine salvation, nor is humility. Humility can be temporary and false.
The Calvinist simply says that TRUE humility and TRUE repentance are gifts of God. Humility and repentance from an unregenerate heart are both temporary and false.
Consider the parable of the garments and wine bottles told by Jesus in Matthew 9-16-18..
Jesus is teaching there that the Gospel message will have an adverse effect on someone whose nature/heart is not FIRST changed. This is why He says in v17b: “but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.” You must FIRST have a new heart/nature (thus “fresh wineskins”), then you can pour the Gospel (thus “fresh wine”) into them so that “both are preserved” or the true believer can believe the Gospel and live it.
Jesus says in order for the “fresh wine” of the Gospel to become effective, the wineskins must FIRST be “fresh”.
Also Prof. Flowers loves to use the parable of the prodigal son as a proof text for autonomous free will preceding the monergestic work of the father choosing to accept the son.
Whereas the parable is referring to salvation, it’s NOT relaying the source or mechanism of salvation. The parable is told in the setting of Jesus eating and fraternizing with Gentile sinners and He’s aware of the fact that the Jewish leadership is present. So He relates several parables to express the fact that God’s salvation plan is for sinners (including Gentiles).
So the parable of the sower is not meant to teach HOW God saves. The purpose of the parable is that God saves “publicans and sinners” (Luke 15:2) who are Gentiles in this passage. The prodigal son is a picture of an unregenerate Gentile whom God (the father) accepts. The older son represents the Jews (especially the Pharisees) who are jealous over the fact that God loves and accepts the Gentile believers too.
But I reiterate that the parable of the prodigal is not meant to illustrate HOW God saves. It’s only meant to illustrate that He’s “no respecter of persons” in who He saves.
I could address more of Prof. Flowers’ errors but I’m tired and going to sleep. Maybe I’ll continue tomorrow.
Hi Troy! I hope you don’t mind if I respond to your comments too.
You asked – 1) DOES God save anyone absent their humility/ability to admit their guilt?
2) WILL God save anyone who doesn’t first humble themselves and admit their guilt?
I would say that if you believe that God is going to save infants who die before their conscience can respond in humility… then, as I do, the answer to both your questions is “yes”. In fact… there may be more in heaven that way then through their personal repentance and faith being expressed first!
Also… Calvinist’s love to find Scriptural stories that seem to fit their theology. You point to the wine skins parable because it sounds like regeneration before salvation. (… which premise always makes me laugh… that Calvinists separate regeneration from salvation ;-)) But that context in Matt 9 gives no hint that Jesus is talking about personal salvation. On the contrary, if I was to guess, He is talking about the teachings of the new covenant being placed in the forms and applications left over from the old covenant.
On the other hand… the parable of the prodigal is truly about personal salvation! Read the context of the other two parables before it and see that it is about rejoicing when sinners repent! You are correct that it is not so much about teaching how an individual repents, though the last story gives some indication – “he came to himself”, “he arose and went”. And I concede that I could make those actions fit the Calvinism’s view of regeneration, though it fits better the Scripture’s view of enlightenment before regeneration. But dogmatic doctrine should not be “proven” from parables or historical stories in Scripture just because one thinks they are illustrating their pet doctrine! Anything can be proven that way.
But the parable of the prodigal is actually mainly about the last son and the Father’s pleading with him. See 15:1-2. The older brother was the sinner, the unregenerate Pharisee, that needed to rejoice at what God was doing in seeking and saving that which is lost. That was the enlightenment Jesus was giving the Pharisees that day. That was their opportunity to “come to themselves” and return to the Father’s will. That would be the beginning of their repentance.
Good Morning Brian and thank you for accepting my friend request and responding to my comment sir.
Firstly, the 2 questions were assuming that the subjects ALREADY have the capacity to choose. So please tailor your responses to my earlier questions with this in mind.
Secondly, whereas most non-Calvinists believe that God saves through OUR repentance and faith, the Scriptures teach that GOD gives AUTHENTIC faith and repentance which is FOREIGN to man’s “autonomous” free will. The Scriptures are quite clear on this. One must simply twist Scripture to evade this truth. But I find that Traditionalists twist a lot of Scriptures to fit their presuppositions instead of letting the text just speak for itself.
Thirdly, regeneration IS salvation sir. One is not saved unless he/she is regenerated. Actually you CAN’T separate the two because you can’t have one without the other. So I’m not sure why you stated that Calvinists separate the two concepts. Regeneration IS salvation!
Fourthly, in Matthew 9 Christ is explaining to the disciples of John why the Pharisees fast but His disciples don’t fast. Jesus is using this parable to teach the spiritual truth that the Gospel (new wine) can’t be received by those whose natures/hearts can’t receive the Gospel. So they continue doing what they’ve always done (i.e. fasting) to merit God’s favor because their natures/hearts have not been changed.
Also, you stated “He is talking about the teachings of the new covenant being placed in the forms and applications left over from the old covenant.” But the parable says that the wine bottles “burst” and are “destroyed”. So if we accept your rendering of this parable we would have to assume that the old covenant teachings were DESTROYED by the new covenant teachings. And we both know that the new covenant never “burst” or “destroyed” the old covenant. But it simply FULFILLED it. Jesus said ““Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt 5:17) So the bottles can’t refer to old covenant teachings because they’re never “destroyed”. So I reiterate that the parable is referencing unregenerate man’s ability to receive the Gospel; otherwise it will destroy him (see Hebrews 4:12). It also speaks to why the Pharisees continue fasting because their hearts have not been changed.
Fifthly, you need to reiterate this to Leighton..”But dogmatic doctrine should not be “proven” from parables or historical stories in Scripture just because one thinks they are illustrating their pet doctrine! Anything can be proven that way.” This is Leighton’s favorite “proof text” to illustrate mankind’s autonomous free will in salvation. The purpose of this parable is NOT to teach the mechanism of salvation. Leighton needs to understand this fact because he’s basing his presuppositions on a parable that doesn’t relate to HOW salvation occurs. The parable is illustrating before self-righteous Pharisees God’s acceptance of Gentile sinners as well; that they are the Jews’ brothers in Christ. There’s no “respecter of persons” regarding salvation.
Sixth, you said, ” That was the enlightenment Jesus was giving the Pharisees that day. That was their opportunity to “come to themselves” and return to the Father’s will. That would be the beginning of their repentance.” Brian Jesus spoke in parables so as to deliberately and specifically “blind” the Jewish leadership sir (Luke 8:10); not to “enlighten” them. You’re teaching the exact OPPOSITE of Scripture. The parable of the prodigal was meant to enlighten His disciples and any of those “publicans and sinners” who were apart of His elect (“to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God”).
Also where does the parable mention that the father is “pleading with him [the younger son]” as you stated in the last paragraph of your comment? We must handle the Word of God very carefully sir.
I very eagerly await your response Brian 🙂
Hi Troy! Thank you for your thorough response.
Though the example of infant salvation proves that God is the only necessary cause of everlasting life being given, you and I will continue to disagree that regeneration is also a necessary cause. Enlightenment, which is given to everyone, is taught in Scripture as an effective cause to provide the opportunity/ability to everyone to choose to seek before regeneration (John 1:4-13). You need regeneration to be a necessary cause for the benefits of salvation because you can only have a few receiving it to fit your deterministic theology.
I think we have also discussed before the various ways that the Scriptures use the terms faith and repentance. We actually both see them as gifts, though you believe they are only provided to a few to exercise, and I believe they are provided to all, or at least the opportunity/ability to choose to repent and trust is provided to all. If you like to discuss specific Scriptures that you believe I would “twist” on this subject, please pick one to start with.
If “regeneration IS salvation”, are you saying that forgiveness of sin and everlasting life, becoming a child of God and receiving God’s righteousness through the exercise of personal repentance and faith happen at that moment of regeneration? I think not. The Calvinist has had to resort to explaining regeneration being a momentary event and a process of events (which is contradictory).
Did you realize that you left out the fact that the disciples of John were also mentioned as fasting in Matt 9? Are you suggesting that none of them were elect? I think my explanation fits better. Jesus did not destroy the old covenant… that is true… but He certainly caused it to “pass away” (2Cor 3:11) and “become obsolete” (Heb 13:8) by fulfilling it and establishing in its place His teachings as the new covenant obligations. But at least it seems that you agree parables should not be used to “prove” dogma, though I should add, that explanations by Christ Himself of a parable can be used, for that is His clear teaching. He gave no such explanation in Matt 9.
I am not seeing Gentiles at all in the parable of the prodigal! Jesus is responding to the Pharisees’ dislike of Him eating with tax-collectors and sinners which presumably are all of Jewish background. The other two parables (lost sheep and lost coin) substantiate this connection. And it was the older son that I meant in my last paragraph as being pled with by the Father. I guess calling him the “last son” was confusing… I meant last mentioned in the story. I should have said – “older brother” so there would not have been the confusion. I still see Jesus as using these three parables in Luke 15 in addressing the Pharisees and teachers of the law.
I guess the “them” in verse 3 could possibly be the publicans and sinners of verse 1, but they didn’t need to hear about heaven, the angels, and the father rejoicing at sinners repenting as those leaders did! I reject your view that parables were to “deliberately and specifically ‘blind’ the Jewish leadership”, if you mean unequivocally all of them. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea stand as evidence in opposition to that idea. I believe Jesus believed that even among those in that group of leaders that day in Luke 15, there may have been some who could seek further understanding (though the meaning of those parables were not too difficult 😉 for Jesus gave explanations in the first two) And also Jesus knew that even the judicially hardened leaders, that would be used for the crucifixion, might get another chance through God’s enlightenment after the crucifixion, watering the seed that He was planting in their hearts that day (cf Acts 6:8).
I totally agree with you Troy, that “We must handle the Word of God very carefully sir.”
Brian you wrote, “Enlightenment, which is given to everyone, is taught in Scripture as an effective cause to provide the opportunity/ability to everyone to choose to seek before regeneration (John 1:4-13).” Now prove from this passage and any supporting passages that “enlightenment” = “opportunity/ability” to seek before regeneration; especially in light of v5 where Johns says that “the darkness” doesn’t COMPREHEND “the Light. Unregenerate mankind is born in darkness and one of their qualities is that they’re UNABLE to comprehend spiritual truths in their natural state. Also, Jesus teaches the following concepts in John 3:19-21:
1) the presence of the Light (Christ Himself) is a judgement on mankind
2) men hate the Light because it reveals their evil deeds
3) men will refuse to come to the Light because of their evil deeds.
So men are, in fact, enlightened. However, this enlightenment only serves to reveal man’s sinfulness and his ultimate hatred and rejection of that Light. So Brian please explain to me how enlightenment is synonymous with opportunity/ability in John 1:4-13??
I agree that we will not agree on how regeneration occurs. However, can you still respond to my original two questions that I posed in my initial comment to Leighton: 1) DOES God save anyone absent their humility/ability to admit their guilt?
2) WILL God save anyone who doesn’t first humble themselves and admit their guilt?
(The questions assume man’s moral capacity)
Also, Brian please provide Scripture that teaches that all (without exception) have the gifts of faith and repentance as you’ve stated.
You asked this question: “are you saying that forgiveness of sin and everlasting life, becoming a child of God and receiving God’s righteousness through the exercise of personal repentance and faith happen at that moment of regeneration?” Those are all aspects of our salvation Brian. However, regeneration of the heart is salvation in the sense that God, the Holy Spirit SUPERNATURALLY awakens us to the truth of the Gospel and provides us a new nature whereby we desire to be obedient to God’s Word. This will only occur when a person is born FROM ABOVE (John 3:7). Also, the Spirit itself is the origin of this new birth (John 3:8).
You asked, “Did you realize that you left out the fact that the disciples of John were also mentioned as fasting in Matt 9? Are you suggesting that none of them were elect?” Brian, regardless if we know if any of John’s disciples were elect or not, your questions are IRRELEVANT to Christ’s teaching about needing to have a new heart BEFORE receiving the truths of the Gospel. Your rendering of this parable in Matthew 9 is untenable because of the language (i.e. destroyed) used in the parable. You are desperately trying to find ways of inserting your ideas into the passage, however the language will not support your rendering sir.
You stated, “But at least it seems that you agree parables should not be used to “prove” dogma…”
I couldn’t DISAGREE more!! Parables are ALWAYS meant to teach some aspect of the Gospel message for those to whom it is attended. Parables do, in fact, prove already stated doctrines/dogma. For example, the Parable of the Sower “proves” several doctrines:
1) the condition of man’s heart (i.e. the ground)
2) the Great Commission (i.e. the the seeds being sown)
3) Satan’s ability to squelch the Gospel message
4) the effects of this world on the heart and its ability to receive the Gospel
5) perseverance of the saints
You stated, “I am not seeing Gentiles at all in the parable of the prodigal! Jesus is responding to the Pharisees’ dislike of Him eating with tax-collectors and sinners which presumably are all of Jewish background.” The “sinners” is commonly how Pharisees referred to Gentile people. But even if I adopt your view of Jesus NOT referring to Gentiles, the parable is still mishandled by Prof. Flowers in trying to use it to teach autonomous free will prior to regeneration because the passage, although teaches WHO can become saved, it just doesn’t teach HOW one can become saved.
You stated, “! I reject your view that parables were to “deliberately and specifically ‘blind’ the Jewish leadership”, if you mean unequivocally all of them. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea stand as evidence in opposition to that idea.” God sent a “spirit of stupor” to the entire Jewish nation. However, that doesn’t preclude the fact that God still had some of His elect people within that Jewish nation. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were among those elected. However, any non-elect Jew were being judicially hardened so as to bring about God’s purpose to sacrifice His Son for His people. The parables were a mechanism to seal the Jewish leaders in their stupor.
Thank you, Troy, again for your careful reply.
That God’s enlightenment does indeed provide the ability to accept/reject before the new birth is clear in John 1:4-13, for some reject and some receive as a result of it, all before the new birth. It can’t be much plainer. The darkness does not “overcome” the light… meaning the darkness cannot stop the light doing what it was purposed to do. See John 12:35 for further teaching of Jesus – “So Jesus said to them, ‘The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going.’”
That the light convicts men of their sinfulness, and that in the flesh they hate that conviction is true. But Jesus was teaching Nicodemus, an unregenerate man, that if he would believe, and do what is right, trusting in Jesus, he would come to the light. Jesus was not appealing to the flesh of Nicodemus, but the spirit.
No, leaving infants aside, God only, according to His sovereign plan, does not save anyone absent of repentance and faith. And I believe the teaching of John 1:4-13 proves that enlightenment (revelation faith) and the ability to accept or reject it (personal faith) is given, as a “gift” if you will, to all. John 20:30 also points to the truth that the revelation faith (the gospel) was written for unbelievers so that they would have the opportunity to exercise their personal faith (believe) and be saved.
We will just have to disagree on the best interpretation of the unexplained parable in Matt 9. And I also disagree with your hermeneutic that parables, unexplained, “prove already stated doctrine/dogma”. They can illustrate that doctrine if it is clearly stated elsewhere… but not “prove”. Unfortunately, your doctrine of regeneration before faith is not clearly stated, but regeneration after faith is clearly taught.
And I am surprised that you seem not to comprehend the good effects of God’s enlightenment in unregenerated hearts mentioned in the parable of the sower. Even the evil one realizes the power that the word has in the unregenerate hard heart to provide an opportunity for faith and salvation. Luke 8:12 – “The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.” He must know something you don’t. 😉
That Jesus was using parables to separate those who wanted to seek from those who didn’t is obvious. You did not respond to the fact, and evidence, that even those used in their hardened condition to support the condemnation of Jesus did later receive another opportunity to be enlightened and drawn to the truth (Acts 6:8).
Brian, with all due respect, where are you getting this from: “That God’s enlightenment does indeed provide the ability to accept/reject before the new birth is clear in John 1:4-13..”
I’m saying this in a respectful manner sir.. your view and interpretation of Scripture is so convoluted that you really CAN’T recognize plain teachings. You are basing your doctrine of “enlightenment” in John 1 off of conjecture; not careful exegesis. I have illustrated to you that unregenerate man does not want the Light and, in fact, rejects the very Light that you say gives them an opportunity/ability to believe. Something has to occur FIRST before unregenerate mankind will accept and come to the Light. This is what I mean by studying the Scriptures CAREFULLY and pondering the implications of your conclusions.
John 12:35-37 is teaching the following:
1) “For a little while longer the Light is among you..” This carries a double meaning..a) Christ will only be on earth for a short time. b) the Gospel will only be on earth for a short time (comparatively speaking).
2) Christ warns His disciples to walk (follow, live according to) in the Light.
Once again we see that the Light is Christ Himself; not some generic enlightenment. We can also say that the Gospel too is the “enlightenment” since Christ is the Word. But the Light (Christ, His Gospel) doesn’t enlighten the non-elect. The Light was NEVER meant to enlighten the non-elect. In fact, we learn in John 1:7 that the very purpose of the Light is “so that all might believe through him [Christ]..” It’s for these reasons that “every man” in John 1:9 is LIMITED to every man/woman who the Light enlightens by the Gospel. THERE IS NO GENERIC ENLIGHTENMENT TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE!! The purpose of the Light is to enlighten the elect ONLY! Otherwise, the non-elect hate and reject it and find it to be “foolishness”.
3) John 12:37 reveals that, even though men are in the very presence of the Light and watch Him perform miracles, they STILL would not believe on Him UNTO SALVATION. Why not? Weren’t they in the very presence of the Gospel personified? But they STILL didn’t want to believe and follow Him. It’s because they were men “who love darkness rather than light”. The Scriptures are clear that unregenerate men LOVE darkness and HATE the Light. Thus, they will NEVER desire to approach the Light unless there’s an otherwise radical change performed by God in their natures. The Bible is crystal clear about this. It’s mankind who must struggle with this “hard saying”.
You responded to my original questions posed to Leighton by stating, “No, leaving infants aside, God only, according to His sovereign plan, does not save anyone absent of repentance and faith.” So I guess I’m to assume that humility will lead to our decisions to repent and believe since you never responded to my questions directly about our humility. So I’ll assume that humility is what brings a person to repent and believe. So my argument stands that God CANNOT save a morally responsible person unless that person chooses to be humble FIRST; even though they love their sin and find the Light to be foolish and repugnant. All of a sudden, upon hearing a message inspired by the Holy Spirit (nevermind those who were in the very presence of the Source of the Gospel, but still rejected it), unregenerate men/women can believe a message that the Bible says they hate and reject. Is this what I’m supposed to believe Brian??
Also, I might conclude with this statement: ENLIGHTENMENT IS SPECIFIC TO WHOM THE SPIRIT CHOOSES TO REVEAL GOSPEL TRUTH UNTO SALVATION. IT’S NOT SOME GENERIC OPPORTUNITY OR ABILITY THAT MEN CAN USE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO MORAL CHOICES. Besides, the choice to believe the Gospel unto salvation is a SPIRITUAL choice; not a MORAL choice. The only thing MORAL about it is that it’s a good choice; but even that choice is first made by God Himself as He gives “saving faith” to whomever He wills.
Troy writes, “unregenerate men…will NEVER desire to approach the Light unless there’s an otherwise radical change performed by God in their natures….I guess I’m to assume that humility will lead to our decisions to repent and believe since you never responded to my questions directly about our humility…”
I have argued previously that enlightenment is necessary to salvation but not sufficient to produce salvation. Faith is also necessary (and requires the “good soil” of the parable or regeneration). Faith, if it is the reality or substance of things hoped for (as Hebrews 11), then it can only manifest as a decision to accept the salvation God offers in Christ. Enlightenment by itself will never result in salvation. Enlightenment plus faith will always result in salvation.
Amen… “Enlightenment plus faith will always result in [God granting the new birth which is] salvation”!
brian wagner writes, “Enlightenment plus faith will always result in [God granting the new birth which is] salvation”!”
Or enlightenment may be part of the new birth which, when combined with faith, always results in salvation.
Calvinist theology demands that the new birth precede, as an event, any enlightenment, since enlightenment is given to every man… but for them enlightenment has no effect unless the new birth has already taken place first as an event… they can’t have the new birth as a process that includes enlightenment!
I’m sorry Brian, but neither John 1 nor John 12 teach a general or generic enlightenment sir. You are both espousing and teaching a falsehood. The Light in both passages refers to Christ and/or His Gospel; not some generic enlightenment. That Light enlightens “every man” for whom it is intended. Universal terms (i.e. every, all, world,etc) must agree with both the immediate context AND broader context of the entire Bible. But I’ll reiterate again – the Light is meant to reveal the Gospel to those for whom it’s intended. All the rest (non-elect) will remain in darkness. To teach a generic enlightenment when the Bible is clear that mankind both hates and rejects that Light in their unregenerate state is simply erroneous and not approaching the text carefully. Also, there are multi-millions who die never having been exposed to the Light (Christ, Gospel). I STRONGLY suggest that you review your methodology of interpretation and really ponder the implications of your conclusions before teaching them as truth. Your conclusions simply don’t stand up when doing careful comparing of Scripture.
Thanks for the follow up and evident concern. But the gospel, the good news that Christ IS the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, is “intended” for every creature to hear preached to them! It is “intended” for them all to have an opportunity to repent and believe it.
God’s intention is clearly spelled out in Acts 17:26-30… where He preordained that mankind be able to seek and find Him and commands every man, everywhere to repent. That has to show us clearly what God “intended” by giving enlightenment to every one, or we are hopelessly dependent on so-called “scholars” who try to tell us these Scriptures really don’t mean what they say.
The warning and invitation of Christ to “the people” in John 12:36 makes no sense if it was not available to all of them equally.
John 12:35 Then Jesus said to them, “A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.”
John 12:36 “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”
Again, I think your loyalty to the scholarship of Calvinism has made you willing to see meanings in texts that normal reading, using normal rules of grammar and context, just does not support.
Brian my brother you’re just not thinking your theology through its logical conclusions. You stated, “..that Christ IS the propitiation for the sins of the whole world..” This is specifically why I stated in my previous comment that words like “every”, “all”, “world” MUST be defined in BOTH immediate and broader contexts in Scripture.
To illustrate my premise, let’s dissect 1 John 2:2 which states, “…and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Now what can we conclude from this verse?
1) Christ Himself IS the propitiation for “our” sins
2) “Our” here refers to both the writer and to whom he’s addressing the epistle.
3) Christ ACTUALLY propitiated or satisfied the wrath of God on behalf of both “our sins” (John’s and those true believers receiving the letter) AND the “whole world”.
4) Here are the all important questions: a) Did Christ appease God’s wrath (propitiate) for EVERY individual during His atoning work? b) If so, on what basis is God judging the non-elect?
5) The word “world” here does NOT mean all-inclusive because Christ did not appease God’s wrath for every individual or else God would have no basis to judge them. World is speaking of creation (cosmos) as used in John 3:16. (By the way, even John 3:16 limits Christ’s atoning work to only “the believing ones” not perishing.) But the “world” in John 3:16 refers to the Cosmos which is all of creation or mankind as a whole) John 3:16 is better rendered: “For God in this manner loved the Creation that He gave His only begotten Son so that the believing ones will not die but have eternal life”. World must be read IN CONTEXT!
6) Thus 1 John 2:2 is simply teaching that Christ is the ONLY propitiation for His creation (not all inclusive). Any other understanding would have people going to Hell for sins that Christ already atoned for, which is both illogical and untenable.
You stated, “God’s intention is clearly spelled out in Acts 17:26-30… where He preordained that mankind be able to seek and find Him and commands every man, everywhere to repent.” Yes mankind does have an inclination of worshiping a higher being as evidenced in v23 of Acts 17. Mankind certainly knows that there is a God according to Romans 1:19. However, this knowledge is corrupt and futile according to Romans 1:21. They have and worship their OWN VERSION of the true God; not God Himself. In other words, unregenerate mankind seeks God on THEIR terms, which usually ends up worshipping a false deity. They do not worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH. So it can be concluded that Acts 17:27 reveals that mankind is not seeking the one true God to worship Him in spirit and in truth. However, according to Romans 1:19 they do have a concept of God which He has placed within them (thus Acts 17:23). But this is, by no means, referring to a generic enlightenment that gives man an “opportunity” to believe.
Yes God gives the command to all of mankind without exception to repent of his wickedness. But this doesn’t preclude that they CAN repent naturally UNTO SALVATION. Nor is God obligated to be fair by giving a command that He KNOWS mankind can’t keep. Grace doesn’t have to be fair because it’s already unmerited and undeserved. It’s God’s prerogative if He wants to enact a law that we can’t keep. Remember that His standard is perfection anyway, which means if He were fair, we’d all be in Hell right now.
Also if God intended for every man without exception to have an opportunity to believe the Gospel, why do MOST die without ever hearing the Gospel proclaimed. And PLEASE don’t use natural revelation as an argument because Jesus was quite clear that He’s the ONLY way of Salvation. Also Romans 10:14 refutes the “natural revelation” argument.
You stated, “The warning and invitation of Christ to “the people” in John 12:36 makes no sense if it was not available to all of them equally.” Brian the Gospel is not about equality and fairness. It’s about Ephesians 1:11 and God’s working “ALL THINGS after the counsel of His will”. God has set the parameters for His salvation plan and He’s working it out as He sees fit. It’s not about what we deem fair or equal. We just humbly bow to EVERYTHING He has revealed to us in the Scriptures.
Troy, I love talking about whether something is logical or not, and especially whether it is following normal grammar and context. When looking for the meaning of the phrase “whole world” in 1John 2:2… the normal rule is to see how the author uses that phrase in the same book, then how he used it in other books he wrote, then how it is used in the rest of the NT, since we are know the NT does not contradict itself.
You may want to look up every use of the word “world” in 1John, like I have, or just look at 5:19 where “whole world” is used. When John is talking about the sins of the “whole world” in 2:2, I think it is fair to infer since John said Jesus “IS”, not Jesus “WAS”, the propitiation, that all sins already committed can have that satisfaction applied to them, and all sins yet to be committed can have that satisfaction applied too. The Calvinist wants, or has to have, all sins past, present, and future, all predetermined, for he wants the satisfaction to only cover the sins of the so-called “elect”. Do you think all your future sins are already predetermined for you to commit, Troy?
Jesus is the propitiation, but not all sins have yet received the application of this more-than-sufficient propitiation. You have stated as if the application is completed, all in the past tense. I reject the teaching that all future sins, or all sins after creation, where predetermined and the teaching that the propitiation was already applied to all those sins.
The Calvinist also tries to prove too much from Rom 1 and ignores the clear purpose of God mentioned in Acts 17:26-30. Rom 1 states that God clearly “makes plain” in people important truths… for what purpose? Rom 2:4 says the goodness of God leads to repentance. And Paul outlined this purpose of God’s enlightenment plainly in Acts 17:27, which was that man “should seek…and might touch and might find”… He wants everyone everywhere to repent.
Does God really want His purpose in these things to fail, and has He predetermined that His purpose in these things should fail? He certainly allows them to fail sometimes. But man is without excuse, not because he HAD to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but because he freely does suppress it sometimes, instead of letting it lead him to repentance, which some also freely do sometimes (eg. Cornelius, Ethiopian treasurer, etc). Consider again the parable of the sower and power of the Word in each of the soils! Look at Luke 8:12 again.
Yes God enacts laws that we cannot keep, but they are enacted to enlighten us of our need to repent, to bring us to Christ. He is not a God that reveals a will that He has for everyone, which is also a lie because of a so-called secret will that He has for most people, which is just the exact opposite. The Calvinist believes that God does not have a sovereign will that everyone everywhere gets the opportunity to seek Him, find Him, and repent… even though He clearly said He predetermined that possibility and clearly commanded that such a result be pursued. That position concerning God’s contradictory wills is illogical!!!
We should humbly bow to everything revealed in Scripture… But Calvinism makes Scripture bow and bend to its presupposition that everything was predetermined before creation, which is a divine immutable eternal fatalism! I will stand with Scripture!
You’re incorrect Brian about how we are to define grammar in the Bible. The ENTIRE Bible must come to bare on a word. The usage of a word must be defined in light of how it’s used in both testaments. In other words, the ENTIRE Bible is its own dictionary and commentary. The Old Testament is interpreted in light of the New Testament. However, both testaments are essential to understanding doctrine. So we don’t stop with the New Testament when trying to define terms. God’s Word is one complete revelation with two sides!
Now the fact is that “world” has SEVERAL meanings in the Bible and it’s incumbent upon the student/reader to determine which definition is in view in a particular passage.
You stated, “Jesus is the propitiation, but not all sins have yet received the application of this more-than-sufficient propitiation. You have stated as if the application is completed, all in the past tense. I reject the teaching that all future sins, or all sins after creation, where predetermined and the teaching that the propitiation was already applied to all those sins.” Brian this goes against ORTHODOX Christianity sir! Wow brother! I’m sorry but your understanding of Scripture is EXTREMELY convoluted and untenable. You don’t even believe that Christ has ALREADY propitiated for sins committed past, present AND future! This is so far left of orthodoxy that you have me in aww sir.
In Revelation 13:8, Christ is spoken of as the author of the Book of Life (Eternal) which was written BEFORE creation. There He’s referred to as the “Lamb who had been slain”. We can easily and safely infer from this verse that:
a) Christ wrote the book BEFORE creation
b) Those written in the book were written BEFORE creation
c) Christ is referred to as the Lamb BEFORE creation
d) God’s plan of salvation was ALREADY predetermined BEFORE creation as evidenced by the existence of the Book of Life written pre-creation.
You see Brian, Christ was the Lamb slain even before creation because it was already preordained that He would enter His own creation and sacrifice Himself for His people who were written in His book of Life. There’s just no denying these truths sir.
You stated, “I reject the teaching that all future sins, or all sins after creation, were predetermined and the teaching that the propitiation was already applied to all those sins.” This is statement puts you in the minority within orthodox Protestant churches sir. How can you believe that Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t cover all future sins given the totality of Scripture that overwhelmingly contradicts your position.
1 Peter 3:18 states, ““For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God…” Here God teaches us that Christ died once for all, the Just for the unjust. But He died for sins ONCE FOR ALL; meaning His death was sufficient for EVERY sin that mankind would create. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether I or anyone else believes that our sins are “predetermined” or “preordained”. That’s irrelevant to the fact that the penalty for sin has been satisfied in Christ FOR ALL THOSE WHO ARE WRITTEN IN THE LAMB’S BOOK OF LIFE BEFORE CREATION!!
You posed this question to me, “Do you think all your future sins are already predetermined for you to commit, Troy?” My answer is, YES!!! Just as God set up all the circumstances for Christ being crucified (including the very people through whom He entered the world and was crucified), God orchestrates ALL circumstances to accomplish His plans for us. Just as God determined that Herod kill all those innocent babies by prophecy, He also determines all things according to His preordained purposes!
Thank you for your response, Troy. We can let others read our conversation and determine which of us is giving the most reasonable way to understand meanings of words according to context in Scripture.
Also you must be looking at a faulty translation… for John did not write “before the foundation of the world” in Rev. 13:8… nor was Jesus slain for sin as a sufficient payment until the right time when God sent Him into the world.
And I’m sorry that you think your future sins are already predetermined to happen. I pray the Lord will open your understanding in that regard. Thanks again for the conversation.
Brian you stated, “Also you must be looking at a faulty translation… for John did not write “before the foundation of the world” in Rev. 13:8… nor was Jesus slain for sin as a sufficient payment until the right time when God sent Him into the world. Brian “foundation of the world” includes ANYTIME BEFORE creation. Even if you want to define it as “the beginning of creation”, the fact still remains that those written in the Lamb’s Book of Life were written BEFORE THEY WERE CREATED, which proves predestination brother.
Also, Jesus IN PRINCIPLE was ALREADY slain for them because God had already determined it from the beginning (Acts 4:27,28).
The Bible is replete with verses that prove God’s predetermined plan for His creation. No matter how much we try to explain away God’s deliberate and meticulous decree, it will NEVER impede His plan!
Consider the implications of Matthew 5:18 Brian: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED.” ALL of God’s predetermined plan (according to His Law/Word) WILL occur before Judgement Day.
Again I urge you to contemplate your conclusions before you espouse and teach them as truth; for those who teach receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1).
We are agreed, Troy… all that is predetermined will be accomplished. The Scripture does not teach an eternal immutable meticulous plan by a divine decree. I have shown you many verses that clearly show God still making determinations/plans after creation began.
And FROM the foundation of the world means that the book existed from that point and that names were added to it from that point as they were joined to the righteousness of God through their personal faith.
I’m sorry that your loyalty to your theology makes you want to see it another way. I am not afraid of teaching the Scripture as it should be understood according to normal rules of grammar and context. Be blessed my brother.
God’s determinations/plans are REVEALED in time Brian. But His decisions were long before determined sir. Even His conversations with mankind in creation are also predestined. So when He responds to man’s speech and actions, all had been decreed before hand to have occurred. Remember that He foreknows BECAUSE He decrees!
Also, your rendering of “FROM” is inaccurate. “From” is denoting ORIGIN; not a beginning point of a series of events. Nor does the verse give any indication of this. The verse is plainly telling us WHEN the names were written in the book.
Also I would submit to you Brian, that we’re BOTH loyal to our own presuppositions. The question is: whose presuppositions are based on “tota scriptura”?
You and professor Flowers violate “normal rules of grammar and context” when you teach that National Israel is the “lump of clay” in Romans 9 when the lump CLEARLY includes Gentile believers in v24. You guys violate “normal rules of grammar and context” whenever you pour meanings into passages that the original author never intended.
You say, Troy, there are determinations made “in time” that were already made before creation, as if determinations can be made twice. The problem is my presupposition is that there cannot be two contradictory realities, with God being in both at the same time. Your presupposition is that He is in both, and your presupposition is without any Scriptural support, besides being contradictory.
Brian i made my position quite clear sir that God’s predeterminations are REVEALED in time!!
Troy they are REVEALED as being MADE after the foundation of the world… not before… there are not two realities… only a sequential one that never had a beginning with God and never has an end with God or us. The past and the future are not places in another reality in which God is dwelling. That is just illogical.
Brian Im not sure why you’re not getting what I’m saying because you are quite learned and have theological training. I know you certainly understand the statement that God predetermined in eternity past the events that would occur in eternity future. This is a very simple concept brother. Also the past and the future are two sides of ONE REALITY sir. God has determined both the past and the future which are both apart of the same reality.
The problem is Troy, that God didn’t predetermine in eternity past all the events of eternity future… NO verse teaches that and many verse teach Him making determinations after creation, which means that were not made before creation, unless you believe God was lying about making them when He did.
Brian answer me this question and I’ll follow up with another. Please bare with me on this.
The question is: How is a person physically born?
Troy, I will walk with you done this path, if you wish. But I was hoping you would show me the verse(s) that convinces you that God has determined everything before creation.
A person is physically born when after nine months gestation in their mother’s womb, the mother’s body reflexively and successfully pushes the baby out.
Here are some verses to consider where God clearly makes decisions after creation, and thus not before –
Deut. 12:5 (NKJV) 5“But you shall seek the place where the LORD your God chooses, out of all your tribes, to put His name for His dwelling place; and there you shall go. [To fit determinism it should read “God chose”]
2 Chr. 6:5-6 (NKJV) 5‘Since the day that I brought My people out of the land of Egypt, I have chosen no city from any tribe of Israel in which to build a house, that My name might be there, nor did I choose any man to be a ruler over My people Israel. 6Yet I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ [To fit determinism it should read “I actually had already chosen before creation these things and am lying about not having chosen them”]
2 Chr. 7:16 (NKJV) 16For now I have chosen and sanctified this house, that My name may be there forever; and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually. [To fit determinism it should read “before creation I chose”]
Psa. 25:12 (NKJV) 12Who is the man that fears the LORD? Him shall He teach in the way He chooses. [To fit determinism it should read “He has chosen”]
Psa. 65:4 (NKJV) 4 Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Of Your holy temple. [To fit determinism it should read “You have chosen”]
Psa. 75:2 (NKJV) 2 “When I choose the proper time, I will judge uprightly.[To fit determinism it should read “Because I have chosen”]”
Jer 18:11 (NKJV) 11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ” [To fit determinism it should read “I have devised a plan”]
Mic 2:3 (NKJV) 3Therefore thus says the LORD: “Behold, against this family I am devising disaster, From which you cannot remove your necks; Nor shall you walk haughtily, For this [is] an evil time. [To fit determinism it should read “I have devised a plan”]
Luke 22:42 (NKJV) 42…saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” [To fit determinism it should read “Even though it is not Your will”]
1Cor 12:11 (NKJV) 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. [To fit determinism it should read “as He had willed”]
Heb 4:7 [NKJV] 7…again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” [To fit determinism it should read “He had designated”]
Brian! Come on brother! You just don’t understand Reformed doctrine sir. God uses the free choices of men to accomplish His predetermined purposes. For example, I’m freely choosing to dialogue with you and it may be God’s predetermined will that you come to truth. So predestination says that God determined before creation that we have this dialogue so that He may choose you to present the Gospel more faithfully. God’s decree includes free will choices of men. It’s just that their freedom to choose is limited to their creatureliness.
So NONE of your verses disprove God’s predetermined decree at all. They only serve to prove that mankind has been given limited freedom to choose which God already decreed before creation.
I will give you a positive response on God’s decretive will shortly.
However, returning to your response to my question about childbirth..is this your BEST description of childbirth?? Well I guess “gestation” covers the egg and sperm conceiving. However, you’re missing THE most important aspect of physical birth; without this component, there wouldn’t be a physical birth. Remember these verses Brian…
“You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.” (Ps 104:30)
“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalms 139:13)
These verses teach that a physical union of the egg and sperm aren’t enough for physical birth. Mankind is both a physical AND spiritual being. So God must add a living soul to that physical union or else that union will not conceive, gestate, and eventually lead to birth.
So why am I harping on the nature of childbirth?? I’ll answer that by asking another question that is related to determinism. Here’s the question: Does God decree/desire (since His decree stems from His desire) that rape/incest occur? If not, why does He bless many rapes/incest with childbearing? In other words, if God doesn’t want rapes/incest to occur, why does He DELIBERATELY procreate during the course of the rape/incest? Especially in light of Psalm 127:3 which states, “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.”
Troy… I am not interested in… “So predestination says that God determined before creation that we have this dialogue…” I am interested in what the Scripture says. I gave you the Scriptural evidence that God makes determinations after creation and you ignored that fact. Those verses have nothing to do with man’s free choices…. but they deal with God’s free choices.
You asked about physical birth, but it appears you wanted to talk about physical conception. I believe in the traducian theory for the creation of the human body and soul in each conception. That God permits some of those conceptions to result from rape or incest only shows again how God can bring good out of man’s free choice for evil.
But your theology teaches that God had eternally immutably determined that such evil acts would happen and that they would be necessary to bring about that good. The Scripture however shows that God chooses to determine after the man’s free choice to allow that man who is now bent on that evil act to do so because God chooses at that moment to allow for or cause an opportunity for good for that man and/or for other people’s futures.
What a glorious God who allows for such freedom of worship from man and judges man not based on sins that were eternally immutably determined to happen before man is even conceived, but only after man has freely rejected the enlightenment God gave to him, as He does for everyone (John 1:9).
Brian I’ve not ignored your verses. The free choices of God made within time (creation) were already predetermined by Him before creation. God’s free choices in time are nothing more than His acting out His own predetermined decree sir. The ONLY statement I need is found in Ephesians 1:11.
Also, I’m not interested in the Traducian THEORY!! Theories prove NOTHING Brian because they are only educated guesses based on assumptions. Conversely, the Bible is VERY clear that mankind is part man and part spirit/soul. Physical matter alone cannot produce a soul. In other words, mankind’s spirit can’t result from a physical union between an egg and a sperm. The soul must be supernaturally added to that union by God. God is creating anew with every birth. This is NOT theory!! I reiterate again PHYSICAL MATTER CAN NEVER GIVE BIRTH TO SPIRITUAL EXISTENCE!!!
So having said that, conception is a DELIBERATE act of God whereby He decides to breath into every egg and sperm union the “breath of life”. So I would more accurately define conception as the union of mankind’s physical body with his soul or spirit essence. This is also more accurate because the physical union of the egg and sperm won’t matter unless God gives the union a living soul. This explains why many fertile couples can’t conceive because God has not opened the womb.
So during the course of a heinous act such as rape, God decides to give a soul to that physical union. If He didn’t decree/desire it, why reward the action with conception?
Brian please don’t repeat that God can bring good from man’s evil actions. Obviously I believe that already. The question is whether the occurrences of rape/incest were foreordained by Him to occur so as to create specific human beings. God is controlling both the means (man’s sinful actions) and the purposes (childbirth) all to fulfill His predetermined decree and bring glory to Himself. God doesn’t CAUSE mankind to sin (James 1:13) but He certainly has decreed that they commit sin in order to accomplish His purposes.
We know that God decreed/desired mankind to sin when He placed the tree in the Garden of Eden KNOWING Adam would sin and thus set the world in a state of depravity and thus, in need of redemption. God does decree that sin occur but He’s not the cause of it. Therefore we can conclude that God decreed that rape occurs but He does not CAUSE rape to occur. But of course we also know that He “restrains” sin from occurring which is also apart of His decree.
Thanks for the conversation Troy. If you are unable to see the contradiction between affirming both that something is determined after creation but it was already determined before creation, then we probably we not reach understanding in future dialog on this subject. Eph 1:11 does not mention any meticulous determination of all things before creation. It only states that God is presently working with all things according to a plan the fits His desire, and that plan includes the inheritance we will receive that was predestined for all who are placed in Christ. Blessings to you are wished as you continue to test whether your loyalty is to Scripture or to Calvinistic twisting of it!
Brian YOU are saying that I’m saying that something is both determined before and after creation. I’m not sure why you’re not understanding what I’m saying because I’m speaking clearly. I’ll say it again this way: God has a decree that He made before creation. The conversations, decisions, and actions He makes IN creation were all predetermined BEFORE creation. This is not hard to understand Brian.
I also noticed that you chose not to respond to God’s decree including rape. This is because you know that God’s CHOICE to create during a heinous sinful action proves that He DECREED that act to occur.
My loyalty is to “tota scriptura”; NOT Calvinism. Also Ephesians 1:11 is speaking to God’s orchestrating “all things” to accomplish His predetermined decree. This isn’t Calvinism. This is Bible!
Hi Troy,
I hope you don’t mind if I make a comment.
Using the term “eternity” in regard to events which occur within a time-line might be somewhat misleading.
Technically speaking, “eternity” is classified within philosophy as “A state of timelessness”
And historically within Christian philosophy, there are various positions on God’s relationship to time, eternity, and timelessness.
So if one is speaking about concepts such as “past”, “present” and “future”, one is necessarily speaking about events which exist within the sphere of time. So various Christian philosophers will consider terms like “eternity past” and “eternity future” to be non-sequiturs.
I believe Augustine, and hence Calvin, held that God’s existence is “timeless” in the sense that he is outside of time, without a past or a future, existing in a timelessly eternal present.
In that view, it would be logical to speak of God (who is outside of time) producing X affect, to occur at a point within the time-line.
But to speak of God doing X “at the foundation of the world” is to place God within the sphere of time, which contradicts the assertion that God is outside of time. Perhaps some of the difficulty in your dialog with Brian lies in that issue.
Thank you br. d for bringing this to my attention. However, it’s my perspective that God is the source of eternity since He is the UNCAUSE. So when I speak of eternity past, I’m speaking assuming God as the beginning OUTSIDE of time. So regarding my comment to Brian, God predetermined events in eternity past PRIOR TO creation. Stated another way, all events occurring in time (after creation) have been decreed to occur outside of time or before creation. God’s decree transcends time but is eternal in that He initiated it in eternity past (before creation) and will ensure its ultimate fruition in eternity future.
Thanks Troy for you kind explanation.
If you believe that eternity is defined as timeless, then would it fit to replace the word “eternity” with the word “timeless”.
Lets see how it works if I do it.
God is the source of “timelessness” since He is the UNCAUSE. So when I speak of “timeless” past, I’m speaking assuming God as the beginning OUTSIDE of time. So regarding my comment to Brian, God predetermined events in “timeless” past PRIOR TO creation. Stated another way, all events occurring in time (after creation) have been decreed to occur outside of time or before creation. God’s decree transcends time but is “timeless” in that He initiated it in “timeless” past (before creation) and will ensure its ultimate fruition in “timeless” future.
Brian writes in response to Troy “I’m sorry that you think your future sins are already predetermined to happen.”
However, Troy is being logically consistent as a Theological Determinist here. It does logically follow in Calvinism that every sinful, evil neurological impulse is predestined and man is powerless to alter the sin and evil god infallibly predestined to occur.
brian wagner writes, “Calvinist theology demands that the new birth precede, as an event, any enlightenment, since enlightenment is given to every man…”
The new birth would explain why some believe while others do not under your condition that all are enlightened (presumably all who hear the gospel preached and not all regardless whether they hear the gospel preached). Under Calvinism, only God’s elect are enlightened. So, regeneration can involve the new birth plus enlightenment – with the person then able to manifest faith. Whether the new birth involves enlightenment seems immaterial in the Calvinist system as I don’t think they make a big deal of enlightenment like you do. Under Calvinism, the new birth allows a person to “see” the kingdom of God which can be defined as enlightenment.
rhutchin,
Hey, before I leave this blog post, I want to appoligze to you with regard to my comments on Divine Determinism. I still don’t like this term because it is so easily misinterpreted and misunderstood by the opposition. But it is a legitimate term that many (if not most) prominent Calvinists use. You defined it correctly and I think I may have come on too strong with my comments to you. It is me who is the odd man out on this. And it is my personal agenda to argue against it. It’s something I’m working through. So, I hope you will forgive me and understand.
– Mike
Mike: Contrary comments are never an issue or something to get upset about; they are always an aid to learning. I appreciate your comments and hope to see more in the future.
Troy, Thank you for the words of respect. Let me walk with you through John 1:4-13, though I think any layperson reading it would get the meaning that I shared with you, that the true Light can be received and rejected by anyone, and it is the true Light’s will that anyone might believe.
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. *** Should the reader think “of only some men”… I don’t think so.
John 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. *** as mentioned and shown in the parallel passage of John 12, the darkness does not overcome the light from doing its purpose as long as it is available.
John 1:6-7 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. *** Should the reader think that “only some through him might get the opportunity to believe”… I don’t think so.
John 1:8-9 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. *** Why do you give light to someone? Why would you think Jesus, the true Light gives light to every man? Light is an opportunity to see things not seen before and to decide accordingly.
John 1:10-11 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. *** Some of His own did not receive Him… it is interesting that they are called “His own” isn’t it. Do you really think He would not give “His own” an opportunity to receive Him.
John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. *** The becoming children by the new birth is after the receiving. God causes the new birth, not man.
Troy, if you still cannot see where I am “getting this from: ‘That God’s enlightenment does indeed provide the ability to accept/reject before the new birth is clear in John 1:4-13..’” That’s the best I can do.
I am surprised you didn’t quote John 12:36 clearly in your discussion – John 12:36 “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” Nor did you note that Jesus was speaking to the people (vs 29, 34) and not the disciples. It seems to me that you want so much to have the premise of a pre-selected “elect” from before creation to be true, that you ignore the clear teaching in passages like this one. What does this verse say happens to those who “believe in the light”?
You didn’t respond to my discussion of how effective God’s enlightenment is as seen in the parable of the sower. Enlightenment is for every man. That is what John 1:9 says… NOT “SPECIFIC TO WHOM THE SPIRIT CHOOSES TO REVEAL GOSPEL TRUTH UNTO SALVATION” except that the Spirit chooses to reveal truth that leads to an opportunity to seek God’s mercy to everyone. I hope you will begin to see that theology must be developed from the Scriptures, not read in the writings of men and then forced upon the Scriptures, twisting them out of context and normal grammatical meaning.
Brian I’m done..thank you for your graciousness and scholarly debate. Be blessed my brother.
Thank you too, Troy. And you be blessed also!
Troy,
You begin your post with an attempted “set up” of Traditionalists. Your set up is this, you ask two questions in which the Traditionalist (when speaking of able minded persons, not infants) will answer No. As both of these questions point to actions that people do, you then conclude that since people DO THESE TWO ACTIONS, therefore people are saving themselves and so Salvation is not of the Lord.
Here are the words of your set-up:
[[“According to the Traditionalist’s perspective, humility and ability to admit one’s guilt before a holy God “activates” the process by which a person is saved. How do we know this? Well ask the Traditionalist two questions:
1) DOES God save anyone absent their humility/ability to admit their guilt?
2) WILL God save anyone who doesn’t first humble themselves and admit their guilt?
If the answer is “no” to both questions, then we KNOW that salvation has its origins in man’s autonomous free will according to the Traditionalist’s perspective. In other words, God REACTS to mankind’s choice to humble and admit their guilt. So salvation DEPENDS on mankind’s moral choice! So, instead of saying that , “Salvation is of the Lord”, we say “Salvation is of Man” because God’s freedom of choice must first bow to mankind’s freedom to first humble and admit his guilt.”]]
There are some unstated but false assumptions in your “set-up”. First, you assume that if a human person does anything in the process in which they are saved then they MUST be saving themselves. This is really a ridiculous assumption for multiple reasons, I will only give two.
Must a person be BREATHING in order to admit their guilt before God? Yes. Is breathing SOMETHING we do? Yes. So according to your “logic” if a person is breathing since this is something that we do, we therefore save ourselves. Most people can see this is really ridiculous. By your logic the fact we are breathing and it is something that we do, that means we save ourselves!
This brings up a second problem in your assumption. If you read the Bible carefully, then it is absolutely clear that God alone saves a person. Another way this could be stated is this: there are certain specific actions, actions that God alone can and must do in order for an individual to be saved. Does our faith save us? No, you could choose to trust the Lord to save you, but IF HE DOESN’T DO CERTAIN ACTIONS you will not be saved. Does admitting our sin save us? No, you could do this, and if the Lord does not forgive you your acknowledgement of sin does not mean a thing. Your set up presumes that Traditionalists believe that our actions save us: when in fact they do not, THEY CANNOT. Because again unless God does certain things we cannot be saved.
So what are some things that God alone can do, that saves us?
Well God alone must forgive our sins. We cannot forgive ourselves or our own sins. God must justify us, we cannot justify ourselves. God must give us the Holy Spirit to empower us to live the Christian life, we cannot give ourselves the Spirit. God must raise us from the dead/glorify our bodies to make them fit for eternity. At the end our life, should we die, we cannot raise ourselves from the dead/we cannot change our bodies into an immortal body fit for eternity. Once you look at this way, it is very, very clear that we cannot save ourselves. It is very clear that our good works cannot accomplish these things. It is very clear that even our faith cannot accomplish these things.
So why do calvinists like you ignore all of this? Simple, you want to present an argument against non-Calvinists/Traditionalists. Unfortunately your argument, your attempted set up completely fails.
Wonderful post!!
I especially liked “breathing” as an example of human activity, correlated to repentance etc, also human activities.
Good point to disprove the “false dilemma” argument, that a human activity constitutes some kind of divine salvific efficacy in the Traditionalist view, which of-course is logically absurd.
I also especially liked “we cannot forgive ourselves”, and “God must raise us from the dead” etc.
Breathing is an obvious prerequisite to salvation (in the normal state of human aliveness), as an ontological necessity, by God’s design. In the normal state of human aliveness, a physically dead person cannot possibly respond to the preaching of the gospel.
Who then is to say there aren’t other similar human faculties, similarly prerequisites, such as repentance, designed by God, and functional just like breathing, and active in the human frame, and just as ontologically necessary for salvation as breathing?
It then becomes clear, that extra-biblical qualifications for salvation are based upon philosophical presuppositions forced upon the text of scripture.
Thank you Robert for this post! :-]
Another good post Leighton! I look forward to your answers to David Albracht’s comments and questions above. I rejoice in this ministry and testimony that the Lord has given you to help those blinded by a loyalty to scholarship that undermines the clearly stated sound doctrine in Scripture about God’s nature and activity in salvation. I am not sure if you have written much yet about the harmful effects that Calvinism has on one’s confidence that prayer is effective and on one’s motivation of love for the sinner in evangelism. But defending the character of God’s mercy for all and exposing the falsehood of determinism of all things future will help battle those harmful effects I mentioned.
Hi Brian!
Thank you for asking Leighton to respond to the comments and questions put to him in my post.
I am puzzled as to how you would conclude that Leighton’s work helps “those blinded by a loyalty to scholarship”. Are you suggesting that people who develop and hold to Calvinistic beliefs do so as the result of a loyalty to scholarship? Have you heard the personal testimonies of persons who hold to Calvinistic beliefs?
Did Charles Spurgeon and Augustus Toplady become Calvinists and defend Calvinism because of their loyalty to scholarship? Or did they embrace the means of scholarship to share with the world their love of the doctrines of grace? (also commonly known as Calvinism).
Surgeon’s testimony… http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.php
Toplady’s testimony is around the 18th paragraph of this… http://www.fivesolas.com/toplady.htm
Do you think that Spurgeon and Toplady undermined sound doctrine in Scripture about God’s nature and activity in salvation? Do you think that Calvinism harmed them and those who they preached to? Do you think that their confidence in prayer as being effective was shaken because of Calvinism? Do you think that they did not possess love for the sinner in evangelism?
Scholarship is a window into the thinking and beliefs of others. Are you suggesting that “loyalty” to the study of God’s word and to the study of church history can be harmful and blinding?
Please explain.
Hi David, thank you for the questions.
I would be surprised if you feel comfortable with the attitude of condemnation of all Arminians by Toplady and the double-minded stances on subjects like Limited Atonement and Church History by Spurgeon. Neither of them did much exegesis to support their Calvinism in those articles, but both liked identifying themselves with words by other “scholars” for authority. Do you really believe Augustine’s forgiveness through baptism is a part of the true gospel? And if not, then why would one ever use him as an authority for theology… even if he got something right once in a while?
Yes, I am suggesting that, probably subconsciously, most hold to Calvinism, like most hold to other theologies that have harmful doctrines, because they trust the “scholarship” that tells them, “This is what the Bible means in such and such a passage”… even though they cannot see it for themselves, or they clearly feel the passage is saying something different. I am not saying everything taught in Calvinism is harmful. I believe the Scripture clearly teaches part of the Calvinistic view of depravity and part of the Calvinistic view of Perseverance.
I have read testimonies of those who have left Calvinism after studying the Scriptures for themselves according to normal rules of grammar and context, and who have admitted to previously being convinced of Calvinism partly because of the wealth “scholarship” in support of it.
You asked me to critique things about Toplady and Spurgeon that I have no way of critiquing, like the results of their preaching Calvinism, their confidence in prayer, their love for the lost. They stand before the Lord on their own for these things. I can judge whether their teachings of Calvinism undermine sound doctrine in Scripture concerning God’s nature and activity in salvation. For sound doctrine must be based on clear Scriptures that even a layperson can understand using normal rules of grammar and context. I think it is easy to show that Calvinism’s main points are built upon inferences made from texts that are in contexts that were not given to teach those points, and easy to show how Calvinism must twist normal meanings in texts that were given to teach points opposite to those of Calvinism.
And I agree, David, that scholarship “is a window into the thinking and beliefs of others.” And one’s “loyalty” to the study of God’s Word or to the study of scholarship through Christian history is NOT harmful or blinding… but trusting the propositions made by those who control of the majority so-called “orthodox” view in theology, even though Scriptural statements, normally understood, stand in clear opposition to those propositions, is harmful.
I think that one of the foundational problems is the understanding of “nature.” Matt sees LFW as separating one’s will from one’s nature. Leighton sees this as “over-simplified” and “shallow.” Leighton defines LFW as “the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action” and “mankind’s ability to accept or reject God’s appeal to be reconciled through faith in Christ.” So, are these definitions in reference to man’s will, man’s nature, both his will and nature? What is the difference between the nature and the will? Can one will against one’s nature?
Can one act contrary to his nature?
Is the nature free to decide which desire he will seek to fulfill by acting or is the nature producing instinctive like impulses that must be acted upon?
James 1:14,15 more than adequately answers this dilemma. Verse 14 says that mankind is “drawn” away. This implies a strong urge that he/she can’t seem to resist. This urge is said to originate from his “own desires”. V15 then reveals that sin occurs when man acts upon his own desires.
But v13 says we should NEVER blame God for man’s sinfulness because v14 says that the desire to sin belongs to man. Yet you Prof. Flowers always state that God, according to Calvinism, should be blamed for giving us the desires by nature. James 1:14 directly contradicts your premise sir because Scripture says man’s desire is “his own” so he and he ALONE must answer for when he sins. He can NEVER blame God because God created him with a fallen nature.
We aren’t contending over man’s inability to refrain from sin. We are contending with man’s supposed inability to respond positively to God’s appeals to be reconciled from that sin.
Okay, I’m trying again to see if I can get an answer. Matt Slick sees LFW as separating the will from the nature. You accuse him of over-simplification. The nature question came up in you debate with Jason Mullet but was never really answered (very good debate incidentally). Please explain to me what the difference is between the will and the nature. Can one will against one’s nature?
Hi Mike! Good issue to question, but I don’t like your question! 😉 The will must be part of one’s nature, so what you may be asking is – Can the will be influenced by other aspects of one’s nature like instinct and reason and still be able to make a choice that can be labeled as “free” from coercion either from those other aspects of one’s nature or from outside influence. I say – yes!
From reading what you said… it appears to me that you were saying that the instinctive aspect of one’s nature trumps any reasoning that might take place so that every choice of the will is only compatible with the instinctive aspect. Is that what you meant?
Brian,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question but this is frustrating. Non-Calvinists demand simple straight forward answers from Calvinists. They hate equivocation and nuance on subjects like compatibilism and determinism. When a Calvinist asks what made Joe choose Christ over Sam, all things being equal, the non-Calvinists says that that is an illegitimate question. I think there is a bit of a double standard going on.
Be that as it may, no I am not saying that instinct trumps reason. Reason trumps instinct. Reason is simply the mechanism of the will. And nature directs the will. One can not separate the will for one’s own nature. One can not will against one’s nature. It seems that you disagree with this. Therefore you should agree with Matt Slick’s evaluation of LFW.
Mike, Thanks for answering my question, I think. 😉
Do you see instinct and reason and will as all parts of one’s nature? If so, do you see how saying “one can not will against one’s nature” seems based on an assumption that something in one’s nature, apart from one’s will, is an aspect of that nature that does not allow for a free choice to be made. What is that one aspect of one’s nature that has so much control over the will?
[As a non-Calvinist, I think I am truly not showing the “hate” for nuance that you suggest exists in some. But I do hate equivocation! ;-)]
And I do think your question “what made Joe choose Christ over Sam, all things being equal” is sort-of a illegitimate question, for can you prove there is ever a case where “all thing being equal” exists? Or even that something “made Joe choose” is the only option, especially if we are trying to establish the possibility of free choice?
I actually like the idea, that I think Scripture clearly teaches, that though all things are never equal, God has freed for everyone the aspects of man’s nature sufficiently at various times through His enlightenment so that man’s will can make a free choice to seek or not to seek more understanding and grace from God.
Brian,
I hate these rabbit trails. They just obscure the main points. But I need to deal with your second half first. Do you not see that saying that “that is not a legitimate question” undermines argumentation. The Calvinist could do the same thing! When Flower’s asks: But “could” you have done otherwise? The Calvinist could just respond: Sorry but that’s not a legitimate question. This is just a tactic to avoid answering questions you don’t have answers to.
Putting that aside, here are some definitions of “NATURE.”
– Merriam-Webster: NATURE: 1a. the inherent character or basic constitution of a person. 2b. an inner force (as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual. 4. the physical constitution or drives of an organism. 5. a spontaneous attitude. 7a. humankind’s original or natural condition. 8. the genetically controlled qualities of an organism.
– Dictionary.com: NATURE: 1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character. HUMAN NATURE: 1. the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.
– English Oxford Living: NATURE: 2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. 2. the innate or essential qualities or character of a person. 2.2 inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality.
– Cambridge: NATURE: c1. the type of main characteristic of something. b2. a person’s character.
– American Heritage: NATURE: 6. the set of inherent characteristics or properties that distinguish something.
– Collins: NATURE: 3. the nature of something is its basic quality or character. 4. someone’s nature is their character, which they show by the way they behave.
– Jeremiah 13:23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots?
Now, to answer your question: yes, I see instinct and reason and will as all parts of one’s nature. And I’m not sure what you are getting at. I hope you are not saying that because LFW is part of one’s nature that asking if the one can will apart from one’s nature is a non sequitur. Because this would be just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
The question is simple and we ask it everyday: Why did he or she do such and such? Because that is who they are. Can they change? Yes but it is often very difficult and in many cases impossible.
I know that you will not answer—Can one will against one’s nature? Okay fine. But why? Why not just admit that one can will against one’s own nature? If you admit this does it destroy your argument for LFW? Is it because of Jeremiah 13:23? I just don’t get it.
I ask Leighton Flowers a simple question: Can one will against one’s nature? And instead of an answer I get back a cryptic question. Please look at the dictionary descriptions. I know what ’nature” means, do you?
Mike, actually I think it is you that hates nuance. You confirmed that will is an aspect of ones nature, and you confirmed that one can change his nature. I would presume that the function of the will is involved in that change. So one must have willed against his old nature for the change to take place.
You accused me of rabbit trails… but I only responded to the things you said. Listing all the definitions for “nature” seemed like a rabbit trail to me!
You didn’t like my affirming your question as having some illegitimate elements, though I pointed out what they were… which you did not show how I was mistaken. You just said you could call a question like “Could you have done otherwise?” also an illegitimate question… though you did not give evidence why it is illegitimate.
And I did not even pose such a question to avoid answering yours. I answered yours three times now. And I gave reasons for my answer. Yes man can will against other aspects of his nature… and God makes sure he gets that opportunity/ability through divine enlightenment at least a few times.
Brian,
When we have these discussions I’m taking into account what other non-Calvisints have said, and I’m assuming you listen to Flower’s podcast. For Pete’s sake Flower’s does this constantly! Why are you getting on my case for doing it? The reason I listed the definitions is because you guys don’t know what the word “nature” means. How is that a rabbit trail?
Sorry but I’m finding these written discussion frustrating. I’m not blaming you, it just is what it is. We both think each other is side stepping the other.
You say that you answered my question three times. I guess I’m just too stupid to get it. But this last time you said: “Yes man can will against aspects of his nature.” Good, I’ll take that as an answer. Though I think this contradicts Flowers’ assertion and affirms Matt Slick’s view that LWF can will against one’s nature. But I’m sure I’ve got this wrong.
It’s always the same. I ask Flowers a simple question and instead of him giving me an answer I get his defenders and I’m no closer to understanding his position then when I started. I’m going back to staying off the blog. Sorry I wasted your time.
Maybe the problem is, Mike, that you thought I was trying to defend Leighton. I was not. I was just trying to answer your question and understand more what you meant by willing against one’s nature since will is a part of one’s nature. I’m sorry my interaction and my comments and questions cause such frustration for you.
Having someone answer my question with another question is frustrating. But I hope you will reread what I said and see that I always answered your questions even though I also asked some of my own.
Brian,
It is my fault. When I’m have discussions with you or any other non-Calvinist on this blog I am assuming that you represent Leighton Flowers views. Flowers wrote in the above article that saying that LFW separated the will from the nature was an over-simplification and shallow. I really wanted to understand this from his perspective. Blogging here, with a multiple of opinions of the subject, is not going to help me understand what his or the Traditional view is. I will just have to wait for some future podcast. Thanks for your help.
Hi Mike,
Have you looked at the other articles that Dr. Flowers presented? You may find more statements providing some of the detail on LFW from Dr. Flowers, you are looking for.
You may be interested in checking this one out, for example, which goes into some detail on Dr. Flower’s representation of LFW.
https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/the-doctrine-of-free-will/
As for me, my current understanding of LFW is best stated as:
(1) The ontological existence of alternative possibilities.
(2) The ontological existence of “do otherwise”, based upon (1).
On Determinism, I am in agreement with William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Van Inwagen
“Determinism is quite simply the thesis that the past (or events in the past) determine one and only one, single unique, future (i.e., for every event).” We are powerless to alter events which occurred in the remote past. And we are powerless to alter the laws which govern the universe in which we live. Therefore if determinism is true, our thoughts, choices and actions are not up to us.
Blessings! :-]
br.d,
Thanks. This is helpful. I am in agreement with this definition of determinism. But I do not agree with Craig and Plantinga—Molinists—and van Inwagen who consider compatibilism a subterfuge and lump compatibilists into the determinist camp—as do most Arminians and Traditionalists. And unfortunately many Calvinists do not understand the differences between compatibilism and determinism. I do find van Inwagen less dogmatic then the others and appreciate him more. Here is a quote you might find interesting:
In “A Promising Argument,” Peter van Inwagen reconsiders an argument he initially put forward in an essay that appeared in the first edition of “The Oxford Handbook of Free Will”—Free Will Remains a Mystery”—purporting to show that libertarian free will is impossible. Some explanation is necessary here because van Inwagen is known as a libertarian about free will and is perhaps the most well-known proponent of the Consequent Argument. Nonetheless, though he continues to defend the Consequent Argument and continues to believe libertarian free will is the correct view of it, van Inwagen also believes there are strong, as yet unanswered, arguments suggesting that libertarian free will may be impossible. Hence, in his view, a libertarian free will “remains a mystery.”
– Oxford Handbook of Free Will, page 28
Thanks Mike!
I always appreciate your thoughtful posts!! :-]
And yes, I agree with Van Inwagen on the mystery aspect of LFW. And like you, I also appreciate his humble approach to it. You may be interested in watching Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s online video series “Closer to Truth” investigating free will.
https://www.closertotruth.com/topics/consciousness/free-will
They are also on You-tube.
I especially liked his interviews with Van Inwagen, where he reiterates the mystery aspect (which you pointed out), and also Kuhn’s interview with Alfred Mele, the overseer of the free-will research project.
Kuhn’s has an extremely sharp mind and in his interviews with various people positing views, he catches them in arguments where illusions are presented as real. These catches occur in little micro-seconds during the interviews, so one has to be looking for them.
Great to see you again BTW!! :-]
br.d
Yes, I am a follower of “Closer to Truth.” It is excellent. I will certainly review the van Inwagen and Mele interviews as you suggest. Thanks!
br.d writes, ” I am in agreement with William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Van Inwagen
“Determinism is quite simply the thesis that the past (or events in the past) determine one and only one, single unique, future…”
This is different than Theological Determinism where God, by virtue of His sovereignty, is the active agent determining the future.
Determinism, as expressed above, in not an issue in theology.
rhutchin,
This definition of philosophical determinism is correct. I do not like or use the term theological determinism. I equate that term with hyper-Calvinism. I prefer compatiblism. But I’m aware that the terms can have different meanings and can get confusing.
Mike Ranieri writes, “This definition of philosophical determinism is correct.”
I agree. It’s the notion that a person is the product of his environment and the external environment, events, determines everything people do.
Then, “I do not like or use the term theological determinism.”
However, it is unique from philosophical determinism in that God is the determiner of all things directly through what He chooses to do or indirectly through what He chooses not to do – with external events having no say in what people do other than as God chooses to use them as secondary factors.
Then, “I prefer compatiblism.”
Which I never found to say much other than that God being sovereign is consistent with man being free to choose based on internal desires and self motivation to satisfy those desires.
rhuthin writes “This is different than Theological Determinism where God, by virtue of His sovereignty, is the active agent determining the future.”
This is simply an elementary-school error in categorical logic.
The word “Theological” is a derivative of the Greek “Theos” meaning God. So “Theological” Determinism is differentiated from other forms of Determinism by virtue of the fact it is “Theistic”. The determining force is “Theos”, but it exists in the category of Determinism.
An Apple and an Orange both fall into the category of “Fruit”. An Apple doesn’t auto-magically lose its “Fruit” category simply because its not an Orange.
And Theological Determinism doesn’t auto-magically lose its “Determinism” category simply because its theistic.
Therefore Van Inwagen’s statement concerning determinism applies to “Theological” Determinism, by virtue of its category.
Van Inwagen’s “events in the past” which determine all future events, in Calvinism, simply refers to “divine decrees” which occurred in the past, being the determining force. Therefore the logical entailments of Determinism which entail one and only one single unique future for all events which come to pass, applies to Calvinistic Determinism.
We can however understand human psychology, and how logical entailments may not be palatable for certain folks.
br.d writes, “The determining force is “Theos”, but it exists in the category of Determinism.”
A am not sure that is true. Philosophical determinism seems to focus on “fate” and impersonal events determining future events. I don’t think the idea of a “personal” God involved in determining future event is really a subset of “determinism.” They seem like parallel tracks heading in the same direction but never crossing paths.
Here you are simply conflating determinism and fatalism again. Determinism and Fatalism are of the same model species. That is to say, they have many of the same logical entailments. But they are different enough to be differentiated from each other.
To be fair, this conflation is not uncommon within Calvinist language, because determinism and fatalism do share many of the same logical entailments, such as inevitability. So its quite common for Calvinist language to cross over into the language of fatalism.
And that is why many observers, at least at first blush, think Calvinism is Theological fatalism.
I should also note, if your supposition were true, there would be very few disagreements within Christianity on the notion of Theological Determinism…which as we can see historically, is not the case.
Well, I think what you are getting at with these questions is simply: are we instinctual animals or are we reasoning beings. Of course the answer is that we are reasoning beings. But this is not an answer to the question as to the difference between the nature and the will, and if the will can contradict the nature. An animal is not a robot. It acts on instinct. Its nature and will are complimentary. Man is higher that an animal. Man has instincts, but he also has a higher cognitive ability to reason and go beyond instinct. But his reasons our not random. The will is directed be reason which is a cognitive casual process which in turn is dictated and complimentary to the nature. One can not will against one’s nature. So, I have answered the question. How about you?
What do you suppose the purpose is in giving man the ability to reason and deliberate when deciding a moral choice if indeed He ordained all man to lose that freedom after the fall?
Dr. Flowers, I want to tell you that I appreciated your blog and your podcast. I thought your debates with Matt Slick and especially the recent one with Jason Mullet were very useful. I think you have been unfairly treated by James White with regard to the one-string-banjo label. But sometimes I find these discussions on the blog frustrating (as I’m sure you do as well)—especially when you answer a question with another question.
The question you asked is a good one and it is an important question to ponder and deliberate upon. And it deserves an answer but it doesn’t really help with answering the original question that I asked. And it puts me in the position of having to speculate on the meaning of what you are trying to get at as it relates to the original question. Also, it’s a difficult question that I just can’t answer in a few lines of text and do it any justice.
You said that Matt Slick’s definition of LFW as the separation of one’s will from one’s nature was over-simplified and shallow. But as I discuss this issue with the other bloggers on this site it seems that this definition is in fact correct. And I’m not sure from your stand point why the separation of the will from the nature is a problem for LFW. Perhaps this is an equally difficult question and you too can not do it justice in a few lines in a blog post. Okay, I’ll accept that. But keep in mind that this cuts both ways. When you reduce compatiblism to the false dichotomy of LWF vs determinism this too is over-simplified and shallow.
Perhaps some day we can discuss this in another venue, until then I will keep listening.
What is the definition of Amorphous Autonomy?
God is the sole author of *ALL* human thoughts, choices and actions, but in such a way that God is *NOT* the sole author of *SOME* human thoughts, choices and actions.
If that categorical statement seems perfectly coherent, you may be the victim of Calvinism’s closed system of logic.
Every proposition the Calvinist AFFIRMS concerning free will, divine culpability for evil, and human culpability for evil, will eventually DENIED, by 1000 subtle qualifications. The following arguments are common fare:
1) There is no such thing as man having free will declared by the bible.
2) The bible explicitly declares man has a will and sins freely.
3) Calvinism does not reduce people to robots, functioning as automatons (i.e., self-motivated mechanisms designed to follow predestined operations or instructions).
4) In Calvinism, people are best likened to “self-motivated” dominoes, (i.e., pitching mechanisms).
5) The ungodly’s every movement is by the: quote “secret impulse of God, that he may do service to god”s will”
6) The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are….held in by the hand of God as with a bridle…..as he commands…FORCED to do him service.
7) God does not FORCE anyone to do any sinful thing, man does sinful things of his own will.
Calvinism’s language of double-speak is described by ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely, in his book “Calvinism: A Closer Look”
Gracely describes this phenomenon as: “Calvin’s Rocking Horse”
quote:
“This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking-horse. As a Calvinist rider, I would throw my weight forward toward my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God until I could go no further, whereupon I would recoil backwards toward my belief in human freedom. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length, I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare all as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
Troy there are some problems with your post here.
“James 1:14,15 more than adequately answers this dilemma. Verse 14 says that mankind is “drawn” away. This implies a strong urge that he/she can’t seem to resist. This urge is said to originate from his “own desires”.”
Be careful about pushing your point too far (i.e. claiming that our desires are irresistible) because in v. 14-15 James is not speaking just of nonbelievers, but also believers. He is making a statement about human nature in general (i.e. that when we sin, it occurs when we give in, follow sinful desires that we have). Do not push this too far, because if you do, the result would then be that believers cannot resist their sinful desires ever. This does not fit scripture at all. For example we are promised that when a temptation comes God will provide a way of escape. So when we face a temptation (which involves a sinful desire), we as believers have a choice between giving in to the sinful desire/temptation OR resisting that desire.
“V15 then reveals that sin occurs when man acts upon his own desires.”
And we would all agree with this. The problem with calvinism (at least for those who claim that God ordains everything) is that if God ordains everything, then that means He also ordains our desires. If He ordains our desires, then He is the one giving us sinful desires and also ordaining that we give into these desires. That is not at all what James is saying. James is saying that when we give in and follow sinful desires, we cannot blame God for it, we can only blame ourselves. But if God **does** ordain our desires and ordains what desires we act upon, then God is to blame for our sin.
“But v13 says we should NEVER blame God for man’s sinfulness because v14 says that the desire to sin belongs to man.”
Right, we never should blame God for our sins, because He neither ordains them nor ordains what sins we commit (instead it is us choosing to follow the wrong desires, it is us choosing to commit sins).
“Yet you Prof. Flowers always state that God, according to Calvinism, should be blamed for giving us the desires by nature.”
Prof. Flowers is merely taking Calvinism’s claim that God ordains all events to its logical conclusion. If God really does ordain all events (including our desires, including our choices, including our actions, etc. etc. etc.) then He is to blame. If all is ordained, then God ordained that we would all have a fallen nature. So if all is ordained not only is God to blame for our sin, He is also to blame for our sinful nature. Put it another way, Calvin was very clear in claiming that God ordained the fall of Adam (so Adam had no choice, he had to sin/fall, and the resulting sin nature that all received due to this sin is a result of what God ordained (so God is responsible for the fall, desired the fall, intended for the fall to happen, which amounts to God is to blame for the fall).
“ James 1:14 directly contradicts your premise sir because Scripture says man’s desire is “his own” so he and he ALONE must answer for when he sins. He can NEVER blame God because God created him with a fallen nature.”
You are correct that man’s desires are his own. This is true BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT ORDAIN OUR DESIRES, GOD DOES NOT ORDAIN OUR ACTS OF SIN, ETC.
A calvinist who claims that God ordains all events ***is*** contradicted by what James writes: which demonstrates that the claim that God ordains all events is false.
If you want to take the position that God does not ordain all events then you will have no problem with what James says.
On the other hand if you claim that God ordains all events then what James says CONTRADICTS your view.
Mike Ranieri,
You might first want to define what you mean by “nature”.
It seems to me that when we speak of somethings nature we are talking about the attributes and capacities common to that kind of creature (similarly when we speak of God’s attributes, it is these attributes combined that are His nature).
So for example we speak of spiders having 8 legs, humans having 2 legs. We can speak of the capacity for the spider to run across the floor just as we can speak of the capacity of the human to run around the track.
If we ask what are the attributes and capacities of human persons? One of those attributes is the capacity to make choices.
The free will discussion goes to whether or not, and of what kind, are there restraints on the capacity to make choices?
In the past they spoke of the capacity or ability to make choices as a mental faculty (i.e. one of the capacities that humans have because they have minds and can engage in mental operations). I would say that the capacity to will, to make our own choices is part of human nature. Can we choose against our nature? Not really if choosing is itself a capacity that belongs to human nature.
Calvinists come along and argue that the nonbeliever because of their “fallen” nature are incapable of making certain choices (most notably the choice to trust in Christ for salvation). But this makes a subtle error (i.e. it fails to distinguish between the capacity to make choices, which is part of human nature, and the range of choices for a particular person, which varies from person to person, with some having some choices within their range of choices and others not having some choices within their range of choices).
Mike I explained this to you in the past and you just ignored it, so I am skeptical that you really want to discuss this topic.
What is more likely is that you are just here to argue for your Calvinistic beliefs, presuppositions and assumptions all the while assuming your beliefs about some choices not being within a nonbeliever’s range of choices due to what you refer to as their “sin nature”.
The following is a question concerning Calvinism:
1) An unsaved person cannot know God, or be a vessel of honor, but is spiritually dead, totally depraved, lost in trespasses in sin, under the power of the god of this world.
2) An unsaved person, in total depravity, who believes he is saved is in a state of total deception.
3) According to Calvin, a percentage of believers in the church (i.e., Calvinists) are, in fact non-elect hypocrites, whom god is holding – quote: “for a time”, until he – quote: “strikes them with even greater blindness”.
4) The elect and the non-elect are known only in the secret councils of god, and no man knows which Calvinist is saved, and which is deceived by God and doomed to be – quote: “hypocrites for a time, to be stricken with even greater blindness”.
Lets say we have a Calvinist who is as Calvin describes: Totally depraved, in spiritual death, who cannot know god, in total deception, under the power of the god of this world, deceived for a time into believing he is saved, and deceived in to believing he functions as a Holy Spirit inspired mouthpiece of the true gospel.
Question: Can God use such a one as a spokesperson for doctrine or evangelism?
Hello. I have been looking at both Calvinism and Traditionalism and have a similar question. The Calvinist has this idea of total inability. But I wonder how do we have people that seemingly believe in God and have fruit in their lives, yet after a time they fall away. Now we have someone who seems to have chosen the Gospel and then later rejected it. The idea in Calvinism seems to be that only someone regenerated could do such a thing. But that doesn’t seem to account for observation of the church and Jesus warnings about people who did amazing things and say Lord, Lord… I have seen explanations from Calvinists like, “well they weren’t “truly regenerated” ,” but doesn’t this idea contradict the T in Tulip. I thought no one could seek after God unless he first enabled them to.
This also brings up a question for Traditionalism, where do you get the idea for perseverance? I see many texts that encourage us to persevere, and the blessings of believing on Christ. But where is the text that says once you believe you can’t stop believing? Doesn’t Paul warn us of the same issue that Israel had in Romans 11? Perhaps 11:22 is a good verse. Here it seems possible that you can undo your grafting by turning away from the faith.
Travis writes, “The Calvinist has this idea of total inability.”
Total Depravity deals with the person’s nature and desires – he does not seek God, for instance. Total Inability recognizes that people are not born with faith – it comes through the preaching of the gospel, nor does the Holy Spirit help people until they believe – then being sealed by the Spirit. Dr. Flowers appears to agree with this as he qualifies those who are not unable as those who have been influenced by the law or the gospel.
Then, “But I wonder how do we have people that seemingly believe in God and have fruit in their lives, yet after a time they fall away.”
This is distinguished in the faith vs works argument. Christianity is attractive because of the forgiveness for sin and the hope offered in Christ. Some people will seek the benefits of Christ through their works (as Matthew 7 illustrates). In doing this, people can manifest “fruit” in their lives. However, it is that fruit which flows from a desire to glorify God that is the true fruit. A person can produce fruit through works, but such fruit has as its purpose to justify the person’s works as the means of salvation. People who seemingly believe and have fruit in their lives do not necessarily fall away (again, as Matthew 7 illustrates). People who do fall away tell us that they were depending on their works for salvation and did not have faith. Consequently, only those who are regenerated (regardless when people say it occurs) are truly saved and will never fall away.
Dlaruemahlke,
Are you aware that the topic of this thread is free will (specifically libertarian free will)? I ask this because your post is on the issue of whether or not we can lose our salvation.
This is a Baptist site so whether it is Calvinists or non-Calvinists/Traditionalists, most of the people here hold to eternal security(i.e. that one cannot lose their salvation if genuinely saved). You asked what the basis for this is, I am sure that you know that those who hold to eternal security, believe certain Bible verses lead to this conclusion. We are also aware of the warning passages such as those in Hebrews but we are not convinced that they teach, when properly interpreted, that a person can lose their salvation.
I would suggest that if you are interested in the Baptist perspective on this, do an on line search and you will have no problem finding what Baptists say on this issue.
In the meantime, the topic here is free will, do you have anything to add regarding the subject of libertarian free will?
Sorry….. His post was spring-boarded by my post We do see tangential dialogs occurring around main topics.
I don’t remember there being any hard and fast rule limiting topics for participants.
But if there is such a rule, please allow me to accept the blame for not knowing it.
Mike Ranieri keeps asking questions and when they are not answered to his satisfaction (which is never) he just reacts emotionally with statements of frustration.
Mike writes:
“When we have these discussions I’m taking into account what other non-Calvisints have said, and I’m assuming you listen to Flower’s podcast. For Pete’s sake Flower’s does this constantly! Why are you getting on my case for doing it? The reason I listed the definitions is because you guys don’t know what the word “nature” means.”
This claim that we “don’t know what the word ‘nature’ means” is completely false. Mike gave some definitions of nature including the following:
[[– Dictionary.com: NATURE: 1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character. HUMAN NATURE: 1. the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.
– English Oxford Living: NATURE: 2. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. 2. the innate or essential qualities or character of a person. . . .
–
– American Heritage: NATURE: 6. the set of inherent characteristics or properties that distinguish something.]]
I gave the following definition of nature: “It seems to me that when we speak of somethings nature we are talking about the attributes and capacities common to that kind of creature” Note how similar my definition is to those that Mike himself listed.
So we do know what nature means and it is false to claim that we do not.
“Sorry but I’m finding these written discussion frustrating. I’m not blaming you, it just is what it is. We both think each other is side stepping the other.”
Actually Mike has this habit of asking questions then when they are answered he does not like the answers so he pretends that his questions were not answered. I have seen him do this over and over here.
“You say that you answered my question three times. I guess I’m just too stupid to get it.”
It is not that Mike is “too stupid to get it” it is that he is too obstinate to accept answers that are given by others.
“But this last time you said: “Yes man can will against aspects of his nature.” Good, I’ll take that as an answer. Though I think this contradicts Flowers’ assertion and affirms Matt Slick’s view that LWF can will against one’s nature.”
Apparently Mike is a follower of Slick. I recently heard Slick talking with a friend of mine in a video and Slick tried to minimize and justify his rude and obnoxious behavior as being due to his Asperger’s syndrome. Sorry, I have a lot of experience working with people with autism, and while Asperger’s fits into the autistic spectrum (it is at the high end of the spectrum), it does not justify a person’s rude behavior. That is a cop out and trying to use Asperger’s to cover rude behavior is unacceptable. I have worked with people with Asperger’s and while they sometimes have difficulty with relating socially with others this does not mean they are rude or obnoxious in their behavior. Being rude and obnoxious is not part of the “nature” of those with Asperger’s.
And Slick’s view that LFW means a person can will against his nature is a really strange view. If our willing and choosing is part of our nature (as most people believe, whether they are calvinists or non-Calvinists including Traditionalists) then how do we will against our nature? How is one part of our nature (the will) going against other parts of our nature? Slick tries to make these ridiculous arguments against LFW, most are really bad and inaccurate representations of LFW. If Mike is following Slick, this explains a lot.
“It’s always the same. I ask Flowers a simple question and instead of him giving me an answer I get his defenders and I’m no closer to understanding his position then when I started. I’m going back to staying off the blog.”
It **is** always the same, Mike asks questions, does not get the answers he wants so he gets frustrated and then blames those who do not answer to his satisfaction. I do not see this pattern of Mike’s ending anytime soon so if Mike decides to stay off this blog perhaps that will be a good thing for all of us.
“Sorry I wasted your time.”
People are happy to engage in positive and civil discussions here. What gets old is someone who keeps engaging in a negative pattern over and over that just frustrates themselves and others. It is also not pleasant to see Matt Slick’s ridiculous arguments against LFW being parroted here by someone who does not appreciate people’s answers to his questions.
Slick is not a good representative of calvinism nor is he fair and accurate in his presentations on LFW. What people want is fair and accurate representations of their views.
I believe that we can all agree to disagree agreeably, and have fruitful discussions **if** we believe our views are being fairly and accurately presented.
I just saw this statement by Mike Ranieri:
“But I do not agree with Craig and Plantinga—Molinists—and van Inwagen who consider compatibilism a subterfuge and lump compatibilists into the determinist camp—as do most Arminians and Traditionalists. And unfortunately many Calvinists do not understand the differences between compatibilism and determinism.”
Sorry these statements are not accurate at all
.
First of all, Craig and Plantinga, and Arminians and Traditionalists are absolutely correct that COMPATIBILISM **is** a form of determinism. This is readily acknowledge by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists (but for some reason Mike refuses to accept this) and this can be readily seen by perusal of scholarly literature on this topic.
Mike needs to read Paul Manata’s paper on this (titled “Free will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology: a Contemporary Introduction”). Manata is a staunch calvinist with lots of philosophical training who argues in his paper (that compatibilism ***is*** a form of determinism (look for Manata’s paper on line as it is readily available, here is an example of where it is available http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2011/07/paul-manata-free-will-for-reformed.html.
Second, Mike also says that “many Calvinists do not understand the differences between compatibilism and determinism”.
Actually many calvinists are quite knowledgeable on this and KNOW that compatibilism IS A FORM OF DETERMINISM, so some like Paul Feinberg even label themselves as holding to soft determinism.
For whatever reason, Mike is out of the loop on this one, out of touch on this one. A look at the scholarly literature reveals a common distinction between two forms of determinism: “hard” determinism and “soft’ determinism (compatibilism is soft determinism). This distinction between the two forms of determinism is readily known in philosophical discussions of free will. But again for whatever reason, Mike refuses to accept this reality. Since Mike appears to operate completely disconnected from the main stream on this issue, his comments on compatibilism and determinism must be taken with a huge grain of salt. Presently he really does not know what he is talking about on this issue.
Dr. Flowers writes, “The compatibilist view is the position that a person’s freedom is restricted by his nature as is described in Scripture. In other words, he can only choose what his nature (sinful or regenerate) will allow him to choose.”
God has true libertarian freedom by virtue of His Omniscience, His omnipotence, His infinite understanding of all things, and His ability to make perfectly wise decisions. The freedom that people have is restricted by limited knowledge, limited power, little understanding of anything, and being prone to make unwise decisions. Throw in a sin nature with the absence of faith and no indwelling of the Holy Spirit and you have the prescription for disaster – a person can manifest the works of the flesh but has no ability to manifest the works of the Spirit per Galatians 5. The freedom that a person possesses is only the perception of freedom in making choices as he has no awareness of external or internal influences and how he makes decisions other than that he sees himself making logically sound decisions.
rhutchin,
I know we are supposed to be on the same side but I have to disagree with you. God does not have LFW. LFW is the ability to do otherwise and, as it is applied to theology, specifically the ability to sin or not to sin. God can not sin, therefore God does not have LFW. LFW is incoherent!
As for theological determinism—and once again I don’t like this term—to say that God chooses “with external events having no say in what people do” and then to add “other than as God chooses to use them as secondary factors” seem like a contradictory statement to me. God is the one who creates and determines the external events and secondary factors. Therefore what you are saying is external factors have no effect unless God creates them—but the external factors can not exist unless God creates them!
Mike Ranieri writes, “God can not sin, therefore God does not have LFW. LFW is incoherent!”
I think LFW allows that one have knowledge of the options available and not be limited by forces outside oneself to choosing an option. But who really knows as LFW has not been developed to any extent – thus it can appear incoherent. Generally, LFW seems to involve A or ~A choices. It does not require that one be equally disposed to either option so long as one is aware of the option. That God cannot sin results from His character and not from factors outside Himself that limit what He can do. So, I think that, technically/philosophically, if LFW is defined consistently, then God sets the standard for one who actually has LFW – by virtue of His omniscience, omnipotence, perfect understanding, perfect wisdom, etc. If humans have LFW, it is a watered down version – the choices people have are limited because they don’t always know the options available to them, do not understand the impacts of their choices, etc.
Dr. Flowers defines LFW as the ability to choose otherwise – A or ~A. This allows that ignorance reduces the full range of choices that people have and most choices people can make tend to be trivial. The only choice that matters concerns salvation and Dr. Flowers seems to insist that a person who cannot make his own personal choice regarding salvation does not have LFW. However, if a person does not have the ability to make other choices for whatever reason, then he still has LFW. LFW basically seems to be the back door to requiring that the final decision on salvation rest with the person and not with God.
Then, “God is the one who creates and determines the external events and secondary factors. Therefore what you are saying is external factors have no effect unless God creates them—but the external factors can not exist unless God creates them!”
This is to say that God is the first cause. After that God need only sustain the system – gravity, physical laws, etc. – and within that system, humans can manipulate that which God has created to many effects – people plant crops or steal from those who do; Cain kills Abel; people enslave others – and God is heavily involved in restraining the evil that people set out to do or not restraining – all to accomplish His purposes. At times, God initiates certain outcomes – the Flood of Noah, the confusion of languages, the impregnation of Mary, the calling of Saul/Paul. Most times, God seems to be restraining people.
The point is that philosophical determinism says that the physical environment in which people live determines what they do. When we introduce God into the equation, we are not talking about “determinism” in the philosophical sense. Thus, we need a new term to use for discussions that involve God and can reflect accurately His sovereignty.
rhutchin,
Your definition of LFW as simple non-coercion is not incorrect, many people use it such as William Lane Craig. But as you go deeper you find that for those who hold to LFW theology this is not sufficient. Why? Because this definition is in fact compatible with compatiblism.
I disagree that LFW has not been developed. There is copious literature on the subject, both secular and religious. Also, I don’t think it is helpful or effective to redefine LFW from a Calvinist perspective. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. I also think that I’m not really understanding how God’s omni-attributes are relevant to the discussion other than redefining your opponents position—which, once again, really doesn’t get you anywhere. What’s the point of saying LFW exists we just define it completely differently than you do? All you end up doing then is talking past each other.
Again, I may have misunderstood you. I am taking some of my cues from the discussion in Anselm, where he specifically defines free will as the ability to sin or not to sin. I don’t agree with his conclusions but I’m on firm ground with this debate historically.
If there is some literature or a website that would explain this omni-view of LFW more fully please let me know.
Mike Ranieri writes, “What’s the point of saying LFW exists we just define it completely differently than you do?”
When issues get fleshed out in the technical literature, you tend to see the results in the general literature (like in blogs). Dr. Flowers recently received his doctorate and he basically uses a very simple definition of LFW – the ability to chose otherwise or to choose between A and ~A (as you note from Anselm). Maybe this summarizes the copious literature on the subject. I don’t know but I never see anything much beyond what Dr. Flowers does, so I tend to have doubts that much has really been done – or anything much beyond Jonathan Edwards. It’s not that I am trying to redefine LFW; I am offering analysis looking to see if anyone rejects it and offers an alternative way to describe LFW. As you said earlier, “LFW is incoherent,” indicating that you have not found anything substantive being written about LFW that pins down a solid definition.
I see that Robert has offered a lot of comments on this, so I will walk through his comments for anything to advance this discussion.
I think LFW allows that one have knowledge of the options available and not be limited by forces outside oneself to choosing an option.
If the proposition that God’s options are unlimited were true, it would then follow that God has the option of making a square circle, or decreeing Adam free to be a married bachelor, or to walk through a door that does not exist. God could have the option of existing and not existing at the same time, or he could have the option of being holy and unholy at the same time, or making true=false, etc.
If God had these types of options, we would certainly see that affirmed in scripture.
Additionally, if the proposition that God has LFW as an option, is true, then it follows that LFW does have ontological existence.
These questions allow us to see why Reformed believers have debated this question, and why it will probably remain an unresolved question for future generations of Reformed believers.
Alright now I see the problem with Mike Ranieri’s comments concerning libertarian free will/LFW:
“I know we are supposed to be on the same side but I have to disagree with you. God does not have LFW. LFW is the ability to do otherwise and, as it is applied to theology, specifically the ability to sin or not to sin. God can not sin, therefore God does not have LFW. LFW is incoherent!”
I explained this to Ranieri months ago, perhaps even years ago, but he intentionally continues to ignore what I said and continues to INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT LFW. I explained that we have to make a distinction between a person’s capacity to choose otherwise AND THEIR RANGE OF CHOICES. Most people when simply defining LFW refer to the capacity to choose otherwise (without reference to a person’s range of choices). To take two famous examples consider the definitions of LFW of Alvin Plantinga and William Hasker (note both describe it as the ability to do otherwise, neither gets into people’s range of choices).
First Plantinga:
“If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won’t.” (Alvin Plantinga, GOD, FREEDOM, AND EVIL, p. 29)
Then Hasker:
“An agent is free with respect to a given action at a given time if at that time it is within the agent’s power to perform the action and also in the agent’s power to refrain from the action.” (William Hasker, “A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE” p,136-137)
Note the common denominator: the person can perform an action OR refrain from performing the action (if you can perform the action or refrain doing it, that means you can do otherwise).
Now if LFW is defined in this way, the ability to choose to do an action or choose to refrain from doing that action/the ability to do otherwise: does God have LFW? Absolutely. Anytime God has the choice to do something or refrain from doing something, he has LFW (according to this definition of Plantinga and Hasker). God says Himself that He has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens whom He hardens (this means He has choices regarding who He has mercy on and whom He does not have mercy on). You would think that even Calvinists would agree to this, so they would agree that by the Plantinga/Hasker definition, God has LFW.
But some Calvinists because they are trying so hard to argue and refute non-Calvinism, ***present a STIPULATED definition*** of LFW that goes beyond how it is defined by most non-Calvinists such as Plantinga and Hasker. With a stipulated definition, you say that the person holds to X definition of something, you declare their definition when in fact it is not their definition (say their definition is Y). The problem is that when you present such a stipulated definition, if it is not the definition held by the person, you are confusing things and presenting a different definition then they hold to (i.e. you are misrepresenting their position, if you do so intentionally ignoring their saying that this is not their definition then you are committing the straw man fallacy). When you substitute a stipulated definition for the other person’s actual definition, nothing but confusion, frustration, error and misrepresentation results.
Matt Slick has done this with LFW (and it appears that Mike Ranieri is a follower of Slick). Rather than staying with the definition of LFW held by people like Plantinga and Hasker, Slick stipulates a definition where LFW means that ****a person who has LFW is able to choose to sin***. Now if LFW is given a stipulated definition in which it means a person is able to choose to sin: then can God have LFW? No, because God is incapable of sin. Do believers in the eternal state have LFW by this stipulated definition? No, because in the eternal state believers are incapable of sin.
What Slick also does is ignore the distinction between the capacity to experience LFW (i.e. a situation where a person, whether it is God or man, can choose one option or choose the other option, choose one option or refrain from choosing that option, where a person can do otherwise with respect to a particular choice) and an individual’s RANGE OF CHOICES. People’s range of choices differ. In the past I often use the example of Donald Trump and I in regard to purchasing MULTIPLE million dollar homes. I do not have this choice within my range of choices (at most I could purchase one million dollar property): Trump however does have this choice within his range of choices (he could if he chose buy multiple million dollar properties). Do we then conclude that since this choice is not within my range of choices that I never experience LFW? No, I experience LFW with regard to other things (e.g. if preparing a sermon or Bible Study I can choose which verses I will cite and which I will not cite, I can choose which illustrations I will use and which I will not choose to be part of the message, etc. etc. etc.). both Trump and I sometimes experience LFW, but we have a different range of choices. I can talk about the Greek text of the New Testament, so that is within my range of choices: but I doubt that Trump can talk about the Greek Text (does that mean since he cannot he does not ever experience LFW? No).
What people like Slick (and Ranieri) do is inherently wrong because they foist their stipulated definition of LFW on non-Calvinists and then argue from their stipulated definition, rather than from our definition of LFW. If they did this accidentally, that would be one thing, but they have been told by non-Calvinists that that is not our definition of LFW. And yet they continue to operate by the stipulated definition THEY have created.
Ranieri writes “LFW is the ability to do otherwise and, as it is applied to theology, specifically the ability to sin or not to sin.”
If he stopped with “LFW is the ability to do otherwise” he would be speaking of the definition of Plantinga, Hasker and even Leighton. But note he goes further with the “AND”. He adds “as it is applied to theology, the ability to sin or not to sin.” According to WHOM is this the definition of LFW? According to Slick and those who follow him like Ranieri. And notice the choice to sin or not to sin is GOING TO A PERSON’S RANGE OF CHOICES. It is not within God’s range of choices to choose to sin. But does this then mean that God never experiences LFW? No. It is identical to making the mistake that since I cannot choose to buy multiple million dollar properties, therefore I never experience LFW (or making the mistake that since Trump cannot discuss the Greek Text of the New Testament, he therefore never experiences LFW, or making the mistake that since God cannot sin, it is not part of His range of choices, therefore He never experiences LFW). And we all know this distinction between the capacity to make choices or refrain from making choices AND our range of choices: why do we value education? Because we think that the more educated you are, the greater your range of choices becomes. Why do people value money so much? Because they believe it will increase their range of choices.
Until Ranieri starts operating by our definition of LFW rather than the one stipulated by Slick, I suggest that Ranieri is ignored when it comes to his comments on LFW. As long as he operates by a false definition, a definition that we non-calvinists are not operating from, his comments will only lead to confusion, useless arguing, continual and repeated misrepresentation of our view of LFW and a waste of time. And it is not difficult to understand our view of LFW. Even rhutchin understands it.
Notice that rhutchin actually understands the concept of LFW as held by Leighton Flowers and other non-Calvinists:
“Generally, LFW seems to involve A or ~A choices. It does not require that one be equally disposed to either option so long as one is aware of the option. That God cannot sin results from His character and not from factors outside Himself that limit what He can do. So, I think that, technically/philosophically, if LFW is defined consistently, then God sets the standard for one who actually has LFW – by virtue of His omniscience, omnipotence, perfect understanding, perfect wisdom, etc.”
So LFW is the ability to do otherwise (“seems to involve A or –A choices”). God cannot sin, though God has LFW (“God cannot sin . . . . God sets the standard for one who actually has LFW”).
He is also correct that humans have a lesser range of choices than God does:
“If humans have LFW, it is a watered down version – the choices people have are limited because they don’t always know the options available to them, do not understand the impacts of their choices, etc.”
Rhutchin even gives a good description of Leighton’s view of LFW:
“Dr. Flowers defines LFW as the ability to choose otherwise – A or ~A. This allows that ignorance reduces the full range of choices that people have and most choices people can make tend to be trivial.”
There it is again LFW involves “the ability to choose otherwise – A or –A”. Note also that rhutchin gets the point that people’s choices involves their “range of choices.” So one person, say Donald Trump, being president has the choice to make executive orders,that is part of his range of choices. But it is not part of my range of choices. Does that mean that I do not ever experience LFW and that only Trump does? No, we would say that we both sometimes experience LFW, it is just that OUR RANGE OF CHOICES IS DIFFERENT.
Rhutchin writes “God has true libertarian freedom by virtue of His Omniscience”
The notion that God has libertarian freedom in a world in which libertarian freedom does not have ontological existence, has historically been debated among Reformed thinkers.
Francis Turretin, for example, held that libertarian freedom does not have ontological existence, but also that God did exercise some form of libertarian freedom in his creation of the world. Turretin acknowledged the contradiction and appealed to human ignorance and mystery as the explanation.
Hmmm, that’s interesting. I have not read Turretin. I guess that is what Rhutchin was getting at with God’s omni-atributes defining LFW. I will have to look this up.
Hi Mike,
I don’t think rhutchin and Turretin are on the same page at all. Turretin was noted for his discipline and sensitivity to rational reasoning. If you review the full compliment of rhutchin’s posts here at SOT101, I think you’ll discover most are belief-based and not well thought out. In many cases, simply wishful thinking.
IMHO, you are much more disciplined in your sensitivities towards rational reasoning than you may be aware. I would suggest, if you look for indicators of double-think in rhutchin’s posts, you’ll eventually understand what I’m hinting at.
There are a number of approaches to logical contradictions.
– Proposition (A) and Proposition (O) are not a contradictions they are perfectly logical
– Proposition (A) and Proposition (O) only appear as contradictions, they are in fact a paradox
– Proposition (A) is emphasized at point A, resulting in some degree of the denial of Proposition (O) without being cognizant of that denial
– Proposition (O) is emphasized at point B, resulting in some degree of the denial of Proposition (A) without being cognizant of that denial
All of those responses to contradiction are much more a manifestation of one’s psychology than one’s theology/philosophy.
:-]
Thanks br.d. I appreciate the encouragement. I’m finding it hard to continue on this blog with the barrage on negativity I’m getting from one particular blogger who I’m trying hard not to engage with.
If you can hang in there… do, Mike! You contribute some good stuff, and Roger probably won’t feel as lonely with you around! 😉 Sometimes we just have to ignore the lack of tact that some might display from time to time (or all the time ;-)). I have found that all have some good thought provoking things to say… even though I know that I am the only one that sees it all perfectly the right way! lol
That is the nature of the environment, I’m sorry to say.
My most significant regret is, there have been sisters who have come to participate here, who have been treated in an aggressive manner they weren’t prepared for…..and shouldn’t have to be. I’ve seen it happen two or three times. And its sad to watch. They really do deserve a place at the table of discussion. I hope and pray for a higher degree of sensitivity on that issue.
You know, I also think Dr. Flowers would have more opportunity to have sincere dialog with you and others, if it weren’t for the consistent tendency toward reflexive antagonism in response to his articles.
br.d writes, “… the consistent tendency toward reflexive antagonism in response to his articles.”
I think it relates more to his tendency to make generalizations and leave out details.
In response to the “That’s Baloney Bee!” article.
Good humor there!! I enjoyed the reading…..thank you!! :-]
Two anecdotal observations:
1) Calling James White an apologist for “Christianity” in-toto, is complimentary, but obviously misleading, because any observer of White’s focus can see he is an apologist specifically for Reformed Theology, representing a fraction of the Christian population, a subset of Protestant Theology, which is itself a subset of Christian Theology.
2) It may be true, that a person can have opinions on every conceivable topic in the world, but in this case, everything is obviously perceived through, and presented through the microcosm of NeoPlatonic-Determinism.
As the biologist says; there is a world of life, exterior to the microscope. 😉
One only needs to read Anselm to discover that the debate of whether God has LFW as he is unable to sin has an historical pedigree.
Within the scope of the definition of LWF is non-cohesion. Also, is the range of possibilities and choices. And, indeed, range of choices can be defined as A or not A. But if this is the extent of the definition than there is no disagreement between LFW and compatibilist free will. So where is the debate?
If I am given 3 positive choices and no negative choices is this the LFW held by LFW proponents, both secular and theological? And vice versa, if I am given a plethora of choices but they are all negative are these real choices? Is “Sophie’s Choice” a true libertarian free choice?
If you define God’s LFW as the ability to create or not to create than, once again, there is no debate. Calvinists and Arminians, monergists and synergists, free will libertarians, determinists and compatibilists can unite! But this is not what is being argued. And it is counterproductive to define LFW in this limited sense and then go on to argue that man must have the ability to reject or accept God—that is to sin or not to sin—on his own libertarian free volition.
I would be foolish to think that straw-man argumentation never happens. In fact it happens on both sides. Leighton Flowers and most non-Calvinists, label Calvinists as determinists. This is understandable. To the non-Calvinist compatibilism is incoherent and the implications of the Calvinist theology is hard-deterministic and makes men into robots. Comparatively non-Calvinism’s implications require LFW to support the ability to sin or not to sin.
Once again, if both camps agree that God can not sin and the saved can not sin in the eternal state and that this is the definition of LFW than there is no disagreement. But one only needs to read the literature to find libertarians debating among themselves as to the freedom of those souls in heaven.
And again, I referrer you to Anselm for the discourses on the ability to sin as regards to libertarian free will.
Apparently somewhere (I am guessing due to the influence of Matt Slick as he seems to be the person that Mike Ranieri parrots) Ranieri got this notion that Anselm is **the** spokesperson for LFW. This is not accurate for a few reasons. First, the discussion of LFW predated Anselm by centuries (i.e. people were discussing free will and determinism for centuries before Anselm ever came on the scene). Second, discussions have also followed Anselm, so he is not the end point of discussion of LFW. Thrid, Anselm held to LFW and in only one place made a comment that some take to argue that He did not hold to the ordinary conception of LFW (an acquaintance of mine Katherin Rogers wrote a helpful article on this, here:
http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2b_52Rogers.pdf
“One only needs to read Anselm to discover that the debate of whether God has LFW as he is unable to sin has an historical pedigree.”
People for centuries, beginning in the early centuries of church history believed that God has LFW (the primary argument was that if He freely chose to create the world, was under no necessity to create the world, then He had LFW).
“Within the scope of the definition of LWF is non-cohesion. Also, is the range of possibilities and choices. And, indeed, range of choices can be defined as A or not A. But if this is the extent of the definition than there is no disagreement between LFW and compatibilist free will. So where is the debate?”
Ranieri’s comments here are mistaken because he refuses to accept the fact that compatibilism involves determinism. Theological determinism as espoused by calvinists involves exhaustive determinism (i.e. God has decreed every event without exception). If God has decreed every event, then we never ever experience LFW (we may MAKE choices but WE NEVER HAVE CHOICES). A major failing on the part of Ranieri is that he says he holds to compatibilism but he simultaneously argues that his compatibilism does not involve exhaustive determinism.
“If I am given 3 positive choices and no negative choices is this the LFW held by LFW proponents, both secular and theological?”
Yes if you are acting freely, meaning that you can choose any of the three options, no necessitating factor is causing you to choose one option rather than the others.
“And vice versa, if I am given a plethora of choices but they are all negative are these real choices? Is “Sophie’s Choice” a true libertarian free choice?”
Yes, most people are aware that in this fallen world, at times, we have to choose between two options and both are not “positive”. A classic illustration was the decision of whether or not to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. If they did not, many ground forces would have died trying to take Japan, if they did then thousands of civilians would be killed or harmed (either way the choice was negative, many would die with either choice).
“If you define God’s LFW as the ability to create or not to create than, once again, there is no debate. Calvinists and Arminians, monergists and synergists, free will libertarians, determinists and compatibilists can unite!”
And they should unite on the fact that at least sometimes God himself experiences LFW (choices where He can make either choice, neither choices is necessitated for Him).
“But this is not what is being argued. And it is counterproductive to define LFW in this limited sense and then go on to argue that man must have the ability to reject or accept God—that is to sin or not to sin—on his own libertarian free volition.”
This is another persistent mistake that Ranieri engages in. Because he fails to distinguish between the capacity to make choices (experiencing LFW) and the range of choices that a person has (these choices are influenced by various factors). He cannot see that the real disagreement is not whether or not LFW ever exists (there are clear instances with both God, e.g. his choice to create or not create the world; and man, e.g. Adam before the fall, could choose to obey God or listen to Satan): but about specific choices whether or not they are within our range of choices. Calvinists argue that due to total depravity the nonbeliever does not have within their range of choices the choice to trust in Christ for salvation (unless God first regenerates the person thus enabling them to have this choice as part of their range of choices). Traditionalists like Leighton on the other hand, argue that the fall did not result in the choice of choosing to trust Christ for salvation being not part of the non-believers range of choices. And that really is where the debate should be: specifically did the fall result in all of Adam’s descendants being born without the ability to choose to trust in Christ unless regenerated first.
“I would be foolish to think that straw-man argumentation never happens. In fact it happens on both sides.”
This is true, it does happen at times on both sides. Whenever we present the other side as holding X, when in reality they hold Y, we are misrepresenting them and fruitful discussion then becomes impossible. Only confusion and useless argument results.
To use an illustration most of us can relate to. If we have a problem at work and we are seeking to develop a workable solution for it. If we do not agree on the nature of the problem, we will talk past each other and we will not successfully deal with the problem. We have to carefully define the problem and make sure everyone is operating from this same definition.
“Leighton Flowers and most non-Calvinists, label Calvinists as determinists. This is understandable.”
It should be understandable because it is true.
“To the non-Calvinist compatibilism is incoherent and the implications of the Calvinist theology is hard-deterministic and makes men into robots.”
Compatibilism appears to be incoherent when the compatibilist speaks of free will as involving having choices when in reality if exhaustive determinism is true we never ever have a choice. That is a contradiction and so is incoherent. If the compatibilist redefines free will so that it does not involve the ability to choose otherwise, then it makes sense, we just believe it is wrong.
“Comparatively non-Calvinism’s implications require LFW to support the ability to sin or not to sin.”
This is a misrepresentation of LFW because one can believe in LFW and believe that a person may not have sin within their range of choices (God all the time, believers in the eternal state). Put another way, a person can be incapable of sin and yet have LFW (Jesus had LFW which is clear from his own statements He was also incapable of sin and He was fully human).
“Once again, if both camps agree that God can not sin and the saved can not sin in the eternal state and that this is the definition of LFW than there is no disagreement.”
Actually being incapable of sin is not the definition of LFW. The definition of LFW involves the ability to choose otherwise. It is only in speaking of a person’s range of choices that we then talk about how they have LFW but are incapable of sin.
“But one only needs to read the literature to find libertarians debating among themselves as to the freedom of those souls in heaven.”
All of the libertarians that I personally know believe both that we retain LFW in the eternal state and that we will be incapable of sin (this includes friends like Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, Kevin Timpe, and many, many others).
“And again, I referrer you to Anselm for the discourses on the ability to sin as regards to libertarian free will.”
And I refer people to Rogers’ article where she explains what Anselm meant. Anselm’s definition of LFW was not that it means the ability to sin as some such as Ranieri claim .
Robert writes, “an acquaintance of mine Katherin Rogers wrote a helpful article on this, here:
http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2b_52Rogers.pdf
The cited article says this (citing Anselm), “Only a rational being who can step back from its immediate desires and choose to align its desires with the will of God can be said to have free will.” So, should free will be limited to rational beings?
Using this as a definition of “free will” would seem to eliminate the unsaved person as having free will. I think Jonathan Edwards made the same point. The Calvinist view of free will exercised by the lost is consistent with this – not coerced and in line with one’s desires.
So, would those who advocate LFW be willing to add this as an addendum to their definition of free will – being the ability to choose otherwise?
Hi Mike,
If, as you have mentioned, alternative possibilities do not exist. And if you agree with the thesis that a core constituent of determinism, is that it entails one and only one single unique future for every event (which would include the event of making a choice), then doesn’t it follow, that a person really doesn’t have more than one, and only one, single unique choice to make?
Calvinists have tended to have different ways of answering YES to this question.
One answer Calvinists have given, is to assert that alternative possibilities don’t exist, and then at a later time assert they do.
Another answer I’ve seen follows this line of reasoning:
1) God, with his divine knowledge and divine foreknowledge knows that a person can only choose what God, from the foundation of the world, decreed that human to choose.
2) And since God makes that choice in the past, there is, in fact, one and only one, single unique future (i.e. future choice for the human to make).
3) But humans, not having divine knowledge, perceive themselves as having alternative possibilities, and thus see themselves has having alternative choices, (i.e., more than one single unique choice to make).
4) But since alternative possibilities don’t really exist in a deterministic cosmology, the human perception of alternative possibilities, is merely an illusion.
So for that Calvinist, at least during that argument, alternative possibilities exist, but only as human illusions.
The interesting and ironic twist from that line of reasoning is, that Calvinist may later assert, that by virtue of alternative possibilities existing as human illusions, God does genuinely give humans alternative possibilities to choose from.
But you can see, that line of reasoning backfires on the Calvinist without him seeing it do so.
For in asserting that God gives genuine alternative possibilities, that are in fact illusions, he has now fallen prey to the illusion.
br.d writes, “So for that Calvinist, at least during that argument, alternative possibilities exist, but only as human illusions….”
So, can you argue against the Calvinist position without begging the question?
Then, “…in asserting that God gives genuine alternative possibilities, that are in fact illusions, he has now fallen prey to the illusion.”
Then, Calvinists should drop that argument.
You’ll have to explain the “beg the question” reference.
And yes, on the last question, if the Calvinist ( or any critical thinker) doesn’t want to get caught such a trap.
But as Ravi Zacharias laments….Christians all to often cling to positions that are not well thought out
br.d writes, “yes, on the last question,”
Yet you do not offer anything. Maybe in another comment. Or maybe, your, Yes, actually means, No, in your double think world.
I suggest you research what “begging the question” really is in regard to it being one of the standard fallacies.
Might as well get a handle on what it means to fabricate a straw-man in order to knock it down, while your doing that research.
Just a little friendly help for you.
br.d writes, “yes, on the last question,”
Still, you do not offer anything. Guess we will never know.
With your inventive imagination, you’re doing quite well without any help from anyone. 😉
br.d
This is quite a dilemma and I can certainly follow your reasoning. I think I would need sometime to really think this through. It is not that I haven’t considered this before, it’s just that I’ve put it on the back burner in favour of doing more reading and research. All I can say at this point is that this is indeed a problem in the Calvinist system. But at this point in my development I see more logical problems with LFW than with compatiblism and I find the scriptural weight on the Calvinist side. I guess you got me on this one 😉
Hi Mike,
I appreciate your kind words but please don’t see it that way!
We’re both in the same boat together here.
Both of of us striving for the same goal.
You have a sincere heart for truth, which I honor.
It’s my privilege to know you!!
Is compatiblism a form of determinism? The short answer is yes. But what does this really mean?
Often when non-Calvinists (and even some Calvinists) hear this and they jump on it and say, “See, Calvinists are determinists!” This is just false. Even from a logical semantic stand point this is false. If Calvinists are determinists than why call themselves compatiblists? Is this just some kind of misdirection or trick? Are Calvinists being dishonest? Compatiblism must mean something different than determinism—they’re not the same word. If this were not the case than the honest thing to do would be for Calvinists to label themselves theistic determinists—in fact some do, but I feel that this label is better appropriately applied to hyper-Calvinistism.
The reason compatiblism is a form of determinism (and I dislike this phrase for the simple reason that it is misunderstood—as I have indicated above) is because compatiblism contains determinism. Compatiblism posits a compatibility between determinism and free will. One could equally say that compatiblism if a form of free will. But libertarians are quick to argue that the type of free will that compatiblists espouse is not real free will because free will and determinism are incompatible. And this is where both determinists and libertarians agree.
Many secular and theistic philosophers (and theologians) want to reduce the argument to the false dichotomy of determinism vs. LFW (though among secular philosophers the majority view is some version of compatiblism). The reasons for this have to do with the supposed incoherence of compatiblism—though often this is just a knee-jerk reaction and the incoherence of their own system is ignored—and it is just easier to argue extremes. It’s like trying to defend democracy where someone says, “Your democracy supports unions—that’s socialism, so you must really be a socialist!”
The compatiblitst view must effect and alter both free will and determinism. It’s like the old commercial where the participants declare, “You’ve got chocolate in my peanut butter—you’ve got peanut butter on my chocolate”—both combine to make something new!
And even simple determinism isn’t so simple. Non-Calvinists accuse Calvinists of determinism which makes people into puppets and robots. But what about animals? Do animals have LFW? No? Then are animals robots? No? Than if animals do not have LFW nor are they determined than what?
The philosophical nomenclature is confusing. There are soft and hard versions of libertarianism, determinism and compatiblism. Both soft-determinism and soft-libertarianism could also be referred to as forms of compatiblism. An incompatiblist can be a libertarian or a determinist.
I’m not sure I could say that Compatibilism is a form of Determinism. If we accept the standard definition:
“Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.”
Then it would follow that determinism, compatiblism, and free will, are three distinct and separate things.
And that compatibilism is said to facilitate a FORM of free will within a deterministic cosmology.
For most compatibilists, LFW is rejected as a viable FORM of free will.
They define free will as freedom to act according to one’s motives without arbitrary hindrance from other persons, individuals etc.
Jonathan Edwards, following this mode of definition, would replace “act according to one’s motives” with “act according to one’s nature”.
I applaud you for your insight in identifying the “mechanical” nature of determinism. This is another example of your sincerity, and the intellectual honesty you apply to these conceptions.
And like you, I envision the various positions people take on this issue similarly, except I call it the “The Continuum Line of Determinism”.
So for me, since most of these concepts have been well defined historically within Christian philosophy, the remaining dialogs tend to center around what qualities one ascribes to free will.
br.d writes, “For most compatibilists, LFW is rejected as a viable FORM of free will. They define free will as freedom to act according to one’s motives without arbitrary hindrance from other persons, individuals etc.”
More than that, they define “free will” in unsaved man as lacking faith. Thus, the person has nothing to override his sin nature. The conveyance of “faith” to an unsaved person through the preaching of the gospel enables the unsaved person to override his sin nature and accept God’s salvation in Christ. Otherwise, the unsaved has “freedom to act according to one’s motives” and those motives are selfish and prideful focussed on seeking one’s own glory – until God gives the person faith.
Does a true follower of Jesus Christ speak half-truths, while obfuscating the whole truth?
Answer: Not if he truly honors Christ.
In Calvinism’s form of Theological Determinism, man’s “Nature” (along with everything else) is the consequence of divine immutable decrees. As Calvinists often put it “its **ALL** part of God’s plan”.
Calvinists *rightly* assert that evangelism (in their system) is simply a MEANS to god’s END.
The *whole* truth, is that EVERYTHING (in the system) is a MEANS to god’s END.
This includes Lucifer, Adam’s disobedience, all sin, all evil, Total Depravity…etc
Let us strive to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
In that way we honor the Lord of truth.
br.d writes, “Let us strive to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In that way we honor the Lord of truth.”
Let us all declare that God is sovereign and omniscient ruling the future as well as the present.
rhutchin writes “Let us all declare that God is sovereign and omniscient ruling the future as well as the present.”
I would add to that “And that man should not create a graven image of God that unwittingly makes him the author of evil”.
br.d writes, “I would add to that “And that man should not create a graven image of God that unwittingly makes him the author of evil”.’
Within the context of scripture, of course. “by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created by Him and for Him.” (Colossians 1) and “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16) and “So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.’ (Jeremiah 18)
Mike Ranieri’s comments on determinism, compatibilism and free will are so off base, so out of touch with mainstream scholarship in this area that it is hard to read his comments.
“Is compatiblism a form of determinism? The short answer is yes. But what does this really mean?”
It means what it has always meant, compatibilists believe free will (as defined by them) is compatible with determinism.
“Often when non-Calvinists (and even some Calvinists) hear this and they jump on it and say, “See, Calvinists are determinists!” This is just false.”
It is not false, calvinists who hold to compatibilism ARE DETERMNISTS BECAUSE COMPATIBILISM IS A FORM OF DETERMINISM. John Fischer says this, Plantinga says this, Craig says this, on ad infinitum.
“Even from a logical semantic stand point this is false. If Calvinists are determinists than why call themselves compatiblists?”
Because as has been clearly recognized by almost everyone, compatibilism is a form of determinism.
“Is this just some kind of misdirection or trick? Are Calvinists being dishonest?
”
Not they are not being dishonest if they call themselves compatibilists and believe that their conception of free will is compatible with determinism.
“Compatiblism must mean something different than determinism—they’re not the same word.”
No they are not the same word, but again compatibilism is a form of determinism (usually designated as “soft determinism”).
“If this were not the case than the honest thing to do would be for Calvinists to label themselves theistic determinists—in fact some do, but I feel that this label is better appropriately applied to hyper-Calvinistism.”
This a red herring, bringing in hyper-calvinists. Well known calvinists such as John Frame and Paul Feinberg view themselves as compatibilists and do not see themselves as hyper-calvinists.
“The reason compatiblism is a form of determinism (and I dislike this phrase for the simple reason that it is misunderstood—as I have indicated above) is because compatiblism contains determinism.”
No, it is because compatibilists view their view of determinism as compatible with free will.
“Compatiblism posits a compatibility between determinism and free will.”
Exactly, which is why they will also call themselves “soft determinists”.
“One could equally say that compatiblism if a form of free will.”
Not that is not how the term is used.
“ But libertarians are quick to argue that the type of free will that compatiblists espouse is not real free will because free will and determinism are incompatible. And this is where both determinists and libertarians agree.”
The libertarian does not argue that free will as defined by compatibilists is incompatible with determinism, the argument is that determinism is incompatible with libertarian free will.
“Many secular and theistic philosophers (and theologians) want to reduce the argument to the false dichotomy of determinism vs. LFW (though among secular philosophers the majority view is some version of compatiblism). The reasons for this have to do with the supposed incoherence of compatiblism—though often this is just a knee-jerk reaction and the incoherence of their own system is ignored—and it is just easier to argue extremes. It’s like trying to defend democracy where someone says, “Your democracy supports unions—that’s socialism, so you must really be a socialist!””
People are not trying to reduce the argument, they are trying to discuss things with the agreed upon definitions of terms. Mike Ranieri does not agree with the accepted terms so he tries to change the vocabulary, which is why he does not make sense.
“The compatiblitst view must effect and alter both free will and determinism. It’s like the old commercial where the participants declare, “You’ve got chocolate in my peanut butter—you’ve got peanut butter on my chocolate”—both combine to make something new!”
They do not combine to make something new, compatibilism claims that determinism and free will are compatible.
“And even simple determinism isn’t so simple. Non-Calvinists accuse Calvinists of determinism which makes people into puppets and robots.”
We make this accusation because in many instances calvinism is hard determinism disguised as soft determinism.
“But what about animals? Do animals have LFW?”
Why not, if an animal has a mind and decides between two options, isn’t that LFW?
“ No? Then are animals robots? No? Than if animals do not have LFW nor are they determined than what?”
My pets have always shown evidence of making choices between differing options, so apparently they sometimes experience LFW.
“The philosophical nomenclature is confusing.”
Actually it is not confusing at all, it is only when someone like Ranieri comes in and tries to redefine things that things get confusing.
“There are soft and hard versions of libertarianism, determinism and compatiblism. Both soft-determinism and soft-libertarianism could also be referred to as forms of compatiblism. An incompatiblist can be a libertarian or a determinist.”
I am not even going to waste time trying to show how messed up these comments are.
Robert writes, “compatibilists believe free will (as defined by them) is compatible with determinism.”
Technically, compatibilists believe free will (as defined by them) is compatible with God’s sovereignty and sovereignty require the conclusion that God ordains all things as the primary agent and through secondary agents (among secondary agents, each person’s sin nature is the primary agent to bring about God’s purposes).
Mike Ranieri writes:
“I’m finding it hard to continue on this blog with the barrage on negativity I’m getting from one particular blogger who I’m trying hard not to engage with.”
Not hard to guess this is referring to me. It is not a “barrage of negativity” it is presentation of the truth that Ranieri refuses to deal with.
As long as he chooses to engage in straw man presentation of LFW, his comments on LFW are a waste of time and lead only to confusion and error and useless arguing.
If we say the sky is blue, and Ranieri says that we say the sky is red, no positive and fruitful discussion can follow. It is not “negativity” to state this obvious truth that as long as he intentionally operates from a definition of LFW that Plantinga, Hasker, Leighton, myself and myriads of others DO NOT hold to. All he is doing is fostering a straw man of his own imagination.
As he keeps doing this misrepresenation after being corrected about it, his actions become dishonest.
I don’t care if someone makes fun of our claim that the sky is blue, or attacks it, or tries to argue with it, but claiming that we are saying the sky is red when we are saying it is blue, is dishonest and obstinate.
I should have figured that if I put out an article a person like rhutchin would cherry pick from it to try to prove his view:
“The cited article says this (citing Anselm), “Only a rational being who can step back from its immediate desires and choose to align its desires with the will of God can be said to have free will.” So, should free will be limited to rational beings?”
That is not what the point of the quote is. The quote is contrasting animals and human persons. The point being made by Anselm is that desires do not necessitate actions for human persons. A rational being can have desires and can choose not to follow them, they can decide rationally not to follow them. The quote is not saying that free will is limited only to rational beings.
Also this is NOT a definition of free will:
“Using this as a definition of “free will” would seem to eliminate the unsaved person as having free will.
”
But it is not a definition of free will. Anselm was not a calvinist and so did not hold to total depravity. Anselm would believe that this quote would be true of both the non-believer and the believer.
The statement thus cannot be used to argue that this “would seem to eliminate the unsaved person as having free will”.
“The Calvinist view of free will exercised by the lost is consistent with this – not coerced and in line with one’s desires.”
But this is not the definition of free will, it is a statement by Anselm that rhutchin tries to cherry pick to prove his view. It is similar to those who ignore the context of a given scripture and simply quote something to prove their view (cf. Mormons quoting that God must be physical because it speaks of the “arm of the Lord” etc.).
“So, would those who advocate LFW be willing to add this as an addendum to their definition of free will – being the ability to choose otherwise?”
No, because the quote is not a definition of free will nor did Anselm intend it as such (if you look at the context of the quote it is distinguishing animals from men: “A lower animal, like a horse or a dog, can have rightness of will when it wills what it ought. But it cannot have the power to keep rightness of will for its own sake. Only a rational being who can step back . . .”). There is no need to add to free will being the ability to choose otherwise. Hopefully no one else will attempt to cherry pick from this article.
The really frustrating thing about discussing issues on this blog is that certain people are so focused on their own personal agendas that they are not careful readers and make wild assumptions. Anselm is not the spokesperson for LFW. And Anselm is not a monergist. And he, in fact, defends LFW as does Katherine Rogers, one of his apologists and biographers. The point is simply that he is one of the early church fathers, if you will, that discuss this issue of the ability to sin.
Another problem is in trying to be brief and concise, one has to give general examples which can not cover all possibilities. If I give you a choice between chocolate and vanilla but not the choice to reject either is this real LFW? I guess “Sophie’s Choice” is a movie no one remembers. And I am certainly not going to defend LFW by defending Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
Compatiblism, and there for Calvinism, have always supported a range of limited choices. Calvinists believe the man’s free will, and his range of choices, are limited and determined by his fallen nature. Now, original sin is a related issue but the foundation is whether Adam’s decedents—that’s all mankind—have the ability refrain from sinning through their own volition. Apart from regeneration man must have the ability to accept or reject God. This is were the classic Arminian brings in prevenient grace. As for the Traditionalist this is still a mystery to me.
And finally, to say the LFW is the ability to do otherwise and then make a myriad of qualifications and exceptions, as most libertarians do, is one of the main reasons I reject it. Sorry but I guess I’m just out of the loop. I’ve never heard or read (until now) that the ability to choose otherwise “only” means that a person has a range of limited choices. Once again, if this is the case then why are we arguing?
I agree that the main argument is about puppets and robots. But I’m trying to explore and understand some of the distinctives. Perhaps I am going outside the official nomenclature. And I do disagree with some of the standard Calvinist and free will philosophy apologetics. But robots and computers also have a range of choices and I don’t know about you but, regardless of Star Trek, I contend that robots don’t have free will—even compatibilist free will!
Mike Ranieri writes:
“The really frustrating thing about discussing issues on this blog is that certain people are so focused on their own personal agendas that they are not careful readers and make wild assumptions.”
Well this is the pot calling the kettle black. Ranieri’s “own personal agenda” is rather transparent (i.e. defend his calvinistic beliefs and attack the Traditionalist beliefs of Leighton Flowers).
“If I give you a choice between chocolate and vanilla but not the choice to reject either is this real LFW? I guess “Sophie’s Choice” is a movie no one remembers. And I am certainly not going to defend LFW by defending Hiroshima and Nagasaki!”
Wait a minute play back the tape on this one. Ranieri wrote in another post:
““And vice versa, if I am given a plethora of choices but they are all negative are these real choices? Is “Sophie’s Choice” a true libertarian free choice?”
I took this to be a question about whether a choice can be a genuine choice if all of the options involved appear to be negative. I responded with:
“Yes, most people are aware that in this fallen world, at times, we have to choose between two options and both are not “positive”. A classic illustration was the decision of whether or not to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. If they did not, many ground forces would have died trying to take Japan, if they did then thousands of civilians would be killed or harmed (either way the choice was negative, many would die with either choice).”
One need not be a non-Calvinist to understand this point about available choices in a fallen world. I gave a famous example where the available choices all appear to be negative.
Ranieri says “And I am certainly not going to defend LFW by defending Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” I really was not defending LFW, I was dealing with HIS question about whether or not we have a genuine choice if all of the available options appear to be negative. You don’t have to even hold to LFW to grant that in this fallen world sometimes we have a genuine choice and all of the choices are “negative.” In ethics they talk about the lesser of evils concept.
“Compatiblism, and there for Calvinism, have always supported a range of limited choices.”
No one argues for human persons having unlimited choices.
“Calvinists believe the man’s free will, and his range of choices, are limited and determined by his fallen nature.”
There is no such thing as a “fallen nature” that acts as an entity in the world causing events (including choices). That is a cop out. The “fallen nature” does not determine anything as it is not an existing entity that has causal power. If we ask concrete questions about this supposed entity called the “fallen nature” we quickly see that it does not exist (e.g. what size is this fallen nature? Where is it located? How does it cause events to occur in the world? What kinds of events can it cause? Can it be destroyed or modified? Etc. etc. If the questions sound absurd, they are because they commit the error of category confusion, like asking “how heavy is the color blue?, how long is the color yellow?)
“Now, original sin is a related issue but the foundation is whether Adam’s decedents—that’s all mankind—have the ability refrain from sinning through their own volition.”
I doubt this is much of an issue as virtually everyone believes that mankind is fallible and sinful and incapable of never sinning in this life.
“Apart from regeneration man must have the ability to accept or reject God. This is were the classic Arminian brings in prevenient grace. As for the Traditionalist this is still a mystery to me.”
Not sure what the mystery is, as Traditionalists deny the calvinistic conception of total depravity. Leighton in particular has been very clear about this on this blog. Now you may not agree with Leighton, but again, if you want to understand his view, you have to fairly and accurately represent it (and in his view there is no fallen nature that prevents people from choosing to trust in Christ, or put another way, Leighton denies inability).
“And finally, to say the LFW is the ability to do otherwise and then make a myriad of qualifications and exceptions, as most libertarians do, is one of the main reasons I reject it.”
Most libertarians start with the basic conception of LFW as involving the ability to do otherwise, as a situation where a person has a genuine choice from at least two different options, both of which are available and accessible to the person. The “qualifications and exceptions” come in because human choosing is contextual and effected by various factors.
To take one example, what a person is aware of and not aware of influences his/her range of choices. If you don’t know about the “big sale” at such and such store, why would you choose to go to that store to save money at the sale? We all know this. We treat people differently when they are sick or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We speak of “diminished capacity”. Fact is, everybody in real life speaks of choices with “qualifications and exceptions”. Same is true of compatibilists as well. Look at their writings and you see “qualifications and exceptions” being discussed (e.g. a big one is the issue of coercion, was the person under coercion when making their choice?). If you are going to reject a person’s view because they make qualifications and exceptions, then you will ****have to reject every view****, both LFW and compatibilism, because everyone understands choices do not occur in a vacuum, they occur with lots of factors being involved. And if you discuss these factors you will find yourself discussing “qualifications and exceptions”.
“Sorry but I guess I’m just out of the loop.”
From your comments it appears that either you do not know what people believe in this area or you for whatever reason(s) are mistaken about what the concepts such as determinism, LFW, compatibilism, hard and soft determinism, etc. mean in their standard usage.
“I’ve never heard or read (until now) that the ability to choose otherwise “only” means that a person has a range of limited choices.”
You don’t have to believe me, just ask someone like Alvin Plantinga, yourself.
“Once again, if this is the case then why are we arguing?”
I said it before and it bears repeating, the real issues of contention occur when you start speaking not of the simple capacity to make choices from among alternatives: but from discussing why one choice is part of a person’s range of choices and another is not (e.g. why is the choice to choose to trust Christ for salvation not available to the nonbeliever? At least that is a point of contention made by calvinists based on their belief that total depravity eliminates this choice from the range of choices of the unbeliever, calvinists will speak of how the nonbeliever can choose this and this sin, but they cannot choose to trust in Christ for salvation unless regenerated first, well that whole disagreement goes to what is within the range of choices for the nonbeliever and why?).
“I agree that the main argument is about puppets and robots.”
Actually one of the arguments is whether or not exhaustive determinism makes people appear to be no different from puppets or robots (with compatibilists saying it does not, libertarians saying ED eliminates genuine free will and so makes people into puppets and robots).
“But I’m trying to explore and understand some of the distinctives. Perhaps I am going outside the official nomenclature.”
That is where you have to be very careful. The so-called “official nomenclature” serves a very useful purpose, mainly so that when we speak of X, we are operating from the same meaning of X. If we are not, then confusion and talking past each other will occur. The same is true with all ordinary language use. If by the word “Yes” I mean “I agree with you” and you mean the opposite “I disagree with you”. How can we carry on a rational and fruitful conversation? If this is true with ordinary conversation, how much more is this true with issues of debate and disagreement? It is especially true when debating an issue, if the terms do not have the same meaning for those involved, the debate/discussion is useless. So there is nothing wrong with using the standard meanings or “official nomenclature”.
“And I do disagree with some of the standard Calvinist and free will philosophy apologetics.”
Nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as you are in fact talking about the same things and presenting what others believe accurately and fairly.
“But robots and computers also have a range of choices and I don’t know about you but, regardless of Star Trek, I contend that robots don’t have free will—even compatibilist free will!”
My understanding is that when speaking of free will we are usually speaking of conscious persons, not things. A robot or computer is a thing ****without consciousness**** not a person. Now Star Trek did get into this discussion by its inclusion of “Data” an android who possessed both consciousness and seemed to function as a person. This was one of the main points of discussion in the series, was “Data” a person? How was he different from a human person? If you go back and watch the show, as he possessed consciousness and had and made choices he appeared to be experiencing LFW. Others did not treat him as **thing** but as a person. Others held him responsible for his choices. We **do not hold things responsible** for events they cause (we don’t get made at our car and “say bad car, why did you do that?”, unless we are delusional!), we hold only persons responsible (or in the case of animals, we hold them responsible when they appeared to make a choice that they did not have to make, we scold a dog for doing its thing on the carpet instead of outside). A simple robot or computer WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS is very different from “Data”. One of the main points of contention between non-Calvinists and calvinists is that the non-Calvinists are convinced that if ED is true, this eliminates people from being genuine persons with genuine choices, they instead seem to operate like robots or computers.
Robert writes, “Traditionalists deny the calvinistic conception of total depravity.”
As an aside and not to sidetrack discussion, I made this point at SBCToday and was excommunicated for doing so. While it is true that Dr. Flowers denies this, I am not sure that all those who call themselves Traditionalists have figured out that they must do so also (or else follow those like Brian who advocate some form of open future).
Well, I see Robert is back to his bloviating best.
To date, Robert has left 12 comments on this particular thread. The word count for each is as follows…
647
669
375
181
845
336
1,688
1,336
814
223
448
1,757
At SBC Today, they have guidelines to prevent such abusive behavior. One of the “rules” at SBCT is no comment can be over 500 words and no one is allowed to post consecutive lengthy comments (another “rule”). If applied here, only 5 of Robert’s posts would have been allowed.
To put this in perspective, all of Robert’s comments combined come to a staggering word count total of 9,319. Leighton’s article, in its entirety, only comes to 4,327.
In one of his overly lengthy posts Robert wrote….
“I am not even going to waste time trying to show how messed up these comments are.”
Thank God. If he had we would have certainly died from boredom, if not old age.
I was even thinking, just yesterday, “my, Phillip hasn’t commented lately”, until now:
Phillip writes:
“Well, I see Robert is back to his bloviating best.”
Boy Phillip really likes that word “bloviating”, he has been using it in his last posts. I don’t know anyone else who uses that word.
Is Phillip trying to impress us perhaps?
“To date, Robert has left 12 comments on this particular thread. The word count for each is as follows…”
It is too bad that Phillip doesn’t have better things to do with his limited time then do word counts on my posts. Pretty pathetic life if that is how he gets his kicks.
I really can’t complain however, in the past Phillip repeatedly claimed that I was a Pharisee, unsaved, and all sorts of nasty personal attacks. Apparently he’s cleaned up his act and he is “maturing” in his faith, as now instead of making personal attacks he is reduced to doing word counts on my posts and using his favorite word “bloviating”. If that is his worst current personal attack, the best that he can do, that I am “bloviating”, I guess that is progress so I really shouldn’t complain. 🙂
Bro. D in a recent post here said that we should speak the truth (“Let us strive to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”). He also asked: “Does a true follower of Jesus Christ speak half-truths, while obfuscating the whole truth?Answer: Not if he truly honors Christ.”
Rhutchin is lying.
He writes:
[[Robert writes, “Traditionalists deny the calvinistic conception of total depravity.”
As an aside and not to sidetrack discussion, I made this point at SBCToday and was excommunicated for doing so.”]]
Rhutchin was not banned from posting at SBC Today for merely pointing out that Traditionalists deny the calvinistic conception of total depravity.
Other Calvinists have made this claim and they were not banned.
One of the things regularly discussed there is that Traditionalists do not hold the calvinistic conception of total depravity. And that is Ok, that is one perfectly acceptable view, it also in itself does not make you a “Pelagian.”
No, he was banned from posting there because he repeatedly kept claiming that SBC Traditionalists were PELAGIANS. He was openly and publicly warned three times directly by Rick Patrick one of the moderators to cease and desist from doing this. Each time he ignored the warnings, kept claiming that they were Pelagians and so he was banned.
Robert writes, “No, he was banned from posting there because he repeatedly kept claiming that SBC Traditionalists were PELAGIANS.”
At it’s heart is the Pelagian denial of Total Depravity. I said that Traditionlists would be Pelagian if they denied Total Depravity and none really tried to explain they were not. At the least, a person ought to be able to defend their own beliefs – which few on the non-Calvinist side seem able to do.
Robert writes…
“I really can’t complain however, in the past Phillip repeatedly claimed that I was a Pharisee, unsaved, and all sorts of nasty personal attacks.”
I have already addressed this a number of times. It appears Robert’s writing skills are only surpassed by his reading skills. Providing the word count for Robert’s comments takes only a few minutes; about a fraction of the time it takes to read just one of his comments.
Robert writes (to Bro D regarding rhutchin)…
“Rhutchin is lying.”
Perhaps the “nasty personal attacks” Robert was alluding to is when one calls another brother in Christ a liar.
And with two more posts with a word count of 199 and 217, Robert’s staggering word count total is now up to 9,735. At this pace, Robert should surpass the Dow Jones Industrial Average (20,981.33) soon.
Actually, the identification of what might be best characterized as “flirting with dishonesty” on rhutchin’s part, has been sighted by numerous Christian participants at SOT101, both ongoing, and by visitors who have come, engaged in dialog, and perhaps not returned.
Robert was simply referring to a post I made in that ongoing acknowledgement, although the word “liar” hasn’t come up before.
Romans 2:4-11 In verse 4 Paul speaks of God’s “riches of goodness, forbearance and long suffering ” and they don’t know that the ” goodness of God” leads them to repentance. Are we going to say that the “riches of his goodness” is not rich enough to bring about repentance? Are we also going to say that God is leading them to repent yet refusing to give them a heart to repent therefore making God to have two wills for the same people ,leading them to repent but not allowing them to repent. Verse 5 speaks plainly it is THEIR hard and impentant heart that treasures up wrath against them. This puts the fault directly on them because they did respond to the “riches of his goodness” . Now verse 7 speaks of another group who are ” by patient continuance In well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life”. Does it say they were doing this because God gave them a new heart or are we to simply understand they were responding to the “riches of his goodness”? Back to the other group, verse 8 they are contentious, do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” ,look what is coming their way, ” indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” Now back to other group verse 10 “glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good”. We see there are only 2 groups and both are found in Jew and Gentiles alike . In verse 11 it is declared there is no respect of persons with God, certainly this would shock the Jew who thought the Gentiles were not included to receive the “riches of his goodness”. So we see it Is God who first offers the “riches of his goodness” to Jew and Gentile and it us who must respond by LFW (granted, ordained and created in us by God who made us in his image) . Yes sin entered the world and the human race by the fall of Adam but where in scripture does it say in the fall man lost his LFW to respond to the “riches of his goodness”? To glory of God alone!!!
Very well said and interpreted according to context, Brent. And the words “disobeyed” in verse 8 are better translated as “unpersuaded”, which points I believe to them having recognized but freely rejected the truth that God had led them to know about Himself and their need to repent and seek His mercy.
brianwagner writes, “…which points I believe to them having recognized but freely rejected the truth that God had led them to know about Himself and their need to repent and seek His mercy.”
Which seems to be Paul’s argument in chap 1. Among atheists are many Bible scholars, as many atheists come out of a religious background. I suspect a great many atheists have a better knowledge of the Scriptures than many who profess to be believers.
Thus, the author of Hebrews exhorts believers, “Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God,” and “indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.” What, then, is the plight of non-believers to whom no faith has been given?
Actually those warned in Hebrews 4 had never yet entered God’s salvation rest, nor had the ceased from their works… just like their Jewish forefathers who perished in unbelief in the wilderness. They refused to mix with faith the gospel that was preached to them. It was their fault… They had no excuse, like – “But God… we couldn’t believe the gospel we heard, because You didn’t give us the ability through regeneration or the gift of faith we needed… But You’re still going to judge us? Really?”
In Calvinism, everything boils down to whatever the deity specifically decrees it to be, logically entailing the authorship of evil.
But the God of the bible is not irresponsible, hiding behind compulsory defense arguments made by minuscule men.
The God of the bible bears full responsibility for whatever He does.
A theology of man however, that creates an image of God as the author of evil, would certainly have to go on the defense, and create a multitude of convoluted, hyper religious, evasive, obfuscating, defense arguments.
That is how we know it is of man.
br.d writes, “In Calvinism, everything boils down to whatever the deity specifically decrees it to be, logically entailing the authorship of evil.”
Do you have the logical argument that supports your conclusion – “logically entailing the authorship of evil”? My suspicion is, No.
Then, “The God of the bible bears full responsibility for whatever He does.”
And man must bear full responsibility for whatever he does.
rhutchin writes “Do you have the logical argument that supports your conclusion – “logically entailing the authorship of evil”? My suspicion is, No.”
Again, he simply chooses to ignore talents provided by others, including William Lane Craig, Peter Van Inwagen, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zacharias, etc..etc.
He then MAKES BELIEVE no logical arguments have been made.
Take the talent from him, and give it to the faithful servant. For to everyone who is faithful with what he has been given, will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who is unfaithful, even what he has will be taken away.
br.d writes, “He then MAKES BELIEVE no logical arguments have been made.”
Since you don’t know the argument personnally, maybe you could provide a citation where it can be found.
rhutchin you are a virtual manufacturing plant of strawmen. 😛
brianwagner writes, “They refused to mix with faith the gospel that was preached to them.”
And as Paul explains in Ephesians 2, faith is a gift from God. Had God given them faith, they would then have mixed it with the gospel and been saved.
Then, “They had no excuse, like – “But God… we couldn’t believe the gospel we heard, because You didn’t give us the ability through regeneration or the gift of faith we needed… But You’re still going to judge us? Really?””
Such is the pride of sinful man to argue that God owed them mercy for their sins and not judgment. Had they been serious, they would have confessed they depravity and unworthiness for mercy and trusted God to save them and to accept their well earned punishment if He did not.
God doesn’t owe mercy… He owes His nature not to falsely offer mercy or falsely command repentance or to create those after His image just to watch them unjustly suffer in hell forever because of Adam’s sin.
brianwagner writes, “God doesn’t owe mercy… ”
You had set up the hypothetical: the unsaved (of Hebrews 4) did not have the excuse you described. However, as God gives faith, their lack of faith would mean that God had not given them faith. Thus, they would actually make the excuse you described. To do so would have been the epitome of pride and given that pride is a distinctive characteristic of the unsaved, I think they could easily take your hypothetical excuse and argue it, just not successfully.
Then, “He owes His nature not to falsely offer mercy or falsely command repentance or to create those after His image just to watch them unjustly suffer in hell forever because of Adam’s sin.”
Alternatively, as Paul put it, “God said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy…Therefore God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.”
Hebrews 4 does not say they didn’t have the ability to exercise faith… it says when they heard the gospel they didn’t mix it with faith, which a normal reader would assume would have been possible since they were judged for not doing so. But Calvinists are not normal readers, for they must make each passage fit their determinism perspective. That is pride, in my view.
And Praise the Lord that He promises to have mercy and compassion on whom He should have mercy and compassion… consistent not only with His nature, but the clarity of His Word… He has it on ALL! Rom 11:32
brianwagner writes, “Hebrews 4 does not say they didn’t have the ability to exercise faith… it says when they heard the gospel they didn’t mix it with faith, which a normal reader would assume would have been possible since they were judged for not doing so.”
We read that the hearing of the gospel did not profit them (or had no value to them) because it was not mixed with faith. The point of the author (one view) is that the readers have been given a faith that they can then mix with the gospel and enter the rest God has prepared for them. Without faith, those in the wilderness then disobeyed God by refusing to enter the promised land (God’s rest) – but what other outcome might we expect where faith is absent.
People are judged for their sin even though the ability to resist temptation and not sin requires that one have faith and faith is a gift from God.The writer of Hebrews is emphasising the grace of God toward his readers through the faith that has been given to them which they are now able to mix with the gospel to enter God’s rest.
Then, “Calvinists are not normal readers, for they must make each passage fit their determinism perspective. That is pride, in my view.”
Calvinists are not normal readers in that they have a different worldview that sees consistency within the Scriptures. You see pride, but the Calvinist see themselves as Bereans who receive the Scriptures with all readiness of mind, and search the scriptures daily, to determine whether the things Brian says about them are consistent with those Scriptures. You see pride; they see good scholarship.
Then, “Praise the Lord that He promises to have mercy and compassion on whom He should have mercy and compassion… consistent not only with His nature, but the clarity of His Word… He has it on ALL! Rom 11:32”
“God said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy…as you [Gentiles] in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through [the Jews] unbelief: Even so have these [Jews] also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded all [both Jew and Gentile] in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all [both Jew and Gentile].” Praise the Lord for the clarity of His word.
Roger, Jews and Gentiles have always been getting saved since creation. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel and the other nations in Rom 11… because His plan has always been to offer salvation mercy to everyone. I am sorry that you can not see that truth as flowing from His character as clearly revealed in Scripture.
The Bereans in searching the Scripture will see that it is so that God has predetermined things so that each man should seek and might find Him (Acts 17:26-27, Job 33:29-30, John 1:9, Rom 1, 2, 10:18)… This is the consistency of Scriptures that Calvinism must seek to reject by imposing their definitions about determinism borrowed from philosophy and then make unwarranted inferences from proof texts that don’t follow the normal grammar and word meanings in those contexts.
brianwagner writes, “Jews and Gentiles have always been getting saved since creation.”
Yet, Paul writes, “…you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,…”
Then, “Paul is talking about the nation of Israel and the other nations in Rom 11… because His plan has always been to offer salvation mercy to everyone.”
That’s the conclusion I came to – thus, my use of [Jew and Gentile]. At least, we both agree God has a plan and is sticking to it.
Then, “This is the consistency of Scriptures that Calvinism must seek to reject by imposing their definitions about determinism borrowed from philosophy and then make unwarranted inferences from proof texts that don’t follow the normal grammar and word meanings in those contexts.”
Calvinism’s doctrine of determinism was stated by Calvin in his treatise on Predestination – “But as it would be utterly absurd to hold, that anything could be done contrary to the will of God; seeing that God is at Divine liberty to prevent that which He does not will to be done.”
Jordan Ferrier, who wrote the introduction, “Since God is Omnipotent and Sovereign, He is free to over-rule any decision or action of any of His creatures at any time. If God chooses not to over-rule His creature, then God permitted the decision or action: Calvin quotes Augustine: “Nothing, therefore, is done, but that which the Omnipotent willed to be done, either by permitting it to be done, or by doing it Himself.”
I am confident you know the Scriptures that are cited in support of this conclusion.
The problem with your quotes, Roger, on determinism is that that are nebulous enough that I can make the wording fit what God’s Word teaches while know that Calvin and the others don’t mean that at all! None of those statements clearly declare the eternal immutable determination of all things so that God’s free will (if it exists) will ever be exercised to permit anything. Even permission is only theoretical since there was predetermined only one reflex of man to every stimuli put before him. I will stick with Scripture which clearly teaches that everything was not predetermined before creation so that the future is only one set outcome forever.
I think this may the Calvinist pin-ball affect.
The Calvinist knows that if his language remains true to determinism, its deviation from the language of scripture will be evident.
So like a pin-ball, he bounces back to “indeterministic” language, in order to mimic the language of scripture.
brianwagner writes, ” None of those statements clearly declare the eternal immutable determination of all things…”
“Eternal” was not the issue. “Determination” is the issue. You may continue to believe that all was not determined before creation as it doesn’t matter. God is sovereign and under your theology or mine, He still exerts absolute control over His kingdom and the outcome is the same either way.
The total outcome is not yet determined and there are multiple good outcomes available. Calvinism locks God into only one because or their unScriptural doctrine or simplicity and perfection that is only defined as eternal immutable determination of all things against the clear teaching of Scripture. Deny as you will… Roger… dem is the facts! 😉
“God is at Divine liberty to prevent that which He does not will to be done.”
rhutchin, have you noticed you consistently frame god as if he is anthropomorphic.
This statement is a good example.
In a world in which no event can have ontological existence unless God wills it too, we have here the notion of an event which God needs to prevent from occurring, which doesn’t have any ontological existence anyway.
That would be like God preventing a non-existent square circle from being a non-existent square circle.
Its just as irrational to say that God wanted an event to occur, which he then needed some kind of “liberty” to prevent.
If God is unlimited in power, he doesn’t need “liberty” to do anything.
And there is nothing for him to “prevent”, unless there’s another god up there with him causing events which he did not will to occur.
I would add to that:
Calvin asserts, the reason a person doesn’t have faith, is simply because god withholds it from them (by the secret councils of his will).
And god does not give or not give faith because of anything deserving or undeserving within the man (i.e., the condition of the man does not determine god’s will – god’s will determines the condition of the man)
Then it logically follows:
(1) Whatever determines X is responsible for X.
(2) It is antithetical to the bible to say someone is to be blamed for something he has no power to determine
The Calvinist interpretation forces them into a position of double-think. (in biblical language double-mindedness)
Calvinism is thus biblically and psychologically unstable
Additionally, it forces them to conceive a deity who speaks with forked tongue.
Thus we have depraved man, conceiving of a deity in the likeness of his own depravity.
William Lane Craig quote:
“God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame. I’m certain that Reformed determinists, in contrast to classical Reformed divines, will bristle at such a comparison. But why it’s inapt for the doctrine of universal, divine, causal determinism is a mystery to me.” http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism
Great points!
William Lane Craig would say, Calvinism imposes philosophical assertions onto the text.
But of course any critical analysis of Calvinism’s use of scripture is always aggressively rejected by those who strain at gnats while swallowing Augustine’s camel! 😉
br.d writes, “William Lane Craig would say, Calvinism imposes philosophical assertions onto the text.”
Could you provide examples from Craig of such philosophical assertions? Maybe something relevant to the present discussion.
What would you do with examples from Craig if you had them?
No need to answer, I already know 😉
br.d writes, “What would you do with examples from Craig if you had them?”
In other words, you have no example to offer.
Without realizing it, you gave your answer of what you would do with Craig’s (or anyone’s) contributions.
You ignore the main points and build convenient strawmen. 🙂
Remember the parable of the talents?
God doesn’t extend them to one he knows will only handle them with disrespect of pervert them.
Simple principle.
Brent Beauford writes, “Are we going to say that the “riches of his goodness” is not rich enough to bring about repentance?’
No, we see that such people have a decisions to make. What is the outcome, “…because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath…” It is by the “riches of His goodness” that unrepentant man is not immediately destroyed.
Then, “Are we also going to say that God is leading them to repent yet refusing to give them a heart to repent therefore making God to have two wills for the same people ,leading them to repent but not allowing them to repent”
It is not God leading people to repentance. It is the kindness of God in not immediately calling them to judgment thereby allowing time to repent. What kindness of God” does Paul have in view that “leads”? Back to Chap 1 – “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”
If it is true that God gives a person a heart to repent, do we presume God so inept in doing so that the person would not repent? Nothing here requires that God give people a heart to repent.
Then, “Verse 5 speaks plainly it is THEIR hard and impentant heart that treasures up wrath against them. This puts the fault directly on them because they did respond to the “riches of his goodness” .”
Showing us that God has not given them a heart to repent – the heart is still “hard” thus, unrepentant.
The, “Now verse 7 speaks of another group who are ” by patient continuance In well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life”. Does it say they were doing this because God gave them a new heart or are we to simply understand they were responding to the “riches of his goodness”?”
We don’t know. That information is not given. We must investigate other Scriptures to shed light on this.
Then, “So we see it Is God who first offers the “riches of his goodness” to Jew and Gentile and it us who must respond by LFW (granted, ordained and created in us by God who made us in his image) . Yes sin entered the world and the human race by the fall of Adam but where in scripture does it say in the fall man lost his LFW to respond to the “riches of his goodness”?”
The Scriptures say that man became dead when Adam sinned and his heart became hard. Thereby, faith was lost and not to be recovered until the gospel was preached and then conveyed only to the person by God as a gift.
It does not say here that God “offers” the riches of His goodness, bu that it is the riches of His goodness that allow the person time to repent.
You must get tired sometimes Roger working so hard to try make God’s mercy and kindness that is given to all seem insufficient and ineffective. That it provides all with opportunity to seek and helps lead them to repentance just won’t do. Are you afraid God might get some glory for something He doesn’t deserve?
brianwagner writes, “That it provides all with opportunity to seek and helps lead them to repentance just won’t do. ”
The key word here is “opportunity.” Lets grant that some avail themselves of that opportunity whereupon, God grants them faith and they are saved. At that point the Calvinist system kicks in and God selects from among those who squandered the opportunity and saves whom He will. Of course, as God has infinite understanding, He would have known who would take advantage of the opportunity (given the way He structured it) in the first place and then it would be His turn to save some exceptionally reprobate.
Then, “Are you afraid God might get some glory for something He doesn’t deserve?”
God gives the opportunity knowing who will accept that opportunity (not by omniscience but by understanding), so He gets the glory and then, in choosing who to save from the leftovers, He gets all the glory.
Interesting modification… But not quite there yet!
Not a modification. Let’s just grant your point and see if it accomplishes that which you want it to. The term, “opportunity,” is very nebulous and doesn’t appear to say very much. Why use a word like that? I think you need a stronger term to make your argument.
Strong enough for me! We can let others decide if it makes my argument, even if you don’t think it does. I thank the Lord Jesus that the good intention behind giving light to every one stands unapologetically against the storm of Calvinistic theology that attempts to lie against that intention. And it seems to be that they do it just to maintain their loyalty to immutable determinism that was spawned in the minds of unsaved men.
rhutchin writes concerning the works of god: “At that point the Calvinist system kicks in”
This is an excellent example of man sitting in the house of god declaring himself to be god. In this conception of divine action, god follows a processes called – quote “the Calvinist system”.
The Lord has a day for the proud and lofty, and those who are lifted upon in their own pride, for they shall be brought low.
RHUTCHIN writes “It is by the “riches of His goodness” that the unrepentant man is not immediately destroyed” Romans 2:4 does mention God’s forbearance and longsuffering but it does not say anything about unrepentant man not being immediately destroyed. It clearly says the “goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance”. Verse 5 tells us God’s wrath is held back unto the “day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God”. That is alot of forbearance and longsuffering while the goodness of God ieads them to repent.
Revelation 2:21 Speaking of Jezebel, says ” And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.” Why did she not repent? Was it because God gave her space but did not give her grace to repent? I think not, God did give space but she refused of her own free will. Think about this, if I gave someone 6 months to pay a debt but I had all the money in the world and they had none and the only way they could pay the debt was that I gave them the money, yet I refused. What would be the point of me giving them space to pay? Let us be careful how we represent GOD.
Some believe LFW was lost at the fall of Adam. After the fall, two sons were born, Cain and Abel. They brought offerings unto the Lord, Cain brought veggies and Abel brought firstlings of his flock. God had respect to Abel’s offering but not to Cain’s. Genesis 4:5……”.And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell”. verse 6 “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? verse 7 “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”
God did not tell Cain the only thing you can do are the not well things, a one sided free will. God made it clear to Cain, do well and be accepted or do not well and sin lieth at the door. I believe that by verse 7 ” If thou doest well” both sons knew what God required , a lamb offering, but as some people do, they think their veggies are good enough for God and become angry when God does not accept their works. Yes ,they trade the truth in for lies. So we see LFW after the fall, though it be the first example it certainly won’t be the last.
May we all seek to know the “I AM THAT I AM” as God told Moses. For God is not what I believe Him to be. He is who He is and none of us can change that. He is who He is as revealed by Holy Scripture. We have a great responsibility to represent Him correctly to a lost world and to help each other grow in the knowledge of God. I pray God help us. To God Be The Glory!!
Brent Beauford writes, “That is alot of forbearance and longsuffering while the goodness of God ieads them to repent.”
I agree. We marvel at God’s goodness toward sinful humanity and stand amazed that any would refuse such goodness and be lost forever.
Then, “What would be the point of me giving them space to pay? Let us be careful how we represent GOD.”
That is the argument advanced by the universalists. It would not bother me if the Universalists turned out to be right. It is hard to argue against the notion that a God of love could do none other than to save all.
Then, “Some believe LFW was lost at the fall of Adam.”
That’s because the definition of LFW has never really been defined except in very general terms. The Scriptures are clear that faith is required for one to be saved and no one is born with faith. So, if we grant that people still have LFW, the absence of faith means that lost humanity cannot even consider salvation much less have any choice about their salvation.
Then, “So we see LFW after the fall, though it be the first example it certainly won’t be the last.”
We know that Cain was without faith (attested by his sacrifice) and his depraved nature led to the killing of Abel. His LFW choice was reduced to kill or not kill. Are we surprised how the depraved Cain acted?
Then, “May we all seek to know the “I AM THAT I AM” as God told Moses.”
And God has expressed Himself clearly in the Scriptures that He inspired His prophets to record. So clear are those Scriptures that we must stand amazed that so many reject them as Paul describes in Romans 1.
Even though man is unable to “will” something to occur that is contrary to his nature, he can very much desire or wish for that very thing. Although it was contrary to David’s (and our) nature to fly like a bird, he very much wished he could do so (Psa 55:6). The same with salvation. No person can save himself or even “will” God to save him, but he can eagerly desire and accept the salvation God offers him.
Amen!!
For me the reason is a love that is so wonderful, it can be found nowhere else in the universe!!
Nobody loves me like the Lord does!!
The older I get, the more true it is.
Thanks for your great post! :-]
Timotheos, whereas I can appreciate your comment, I must respectfully reject its claims.
Firstly, you cannot separate the will from desire. Both God’s will and man’s will necessarily stem from their desires. In other words, what we will we ALWAYS desire.
Secondly, apart from God’s grace in gifting mankind both faith and repentance, mankind will NEVER desire salvation on God’s terms. Mankind will always seek a salvation that’s palatable to his/her sin nature. How does the Bible describe mankind’s desires before regeneration?
1) They hide from God (Gen 3:8)
2) They blame God for their sin (Gen 3:12)
3) They complain about God’s will (Num 14:2)
4) They hate their own Creator (Rom 1:30)
5) They despise His message (1 Cor 2:14)
6) They are hostile towards God (Rom 8:7)
So we see that mankind’s desires are ALWAYS negative towards God, thus they will NEVER desire His salvation plan outside of His supernatural working.
Timotheos writes, “No person can save himself or even “will” God to save him, but he can eagerly desire and accept the salvation God offers him.”
That is why, as the Universalists tell us, all will be saved. It is that eager desire that guarantees the acceptance of salvation.
How can unregenerate man desire salvation if he deems foolish the only message that will brings him salvation?
It’s a mystery. The interesting point is that non-Calvinists always seem to appeal to Universalist arguments to explain how unregenerate people are saved even when they don’t believe all people will be saved. Then then leave God out of the picture as a cause for unregenerate people “eagerly” desiring salvation claiming that it just somehow happens. Of course, some unregenerate people seem to really “eagerly desire” salvation moreso than others, and they are the ones whom God saves – really real eagerness for salvation being a prerequisite for salvation. It’s part of the double-think system parched together by non-Calvinists as they went down the cafeteria line.
Hi Troy,
Thank you for your post.
I have a question….if all of man’s motivations are based upon desires that are antithetical to god, do you find you can observe on a daily basis what percentage of your personal motivations are antithetical to god or equally anti-Christ?
Thanks in advance.
br.d
I’m sure you know that the answer to your question is impossible to answer since we cannot possibly know what percentage of our motivations are pleasing to God and which are not. But I’m not sure how your question relates to my previous comment.
However, I’m quite sure that man’s desires before regeneration are DOMINATED by his sinful nature; so much so that they hate God and don’t want His Gospel.
Praise the Lord for the power of His light that He gives to every man, enabling them to seek Him!
Well I’m sure you already know what I think about that statement Brian. But do we really want to praise God for a heretical teaching. This is some serious stuff brother.
Praise God that – John 1:4-9 Life was in Him, and that life was the light of MEN. That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness DID NOT overcome it. There was a man named John who was sent from God. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that ALL might believe through him…. The true light, who gives light to EVERYONE, was coming into the world.
brianwagner writes, “John 1:4-9 Life was in Him, and that life was the light of MEN. The true light, who gives light to EVERYONE, was coming into the world. ”
The terms, “men” and “Everyone” need only refer to the gentile as well as the Jew as this seems to be a theme of John. God so loved the world – not just the Jews but the gentiles also – that He sent His son to give eternal life to those Jews and gentiles who believe thereby leaving unbelievers to fend for themselves.
See above that “everyone” in John 1:9 means clearly “each one”.
“each one” for whom the Gospel is intended!!
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”
John 3:20
Unfortunately, Troy you continue to ignore the plain meaning of verses… Jesus is the true light that gives light to each man that comes into the world… you can ask Him why He does that… though He said why two verses before… that all may believe through Him. And the word in Acts 17 should not be translated “grope”… for it is the same word used for Jesus asking Thomas to touch Him! The context plainly says what God does and why He does it… so that man should seek and touch and find!
And you took one verse out of context to try to prove that no one seeks before regeneration… but the context is Jesus giving truth/light to an unregenerate man – Nicodemus, to get him to “do” that truth. You didn’t quote the very next verse after the one you tried to prove too much from… – John 3:21 says “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” It is just very sad that you do not want to believe God wants His light to shine on everyone to draw them to an opportunity to seek and find Him. But the Scriptures are clear that He does!
I’m so sorry Brian but you are unwilling to accept God’s salvation plan. But as I stated before, you must struggle with this sir
Also, Brian the context of Acts 17:27 demonstrates mankind seeking God as if their groping or trying to feel for Him in darkness. The fact remains that this verse doesn’t support your view of a general enlightenment. It actually conveys the idea of mankind seeking after an unknown God as stated in v23. This is why we have so many religions today because people are seeking to find God on their terms; not on God’s terms. But they will NEVER find Him.
I’m sure that your theory of general enlightenment gives you a certain level of comfort because it supports YOUR view of God and man’s autonomous free will. However, I’m quite sadden that the truth is hidden from your eyes and, thus you will be held accountable for teaching heresy. I apologize if I’m coming across as condescending because that’s not my intention. However, I’m a stickler for careful Bible study and teaching because I know that God holds me to a higher standard as a student/teacher of His Word.
Troy, God’s intentions are clearly written even if you do not want to admit it! He commands everyone, everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). His universal commands and warnings clearly reveal what He wants everyone to do. He is still planning (present tense) that all come to a opportunity of repentance (2Pet 3:9), so yes, all the light He has been giving and is giving to every person is to get them to seek and find! You just don’t seem to think it is honoring to God to allow His intentions to be rejected! (See Is 5:1-4)
Paul in Acts 17:26-27 is talking about what the real God has done/planned with the clear purpose of man being enabled to seek and touch and find. If you want to believe God does not have that purpose and did not adequately provide for it, you can continue to ignore what this passage clearly means or twist its meaning more as others have done.
Paul said they all have heard (Rom 10:18), and Elihu in the book of Job says the same thing – Job 33:29-30. And, of course, you know what John says, even though your keep rejecting its clear meaning – The true Light, our Lord Jesus, gives light to each person who is coming into the world.
Again, I am sorry that you refuse to give God all the glory due Him for His wonderful mercy to each born in His image. I will be praying for you, my brother…
I may not be the one the Lord wants to use to help you any further to see this… so for now at least, we can let others read what our conversation has been so far. Please have the last word in this thread between us, if you wish!
God commands that His disciples be perfect as He is perfect in Matthew 5:48. God gave mankind the 10 commandments KNOWING that they could not keep them. In other words, the fact that God gives commands (i.e. to repent) does not mean that mankind has the ability to obey that command. Put another way, the ability to obey a command should never be assumed just because the command is issued.
Let’s exegete 2 Peter 3:9 to see if God has every person in view there..
The passage says, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” We can glean the following from this passage:
1) What is the “promise”? Is it not God’s promise of salvation?
2) For whom is the promise intended? Is it not for the elect?
3) Who are the “you”? Is it not the same “beloved” of v1?
4) So we can safely conclude that God’s patience is reserved for His beloved (the elect) as He’s patiently waiting for all of them to come to repentance which is part of His promise to save them.
5) If God were patient wishing that all (without exception) would come to repentance, then He would NEVER return because the promise would NEVER be realized. The promise is that all the elect would come to repentance. Every human being is NOT in view in this verse.
You stated, “You just don’t seem to think it is honoring to God to allow His intentions to be rejected!” God’s intentions will ALWAYS be fulfilled. He will ALWAYS accomplish HIS purposes. Man cannot thwart His decree. We are mere creatures in the hands of a loving, holy, angry, vengeful, jealous God. This God has arranged a salvation plan for His own purpose and only His elect will reap the rewards that stem from it. This is a hard saying but it’s true nonetheless.
Acts 17:26,27 does prove that “the real God” has put in mankind a knowledge of His existence. But He is the “UNKNOWN GOD” to them UNLESS He DECIDES to reveal Himself to them. Otherwise, they will seek for Him in vain!
In Romans 10:18 Paul is speaking of the Great Commission being fulfilled. He’s quoting an Old Testament passage and relating it to the Great Commission and speaking in past tense to demonstrate as if it has already occurred. Otherwise, he would be lying because the Great Commission was in its infancy when he wrote his letter to Rome.
Job 33:29,30 rebuts your theory Brian. God must do an action first (i.e. bringing one from the pit) and THEN God enlightens mankind. Job reinforces the fact that God must do the action of regeneration (bring back from the pit) FIRST and then the enlightenment takes place. One must be born again via the Holy Spirit applying the Gospel to the hearts of mankind. There is no “general enlightenment” brother. Enlightenment ALWAYS leads to genuine salvation!!
Have a blessed Lord’s Day brother!
brianwagner writes, “Jesus is the true light that gives light to each man that comes into the world…”
We also know that “In [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men.” It is the life of Christ that is light and those who see that light – that life – are enlightened. The means for giving light to anyone is the preaching of the gospel. We also read in 2 Corinthians 4, “…the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…” When someone hears the gospel and does not believe, they are like the rocky ground upon which the seed falls and the birds eat it. Jesus then explains, “when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.” Thus, Christ is the light of men and it is in seeing Christ that people are enlightened. Yet, not everyone hears the gospel and not all who hear the gospel are enlightened. Apart from the preaching of the gospel – the preaching of Christ – there can be no enlightenment. Brian is looking for some other means outside the preaching of the gospel for people to be enlightened but has been unable to find any as the Scriptures are all about Christ and the gospel. Apart from Christ, there is no light.
Yes rhutchin, Brian and those who espouse his teaching are desperately trying to preserve man’s autonomous free will by presenting a theory of general enlightenment for every human being but the verses he provides simply don’t support his view.
We all have presuppositions when we approach Scripture. The question is which presuppositions are faithful to ALL that Scripture has to say on a particular doctrine. When we examine what/who the Light is in Scripture we discover that it’s a reference to either Christ or His message and that the light saves those for whom it was intended and is hated and rejected by all others. Brian and His Traditionalists friends are desperately trying to fit certain Scriptures within their theological construct but tota scriptura just won’t support it.
“Everyone” includes natural man BEFORE regeneration
brianwagner writes, “Praise the Lord for the power of His light that He gives to every man, enabling them to seek Him!”
I don’t think the Scriptures necessarily tell us that light is given to every individual. That light – assuming that it is a knowledge of Christ – comes through the preaching of the gospel and not everyone hears the gospel preached. Even among those who do attend a service )or other venue) where the gospel is preached, it is not necessarily so that ll in attendance “hear” the gospel and therefore receive light. Had God not opened the heart of Lydia, could we say that she received light?
John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
The phrase “every man” is from παντα ανθρωπον – literally – “each human”.
The statement – “I don’t think the Scriptures necessarily tell us that light is given to every individual” is obviously false.
brianwagner writes, “The statement – “I don’t think the Scriptures necessarily tell us that light is given to every individual” is obviously false.”
So, your position is that every individual is given light regardless whether they even hear the gospel or ever know who anything about Christ. Thus, under your system, the light given to each person has nothing to do with the gospel or with Christ.
Brian,
rhuthins question here is such a red-herring rabbit-hole, personally, I won’t bother to take the bait.
Blessings!
br.d :-]
Roger, The light is directly related to leading to finding God and trusting His mercy (cf Act 17:26-27)… which is the core of the gospel. So you are wrong and have misrepresented my words and the words of Scripture when you said – “Thus, under your system, the light given to each person has nothing to do with the gospel or with Christ.” You are forgetting that it is the “true Light” that is giving the light to each person. Why do you think Jesus does it? The context says why – “so that all through Him might believe” (vs 7). I am so sorry that you don’t seem to want God to be so gracious with everyone! I praise His name that He is!
Brian you have yet to give any meaningful exegesis in support of your idea that the Light refers to a “generic enlightenment” or “opportunity/ability”. On the other hand, the Scriptures are clear that the Light is Christ Himself or His Gospel. The Scriptures also teach that unregenerate mankind HATES and REJECTS the Light, which means the Light was never intended to enlighten every person.
Brian your enlightenment THEORY is untenable sir!
brianwagner writes, “you are wrong and have misrepresented my words and the words of Scripture when you said – “Thus, under your system, the light given to each person has nothing to do with the gospel or with Christ.””
OK. How is light given to everyone? Is it given through preaching of the gospel or without hearing the gospel? Can a person be given this light without first hearing about Christ. If you really mean that light is given to everyone, then you cannot be saying that it comes through the preaching/hearing of the gospel because not everyone hears the gospel, preached or otherwise, and you cannot require that a person must first hear about Christ because not everyone has heard about Christ.
Rhutchin it’s clear to me that Brian is trying to fit Acts 17:26,27 into his theological construct but it just doesn’t fit. Acts 17 doesn’t even give a hint of enlightenment. In fact, it proves the exact opposite as mankind is “groping” for God. When do people “grope” after something? When they’re STILL in darkness. This passage only proves that mankind is searching for an unknown God as expressed in v23 of the same passage. Those who are seeking after God in v27 will NEVER find Him UNLESS God FIRST reveals Himself to them! Brian is simply stretching this verse to prove his theory of enlightenment. Unfortunately for him, he chose a passage that only proves that mankind is still in darkness, groping after the UNKNOWN GOD!!
Troy writes, “…it’s clear to me that Brian is trying to fit Acts 17:26,27 into his theological construct but it just doesn’t fit. Acts 17 doesn’t even give a hint of enlightenment….Brian is simply stretching this verse to prove his theory of enlightenment.”
Acts 17
24 “The God who made the world and all things in it,…
26 …He made from [Adam], every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation,
27 that they should seek God,…
30 “…God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
If one emphasizes the free will of man, then this should be a key verse. This describes the “opportunity” that Brian says God gives to every person. There is nothing here about “enlightenment,” and much about responsibility. The point here is that God has arranged circumstances (as Romans 1) so that people should seek Him. God wants everyone to repent. God leaves people to their free will. Romans 1 describes what people of free will choose to do. If this is all that Brian means by enlightenment, then he advocates nothing more than that which Paul explained in Romans 1 (with this Scripture adding to the argument that Paul made in Romans 1).
God commands everyone (without exception) to repent. This is true. However, He only intends for His people to actually do it. 2 Peter 3:9 proves this point as His promise of salvation is only meant for His people and He’s patiently waiting until they all come to repentance and faith.
The question, Roger, should not be asked – “How is light given to everyone?” Rejoice instead that it is given to each person! And believe that it is given to each person to do what it was designed to do… to lead people to seek and trust the truth revealed. Look at John 1:7 again. Again I say that it saddens me that you do not want to believe God gives everyone the opportunity to seek and find Him, and even in spite of the clear biblical support for that truth!
Brian what really saddens you is the fact that God doesn’t and never INTENDED to give every person an opportunity for salvation because millions have perished without so much as knowing that a Gospel even exists. This is something that YOU must struggle with my friend!
Hi Troy,
I hope you don’t mind if I say so…but I’m not sure a human being can make this claim.
None of us know all of the means that God uses to bring people to himself, which may include pre-death or after-death experiences.
We do have testimonies from unsaved people who died in hospitals and came back saying they met Jesus and became saved.
So I know I wouldn’t be confident saying that someone who doesn’t hear the gospel is doomed.
With all due respect br.d, your perspective violates so many verses of Scripture that I would be surprised if your were a faithful student of the Bible. God has outlined the means by which all men can be saved and that means involves exposure to the Gospel and the application of the message to the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit.
Thank you Troy,
With all due respect Troy I suspect what I violated was nothing more than a human tradition.
The vast majority of the time someone claims to be defending scripture it turns out to be a false presentation of ex cathedra.
Can you be specific about what scripture is violated and how?
brianwagner writes, “The question…should not be asked – “How is light given to everyone?” ”
That means that the Scriptures do not say this outright (at least, you have not discovered where it does, yet), so you need to presume this to be the case because that is the way your system works. That’s fine. For now, it’s a weak point in your system.
Then, “Again I say that it saddens me that you do not want to believe God gives everyone the opportunity to seek and find Him, and even in spite of the clear biblical support for that truth!””
I have no problem attributing to God the responsibility to give everyone the opportunity to seek Him and find Him. If God discriminates, in some manner, in favor of His elect, then that would explain why His elect take advantage of that opportunity (the Calvinist conclusion). If God gives equal opportunity to seek Him, then another explanation is needed to account for some seeking Him and some not. That explanation can also be something God does for His elect (again, the Calvinist explanation).
We have testimonies of Muslims who were given personal dreams or visions etc, because they live in an environment where the preaching of the Gospel is forbidden on pain of death. Obviously, this enlightenment, is kata-pneumatos. But what man is to dictate to God how he is to work in his presentation of enlightenment or his gift of salvation? Some testimonies insist they were given these experiences of enlightenment over a period of months prior to their salvation experience.
Does the Muslim become spiritually regenerated before he can have true saving faith?
Or does the Muslim have a number of experiences of enlightenment which lead him to a true saving faith and salvation?
People defending opposing religio-theoretical positions will insist their position is kata-pneumatos, and not kata-sarka.
But this can simply spring out of carnal religious pride.
It is a fact human nature, to start with a presupposition and turn to scripture to affirm it.
Where scripture is explicit and without question, there is normally little controversy.
It is where scripture is not explicit, and where man is reliant upon implicit inferences from scripture that man abuses the text.
Interpretation via implicit inference is fraught with one insurmountable vulnerability.
It demands the text CONFORM to whatever cosmology or philosophical notions the interpreter holds as unquestionable truth.
So if the interpreter holds as unquestionable, the notion that the sun orbits around the earth, the bible will affirm that.
And human hubris will then argue the interpretation is kata-pnuematos rather than kata-sarka
If man is reborn and then faith comes afterward, then it logically follows that man can be reborn without faith.
Can we list the verses from scripture which EXPLICITLY state that man can be reborn without faith?
“each human” for whom the Light (i.e. Christ, the Gospel) was intended. Everyone else hates the Light and finds His Gospel to be foolishness
Thanks Troy.
I see..so Calvinists make a distinction between human motivations, thoughts, choices, etc, “before regeneration” and then “after regeneration”? That would of course be based on the presumption that the believer is in fact elect and thus regenerated.
But Calvinism states: “In the church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance”
And “before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the **SECRET** will of God”
Is it emotionally difficult for you to know that you may be one of those who has nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance?
And if its impossible for you to know what percentage of your motivations, etc are anti-Christ, then wouldn’t it follow that it would be impossible for you to know when your motivations, are in sin, or not in sin?
Thanks in advance.
I’m certain that, although I’m a new creature in Christ, that I will continue to sin. However, God grants me grace in whatever He deems necessary in any situation to either refrain sin in me or allow me to commit sin, which includes my thoughts, motivations, desires, etc. This is why Paul always struggled with sin in his life as expressed in Romans 7:18,19. As Christians, we have two natures and they both war against each other until our salvation is completed and we no longer have a body that lusts after sin.
A true believer will remain in constant war with the flesh because he/she now has the mind of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
I’m certain of my salvation because God’s Spirit has witnessed with my Spirit that I am His child and I also have an ongoing and ernest desire to DO the will of God
Thanks Troy,
You didn’t answer my first question:
Is it emotionally difficult for you to know that you may be one of those who has nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance?
I’m wondering specifically how you resolve that knowledge internally?
Do you ever think about the possibility that God is, as Calvin says: “illumining” you for a time, holding salvation out to you as a savor of greater condemnation?
Thanks in advance
br.d asks Troy, “Do you ever think about the possibility that God is, as Calvin says: “illumining” you for a time, holding salvation out to you as a savor of greater condemnation?”
Given that Troy has embraced that theology developed by the Calvinists, it appears to me that God has him on the right track. Had Troy espoused a non-Calvinist theology, then it is quite possible that Calvin is correct.
br.d asks Troy, “Do you ever think about the possibility that God is, as Calvin says: “illumining” you for a time, holding salvation out to you as a savor of greater condemnation?”
rhutchin writes:
Given that Troy has embraced that theology developed by the Calvinists, it appears to me that God has him on the right track. Had Troy espoused a non-Calvinist theology, then it is quite possible that Calvin is correct.
That doesn’t make logical sense. Since Calvin explicitly teaches that god deceives – quote “a large mixture” of Calvinists to believe they are elect, in order to – quote “hold salvation out as a savor of greater condemnation” and then to -quote “strike them with even greater blindness”.
If we take Calvin’s teaching as true, then it follows that your looking for indicators of one’s election status, (by one’s theology), is exactly what Calvin describes as hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but “OUTWARD SIGNS”.
And as such those OUTWARD SIGNS would be part of that divine deception which Calvin describes as a “large mixture” of the Calvinist fold.
But you have the flexibility of asserting this teaching of Calvin’s is (for this discussion) an OPINION and not a DOCTRINE.
Not at all br.d!! I’m quite confident that I’m one of God’s elect because His Spirit agrees with my spirit that I’m his child. Remember what God says in 1 John 5:13: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” I NEVER doubt my position in Christ br.d
Thanks Troy for that answer!
I do understand what scripture says, but I distinguish it from what Calvin teaches.
So is sounds like even though Calvin teaches that “a large mixture” in the church are deceived by God, temporarily into believing they are saved, as God -quote “holds salvation out to them as a savor of greater condemnation” isn’t something you ponder as applicable to yourself
I guess that makes sense from a psychological perspective. Neuroscientists tell us that the human brain seeks relief from uncertainty the same way it seeks relief from physical pain or discomforts. So just as we move our bodies, to give us relief, when we experience pain from a certain movement, our brain does the same when we unconsciously experience the pain of uncertainty.
My guess, is that Calvinists learn to compartmentalize the notion that they might be one of the “large mixture” of believers who God is deceiving into believing they are saved, as a process to relieve cognitive dissonance from that notion.
But then again, if God truly is deceiving a person into believing they are saved, it makes perfect sense that they would have no doubts they are saved.
Thanks for helping me think that through! :-]
You’re welcome br.d 🙂
br.d writes, “Calvinists make a distinction between human motivations, thoughts, choices, etc, “before regeneration” and then “after regeneration”?”
Everyone else makes this distinction between those who are believers and those non-believers. So, there is not real disagreement except on the technical argument concerning how one becomes a believer.
Then, “Is it emotionally difficult for you to know that you may be one of those who has nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance?”
Not for the Calvinist as he trusts everything to God rather than himself – in everything, God will do what is right. The non-Calvinist also has Matthew 7 to contend with meaning that they cannot trust in any action of theirs as the basis for their salvation.
Thanks rhutchin lets review:
“Is it emotionally difficult for the Calvinist to know that he may be one of those who has nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance?” (as Calvin teaches)
rhutchin answers:
“Not for the Calvinist as he TRUSTS everything to God rather than himself”
Ok, lets assume this is theoretically true.
Then it follows, per Calvin’s teachings that you TRUST God for 1 of 2 things:
1) You TRUST God is deceiving you into believing you are elect, regenerate and a spokesperson for divine truth, while you are really, non-elect, totally depraved, and under the power of the prince of darkness.
2) You TRUST God has truly elected, and regenerated you, and you are a spokesperson for divine truth.
So if it is true that you simply TRUST god, then it follows you TRUST god for your damnation as well as your salvation.
Since God has assigned 1 of 2 possible fates for you.
That would seem to make logical sense.
But the assertion that a human being can TRUST god for being sent to an eternal lake of fire, and not have any emotional struggle is dubious.
br.d writes, “So if it is true that you simply TRUST god, then it follows you TRUST god for your damnation as well as your salvation.”
I trust God to do what is right in His eyes, whatever that may be. God gave me life; God sustains my life; God has appointed the day for my death. God does with my life whatever He wants while I live and into eternity.
Hyper-confidence is quite often the subconscious’s way of masking internal anxieties.
The way we know normal confidence from hyper confidence is by observing the degree to which it is over-emphasizes.
Hyper-confidence always comes out bearing the characteristics of a commercial advertisement.
Interesting how universalists believe all will be saved.
That makes me wonder rhutchin…do you know for sure that you are elect?
Free will……Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And thus it has been since the days of Adam. God didn’t make robots.
Yes – so here we have an obvious reference to the availability of multiple options from which to choose.
And Adam and Eve are given what Calvin would call “MERE” permission – to make that choice.
But Calvin rejects the existence of “MERE” permission – calling it repulsive and absurd.
Calvin’s god determines no less than 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – including all human impulses.
Calvin’s god “renders-certain” (i.e. pre-determines) every event.
And once a specific event has been “rendered-certain” by decree to infallibly come to pass – no alternative is possible to exist – because any alternative would falsify the infallible decree – which is logically impossible.
Which means every pre-determined event can only resolve to one single physically possible option – which is “rendered-certain” before man exists.
In other words – in Calvinism – there is no such thing as multiple options set before creatures – from which to choose.
Because everything is “FIXED” by infallible decree – to only come out one way.
As Peter Van Inwagen states it:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly ONE physically possible future.
Therefore in Calvinism
1) Any instance in which a Calvinist has the perception of having multiple options from which to choose represents a predestined illusion
2) Any instance in which a Calvinist has the perception of being the DETERMINER of his choices – represents a predestined illusion.
3) Any instance in which a Calvinist has the perception of being able to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – represents a predestined illusion.
br.d writes, “And Adam and Eve are given what Calvin would call “MERE” permission – to make that choice.”
The garden was obviously not a situation where “mere” permission existed. God was intimately involved in the events that played out in the garden. “Mere”permission requires that God be uninvolved and disinterested in the events taking place in His creation. Per Calvin, God is never uninvolved or disinterested in any aspect of His creation – down to the wiggle of an atom as Sproul described.
rhutchin
br.d writes, “And Adam and Eve are given what Calvin would call “MERE” permission – to make that choice.”
rhutchin
The garden was obviously not a situation where “mere” permission existed.
“Mere”permission requires that God be uninvolved and disinterested
br.d
NAH!
Calvin rejects MERE permission – because MERE permission equates to Libertarian Freedom
And Libertarian Freedom rules out exhaustive determinism.
MERE permission – is what rhutchin is always trying to MASQUERADE as existing in Calvinism – cuz he doesn’t like the logical consequences of determinism.
For example – Calvin’s god determines him to have perceptions perceived as TRUE which Calvin’s god knows are FALSE
Thus not allowing him to discern a FALSE perception from a TRUE perception.
And due to FALSE perceptions – no ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Calvinists are sooooo blessed to lead a life full of 1000 daily FALSE perceptions – infallibly decreed to be perceived as TRUE :-]
Richard writes, “Free will……”
Recognizing that Eve had limited knowledge, less understanding and even less wisdom – plus little experience including no experience with Satan. She was an easy target. In the end, she did what she desired, as did Adam – just like the Calvinists say.
rhutchin
Recognizing that Eve had limited knowledge, less understanding and even less wisdom ……..
br.e
Recognizing that Calvin’s god did not permit Eve to be/do anything other than what he meticulously decreed.
And recognizing that Calvin’s god makes every impulse come to pass IRRESISTIBLY within Eve’s brain.
And recognizing that Calvin’s god makes available only one single possibility available to Adam and Eve.
Hence we have the TRUE “T” in the TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
No matter how they try to spin it, deny it, reject it, ignore it, man has free will to accept or reject evil. Even unbelievers….Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;), Gen 4:6 – And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 – If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
Richard writes, “man has free will to accept or reject evil.”
Only to the extent that it benefits him. Otherwise, man has no faith and as Paul write in Romans 3, of a person without faith, “There is none righteous, no, not one;…There is none who does good, no, not one.”
Then, ‘Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:”
How can a person do by nature the things contained in the law, when he has no faith and has a corrupt natures? When doing the things of the law is relative. They will do the things contained in the law when it benefits them and disobey those laws when it is not convenient. Even the unsaved can figure out that there is a benefit to not murdering his neighbors so that they will not murder him. Or people will organize a town and enforce rules against stealing and murder within the town while sending out raiding parties to other towns to steal goods and kill people in those towns. Paul’s point is that all are accountable to God whether they have the law or not.for al, whether with the law or without, have sinned.
Richard
man has free will to accept OR reject evil.”
rhutchin
Only to the extent that it benefits him……etc
br.d
In Calvinism this is FALSE
Of coursein this statement Richard is NOT referring to what logically follows in Calvinism anyway.
In Calvinism:
1) man is ONLY free to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
2) Calvin’s god can’t determine both [A] and [NOT A] come to pass – because one eradicates the other.
Thus it LOGICALLY follows in Calvinism – only one single option can be RENDERED CERTAIN.
And that one single option is never UP TO man
Because whatsoever comes to pass is FIXED by infallible decree before man exists.
As Peter Van Iwagen affirms:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly ONE single physically possible future.
In a paper submitted to The Journal of Ethics, “How to Think about the Problem of Free Will”, Van Inwagen worries that the concept “free will” may be incoherent. He writes, “There are seemingly unanswerable arguments that (if they are indeed unanswerable) demonstrate that free will is incompatible with determinism. And there are seemingly unanswerable arguments that … demonstrate that free will is incompatible with indeterminism. But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.
Hello Mike!
Great to see you again – hope this finds you well.
Yes – Van Inwagen will strongly state that he doesn’t even like using the term “free will” because everyone has their own personal understanding of what it means. And yes – he sees problems on both sides. So with PURE logic we have problems with both sides of the coin. But Van Inwagen will state that he does hold to a “current” position – that Libertarian Freedom has the highest probability
But lets do a mind experiment:
Lets say that Theological Determinism is TRUE – and Libertarian choice doesn’t exist.
This would mean that during deliberation of any matter of whether something is TRUE or FALSE – your brain doesn’t have the ability to make a Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE. That choice is determined *FOR* you by an external mind.
Also – your perception of TRUE – and your perception of FALSE are exclusively determined by an external mind.
Two realities become apparent
1) Your mind is infallibly decreed to have perceptions which the THEOS knows are FALSE.
And which he has infallibly decreed your mind to perceive as TRUE
2) Your mind is infallibly decreed to have perceptions which the THEOS knows are TRUE.
And which he has infallibly decreed your mind to perceive as TRUE
Notice in both cases – your mind has been infallibly decreed to perceive both FALSE and TRUE perceptions – both as TRUE.
This resolves to a kind of “color blindness” metaphorically speaking.
You can’t tell the difference between a TRUE perception and a FALSE perception.
You perceive them as both TRUE
So that is the condition of your mind if Theological Determinism is TRUE.
Now we add to that – the understanding that all human discernment is totally reliant upon perception.
But you have no way of knowing if your perceptions are TRUE or FALSE.
Thus it follows
If Theological Determinism is TRUE – and Libertarian freedom does not exist – your brain has no way of knowing TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Are you happy to acknowledge that your mind has no ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter?
Brian,
The problem is you are arguing against Theological Determinism. Now I know that it can be frustrating because many Calvinists will argue from that stand point. And, yes Calvinists have a lot of differing views. So do Arminians. And the terminology is confusing.
But the Reformed Confessions are clear that Calvinists believe in Free Will and are not Determinists (at least I’m not). Both Westminster and London Baptist say: God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
So I can agree with everything you’ve said about Determinism. If you ask most people—even most Christians—if they believe in free will they will say yes. If you ask them what free will is, they will reply with some explanation concerning uncoerced choices. If you ask them what Libertarian Free Will is, most won’t know what you are talking about let alone what the distinctions are.
So, what is Libertarian Free Will and how does it differ from Free Will?
Hi Mike! Though it is good to see you are still around, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas, I am not sure I wish to get into a word fight with you. 😉 I think we have probably been through all of this before in the past. So let me just make one full response, and then you can have the last word, unless you have another specific question seeking understanding or clarification and not seeking repentance from me. 😉
I think those confessions that you pointed to are contradictory when stating that everything is divinely decreed, and then they use language to suggest that man has a “natural liberty” in his will that is not completely directed by that all encompassing divine decree. That will is supposedly decreed to only choose in accordance with an already foreknown future that will only work out one way (confirming there must be some kind of pre-determination which is not found in that freedom of will).
As for LFW – 1. A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
2. If a libertarian freewill decision is defined as made “having no necessity” by one who “has power over his own will” and the Scripture gives one example of such a decision existing, then a libertarian free will exists to make that libertarian freewill decision.
3. The Scripture gives such an example in 1Cor 7:37.
4. Therefore libertarian free will exists.
1 Corinthians 7:37 NKJV — Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will….
I would like to see sound reasoning for rejecting this freewill definition which is clearly given in 1Cor 7:37.
The key phrase is – μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος – “not having necessity but authority he has over the individual desire”. How that is not seen as a very clear and appropriate definition of LFW being defined by Paul as the foundation for the decision making of this circumstance is beyond me.
I can only see theological prejudice as the reason for rejecting Paul’s confirmation that a LFW decision can be made in this circumstance. And if in this circumstance, then that LFW truly exists for other circumstances is a reasonable inference.
The main question for Determinists – (Calvinists, Arminians, and Molinists, who all teach there is a divine decree before creation that sets one known future) – Does God now know in His mind possibilities for the future that He has not yet chosen between?
If yes, then He knows them as, “What I might do and what I might not do/choose” … Correct? He would not know any of them as “This is what I will do/choose”! Thus the future is partly open for Him right now.
Now allow God to give the same openness to man and to know in His mind that same openness that is in man’s mind, that is, what they might or might not do, until He observes their mind becoming fixed in one decided direction. Only then He comes to know what they will or will not do, just like coming to know His own mind as fixed when He decides between still available possibilities that He knows are true before He makes His decision.
Brian,
I jumped in here because you were using an “argument from authority” when you quoted Van Inwagen. I know that he holds to LFW. But Van Inwagen also understands that the issue isn’t as simple as you state it.
Yes, we have gone over this before. Giving me a scripture verse that you interpret as LFW doesn’t really answer the question. 1 Corinthians 7:37 demonstrates free will to me, but what makes it LFW? Does Isaiah 10:5-7 and 46:9-10, Proverbs 16:9 and 21:1 demonstrate LFW? And please, I’ve heard Flowers give his spin on these verses. This is a rhetorical question.
You’re telling me that free will and LFW are the same. So what does LFW entail? Is it just choice or is it choice between opposites? Is it freedom to choose between good and evil—is it freedom to sin? Is it simply a non-coercive choice? Is coercion only external or can it be internal? What effects do environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, etc. have on free will? Is love dependent on free choice?
What is divine predestination? What is deliberation? Can God deliberate? What does “if all things being equal I could have chosen differently” really mean? Yes, these are a lot of questions. But you ask a lot of question of Calvinists—and you expect anwsers. I don’t hear real answers to any of these questions. And believe me, I’ve looked for them! All I get is a lot of hand waving and “exceptions to the rule.” LFW dies of a hundred exceptions.
I’m asking you to think deeply on this issue of free will—as deeply as you have on determinism. How about Classical Theism? Have you considered Divine Concurrence (Concursus)? How about Synchronic Contingency? How about reading some Aquinas on Free Will. Or even Richard Muller on Calvinism.
I dislike these blog posts because it is just too easy to dodge questions and go off on rabbit trails that don’t address real concerns. My prayer is that one day we can have a friendly live back and forth discussion that gets us, if not closer to truth, then closer to understanding.
I wish you happy holidays. Please keep safe and may God bless you.
Just to clarify one thing, Mike… I didn’t quote Van Inwagen, that was Br.D, who is not me. 😁 And let me say also that I hope too we can one day have a friendly back and forth where one doesn’t “dodge”, like I felt you dodged the biblical evidence I gave that clearly defined LFW, but instead brought up other questions or appeals to authority as part of the dodge. Thank you for the holiday wishes!
Sorry Brian, I confused you with DR.D. And I would like to wish DR.D happy holidays as well.
I didn’t dodged your evidence, I agreed with it! I wasn’t appealing to authorities, I was asking you to consider other options and go deeper. I don’t know if this is you but for many anti-Calvinists this issue is simple: Calvinism is determinism, determinism is wrong therefore the alternative must be correct. So there is no need to investigate the alternative because what if the alternative ends up being wrong as well?
Anyway, stay safe and perhaps one day we’ll be able to talk under different circumstances.
brianwagner writes, “I think those confessions that you pointed to are contradictory when stating that everything is divinely decreed,…”
Your issue before this seemed to be with God decreeing everything in the past. Given that God is sovereign and omnipotent, He naturally affects everything in the present. Nothing can happen without God deciding (i.e., decreeing) that it should because He can affect directly any outcome He wants. We know that Ephesians 1 says, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” that you say extends to all things that God wants to work. So, God works all things that He wants and for the things He doesn’t want to work, He doesn’t do anything directly. God’s decision not to work something is also a decree. So, whether God wants to work an outcome or not work an outcomes, each requires His decision – the expression of His will for that outcome – so that He ends up working all things according to the counsel of His will even with present events.
Then, ‘then they use language to suggest that man has a “natural liberty” in his will that is not completely directed by that all encompassing divine decree.”
I think this is where a distinction is made for secondary causes. Given that man is without faith and a slave to sin, then he has a freedom to sin but not to do good (or righteousness in God’s eyes). The divine decree forced this condition or Adam’s descendants consequent to Adam’s sin and God’s punishment on Adam for that sin – a punishment that impacted Adam’s descendants by a deficit of faith. Because of God’s intimate involvement in His creation, we cannot absolve God of responsibility of the condition of Adam’s descendants, but we can still attribute intent to people. Thus, Joseph tells his brothers, “as for you, you meant evil against me;, ” and Isaiah records of the Assyrians, “it is in his heart to destroy…”
Then, ‘3. The Scripture gives such an example in 1Cor 7:37.”
Prior to v37, Paul writes, “Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.” So, necessity in v37 would be by commandment, or law, leaving the person to do as he wills. By the same token, a person having the option of eating at PB or BK would be free to choose where to eat as no commandment directs him to one particular option. As LFW requires the ability to choose otherwise, particularly in the matter of salvation, we can conclude that LFW cannot exist where faith is lacking. People without faith are free to choose in the Calvinist sense but not in the LFW sense. v7:37 would be applied differently between the person with faith and the person without. As the person without faith has only a corrupt nature, and that corrupt nature determines his response, we would not have LFW. As the person with faith is free from his corrupt nature but he is still tied to his old nature, we are closer to LFW.
Then, “Does God now know in His mind possibilities for the future that He has not yet chosen between? ”
God has a perfect understanding of His creation and this understanding extends to the impacts of present actions in His creation. So, if a person were to drop a feather off the Empire State Bldg, God, through His understanding, would know the path the feather would travel until it eventually landed on the ground. That understanding extends to every action in His creation. As the path of the feather is directed by wind currents, God always has the choice to override those wind currents or do nothing and allow natural conditions to prevail. God knows the natural possibilities and any different possibility brought about by an action He might take. You are left with saying that God doesn’t make His decisions until the last possible moment meaning that God flies by the seat of His pants (so to speak). Yet in waiting until the last possible moment to make a decision, God makes the same decision as He would if He had decided in eternity past. This is because God’s understanding is perfect and doesn’t change for the past to the present.
Mike
But the Reformed Confessions are clear that Calvinists believe in Free Will and are not Determinists
br.d
Actually that is not true.
Calvinists Paul Helm’s and Dr. Neal Anderson explain:
-quote
We take the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) as representative of historic confessional Calvinism.
The WCF’s statements about God’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism.
And thus rule out libertarian free will (since libertarianism, on standard definitions, entails that determinism is false).
WCF 10.1 straightforwardly affirms compatibilism by asserting that God determines that the elect freely come to Christ.
Since libertarianism entails that compatibilism is false, LC is internally inconsistent.
It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God…..take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold.
– end quote
So yes – it is true that there is “Free Will” in Calvinism.
It is classified under the heading of “Compatibilism”.
100% of [X] must be “Compatible” with what is determined concerning [X].
So your will is “Free” to will whatever is determined by an external mind.
And your mind is “Free” to have perceptions that are determined by an external mind.
But your will is “NOT Free” to will what is not determined by an external mind – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
And your mind is “NOT Free” to have a perception that is NOT determined by an external mind – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
You ask for a definition of Libertarian Freedom.
You can see by Paul Helm’s and Dr. Neal Anderson above that Libertarian Freedom and determinism mutually exclude each other.
So that would be part of the answer to your question.
But here is my definition of Libertarian Freedom
1) The ability to choose from multiple options – or from a range of options
2) Those options all being logically and physically available from which to choose
3) That choice not being made by an external mind – or by factors outside of one’s control
4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.
So based on that definition – we would probably agree that the God of scripture has Libertarian choice.
1) He has the ability to choose from a range of options
2) Those options being logically and physically available from which to choose
3) His choices not being made *FOR* him by an external mind – or by factors outside of his control
4) His choices being compatible with his nature.
But in Calvinism – this aspect of the “Imago Dei”. (Image of God) is not conveyed to the created things.
So Adam (along with all created entities) are never endowed with these capabilities.
In Calvinism – 100% of whatsoever will come to pass – (within the course of time in creation) is solely and exclusively determined at the foundation of the world pre-creation.
Now:
It is a logical impossibility for [A] and [NOT A] to be both “RENDERED-CERTAIN”
Because one logically negates the other.
Therefore it becomes obvious that a “RENDERED-CERTAIN” event – can only resolve to one single psychically possible future.
And that is why Van Inwagen states
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
So I think – for a Calvinist to deny determinism as the core of Reformed Theology – is an act of futility :-]
br.d
Thanks for getting back to me. You make some very good points.
I think Calvinists have a history of contradicting themselves—at least on a plain reading of some of their texts. But there are equal inconsistencies with the non-Calvinist views. So you either give up on the entire debate and embrace ignorance or hold tenaciously to your preconceived ideas and fight to discredit any opposition. But I do believe there is a third option.
I’ve stated before that I find it very unfortunate when Calvinist philosophers admit to determinism. The problem is that when philosophers talk about determinism and compatibilsm they mean something different then what the plain definitions state. This is why their writings are confusing—their definitions are malleable. What’s soft-libertarianism? What’s hard -compatiblism? (These are rhetorical questions.) There is a hard and soft for every term. Unfortunately philosophers speak within a technical bubble that is not always clear to the non-philosopher.
Theological determinism is not determinism. Compatiblism is not determinism. You are correct that Calvinism is committed to divine determinism but so is all of Christianity depending on how you define and interpret this term. If you interpret it to mean that God’s creation is a puppet show or a world of automata then this is certainly not Calvinism (at least not the view that I espouse).
Divine determinism is the view that God is all in all. He is the un-caused cause of existence. There is nothing outside of God. God’s omni attributes maintain and sustain all existence. All that we are and do is of God. Only God is autonomous. Only God is free in mind and will and ability. Without God there is no truth, and there is no existence.
I appreciate your “Free” logic. And I sympathize with your confusion of the divine infallible decree. I accept that Calvinism’s definitions are unclear.
Saying that LFW and determinism are mutually exclusive just tells you what it is not, not what it is. I appreciate your definition of libertarian freedom but I don’t see that it differs from what the average person, and specifically the compatibilist or Calvinst, think is simple free will.
You are determined to make Calvinists into hard-derterminsts. Okay, how about this: I’m not a libertarian or a determinist or a compatibilist. I hold to a forth view.
I hope you have a happy and safe holiday season. God bless.
Mike
Thanks for getting back to me. You make some very good points.
br.d
My pleasure! And Merry Christmas to you!
Mike
I think Calvinists have a history of contradicting themselves—at least on a plain reading of some of their texts.
br.d
Yes – that is the model – and it starts with Calvin himself.
Take these statements for example:
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.
-quote
Each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS THOUGH nothing were determined about any part.”
This is what I call Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern
The brain is conditioned to hold [A] as TRUE – but go about ones office *AS-IF* [A] is FALSE.
But it gets worse – because for Calvin – divine exhaustive determinism – is the most sacred truth in the universe.
So being a Calvinist entails holding to a belief that is considered the most sacred truth in the universe – and at the same time living, thinking, and speaking *AS-IF* the most sacred truth in the universe is FALSE.
So – yes I agree – that’s called being DOUBLE-MINDED
Mike
But there are equal inconsistencies with the non-Calvinist views. So you either give up on the entire debate and embrace ignorance or hold tenaciously to your preconceived ideas and fight to discredit any opposition. But I do believe there is a third option.
br.d
You’ve mentioned that before – and I would love to hear you unpackage that.
Mike
I’ve stated before that I find it very unfortunate when Calvinist philosophers admit to determinism.
br.d
Why not just acknowledge they are being honest with what they know as the core of the belief system?
Mike
The problem is that when philosophers talk about determinism and compatibilism they mean something different then what the plain definitions state.
br.d
I have not found that to be the case.
Dr. William Lane Craig hasn’t found that to be the case.
I think perhaps your personal conceptions on the matter are what you’re using for comparison.
And since you’ve stated you don’t think Calvinism entails determinism – you might consider the possibility that that position is really untenable.
Mike
Theological determinism is not determinism. Compatiblism is not determinism.
br.d
These are two good examples of an untenable position.
Mike – you are really on your own – out in left field somewhere with these positions.
Would you be willing to consider the possibility that your approaching this issue with emotion rather than logic?
Mike
If you interpret it to mean that God’s creation is a puppet show or a world of automata then this is certainly not Calvinism (at least not the view that I espouse).
br.d
The espousal of a belief system does not necessitate rational thinking – it can in fact be self-contradicting.
One can explicitly espouse [A] at one minute – and the next minute implicitly deny [A].
I see this as a consistent pattern in Calvinist thinking and speaking.
Mike
I appreciate your definition of libertarian freedom but I don’t see that it differs from what the average person, and specifically the compatibilist or Calvinst, think is simple free will.
br.d
Yes – but is that not a self-contradiction?
For example:
If you – as a Calvinist – hold that you are the determiner of your choices
And at the same time – you hold that a THEOS is the determiner of your choices
Then is that not in fact a case of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
This BTW – is why Dr. William Lane Craig states that Calvinism is an unlivable belief system.
Mike
You are determined to make Calvinists into hard-derterminsts. Okay, how about this: I’m not a libertarian or a determinist or a compatibilist. I hold to a forth view.
br.d
Well – Divine Exhaustive Determinism in Calvinism – is stated clearly
100% of whatsoever comes to pass is solely and exclusively determined prior to creation.
ZERO% is left undetermined.
Which leaves ZERO% for you or any other creature to determine.
The problem arises for people who hold to a belief system – while unconsciously trying to evade or escape its consequences.
And that is expressed in all sorts of double-speak language – which ( as you say ) comes out as confusion.
I can understand a Calvinist not wanting to go where his belief system leads him.
That his brain is not permitted to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Because 100% of whatsoever comes to pass within his brain – is determined exclusively by an external mind – as part of that mind’s exercise of divine sovereignty.
Mike
I hope you have a happy and safe holiday season. God bless.
br.d
My very sincere and warm blessings to you Mike!!
Calvin along with most of the early apostolic fathers have contradictions and inconsistencies, especially with regard to the subject of free will. Your “AS-IF” theory is just Calvin admitting that the mind and machinations of God are impenetrable. Because of the language and terminology Calvin and the fathers use their ideas leave room for interpretation. We see this in the plethora of books explaining what the fathers really mean!
You call it DOUBLE-MINDED because it appears contradictory and you think there is some kind of deviousness being perpetrated. Okay, explain logically God’s omini attributes without contradiction. Explain timelessness. Explain predestination in relation to infinity.
You want me to unpack the inconsistencies of LFW? Do you really think that LFW has no problems? That it is completely coherent and logical? Even Van Inwagen, who adheres to LFW, admits there is incoherence.
We’ve gone over this before but here are just a few issues: Explain free will in the light of scriptural inspiration. Can God know that you would exist before you were born? Does a mother freely choose to love her newborn? Does the newborn freely choose to love its mother? What about free will in heaven? Do you really think that environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, etc. are non-causal and have no effect on free will? I’m surprised that these issues do not concern you as to the coherence of LFW.
“br.d: Why not just acknowledge they are being honest with what they know as the core of the belief system?”
I thought you implied that they were deceptive with their double-mindedness? Anyway, I’m happy to acknowledge their acceptance of hard-determinism or hard-compatiblism or whatever they want to call it but when you actually read into the literature, and not just random quotes, you find that what they mean is quite something else!
Sorry but William Lane Craig’s opinions don’t hold much weight with me. Molinism is just as, if not more, deterministic than Calvinsm and Craig is blind to that. Appeals to authority really don’t get you anywhere. There are eminent philosophers arguing every side of every issue. And the majority of eminent theological philosophers on free will are Molinists like Craig.
You say that I am alone in my position. I considered this until I began to study Thomas Aquinas and the ancient and modern Thomistic scholars. And then some of the not so “popular” Calvinist scholars like Kevin Timpe and Richard Muller and others.
Your example that tries to show double-mindedness is so focused on your rejection of Calvinism that you can’t see the larger issue. Try this example:
1. If you, as the Libertarian, hold that you are the determiner of your choices,
2. And at the same time, you hold that environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender and otters external conditioning is creating the determiner of your choices,
3. Then is that not in fact a case of LFW DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
My reading of Calvinism does not agree with your definition of divine determinism. Perhaps you need to expand your reading.
“br.d: The problem arises for people who hold to a belief system – while unconsciously trying to evade or escape its consequences.”
I whole heartedly agree! This and it is why I can not accept LFW.
You should read the book “Paradise Understood” Edited by T. Ryan Byerly and Eric J. Silverman. It is basically dealing with free will in heaven. What stands out to me is that there is no consensus among all these highly educated scholars. And among all the philosophical speculation there is very little scripture.
Take care and stay safe!
Mike
Your “AS-IF” theory is just Calvin admitting that the mind and machinations of God are impenetrable.
br.d
Actually Calvin said it because he understood it as a consequence of determinism he understood he could not live with.
The very exact same statement has been made by many Atheist determinsts.
Dr. Stephen Hawking for example at a symposium on the subject of determinism.
-quote
Even though a believe Determinism is true – I might as well live *AS-IF* determinism is false – and *AS-IF* I have Libertarian Freedom.
Again – that is why Dr. William Lane Craig states that Calvinism is an unlivable belief system.
-quote
Determinist’s recognize that they have to ACT AS-IF they have libertarian freedom and are able to weigh options and decide on what course of action to take, even though at the end of the day their belief system dictates that they were already determined to make the choices they made. Determinism is thus an unliveable view
-end quote
BTW:
Calvin is not an Apostolic father.
Neither is Augustine.
Mike
You call it DOUBLE-MINDED because it appears contradictory and you think there is some kind of deviousness being perpetrated.
br.d
Well this is a similar appeal that A.W. Pink makes when he tries to call the contradictions “Antinomy”
The problem here – is that these are not contradictions in APPEARANCE.
They are actual contradictions.
When one asserts [A] is TRUE one minute.
And then asserts [A] is FALSE the next minute
That is not “Antinomy”
That is contradiction.
And attempts to defy simply math also follow the same pattern.
Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass prior to creation
He leaves ZERO% undetermined.
That leaves ZERO% left over for anyone else to determine.
A Calvinist is not likely to allow for contradictions in the exchange of money – calling them “Antimony” – if it means loosing money he shouldn’t be loosing!
But he has no problem calling contradictions “Antimony” if he calculates he has little to lose.
That is pretty funny to watch! :-]
Mike
Okay, explain logically God’s omini attributes without contradiction. Explain timelessness. Explain predestination in relation to infinity.
br.d
Now you’re falling into the all or nothing – black and white fallacy.
Mike
You want me to unpack the inconsistencies of LFW? Do you really think that LFW has no problems? That it is completely coherent and logical? Even Van Inwagen, who adheres to LFW, admits there is incoherence.
br.d
Can you provide the quote where he says its “incoherent”?
Or is it more truthful to say – he recognizes problems with it?
Even after all of that – I know he concludes the probability of Libertarian Freedom is the more rational position.
Mike
We’ve gone over this before but here are just a few issues: Explain free will in the light of scriptural inspiration. Can God know that you would exist before you were born?
br.d
And we discussed Middle knowledge as an answer to many of these.
But of course – a Calvinist really shouldn’t go there because that does compromise Exhaustive Determinism
But that was what Middle knowledge was designed to do.
Mike
Does a mother freely choose to love her newborn? Does the newborn freely choose to love its mother?
br.d
We have babies who are thrown in dumpsters at birth.
Obviously that mother chose not to love that child.
We also have babies that are born to devoted parents.
So according to my definition of Libertarian choice – where there are multiple options – if Libertarian choice does exist – then yes a mother can choose to love or not love a baby.
Mike
What about free will in heaven?
br.d
If the God of heaven can have Libertarian freedom – why can’t he endow that attribute to his creatures?
What we’re saying here – with Calvin’s doctrine – is that a THEOS who chose not to grant a particular aspect of his imago Dei (“image of God”) to his creatures. And thus Libertarian freedom does not exist for Adam et-all.
Mike
I’m surprised that these issues do not concern you as to the coherence of LFW.
br.d
So far – from what you have enunciated – (except for the unknowable things) you haven’t shown any logical contradictions.
And did you notice my approach to Libertarian choice was to present a mind experiment that shows if you don’t have Libertarian choice then your mind doesn’t have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter. That is not a logical contradiction. But it is a consequence most Calvinists will refuse to accept.
Can you present a similar challenge?
A consequence of Libertarian choice that I would not want to accept?
Mike
I thought you implied that they were deceptive with their double-mindedness?
br.d
Here are some quotes from book authors – on the phenomenon of double-mindedness (DOUBLE-SPEAK) in Calvinism
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
-quote
“Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”
Dr. William Lane Craig:
-quote
Calvinists, unfortunately, yet consistently fail short to enunciate the radical distinctions of their belief system.
Dr. Jerry Walls
-quote:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”
Norman Geisler – chosen but free
-quote:
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
Laurence M. Vance in The Other Side of Calvinism
-quote:
“The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)
Micah Coate – The Cultish side of Calvinism
-quote:
“Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”
Ronnie W. Rogers – Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist
-quote:
As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”
Authors David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood – Anyone Can Be Saved
-quote:
“This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”
Gilbert VanOrder Jr – Calvinism’s Conflicts
-quote
“Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely – Calvinism a closer look
-quote
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is a false representation of his belief system This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
Francis Hodgson – The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined
-quote:
“The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
Mike
You say that I am alone in my position. I considered this until I began to study Thomas Aquinas and the ancient and modern Thomistic scholars. And then some of the not so “popular” Calvinist scholars like Kevin Timpe and Richard Muller and others.
br.d
I take not of the fact that none of these are main-stream Reformed.
I’m afraid the vast majority of Reformed thinking on Determinism today follows the school of Jonathan Edwards who was a staunch determinist.
Mike
1. If you, as the Libertarian, hold that you are the determiner of your choices,
2. And at the same time, you hold that environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender and otters external conditioning is creating the determiner of your choices,
3. Then is that not in fact a case of LFW DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
br.d
Actually Mike – that example is not a logical problem at all.
Because I don’t embrace Libertarian processes as having ABSOLUTE, EXHAUSTIVE or UNIVERSAL scope.
I don’t see any problem acknowledging laws of cause and effect.
I can easily hold to a form of “SEMI-Determinism”
And that is actually the position that the Calvinist takes as part of his *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
He goes about his office as Calvin states *AS-IF* some things are not determined in any part.
That is not double-minded for me – because I don’t espouse EXHAUSTIVE determinism or EXHAUSTIVE IN-determinism.
But it is double-minded for the Calvinist – because the core of his belief system is EXHAUSTIVE determinism.
But in order to retain a sense of normalcy in life – he has to be double-minded about it.
Mike
My reading of Calvinism does not agree with your definition of divine determinism. Perhaps you need to expand your reading.
br.d
I might consider doing that.
I’ll keep my eyes open for the authors you say you read on the subject.
But – again – I already know those authors do not represent the main-stream of current Reformed thinking.
Mike
You should read the book “Paradise Understood” Edited by T. Ryan Byerly and Eric J. Silverman. It is basically dealing with free will in heaven. What stands out to me is that there is no consensus among all these highly educated scholars. And among all the philosophical speculation there is very little scripture.
br.d
I have access to a nearby university library.
I’ll see if I can find it – thanks!
Mike
Take care and stay safe!
Br.d
Always a pleasure to chat with you Mike!
May the Lord bless you in so many more ways than you could imagine!
ur frnd
br.d :-]
Hey man I’m exhausted. After this one I’m done. You can have the last word.
You are a smart guy but, like Flowers, you seem to be so committed to anti-Calvninsm that I think it may prevent you from seeing another point of view. I get it with Flowers as he has a reputation and position to protect. He’s a professional Christian. And there are professional Christians on the Calvinist side as well.
Calvin understood that the divine determinism of God was impossible for time-bound humans to understand.
I agree that determinism (not Calvinism) is an unliveable belief system. But that doesn’t make it wrong. And a guy like Craig who is in denial of his own deterministic beliefs is not very convincing. And in the quote you give Crag uses the term “libertarian freedom.” But Craig’s definition of LFW is simple non-cohesion—which is compatible with compatiblism—and which is less than what most libertarians define it as the ability to do otherwise in all situations.
Thanks for the correction on Apostolic Fathers. I guess I should have said Church Fathers?
I think your math is off. There’s a big difference in the determinations of God and the determinations of mortal men. I suggest you study some Classical Theism and some Aquinas. Read some books by Edward Feser. Look up “concrsus (concurrence),” “physical premotion,” “synchronic contingency.”
It’s easy to ignore hard questions with a “logical fallacy” term. I call that the “logical fallacy term fallacy.” ; ) Oh well, most libertarian don’t address those issues either.
I provided the Van Inwagen quote in the post. Search for it on Wikipedia under Peter Van Inwagen.
Come on, are you a Molinist? Middle knowledge? For a guy who is so strict about the determinist math and about antimony and contradictions you think middle knowledge solves your libertarian problems. Now who’s double-minded?
I like how you chose the one example that I gave that allowed you a response and ignored the others. So you think that psychological deviant behaviour in some mothers is proof of LFW? And I guess the logical free choice deliberation of a newborn for his mother is also LFW?
And you dodged the free will in heaven question as well. Not surprising, that’s what they mostly did in the book. I guess if you ignore hard questions then you don’t have to resort to double-mindedness.
“If you don’t have Libertarian choice then your mind doesn’t have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.” Hmmm, I think I can understand your reasoning but I don’t think you’ve thought it through to any great extent. It depends on an assumption of total autonomy of mind—only God has that. But even God is subject to his nature. And God is “truth.” And remember the serpent’s temptation “…you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Or perhaps this is just a case of failure to distinguish between “the necessity of the consequent” and “the necessity of the consequence.” ; )
The key phrase in your quote from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is “subject to multiple interpretations.”
Wow, those are a lot of quotes from people who really hate Calvinism. Most of them I have very little respect for. Not sure what your purpose with these are. Would you like me to send you an equal number of hate quotes from Calvinists who dislike Arminians?
Apart from the name Calvinsm is not define by Calvin or Jonathan Edwards. History shows that there were multiple views that existed within Calvinism as there is today. But modern Calvinism or Reformed thought is primarily defended by scripture. (Libertarian free will—not free will—is a modern philosophical concept.)
Semi-Determinism. Is that like soft Libertarianism? As I’ve said elsewhere, LFW dies of a hundred exceptions. I don’t think I’ve heard a Calvinist use the term “exhaustive determinism,” but by this you mean that man is a puppet or a robot—I don’t believe this and neither do true Calvinists.
Perhaps the people I’m reading are not mainstream Calvinists but them Flowers and his group are not mainstream Arminians. There are no Provisionist philosophers. Most LFW philosophers are Molinists and you know how I feel about Molinism. Look into the Jesuit vs Dominican debate. I side with the Dominicans!
I hope I didn’t get too belligerent with some of my comments. I’m just trying to make sense out of this crazy free will debate thing.
Nice chatting with you, Br.d. God bless!
Mike
Calvin understood that the divine determinism of God was impossible for time-bound humans to understand.
br.d
Yea – I have a doctrine that defies logic and even defies simple math when I need it to.
And you are not to examine all things and only hold fast to the good.
You are to believe every word – because its impossible for time-bound humans to understand.
Somehow Mike – I don’t think that is what the Lord expects of us.
One might as well give up any attempt at considering oneself a rational human being – and simply believe every word Calvin says.
Mike
I agree that determinism (not Calvinism) is an unliveable belief system.
br.d
So the critical foundational core of Calvinism – is that a THEOS determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – leaving ZERO% undetermined? And somehow that is not Exhaustive Determinism?
Mike
But that doesn’t make it wrong. And a guy like Craig who is in denial of his own deterministic beliefs is not very convincing. And in the quote you give Crag uses the term “libertarian freedom.” But Craig’s definition of LFW is simple non-cohesion—which is compatible with compatiblism—and which is less than what most libertarians define it as the ability to do otherwise in all situations.
br.d
I don’t know of any philosophical scholar on the subject – who defines LFW as the ability to do otherwise in *ALL* situations.
The Frankfurt cases presented in the late 1960s totally blew that idea out of the water.
And there is not way I could possibly conclude that Craig’s idea of LFW is that it is compatible with compatibilism – because compatibilism is only viable with Determinism – and Determinism and LFW mutually exclude each other.
Again – Mike – Is it possible your definitions of these things are designed to remove logical consequences considered unpalatable?
Mike
I think your math is off. There’s a big difference in the determinations of God and the determinations of mortal men. I suggest you study some Classical Theism and some Aquinas. Read some books by Edward Feser. Look up “concrsus (concurrence),” “physical premotion,” “synchronic contingency.”
br.d
Actually that math shows that the term “determine” cannot be the same SENSE in in regard to a THEOS vs a man.
Because the math shows:
[X] minus100% of [X] equals ZERO% of [X]
Now a logical contradiction states that something cannot be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time and in the same SENSE
So that simple math shows us that when a Calvinist uses the term “Determine” in regard to a THEOS – and also in regard to a human – it cannot possibly be the same SENSE. Otherwise you have a clear contradiction.
The other way a Calvinist will try to escape the logic of that – is to say that simple math does not work when it comes to divine things.
And again – we might as well throw away any attempt at considering ourselves rational thinking human beings – and simply believe everything everyone tells us.
Mike
I provided the Van Inwagen quote in the post. Search for it on Wikipedia under Peter Van Inwagen.
br.d
I looked at that article – and its as I remember.
-quote
Van Inwagen concludes that “Free Will Remains a Mystery”
Perhaps I misunderstood you to say – Van Inwagen considers LFW incoherent.
That is not what he states – he states that a person’s CONCEPT of free-will can be incoherent.
That is to be totally understandable
Mike
Come on, are you a Molinist? Middle knowledge? For a guy who is so strict about the determinist math and about antimony and contradictions you think middle knowledge solves your libertarian problems. Now who’s double-minded?
br.d
You have Middle knowledge don’t you?
If you find mouse droppings in your kitchen and set out a mouse trap and come back the next morning to find a dead mouse – with what kind of knowledge did you know that would happen? I see no reason why a divine being can’t have that type of knowledge.
Mike
I like how you chose the one example that I gave that allowed you a response and ignored the others. So you think that psychological deviant behaviour in some mothers is proof of LFW? And I guess the logical free choice deliberation of a newborn for his mother is also LFW?
br.d
Isn’t there a difference between a human adult brain and a human infant’s brain?
As an adult do you make choices that an infant’s brain is not capable of making?
Even though the infants brain is not capable of making adult choices – does that mean it doesn’t have the potential to do so at some point? Again – isn’t this black and white thinking?
Mike
And you dodged the free will in heaven question as well. Not surprising, that’s what they mostly did in the book. I guess if you ignore hard questions then you don’t have to resort to double-mindedness.
br.d
How did I dodge it?
Do you not not agree that a THEOS in heaven has the ability to make choices as I previously defined Libertarian choiceDoes ?
If so – then on my view of Libertarian choice – there already is Libertarian free will in heaven.
Mike
“If you don’t have Libertarian choice then your mind doesn’t have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.” Hmmm, I think I can understand your reasoning but I don’t think you’ve thought it through to any great extent. It depends on an assumption of total autonomy of mind—only God has that. But even God is subject to his nature.
br.d
So God’s nature determines his choices?
So then what determines God’s nature?
Does this lead to a chain of determining factors which are eventually outside of his control?
If so we are back to the rule we find in determinism where for every event there is only one single possible “RENDERED-CERTAIN” future.
Hence God does not have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE either.
His choices are all ultimately determined by factors outside of his control
Mike
Wow, those are a lot of quotes from people who really hate Calvinism. Most of them I have very little respect for. Not sure what your purpose with these are. Would you like me to send you an equal number of hate quotes from Calvinists who dislike Arminians?
br.d
The interesting thing about those authors – some of whom are ex-Calvinists (whom I dare say do not see themselves as Calvinist haters) is that over an extended period of time – we have disparate people from different places – who all – interestingly enough – have the same observation. As scripture says – three stranded cord is not easily broken.
Mike
Apart from the name Calvinsm is not define by Calvin or Jonathan Edwards. History shows that there were multiple views that existed within Calvinism as there is today. But modern Calvinism or Reformed thought is primarily defended by scripture. (Libertarian free will—not free will—is a modern philosophical concept.)
br.d
Yes – Reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp has an interesting historical review on Reformed thinking.
He concludes that the ancient Reformed divines did allow for various degrees of Libertarian human functionality.
He states that Edwards brought a -quote “water shed” of thought into the Reformed position – leading it to adopt Exhaustive Determinism.
He came up with the phrase “Libertarian Calvinist”.
And people like Paul Helm’s and Dr. Neal Anderson have responded to that – with those quotes I provided to you earlier.
They hold that Libertarian function makes Exhaustive Determinism false – and must therefore be rejected by the Calvinist.
Mike
Semi-Determinism. Is that like soft Libertarianism? As I’ve said elsewhere, LFW dies of a hundred exceptions. I don’t think I’ve heard a Calvinist use the term “exhaustive determinism,” but by this you mean that man is a puppet or a robot—I don’t believe this and neither do true Calvinists.
br.d
Of course the Calvinist is going to reject the idea of man being a puppet or robot
Its an understandably unpalatable idea.
But a robot has compatibilistic functionality
And in Calvinism – (but perhaps not your version of it) humans have compatibilistic functionality.
The robot is free to be/do what the engineer determines – and not free to be/do otherwise
The Calvinist is free to be/do what a THEOS determines – and not free to be/do otherwise.
I think Calvinists reject connecting those dots for emotional reasons.
Mike
Perhaps the people I’m reading are not mainstream Calvinists but them Flowers and his group are not mainstream Arminians.
br.d
Oh that is absolutely true!
Dr. Flowers as you know distinguishes himself from the Arminian position
Mike
There are no Provisionist philosophers. Most LFW philosophers are Molinists and you know how I feel about Molinism. Look into the Jesuit vs Dominican debate. I side with the Dominicans!
br.d
Perhaps I have a similar disposition toward Calvin.
There are some areas that I consider his thinking viable – even though he manipulated the magistrates of Geneva into the murders and tortures of people who disagreed with him. And it is documented that Calvin wrote letters to Catholic head hunters and gave them information on where they could find and kill protestants who disagreed with him.
But I also have the same reservations for the Jesuits that you do!
So you and I are definitely on the same page there!
Mike
I hope I didn’t get too belligerent with some of my comments. I’m just trying to make sense out of this crazy free will debate thing.
Nice chatting with you, Br.d. God bless!
br.d
No problem Mike!
And again – my very warm Christmas blessings to you and yours!!
br.d, I said I was going to give you the last word and I will but I have had some time to think on some of the things you have said and I wanted to respond. Also, I needed some time to look things up. Sorry it’s so long.
Let me ask you a question. You are averse to blatant contradiction which you are positive that Calviniism espouses with its (supposed) exhaustive determinism. How do you defend belief in God? All of God’s omni attributes are self contradictory or paradoxical.
I think you guys in the Flowers’ camp have double standards and inconsistencies. You say Calvinism is hard determinism by implication (see the quote from Crisp below addressing this), but you give Molinsm a pass without identifying its inconsistency and implications.
[br.d: Can you provide the quote where he (van Inwagen) says its “incoherent”? Or is it more truthful to say–he recognizes problems with it?]
It’s both! “In a paper submitted to The Journal of Ethics, ‘How to Think about the Problem of Free Will,’ van Inwagen worries that the concept ‘free will’ may be incoherent. He writes, ‘There are seemingly unanswerable arguments that (if they are indeed unanswerable) demonstrate that free will is incompatible with determinism. And there are seemingly unanswerable arguments that … demonstrate that free will is incompatible with indeterminism. But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.’”
[Mike: Calvin understood that the divine determinism of God was impossible for time-bound humans to understand.
br.d: Yeah–I have a doctrine that defies logic and even defies simple math when I need it to. And you are not to examine all things and only hold fast to the good. You are to believe every word–because its impossible for time-bound humans to understand. Somehow Mike–I don’t think that is what the Lord expects of us. One might as well give up any attempt at considering oneself a rational human being–and simply believe every word Calvin says.]
Once again, you haven’t thought this through. I think you are reacting emotionally. You are very logical and mathematical—really think about it. God is timeless, humans are time-bound, it is impossible for time-bound beings to conceive of timelessness (accept as a theoretical proposition). Further, and logically, if God is omniscient his knowledge must eclipse our own at all times and forever. Does this mean we have to accept contradiction? No, but not to admit, as time-bound created beings, that God’s universe will appear to contain paradox is hubris. It is the original sin. The idea that we can become gods. “Gods” is itself an anachronism within a Judaeo-Christian understanding as God is the ultimate omni being—logically there can only be one ultimate!
[br.d: I don’t know of any philosophical scholar on the subject–who defines LFW as the ability to do otherwise in *ALL* situations.]
(No? See the quote from Wikipedia below.) Of coarse not, excluding the “all” is the libertarian’s back-door way to weasel out of contradictions. This is why LFW dies of a hundred exceptions. This is the double standard. You condemn compatibilist’s contradictions but ignore and embrace libertarian’s contradictions. So you are just as DOUBLE-MINDED as Calvinists!
[The Frankfurt cases presented in the late 1960s totally blew that idea out of the water.]
Yes, Frankfurt demonstrated the LFW contradiction! Wikipedia on Frankfurt Cases: “The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires, or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones. … Frankfurt’s examples are significant because they suggest an alternative way to defend the compatibility of moral responsibility and determinism, in particular by rejecting the first premise of the argument. According to this view, responsibility is compatible with determinism because responsibility does not require the freedom to do otherwise.”
[And there is not way I could possibly conclude that Craig’s idea of LFW is that it is compatible with compatibilism–because compatibilism is only viable with Determinism–and Determinism and LFW mutually exclude each other.]
(See the quote from Crisp below.) I like Craig but your love affair with him is blinding you to his inadequacies.
[Again–Mike–Is it possible your definitions of these things are designed to remove logical consequences considered unpalatable?
Certainly. Is it equally possible for you as well? Is it possible that you have done more reading by the anti-Calvinists on Calvinism than by the Calvinists? When you read the Calvinists are you reading them just to search for quotes to backup your preconceived ideas?
[br.d: Actually that math shows that the term “determine” cannot be the same SENSE in regard to a THEOS vs a man. Because the math shows: [X] minus 100% of [X] equals ZERO% of [X]. Now a logical contradiction states that something cannot be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time and in the same SENSE. So that simple math shows us that when a Calvinist uses the term “Determine” in regard to a THEOS—and also in regard to a human—it cannot possibly be the same SENSE. Otherwise you have a clear contradiction.]
Of course this line of reasoning is suggesting some kind of conspiracy theory on the part of Calvinists. But many Calvinist, including Calvin himself—as you have pointed out—understand the contradiction. So why do they persist. You know that it is because they see the free will contradiction in scripture. And you know very well the scripture verses I will point to.
[The other way a Calvinist will try to escape the logic of that–is to say that simple math does not work when it comes to divine things. And again–we might as well throw away any attempt at considering ourselves rational thinking human beings–and simply believe everything everyone tells us.]
Again, some human logic must be unintelligible for God to be God. Even if you don’t agree, at least understand God from a Classical Theistic, Thomistic perspective so you can comment on it intelligibly. Investigate the doctrine of Divine Incomprehensibility which is an age old church doctrine and is derived from some of the following scriptural references: Job 11:7-9, Job 15:8, Psalm 145:3, Ecclesiastes 3:11. Isaiah 55:8,9.
[br.d: The interesting thing about those authors–some of whom are ex-Calvinists…]
See 1 John 2:19 ; )
[br.d: Yes–Reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp has an interesting historical review on Reformed thinking. He concludes that the ancient Reformed divines did allow for various degrees of Libertarian human functionality.
Yes, I’ve read Crisp’s Deviant Calvinism.
[br.d: Mike–you are really on your own–out in left field somewhere with these positions. Would you be willing to consider the possibility that your approaching this issue with emotion rather than logic?]
Quoting Oliver Crisp from Deviant Calvinism: “Reformed theology was never identified with the project of one person and was never supposed to be a straitjacket binding its practitioners. As a growing consensus of historical theologians at work on this area have agreed elsewhere, the Reformed tradition comprises a variegated and diverse body of theological view even on matters once thought to be definitive of those churches bearing its name, including the doctrines of double predestination and limited atonement,—to name but two of the most obvious candidates. …One need only consult the differences between, say, Zwingli and Calvin, or Edwards and Hodge, or even Schleiermacher and Barth, to see this is the case.”
[He (Crisp) states that Edwards brought a, quote, “water shed” of thought into the Reformed position–leading it to adopt Exhaustive Determinism.]
Where is that quote from? Did he actually use “exhaustive” determinism? And yes, Edwards has problems.
[He came up with the phrase “Libertarian Calvinist.” And people like Paul Helm and Dr. Neal Anderson have responded to that–with those quotes I provided to you earlier. They hold that Libertarian function makes Exhaustive Determinism false–and must therefore be rejected by the Calvinist.]
You took acceptation to my use of “all” situations when I referred to the PAP of LFW. Can you show me a citation where a Reformed theologian uses “exhaustive” determinism?
[Mike: But the Reformed Confessions are clear that Calvinists believe in Free Will and are not Determinists. br.d: Actually that is not true.]
Yes it is. But I can see why you would disagree after reading this Helm and Anderson quote.
[Calvinists Paul Helm and Dr. Neal Anderson explain: “We take the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) as representative of historic confessional Calvinism. The WCF’s statements about God’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism. And thus rule out libertarian free will (since libertarianism, on standard definitions, entails that determinism is false). WCF 10.1 straightforwardly affirms compatibilism by asserting that God determines that the elect freely come to Christ.
Since libertarianism entails that compatibilism is false, LC (Libertarian Calvinism) is internally inconsistent. It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God…..take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold.”]
Another quoting from Crisp: “For instance, Reform theology is often thought to entail or at least imply a doctrine of determinism. God ordains all that comes to pass, so God ordains all that I will do, every action I perform; in which case, I am not free to do other than what God has ordained. There have been some high-profile Reformed theologians who have taken this line, and today the view that is often reiterated on this score owes much to work on Jonathan Edwards. His “Freedom of the Will” is perhaps the most sophisticated and unrelenting philosophical account of the relationship between divine determinism and human freedom ever penned by a Reformed theologian. But his view is not identical to the Reformed view per se. Nor is it the case (contrary to popular belief) that the Reform confessions requires belief in some version of divine determinism. In Chapter 3, I deal with this in detail, arguing that the Reformed confessions neither require nor deny divine determinism. In fact, a species of theological libertarianism is consistent with Reformed theology, given certain qualifications (though I do not “endorse” such libertarianism here).”
So, you are pitting Helm against Crisp (scholar against scholar). Is it possible that you agree with Helm because his view fits your narrative better? And where does Helm or Anderson say “exhaustive” determinism? The terms divine or theological determinism and compatibilism, like libertarianism, are all open to interpretation—as the quote you provided from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy states!
[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”]
Am I really on my own with my views? Did you read “Deviant Calvinism”? Here’s another quote: “To derive hard determinism from the sort of Reformed confessional statements one finds in places like the Westminster Confession, the objector would need to provide evidence that the Reformed view (if we call it this) implies or entails hard determinism. I do not deny that there is much Reformed theology that appears to be consistent with theological compatibilism of the sort Boettner articulates (that is, with the compossibility of divine determinism and human free will). A number of noted Reformed theologians have advocated such views, such as Jonathan Edwards and, I think, Francis Turretin. However, hard determinism is a species of “incompatibilism,” because hard determinist claims that determinism is incompatible with human free will. This is clearly inconsistent with theological compatibilism: if one is a theological determinist, one must choose whether or not one thinks this is consistent with human free will, and must opt for compatibilist or incompatibilist versions of determinism accordingly.
As long as Flowers and other anti-Calvinists employ double standards their arguments will not be taken seriously.
Take care and God bless.
Mike this is huge!!!!
I had to copy it into a word document in order to capture all of it.
br.d
We’re either going to have to break this into parts – or only deal with a summary of it.
On Van Inwagens comment about the “CONCEPT of ‘free will’ is incoherent” let me ask you a question
If your position is that LFW in and of itself is ABSOLUTELY incoherent – then you believe that it is ABSOLUTELY incoherent for god to have LFW.
If you eradicate LFW you are left with determinism
In such case:
1) god’s thoughts, actions and choices, are determined by factors outside of his control.
2) god doesn’t have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because those are determined by factors outside of his control
3) Which means he doesn’t have the epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Is that your conclusion?
BR.D, sorry about the length. This is a complicated issue that often goes off into rabbit trails. I would much rather debate verbally but here goes…
Your question makes the Black and White Fallacy. I usually don’t like to use these logical fallacy terms—I find that it is too easy to just label something and then disregard it—but in this case it is quite appropriate. Besides, I ripped it off from Rationality Rules, of all places (ironically). See below.
LFW is not simply about making choices. LFW, compatibilism and determinism all agree that we can choose between chocolate and vanilla. But both compatibilism and determinism being casual—that is understanding actions as cause-and-effect—believe that the choice or action has a cause-and-effect relation. Therefore the choice of chocolate can be traced back to either a foundational predilection from birth or some external experience that has conditioned itself into the subconscious, or both. While the libertarian choice is contra-causal or uncaused (even random) and comes from the individual without any specific cause-and-effect.
But the theological debate is not concerned with positive choices like chocolate and vanilla. Its focus is on moral choices. All discussions of libertarian free will concern moral choices or the moral PAP. Positive or negative behaviour, good or bad, right or wrong, the ability to choose for God or reject God, which is the ability to sin or not to sin. In your definition of LFW your last point is that choice be compatible with one’s nature. This is a problem for the moral PAP. If one’s nature excludes the choice of right and wrong it is not LFW. Therefore it is obvious that God does not have libertarian free will because His nature is that He is unable to sin—He cannot reject Himself.
So now we have some choices to make. 1. We can admit that LFW is epistemically different for God and for man. 2. Redefine LFW to exclude the moral PAP and as a consequence bringing it inline with compatibilitsm. 3. Label LFW as incoherent.
Now, in the interest of being as brief as I can I’m going to refer you to to some links. Unfortunately this blog doesn’t accept external links. So you you will have to search YouTube for: “Inspiring Philosophy’s Case for Free Will – Debunked” by Rationality Rules. Yes he’s a militant atheist and a determinist, I don’t agree with his secular determinism, but he gives an excellent refutation of LFW.
With regard to the incoherence of LFW, which I think you accuse me of being unique and alone in my views, please search these links: “The Incoherence of Libertarian Free Will” by Jason Mullett (BTWN Network) and on YouTube “Why Libertarian Free Will is Unintelligible: The Principles of Sufficient Reason and Causality” by Oppositum. Once again, I don’t agree with everything that is stated but they give a good over view of the problem with LFW. And they demonstrate the complexities of the issues combined with the logical math that you put forward for determinism. The logical math was also outlined in the Crisp quote regarding compatibilist or incompatibilist views.
One other thing with regard to the living “AS IF” idea that you always put on Calvinists and determinists, Immanuel Kant, the philosopher who called compatibilism a “wretched subterfuge” and “word jugglery” proclaims that we can have no epistemic justification for believing that persons make libertarian choices, but recommends that we postulate on faith alone the existence of trans-empirical selves ‘in’ a noumenal world that make such choices.
Mike
LFW is not simply about making choices. LFW, compatibilism and determinism all agree that we can choose between chocolate and vanilla.
br.d
Not if we’re talking about the ACADEMIC definitions of LFW and Determinism/Compatibilism.
First of all – it is logically impossible to have compatibilism without determinism – based on its core definition.
Compatibilism is defined as freedom that is “COMPATIBLE” with what is determined.
For example – lets say it is infallibly decreed that you will chose chocolate.
You must know that PAP (the principle of alternative possibilities) is excluded by determinism.
Therefore no alternative possibility exists for you – and it is logically impossible for you to “Do Otherwise” – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
Additionally – it is logically impossible to RENDER-CERTAIN that you choose chocolate – and at the same time leave it OPEN for you to choose vanilla – – also at pain of falsifying an infallible decree (i.e. what is determined).
Your choice ***MUST*** be COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
And your choice was determined before you were created – so there is no such thing as a choice in your life that is ever UP TO you.
All of your choices are determined *FOR* you by an external mind.
Even an a divine being cannot RENDER-CERTAIN [A] and [NOT A] at the same time – because one negates the other.
So an attribute of LFW that is eradicated by Determinism – is multiple options from which to choose – during choice-making.
Where it is infallibly decreed that you will choose chocolate – then choosing vanilla does not exist as an option for you.
That is why Van Inwagen’s classic statement holds true:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined – it is the thesis that at any instance in time there is ever only one single physically possible future.
In Determinism the future cannot be FIXED and OPEN at the same time.
So as a Calvinist – when you are faced with choosing [A] or [NOT A] – and you have a perception that both of them exist as options for you to choose – then you are having an infallibly decreed illusion of an LFW choice which only exists as a FALSE perception within your mind.
As a result – as a Calvinist – you go through your day having hundreds of FALSE perceptions of multiple options.
FALSE perceptions of Alternative Possibilities
FALSE perceptions of yourself as the determiner of your choices
Most of your cognitive experience each day – can be summed up as a stream of FALSE perceptions of having LFW choices.
So that is another consequence of Calvinism
Additionally – you have no ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because that is determined by an external mind.
Which means – you have no ability to come to a conclusion through rational reasoning – because all of your conclusions are RENDERED-CERTAIN before you even think about them.
All FALSE perceptions which exist within your thinking are FIXED by infallible decree – and you are powerless to know they are FALSE perceptions – at pain of falsifying that infallible decree.
And since you have no way of knowing what perceptions are FALSE – then you have no way of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter. That is the epistemic consequence of divine exhaustive determinism.
I know that is hard to swallow – but think about the Jehovah’s witness – who goes through his life having FALSE perceptions of doctrine.
On Theological Determinism – whatsoever comes to pass – with perception are infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world.
He has no way of knowing that his mind is full of FALSE perceptions.
God does not allow him to know that.
And your mind is less exhaustively determined than the Jehovah’s Witness mind is.
So your mind is in the same exact boat.
The Jehovah’s witness has no way of knowing what percentage of his perceptions are divinely decreed FALSE perceptions.
And neither do you.
Welcome to Hotel Calvi-fornia
You can check out any time you like
But you can never determine what you like :-]
The problem is one of semantics and definitions. Sadly much of the confusion comes from the compatiblists themselves. Compatiblists admit that comptibilism is a “form” (or subset) of determinism. But then they will go off on long and divers explanations on how free will and determinism can coexist and are in fact a compromise or third way of approaching the free will determinism debate.
Now the fault of the libertarian is that they ignore or consider all the compromise explanations as irrelevant or irrational and just label compatibilists as determinists. This is further complicated by labeling compatibilists soft-determinists which ‘is’ a legitimate adulterate term for comptibilism within the literature. And it is even more confusing with terms like soft-libertarian and hard-comptibilism. Once labeled or considered as determinists the libertarian commences to make straw men arguments.
The irony is that if we applied the same standard (or double standard) to LFW then we can say that LFW is a “form” of indeterminism. Indeterminism simply means something that is in-determined, without a determiner or cause, random, chaotic. So all LFW choices are just random un-caused and un-reasoned “roll-of-the-dice” decisions. Now, this is certainly not what libertarians mean, though if one holds to the same strict definition of indeterminism as determinism then it is what must be implied.
To solve this misunderstanding the Reformed could abandon the term compatiblism and opt for a mysterious or un-named forth term. And indeed this is what many Thomists do. So if I call myself a Thomistc Calvinist does that exempt me from the determinist camp and allow me to rise above the libertarian/determinist/compatibilist debate?
Mike
The problem is one of semantics and definitions. Sadly much of the confusion comes from the compatiblists themselves. Compatiblists admit that comptibilism is a “form” (or subset) of determinism. But then they will go off on long and divers explanations on how free will and determinism can coexist and are in fact a compromise or third way of approaching the free will determinism debate.
br.d
Yes!!!
That’s why I don’t want to stray from the bed-rock of academic definitions.
Without that anchor we are tossed to and fro on every wind of definition.
Mike
Now the fault of the libertarian is that they ignore or consider all the compromise explanations as irrelevant or irrational and just label compatibilists as determinists.
br.d
Please provide an official definition of compatibilism that does not entail determinism.
Like I’ve said – compatibilism is a logical extension of Determinism.
If you remove determinism – you no longer have compatibilism.
Compatibilism is freedom that is said to be “COMPATIBLE” with determinism
That is to say “COMPATIBLE” with what is determined.
Mike
LFW is a “form” of indeterminism. Indeterminism simply means something that is in-determined, without a determiner or cause, random, chaotic.
br.d
Yes – I agree
This must be acknowledged as one of the problems with LFW
But Mike – the irony here is also the fact that you in fact do embrace the attributes of LFW.
As I’ve said – it appears you are taking attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism – which is logically impossible.
Mike
So all LFW choices are just random un-caused and un-reasoned “roll-of-the-dice” decisions. Now, this is certainly not what libertarians mean, though if one holds to the same strict definition of indeterminism as determinism then it is what must be implied.
br.d
You may not be familiar with Robert Kane’s work – on what he calls “self-forming actions”
Kane’s postulates that the vast majority of our impulses etc are in fact determined by factors outside of our control.
However, there are tiny times in life in which we are granted LFW.
The example the Crisp uses is – will the alcoholic take just one drink – or will he drink the whole bottle.
If he can force himself to take smaller and smaller drinks – those become “self-forming actions” which lead him out of the grip of the addiction. The addiction becomes a form of determinism.
Now we must acknowledge that Kane is making a postulation here.
And it is only based on the thinnest of argumentation.
Never the less – what he postulates is in fact what most people in the world understand as LFW.
And multiple options for the alcoholic are totally eradicated if determinism/compatibilism is the only thing that exists for us.
Mike
To solve this misunderstanding the Reformed could abandon the term compatiblism and opt for a mysterious or un-named forth term. And indeed this is what many Thomists do. So if I call myself a Thomistc Calvinist does that exempt me from the determinist camp and allow me to rise above the libertarian/determinist/compatibilist debate?
br.d
Personally – I think this is the underlying urgency that all Determinists have.
Whether that person is a Theological Determinist – or Natural Determinist.
Because – as all in academia (and John Calvin) acknowledge – the determinist must live *AS-IF* determinism is false in order to retain a sense of normalcy in life. And the Calvinist grants to himself the LFW of cherry picking when and where determinism is false – in order to retain cohesion with the general narrative of scripture. But in order to insist that LFW is incoherent – or doesn’t exist – he doesn’t allow himself to acknowledge that is what he is doing.
Mike I have a parable – which enunciates my observation of the average Calvinist position on LFW
The Calvinist is like a farmer who goes around on his tractor every day preaching to people.
When he finds someone walking on the road – or working in the field, he gets off his tractor and goes and preaches to them
The doctrine that he preaches is: “Tractors don’t exist”.
:-]
The Libertarian farmer tells the people that the tractor is theirs if they want it and then drives away and they never see the farmer or his tractor again. ; )
Mike
The Libertarian farmer tells the people that the tractor is theirs if they want it and then drives away and they never see the farmer or his tractor again. ; )
br.d
Well – if I were the libertarian farmer – wouldn’t I tell them that they also have a tractor – since be definition I approach them with rational reasoning – assuming they have the ability to choose from a range of options – those options logically available from which to choose – and that choice is not made by an external mind or factors outside of their control?
Which means I assume they have the capacity to determine TRUE from FALSE by virtue of the tractor.
And why would they never see me again? :-]
Mike – have you heard the story of the Calvinist student and the Math teacher?
It goes like this:
CALVINISM – SIMPLE MATH – AND VOLUNTARY FREE WILL
Calvinist student to Math Teacher:
Teacher, I’m having some trouble figuring out percentages, can you help me?
Math teacher:
Sure – let’s take an example you will be familiar with.
According to Calvinism, what percentage of whatsoever comes to pass is determined at the foundation of the world before people are created?
Calvinist Student:
100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined at the foundation of the world exclusively by God before people are created.
Math teacher:
Ok now
Since 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is exclusively determined before people are created – what percentage does that leave left over for any person to determine?
Calvinist Student:
Well – we would subtract 100% from whatsoever comes to pass.
And that mathematically would leave zero percent left over for any person to determine.
Math teacher:
Very good!
So, in Calvinism – numerically speaking – what percentage of things in life are up to you to determine?
Calvinist Student:
Well – I guess these numbers tell me that zero things are up to me.
Math teacher:
Very Good!
So let me also ask you a question.
Is it possible for you to volunteer something that is not up to you to volunteer?
Calvinist Student:
No – I guess not!
Math teacher:
Right!
So simple math tells you – that you cannot volunteer your will – because 100% of everything having to do with your will – was already determined before you were ever created. Therefore nothing about your will is up to you.
So, learning how to calculate percentages has empowerd you to understand that zero percent of your will – is the amount left over which is up to you to volunteer.
Are you feeling more confident about calculating percentages now?
Calvinist student:
Yes thank you for helping me figure that out!
Math is very empowering!
What percentage of whatsoever comes to pass would God need to leave as undetermined in order to preserve human free will? Can an omniscient God decree His own ignorance? Can an omnipotent God decree His own impotence? Is there anything outside of an omnipresent God?
Mike
What percentage of whatsoever comes to pass would God need to leave as undetermined in order to preserve human free will?
br.d
That depends upon the quality and/or type of “free-will” that he chose to endow upon his creation.
If he
1) Has the ability to choose among a range of options (i.e. Multiple options)
2) Those options all logically existing and available for him to choose
3) That choice not being determined by an external mind – or determined by factors outside of his control
4) That choice being compatible with his nature
Then on that definition of functionality – he has LFW as a part of his Imago Dei (“image of God”)
The question then would be – does he choose to endow that capacity as part of this Imago Dei – to mankind.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – the answer is NO.
John Calvin explains
-quote
They are merely instruments, INTO WHICH god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.
Mike
Can an omniscient God decree His own ignorance?
br.d
If he does not have LFW – then he can’t do anything else but decree his own ignorance.
For he cannot determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because they are determined for him.
Mike
Can an omnipotent God decree His own impotence?
br.d
I don’t know
Mike
Is there anything outside of an omnipresent God?
br.d
Yes as a matter of fact many things!
He cannot deny himself.
He cannot know a proposition to be TRUE and to be FALSE at the same time
He cannot make himself both exist and not exist at the same time.
He cannot create something as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
He cannot make a decree infallible and NOT-Infallible at the same time.
He cannot decree you to walk to the left and to the right at the same time.
If he decrees you will infallibly walk to the left – then he cannot permit any other option to be available to you – at pain of making an infallible decree NOT infallible.
He cannot RENDER-CERTAIN 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – and at the same time NOT RENDER-CERTAIN 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
He cannot determine 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – and at the same time leave anything undetermined for you to determine.
He cannot decree Adam to infallibly eat the fruit – and at the same time permit Adam to NOT eat the fruit.
He cannot decree Adam will eat the fruit – as that which will have existence – and at the same time – make available an alternative existence possible.
And he cannot make what he does not bring into existence available to Adam.
Therefore on Calvinism
1) Adam was free to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit is COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
2) Adam was NOT free to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit is NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
3) Not eating the fruit – is therefore NOT available to Adam
4) To eat or not to eat – was therefore never UP TO Adam
br.d: That’s why I don’t want to stray from the bed-rock of academic definitions.
Mike: The problem is that the academic definitions are not clear and definite and there is no consensus on what they are.
br.d: But Mike – the irony here is also the fact that you in fact do embrace the attributes of LFW. As I’ve said – it appears you are taking attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism – which is logically impossible.
Mike: Yes, that’s what compatibilism does—it tries to find some common ground between free will and determinism. And yes, I am embracing what appears to be a contradiction. Me and the majority of philosophers who are a lot smarter than me. So this just demonstrates to me that there must be something more complicated than the simple black and white. And that the simple definitions are inadequate.
br.d: You may not be familiar with Robert Kane’s work – on what he calls “self-forming actions”?
Mike: Yes, I read some Kane. I understand the basics of self-forming actions (SFA).
br.d: Never the less – what he postulates is in fact what most people in the world understand as LFW.
Mike: Most people who aren’t philosophers hold a contradictory view of free will. Search “Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24” on YouTube for a simple explanation.
br.d: And multiple options for the alcoholic are totally eradicated if determinism/compatibilism is the only thing that exists for us.
Mike: Yes, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. This kind of soft-libertarianism just sound like compatibilism to me (trying to make free will and determinism compatible.) And I am not alone. From Wikipedia on Kane: “Randolph Clarke objects that Kane’s depiction of free will is not truly libertarian but rather a form of compatibilism… Daniel Dennett…criticising Kane’s theory…. notes that there is no guarantee such an event (SFA) will occur in an individual’s life. If it does not, the individual does not in fact have free will at all, according to Kane. Yet they will seem the same as anyone else. Dennett finds an essentially indetectable notion of free will to be incredible.” LFW is like magic—now you see it and now you don’t!
br.d: Personally – I think this is the underlying urgency that all Determinists have. Whether that person is a Theological Determinist – or Natural Determinist. Because – as all in academia (and John Calvin) acknowledge – the determinist must live *AS-IF* determinism is false in order to retain a sense of normalcy in life.
Mike: And as I have pointed out elsewhere, libertarians do the same. So no one is except from living AS-IF.
br.d: That’s why I don’t want to stray from the bed-rock of academic definitions.
Mike: The problem is that the academic definitions are not clear and definite and there is no consensus on what they are.
br.d
Oh but they are for me!
That is the difference between you and I.
But Mike – the irony here is also the fact that you in fact do embrace the attributes of LFW. As I’ve said – it appears you are taking attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism – which is logically impossible.
Mike: Yes, that’s what compatibilism does—it tries to find some common ground between free will and determinism.
br.d
What this reveals is that it tries to find some common ground between LFW and determinism.
But only if you can create your own ad-hoc definition of “Compatibilism”.
And every Calvinist I talk to about Compatibilism does this.
And I know why! :-]
Most frequently – the Calvinist enunciation of Compatibilism – is that choices are “COMPATIBLE” with one’s nature.
And of course this is stated with eye blindfolded – in order to acknowledge that in Calvinism one’s nature is 100% determined at the foundation of the world.
So what the Calvinist is desperately avoiding is the acknowledgment that the essence of compatibilism – is freedom that is COMPATIBLE with what is determined. The Calvinist creates his definition in order to escape from determinism.
But as William Lane Craig notes – this is not a reflection of the Calvinist’s theology – but rather a reflection of his psychology.
br.d: You may not be familiar with Robert Kane’s work – on what he calls “self-forming actions”?
Mike: Yes, I read some Kane. I understand the basics of self-forming actions (SFA).
br.d:
And multiple options for the alcoholic are totally eradicated if determinism/compatibilism is the only thing that exists for us.
Mike:
Yes, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. This kind of soft-libertarianism just sound like compatibilism to me (trying to make free will and determinism compatible.)
br.d
How in the world can a LFW choice be COMPATIBLE with what is determined – if by definition – it is NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined?
Mike
From Wikipedia on Kane: “Randolph Clarke objects that Kane’s depiction of free will is not truly libertarian but rather a form of compatibilism…
br.d
Can you explain how he derives that logically?
I certainly can’t – since it seems like an utter contradiction.
Mike
Daniel Dennett…criticising Kane’s theory…. notes that there is no guarantee such an event (SFA) will occur in an individual’s life.
If it does not, the individual does not in fact have free will at all, according to Kane.
br.d
Agreed!
Mike
Yet they will seem the same as anyone else.
br.d
Except that on determinism – any perception of a choice that is UP TO YOU is represents an illusion.
And on Theological Determinism – any perception of a choice that is UP TO YOU is an infallibly decreed FALSE perception.
Mike
Dennett finds an essentially indetectable notion of free will to be incredible.” LFW is like magic—now you see it and now you don’t!
br.d
Agreed!
Mike
And as I have pointed out elsewhere, libertarians do the same. So no one is except from living AS-IF.
br.d
But isn’t it the case that – one is living *AS-IF* his belief system is TRUE
While the other is living *AS-IF* his belief system is FALSE?
A more pronounced problem appears to be present for the Theological Determinist than for the Natural Determinist
When one’s belief system is pronounced as the most sacred divine truth in the universe derived from scripture.
And one must live *AS-IF* that truth is FALSE – then one must attribute that FALSEHOOD to scripture
And ultimately derive a god who designs every human being in the world – to live without the ability to know TRUTH from FALSE
br.d writes, ‘Compatibilism is defined as freedom that is “COMPATIBLE” with what is determined.”
Normally, Compatibilism is defined as freedom that is compatible with God’s sovereignty. Under God’s sovereignty, events are determined by God directly and through secondary means.
Then, “In Determinism the future cannot be FIXED and OPEN at the same time.”
Because God is omniscient. the future cannot be FIXED and OPEN at the same time. We know that God’s omniscience makes the future certain but not necessary.
Then, “[the Calvinist] no ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because that is determined by an external mind.”
All people, not just Calvinists are bombarded with lies from Satan every day. That is why the Scriptures are so important – they contain and express truth, so the believer can determine the truth on many matters. In addition, the believer has the help of the Holy Spirit to discern truth in everyday life and the believer can asks God for wisdom in discerning truth. Many advantages to the believer not recognized by br.d.
br.d
Compatibilism is defined as freedom that is “COMPATIBLE” with what is determined.”
rhutchin
Normally, Compatibilism is defined as freedom that is compatible with God’s sovereignty. Under God’s sovereignty, events are determined by God directly and through secondary means.
br.d
And thus we have Determinism – without which Compatibilism would have nothing to be COMPATIBLE with! :-]
In Determinism the future cannot be FIXED and OPEN at the same time.”
rhutchin
Because God is omniscient.
br.d
No – because it is a LOGICAL impossibility even for a divine being to create something as [A] and [NOT A] at the same time.
Because they eradicate each other..
This is simply algebra.
rhucthin
We know that God’s omniscience makes the future certain but not necessary.
br.d
Which doesn’t really matter in the present conversation.
Then, “[the Calvinist] no ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because that is determined by an external mind.”
rhutchin
All people, not just Calvinists are bombarded with lies from Satan every day.
br.d
And how meticulously determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass?
rhutchin
so the believer can determine the truth on many matters.
br.d
Not in Calvinism!
A divine being cannot RENDER-CERTAIN whatsoever comes to pass – and at the same time leave whatsoever comes to pass within your brain OPEN to be determined by you. Your perception of TRUE and FALSE are not determined by you – they are determined by an external mind.
On Theological Determinism – your brain does not determine TRUE from FALSE – that is determined *FOR* you by an external mind.
So no – you do not have the ability to determine the truth on many matters.
You only have the ability to have perceptions of what TRUE is and perceptions of what FALSE is – as determined by an external mind.
rhutchin
In addition, the believer has the help of the Holy Spirit to discern truth in everyday life and the believer can asks God for wisdom in discerning truth.
br.d
Please tell me what percentage of perceptions which currently exist in your thinking are infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions?
All of your FALSE perceptions – are infallibly decreed to be perceived as TRUE
And all FALSE perceptions are infallibly decreed – so you cannot escape them.
How are you going to determine what is TRUE based on FALSE perceptions which you are incapable of knowing are FALSE?
rhutchin
Many advantages to the believer not recognized by br.d.
br.d
Too funny!
Many epistemic capabilities not available to humans under Theological Determinism
And rhutchin does not connect the dots. :-]
Mike R writes, ‘LFW is not simply about making choices. LFW, compatibilism and determinism all agree that we can choose between chocolate and vanilla. But both compatibilism and determinism being casual—that is understanding actions as cause-and-effect—believe that the choice or action has a cause-and-effect relation.”
Taken to it’s logical conclusion, LFW applies to choices that are spontaneous and without any consideration of pros and cons. Even LFW types reject this as few choices are truly spontaneous – certainly not the salvation chocie. LFW types accept the compatibilist and determinist position that choices are influenced by outside factors but say that these are not causal. However, they accept the compatibilist position that internal factors are causal, sort of – br.d defines LFW as being consistent with one’s nature. It is pretty much impossible to identify how LFW differs from compatibilism going by br.d’s definition.
Yes, I would agree and a so do many philosophers who disagree with LFW.
rhutchin
Taken to it’s logical conclusion, LFW applies to choices that are spontaneous and without any consideration of pros and cons
br.d
RH – you really need to do some homework before engaging in these conversations.
Your conclusion is back-wards.
On Theological Determinism – all human conclusions are infallibly determined by an external mind.
An external mind cannot RENDER-CERTAIN your brain to choose [A] and [NOT A] at the same time – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
Therefore on Theological Determinism – ‘pros and cons’ exist only as ILLUSIONS to you.
Your choice is RENDERED-CERTAIN – which means it can only resolve to one single FIXED outcome.
So you have it backwards.
Where LFW exists – there are multiple options from which to choose.
On Theological Determinism – only one single RENDERED-CERTAIN option is possible.
As stated everywhere in Academia – Theological Determinism eradicates PAP “Alternative Possibilities”
LFW does not.
br.d writes, “Your conclusion is back-wards…So you have it backwards.
Where LFW exists – there are multiple options from which to choose.”
Under LFW, options are external to the person and irrelevant to determining the choice that is made. If LFW takes options into consideration, allowing choices to influence the choice that is made then it becomes compatibilism. The only way for LFW to avoid becoming compatibilism is for LFW to encompass spontaneous choices where options have no effect on the choice made. The existence of multiple options does not distinguish LFW from compatibilism.
br.d writes, “Your conclusion is back-wards…So you have it backwards.
Where LFW exists – there are multiple options from which to choose.”
rhutchin
Under LFW, options are external to the person and irrelevant to determining the choice that is made.
br.d
Where do you come up with these things???
Under that wild premise – any LFW choice Calvin’s god makes is based on options that are external to him and are irrelevant to his choice making.
Again – you need to do some homework before you engage in these conversations.
rhutchin
If LFW takes options into consideration, allowing choices to influence the choice that is made then it becomes compatibilism.
br.d
FALSE
Because you don’t have compatibilism without determinism – and you don’t have multiple options to consider on Determinism
Only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN.
How many times to I have to quote Peter Van inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
Did you hear that rhutchin????
ONE Physically possible future – equates to only ONE SINGLE OPTION
This is why John Calvin says:
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.”
In other words – he knows they really can’t – but he treats them *AS-IF* they can.
rhutchin
The only way for LFW to avoid becoming compatibilism is for LFW to encompass spontaneous choices where options have no effect on the choice made. The existence of multiple options does not distinguish LFW from compatibilism.
br.d
How in the world is LFW going to be compatibilism – when compatibilism is predicated on determinism – which eradicates LFW.
That’s like saying rhutchin cannot avoid becoming a square circle. :-]
rhutchin: “Under LFW, options are external to the person and irrelevant to determining the choice that is made.”
br.d: “Where do you come up with these things???”
If an option determines the choice that is made, then that is determinism. Under LFW. an option cannot determine the choice that is made, so options must be irrelevant to determining the choice that is made. Maybe you can explain how an option can determine a choice and not eradicate LFW.
Then, “Under that wild premise – any LFW choice Calvin’s god makes is based on options that are external to him and are irrelevant to his choice making.”
All God’s choices are based on the counsel of His will and the options He considers are also based on the counsel of His will – everything is internal to God. Any option external to God is irrelevant to His choice making.
Then, “Because you don’t have compatibilism without determinism – and you don’t have multiple options to consider on Determinism
Only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN.”
So? What does that have to do with LFW?
Then, “How in the world is LFW going to be compatibilism – when compatibilism is predicated on determinism – which eradicates LFW.”
If options determine the choice made, then any LFW that incorporates such options eradicates itself. LFW choices are forced to be spontaneous to avoid an option determining the choice made thereby eradicating LFW.
Then, Calvin quote, ““All future things being uncertain to us,…”
All things are certain to God yet uncertain to us. We don’t know whether God has decreed that the Baptist, James and Stephen be killed or that Peter and Paul are to be saved alive. Yet God has known from the beginning. Calvin explains the obvious.
rhutchin
If an option determines the choice that is made, then that is determinism.
br.d
Correct – but then you no longer have LFW
And in this case you’ve taken LFW away from Calvin’s god.
Under that wild premise do you come up with these things??
On that premise a LFW choice Calvin’s god makes is thus based on options that are external to him and are irrelevant to his choice making.
rhutchin
All God’s choices are based on the counsel of His will
br.d
Which you’ve just eradicated by stating that if he has LFW his options are external to him and are irrelevant his choice making
Sorry rhutchin – this is you thinking in square circles again
And you don’t have compatibilism without determinism – and you don’t have multiple options to consider on Determinism
Only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN.
rhitchin –
So? What does that have to do with LFW?
br.d
rhutchin – how many times do Reformed scholars have to tell you that Determinism rules out LFW?
So how in the world is LFW going to be compatibilism – when compatibilism is predicated on determinism – which eradicates LFW.”
rhutchin
If options determine the choice made, then any LFW that incorporates such options eradicates itself.
br.d
This statement is about as rational as saying if I turn on the light in my room – the darkness will eradicate itself!
Another square circle rhutchin! :-]
But it is logical to say – if external factors are determining choice – then LFW is obviously non-existent
rhutchin
LFW choices are forced to be spontaneous to avoid an option determining the choice made thereby eradicating LFW.
br.d
rhutchin – how do you force something to be spontaneous!
Are you having another bad hair day?
The quote from Calvin is – you treat events *AS-IF* they can happen one way or another.
Which means – Calvin holds it as TRUE – that they **CANNOT** happen one way or another
But as a Calvinist but you are to treat what you know as TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
rhutchin
All things are certain to God yet uncertain to us.
br.d
And you are uncertain about the doctrine you hold as unquestionable truth?
Jesus gives you a command:
In all of your communications – let your yea be yea and your nay be nay – for anything else comes of evil
You either testify that you are “Certain” your doctrine is TRUE or you testify that you are NOT.
But if you testify both – then you are disobeying Jesus’ command.
Your doctrine is founded on a sacred proposition that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined in every part.
You don’t have “Certainty” of *WHAT* will be determined – but that is not what you are testifying to
You do testify that you have “Certainty” that the sacred proposition of your doctrine is TRUE.
So you do have “Certainty” that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass *WILL* be determined in every part
Calvin has “Certainty” that a RENDERED-CERTAIN event can only resolve to one psychically possible future.
PAP “Alternative Possibilities” are not possible – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
Calvin is smart enough to recognize that.
Therefore Calvin has “Certainty” that events ***CANNOT*** happen one way or another.
To go about your office – *AS-IF* the sacred proposition of your doctrine is FALSE in your communications – is to disobey Jesus’ command.
But in any case – in Calvinism – events ***CANNOT** happen one way or another.
They can only happen ONE WAY
Peter Van Inwagen
quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
BTW: That will be perhaps the 100th time I’ve posted that quote for you.
Some day it will perhaps click! :-]
rhutchin: “If an option determines the choice that is made, then that is determinism.”
br.d: “Correct – but then you no longer have LFW”
Elsewhere – the discussion involving God’s inability to sin or lie – you said that such inability was not a hindrance to God having LFW. Determinism, according to Peter Van Inwagen, negates all options except one yet here you say LFW is destroyed. So, God not being able to sin or lie me, thereby negating God’s ability to choose those options still allows for LFW, but determinism that also negates the ability of a person to choose certain options negates LFW. I don’t understand your reasoning.
rhutchin
If an option determines the choice that is made, then that is determinism.”
br.d
Correct – but then you no longer have LFW
Which means you are left with Calvin’s god’s choices being determined by factors outside of his control
rhutchin
Elsewhere – the discussion involving God’s inability to sin or lie – you said that such inability was not a hindrance to God having LFW. Determinism, according to Peter Van Inwagen, negates all options except one yet here you say LFW is destroyed.
br.d
Firstly:
I think you are confusing me with someone else’s post
I made statements about things that are logically impossible for even God to do.
For example – he cannot make himself exist and not exist at the same time.
But logical impossibility is not the same as INABILITY.
That is why the old trick question: “God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift” fails as a false dilemma.
It is a logical impossibility
So your error here is conflating logical impossibility with INABILITY
Secondly:
You try to say that “no hindrance to LFW” equates to “LFW is destroyed” which is a total not-sequitur
Again – I think you’re having a bad hair day!
The rest of your post simply follows from your initial error
Why do I feel like a LOGIC teacher today!?! :-]
br.d writes, “In Calvinism – 100% of whatsoever will come to pass – (within the course of time in creation) is solely and exclusively determined at the foundation of the world pre-creation.”
This because God is omniscient.- not unique to Calvinism as many other than Calvinists hold that God is omniscient.
br.d writes, ‘So I think – for a Calvinist to deny determinism as the core of Reformed Theology – is an act of futility ”
Calvinists affirm theological determinism based on God being omniscient. The general term, “determinism,” encompasses forms of determinism that Calvinists do not affirm, so Calvinists deny determinism in some of its forms..
rhutchin
Calvinists affirm theological determinism based on God being omniscient.
br.d
Nah!
Calvinists affirm Theological Determinism (with a hole lot of DOUBLE-SPEAK) because that is the core foundation of Calvin’s doctrine.
The DOUBLE-SPEAK occurs because they have a love-hate relationship with the fact that it is Exhaustive determinism.
They go about their office *AS-IF* some things (which they get to cherry pick of course) are not determined in any part :-]
rhutchin
The general term, “determinism,” encompasses forms of determinism that Calvinists do not affirm, so Calvinists deny determinism in some of its forms..
br.d
Nah!
What a garbage truck and a dump truck have in common – is they are both a truck.
And what Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism have in common – is they are both Determinism.
The only difference is the Determiner.
In Theological Determinism – a THEOS is the Determiner
In Natural Determinism – Nature is the Determiner.
Calvinists are DOUBLE-MINDED about determinism because they have a love-hate relationship it.
Its called Hotel Calvin-Fornia
You can check out any time you like – but you can never be the determiner of what you like! :-]
br.d writes, “Calvinists affirm Theological Determinism (with a hole lot of DOUBLE-SPEAK) because that is the core foundation of Calvin’s doctrine.”
The foundation of Calvinism is found in God and His attributes. primary among these are his infinite understanding of His creation and His omnipotence that allow God to exercise absolute sovereign control over His creation. Through His infinite understanding of His creation, God was able to know all future impacts of His actions in creating and sustaining His creation and to decree all that would happen by His creating. There is no contradiction between God and His creation. A consistent Calvinist lives his life as if God is sovereign and has determined every part of his life and this gives him confidence that everything in his life has purpose and is part of God’s will – notwithstanding Calvin’s apparent weakness on this point.
Then, “And what Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism have in common – is they are both Determinism.
The only difference is the Determiner.”
LOL!!! That’s like saying that water and grain alcohol are both liquids. The only difference is the way each affects the body.
rhutchin
The foundation of Calvinism is found in God and His attributes.
br.d
And it’s just a coincidence that Calvin’s god is wonderfully obedient to whatever the Calvinist says! ;-D
rhutchin
Through His infinite understanding of His creation, God was able to know all future impacts of His actions in creating and sustaining His creation and to decree all that would happen by His creating.
br.d
Just think of how many thousand of divine secrets we wouldn’t know if it weren’t for Calvinists!
rhutchin
A consistent Calvinist……..
br.d
Which exists only one of a thousand of FALSE perceptions
Which Calvin’s god decrees to continually come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain.
rhutchin
lives his life *AS-IF* God is sovereign and has determined every part of his life….
br.d
Now everyone can see how TOTALLY FALSE that is – by your consistent 1001 strategies to paint word pictures of Calvin’s god NOT determining everything in every part
Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK is consistent! ;-D
rhutchin
and this gives him confidence that everything in his life has purpose and is part of God’s will
br.d
Oh yea – John Calvin describes that confidence as – NOT knowing whether or not Calvin’s god is:
-quote
“Illuminating him only for a time to partake of it”
only to later
-quote “strike him with greater blindness”
because Calvin’s god is actually
-quote “Holding out salvation as a savor of condemnation”
NOT knowing his eternal “LOT” in life – is something every Calvinist can have confidence in!!
NOT knowing what percentage of his perceptions Calvin’s god has decreed to be FALSE perceptions is another
And NOT having any epistemic function of knowing TRUE from FALSE on any matter is another ;-]
And
What Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism have in common – is they are both Determinism.
The only difference is the Determiner.
rhutchin
LOL!!! That’s like saying that water and grain alcohol are both liquids. The only difference is the way each affects the body.
br.d
More like the same alcohol – with two different bar tenders! :-]
Mike R writes, “the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.”
Do you know how Van Inwagen defines the term, “free will”?
RHUTCHIN
Is that my typo or yours? I think I must have meant that “the concept of libertarian free will is incoherent.” But that is because the definitions change depending on who you talk to or read. I can’t remember off hand how Van Inwagen defines free will. Why don’t you tell me.
Mike R writes, “I can’t remember off hand how Van Inwagen defines free will. Why don’t you tell me.”
I don’t know what his definition of free will. I have not seen a definition of LFW that I think is distinguishable from that espoused in Calvinism.
I cut and paste your comment. Here it is again, “But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.” Made sense to me.
Oh, okay, now I get it. Sorry I thought you were challenging me on Van Inwagen. That’s the problem with these long blogs, there’s no tone and the streams are confusing. Without looking back, I think I must have been reacting to something. The more reading I do the more confused I am about what LFW actually is. How does it differ from what most people think about plain free will? LFW seems to be this autonomous internal thing that is uncaused and unaffected by anything. To have LFW you must be able to be free to choice between good and evil—you must be able to freely choose to sin! But then, of course, neither God nor the redeemed in heaven can have LFW.
Merry Christmas to you and have a happy and safe new year!
rhutchin
Do you know how Van Inwagen defines the term, “free will”?
br.d
Here is a quote from wikepedia on Van Inwagen’s “Essay on Free will”
-quote
Van Inwagen’s 1983 monograph “An Essay on Free Will” played an important role in rehabilitating libertarianism with respect to free will in mainstream analytical philosophy.
So its pretty obvious – Inwagen’s leanings concerning “free will” are Libertarian In nature.
rhutchin: “Do you know how Van Inwagen defines the term, “free will”?”
br.d: “Here is a quote from wikepedia on Van Inwagen’s “Essay on Free will”
-quote
Van Inwagen’s 1983 monograph “An Essay on Free Will” played an important role in rehabilitating libertarianism with respect to free will in mainstream analytical philosophy.
So its pretty obvious – Inwagen’s leanings concerning “free will” are Libertarian In nature.”
So, Do you know how Van Inwagen defines the term, “free will” given that you probably read Van Inwagen’s 1983 monograph “An Essay on Free Will”?
rhutchin
So, Do you know how Van Inwagen defines the term, “free will” given that you probably read Van Inwagen’s 1983 monograph “An Essay on Free Will”?
Van Inwagen insists he doesn’t like using the term “free will” because everyone has their own ad-hoc idea about what it means.
He insists there is too much baggage to overcome on the semantics of it – that he avoids using thet term.
He does however embrace a Libertarian form of human functionality – if that helps you any.
And of course – the publishing of Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” has been profoundly formative.
There have been some – with enlarged imaginations (along with their egos I suspect) who have imagined they’ve found a way around it. People living In their little personal bubbles can convince themselves I guess.
But none have been formally recognized as such.
And it still stands without waver – lo these many years.
rhutchin: “So, Do you know how Van Inwagen defines the term, “free will” given that you probably read Van Inwagen’s 1983 monograph “An Essay on Free Will”?”
br.d writes, “Van Inwagen insists he doesn’t like using the term “free will” because everyone has their own ad-hoc idea about what it means.
He insists there is too much baggage to overcome on the semantics of it – that he avoids using that term.”
LOL!!! In other words, even Van Inwagen cannot construct a basic definition of free will much less LFW.
Then, ‘He does however embrace a Libertarian form of human functionality – if that helps you any.”
So, what does Van Inwagen mean by the phrase, “Libertarian form of human functionality”?
rhutchin
LOL!!! In other words, even Van Inwagen cannot construct a basic definition of free will much less LFW.
br.d
That is something that your brain derived out of it
And I’m not surprised!
rhutchin
So, what does Van Inwagen mean by the phrase, “Libertarian form of human functionality”?
br.d
Well – I already told you that he is the author of the “Consequence Argument”
I would have thought you could connect a few dots from that – but I guess not.
His understanding of Libertarian Functionality – would have to be the opposite of functionality that is determined by factors outside of one’s control – or functionality that is determined by an external mind.
In other words – unlike you – his brain isn’t full of FALSE perceptions that are FIXED by infallible decree! :-]
All attempts at open theism are doomed to failure…..Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: No one knows God’s thoughts….Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Determinism is dead in the water….Josh 24:15, choose this day whom you will serve.
Richard writes, “Determinism is dead in the water….Josh 24:15, choose this day whom you will serve.”
Richard continues to deny that faith is the basis for the choice offered by Joshua and that faith is a gift from God that determines a person’s choice of salvation.
rhutchin
Richard continues to deny that faith is the basis for the choice offered by Joshua and that faith is a gift from God that determines a person’s choice of salvation.
br.d
rhutchin continues to deny that on Exhaustive Determinism – his every perception is determined by an external mind – who infallibly decrees him to have FALSE perceptions – which does not permit him to know what percentage of his perceptions are FALSE.
And since the human ability to discern TRUE from FALSE is totally predicated on perception – it thus follows he has no epistemic function of knowing TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Hence he has no way of knowing if it is TRUE or FALSE that Richard is in denial!
He only knows what perception has been infallibly decreed to come to pass within his brain. :-]
Rhutchin said:
Richard continues to deny that faith is the basis for the choice offered by Joshua and that faith is a gift from God that determines a person’s choice of salvation.
Nevertheless, one can depart from the faith….we must make the right choices.
Revelation……Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to REPENT of her fornication; and she REPENTED NOT.
Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall DEPART from the faith….you can’t depart from a faith you didn’t have.
Robot theology, dead in the water.
Richard
And I gave her space to REPENT of her fornication; and she REPENTED NOT.
br.d
That is one of those verses that the Calvinist has to twist into an irrational pretzel – in order to Calvalize it – and at the same time MASQUERADE it into some kind of normal appearance.
In Calvinism – the only way the event of her committing fornication could exist – is that Calvin’s god decreed that event – and thus no alternative event is permitted or made available. By the infallible decree – he made committing fornication infallible – and thus IRRESISTIBLE to her.
As Calvin says it:
-quote
They are merely instruments, INTO WHICH god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
But while he’s making her commit fornication – he’s saying that he’s giving her space to repent – which is obviously a big fat ****NOT****
Because creatures are never permitted to be/do anything other than exactly what Calvin’s decrees them to be/do.
And Calvin’s god makes absolutely NOTHING available to creatures other than what he determines.
Any act of repentance would make void an infallible decree – which he is obviously not going to permit.
So repentance is not permitted – and not available.
Calvin’s god is telling a fib! :-]
richard writes, ‘Nevertheless, one can depart from the faith….we must make the right choices.”
As John wrote, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
To make right choices, we do as Paul instructed, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Then, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
rhutchin
To make right choices, we do as Paul instructed…..
br.d
Well the Calvinist – of course – can only have a FALSE perception about doing things.
Because Calvinist’s functionality is strictly limited to ONLY what Calvin’s god decrees.
All creaturely impulses occur infallibly – and thus IRRESISTIBLY within the brain.
And a Calvinist having the idea that “HE” is making choices – is also a divinely decreed illusion.
All choices are infallibly FIXED at the foundation of the world.
None of which was ever UP TO any Calvinist.
rhutchin
be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
br.d
Ah!
But the Calvinist doesn’t have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE – because his every perception of TRUE/FALSE is determined by an external mind.
And that external mind doesn’t allow the Calvinist to know what percentage of the perceptions coming to pass within his brain are FALSE perceptions.
As a result – the Calvinist brain can’t “prove” anything.
Only Calvin’s god has epistemic functionality.
.
rhutchin
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God….
br.d
Well – in Calvinism – scripture represents the ENUNCIATED will.
Which may be the opposite of the SECRET will.
So each unique Calvinist has no way of knowing what ENUNCIATION within scripture is applicable to himself.
Where the ENUNCIATED will says “You are a royal priesthood”
The SECRET will could be “You are designed specifically to be a vessel of wrath fit for destruction for my good pleasure”
Calvinists are sooo blessed to have that!! ;-D
I agree br.d….this is what happens when the Synod of Dort is placed above the Bible
Isaiah 8:20 If they speak not according to the word, it is because there is no light in them.
Mike,
You asked about the Reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp – on the effect of Edwards on the Reformed position of determinism..
See an interview on Youtube –
Dr. Oliver Crisp on libertarian Calvinism and universalism – trinities 082
Minute: 24:51
“And from my part, my own formation on this matter was shaped in important respects by reading people like Calvin and then later Luther on the bondage of the will, and Jonathon Edwards. And of those three I suppose Edwards in particular, represents a watershed in Calvinist theology – in that many people who now think of the Reformed tradition as being synonymous with determinism, are thinking of the sort of determinism that one can derive from the work of Edwards. And not really with the sort of views that one can associate with the early Reformed tradition. And that’s some reason to show why Edward’s work represents a step-change in Reformed theology from its earlier more open textured way of thinking about human freedom with respects to God’s sovereignty”
You may take not of the fact that J.W. Pink for example – appeals to “Antimony” in regard understanding divine determinism.
I suspect Pink in this regard would be considered from a school of Reformed thinking prior to a shift towards Edward’s exhaustive determinism.
John Piper and Paul Helm’s for example – both have been critical of Pink’s appeal to “Antimony”.
Piper openly classifies himself as from the Reformed stream of Edwards.
And on Helm’s – I’ve never heard him refer to Edwards as a mentor of any kind – but he is definitely a staunch determinist.
And he adamantly asserts that exhaustive determinism makes no room for LFW.
You may notice however that Helm’s and Anderson – do not claim LFW incoherent.
Because it is logically impossible to argue that [A] and [B] mutually exclude each other – if one of them is incoherent.
If [A] is incoherent – then no one can know what [A] mutually excludes.
[A] has to be logically coherent – at least to some degree – in order for anyone to know that it mutually excludes [B].
BR.D, thanks the the Crisp reference. Yes, I listen to the Trinities podcast, and I listened to the Crisp interview in 2015. I went back and listened to it again. A couple of things occurred to me on the re-listen.
First, you accused me of being unique in my views when Crisp makes the point that there are many different views within the historic camp of Calvinism.
Second, Most libertarians insist that love is impossible without LFW choice. Dale Tuggy (a Unitarian Open Theist) relates the thought experiment question William Hasker poses to Paul Helm in their written debate (I wish I could find this debate): What if their was a pill that you could give to your new born child that would guarantee that she will always love you—it would take away her ability to freely reject you. Hasker asks: Would you give that pill to the child? He thinks that any parent would not give the pill on the grounds that freely chosen love is more valuable than love that isn’t freely chosen.
I was a little disappointed in how Crisp responded. But we reach the same conclusions. He takes the tack of the dis-analogy of the examples. That’s fine but I would have asked: What is the pill actually doing? It is preventing the child from freely rejecting the parent, thereby assuming the child loves the parent. But where in this example did the child freely make the choice to love the parent? And in fact there is a high probability that the child will always love (and never reject) the parent without the pill, and that this love will never be a conscious choice.
Mike
First, you accused me of being unique in my views when Crisp makes the point that there are many different views within the historic camp of Calvinism.
br.d
It wasn’t an accusation – it was an observation.
The problem here is that what you’ve appeared to do (metaphorically speaking) is take an empty bottle and fill it with LFW.
Then create a label “Compatibiism” and put it on the bottle.
Then go around sipping on LFW all day while telling yourself you are sipping on “Compatiblism” and LFW is incoherent.
And then saying “Compatibilism” can exist apart from Determinism.
Saying Compatibilism can exist without Determinism – is like saying man exists without the existence of humanity.
If you don’t have “human” then you don’t have “man”.
If you don’t have “Determinism” then you don’t have “compatibilism”
Mike
Second, Most libertarians insist that love is impossible without LFW choice.
br.d
I’m familiar with this argument – Ravi Zacharias argues that LFW is a logical requirement entailed within the love of god.
Mike
On William Hasker’s thought experiment – that pill will prevent the child from freely rejecting the parent
br.d
This is an fact a form of Frankfurt experiment.
The pill is taking away the child’s ability to “Do Otherwise”.
So you are correct – that the child “May” freely choose to love you.
And that is all well and good – as far as that one option goes.
But by giving the child that pill – you are removing from the child the attribute of “Alternative Possibility”
Now please take note – that when you take away “Alternative Possibility” you take away “Multiple options”
Multiple options from which to choose – is the first of the 4 attributes of LFW that I listed.
It logically follows – that Determinism eradicates the existence of multiple options.
And on Determinism – if you have a perception of having multiple options from which to choose – those perceptions exist only as Illusions.
Because no “Alternative Possibilities” actually exist.
So the question is – what kind of love do you have for the child?
The pill eliminates all but one single option.
And you are the determiner in this case – who determines that the child can only have one single option.
The question boils down to what quality of love you have for the child.
If you take away the possibility of multiple options from the child – then doing so reflects what kind of love you have for the child.
DB.R, with all due respect, you haven’t read my response carefully. My main point is that the child loves without conscious choice or options regardless of the pill. This is the Frankfurt dilemma.
Mike
DB.R, with all due respect, you haven’t read my response carefully. My main point is that the child loves without conscious choice or options regardless of the pill. This is the Frankfurt dilemma.
br.d
Actually I did understand that point.
But that is what the child does ***WITHOUT*** the pill.
Now you are the determiner of what kind of life the child will have.
You can give the pill to the child and take away all of the child’s options.
And please remember also – that another attribute of the pill is that it produces the ILLUSION of options within the child’s mind
Options which are in fact eradicated.
So the child goes through life having ILLUSIONS of multiple options which don’t actually exist.
So in giving the child the pill – you are subjecting the child to a life of ILLUSIONS.
You are the determiner.
Do you do that to the child?
BR.D, Forget about the pill. My point is the child’s love is not a conscious choice! Therefore love is not dependent on LFW.
Mike
My point is the child’s love is not a conscious choice! Therefore love is not dependent on LFW.
br.d
Are you sure?
Perhaps what you are actually describing is not love at all.
Perhaps it is nothing more than animal instinct?
If the child – or anyone – does not have conscious choice -then do they actually have love?
So you really think that at some point in the child’s development that he stops and sits down and makes a conscious choice to love his parents. And what does that decision entail? What is it based on? Is it selfless? Is selfish desire true love? Can you give me three selfless reasons why you love your wife? Perhaps it is true that love can not be forced but neither can it be simlpy chosen.
Mike
So you really think that at some point in the child’s development that he stops and sits down and makes a conscious choice to love his parents.
br.d
That is not where I was going with that at all.
I challenged a premise that you have automatically assumed within the context
Your premise is – that what the child has – is called “love” for the parent.
The question I posed was – are you sure?
Or is it actually animal instinct?
Again I pose the question – what kind of “love” do you actually have without conscious choice?
What is love?
Mike
What is love?
br.d
The scripture says “God is love”
Does Jesus not define what love is?
Is it logically coherent to say you can lay down your life for your friend – when conscious choice is not available to you?
Is it logically coherent – to say you can lay down your life for a friend – when every impulse which comes to pass within your brain – has been determined by an external mind – who makes every impulse come to pass infallibly – and thus IRRESISTIBLY?
In Theological Determinism – is it really “YOU” laying down “YOUR” life for a friend?
Or is it an external mind – who infallibly lays down “YOUR” life for a friend?
Since 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is determined at the foundation of the world – and not by you – is it logically coherent to say that anything UP TO you?
br.d: The scripture says “God is love”
Mike: So what does that mean to you?
br.d: Does Jesus not define what love is?
Mike: Jesus definition focuses on action rather than feelings.
br.d: Is it logically coherent to say you can lay down your life for your friend – when conscious choice is not available to you?
Mike: The choice to lay down your life is the demonstration of your love.
br.d: Is it logically coherent – to say you can lay down your life for a friend – when every impulse which comes to pass within your brain – has been determined by an external mind – who makes every impulse come to pass infallibly – and thus IRRESISTIBLY?
Mike: Jesus asks us to love our enemies. But in the light of our sinful natures this is a command that is shown through our free will choice of action. It is doubtful whether we can actually achieve a feeling of love for an enemy. Do you feel love for Hitler, Stalin or Satan?
br.d: In Theological Determinism – is it really “YOU” laying down “YOUR” life for a friend?
Or is it an external mind – who infallibly lays down “YOUR” life for a friend?
Mike: It is Jesus living in the person (martyr) who chooses to lay down his life.
br.d: Since 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is determined at the foundation of the world – and not by you – is it logically coherent to say that anything UP TO you?
Mike: If God makes known the end from the beginning is infinity possible?
br.d: The scripture says “God is love”
Mike: So what does that mean to you?
br.d
I was getting to that with my next question – which was for me rhetorical :-]
br.d: Does Jesus not define what love is?
Mike: Jesus definition focuses on action rather than feelings.
br.d
And that goes to the heart of my next question.
br.d: Is it logically coherent to say you can lay down your life for your friend – when conscious choice is not available to you?
Mike: The choice to lay down your life is the demonstration of your love.
br.d
Mike – you know better than this!!
How do you get a choice – where “conscious choice” does not exist?
Your answer here is telling me that you SECRETLY embrace LFW – but cannot acknowledge it.
br.d
Is it logically coherent – to say you can lay down your life for a friend – when every impulse which comes to pass within your brain – has been determined by an external mind – who makes every impulse come to pass infallibly – and thus IRRESISTIBLY?
Mike:
Jesus asks us to love our enemies. But in the light of our sinful natures this is a command that is shown through our free will choice of action. It is doubtful whether we can actually achieve a feeling of love for an enemy. Do you feel love for Hitler, Stalin or Satan?
br.d
Again – how is that logical thinking?
You have a world in which “Alternative Possibilities” do not exist
Because 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined by an external mind – and not by you – before you exist.
A world in which you don not have [A] vs [NOT A] to choose from
Because only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
Thus you have a world in which only one single “Predestined” future is available to you.
You have [A] available to you and no other “Alternative Possibility” available to you.
You will choose chocolate” because an external mind determined that is what you will choose.
Thus vanilla is not available for you to chose.
You cannot “Do Otherwise” because “Doing Otherwise” is NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined. .
The fact that you want to imagine in your mind – that you actually have a “choice” tells me – that you SECRETLY embrace what I define as LFW – but you have to rename LFW as something else – in order to reject LFW.
br.d
In Theological Determinism – is it really “YOU” laying down “YOUR” life for a friend?
Or is it an external mind – who infallibly lays down “YOUR” life for a friend?
Mike
It is Jesus living in the person (martyr) who chooses to lay down his life.
br.d
But Jesus is god
And remember without LFW multiple options do not exist for him.
In such case – Jesus is only doing what was determined by factors outside of his control.
Again – the fact that you want to call that a “choice” tells me that you SECRETLY embrace LFW – but have to rename LFW as something else – in order to reject it.
br.d
Since 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is determined at the foundation of the world – and not by you – is it logically coherent to say that anything UP TO you?
Mike
If God makes known the end from the beginning is infinity possible?
br.d
John Calvin explicitly states:
-quote
He foresees future events only in CONSEQUENCE of his decree (Institutes)
So here god is making known only what he has decreed to infallibly come to pass.
Now it is a logical impossibility for god to decree both [A] and [NOT A] to both come to pass – at pain of falsifying his own decree.
And as I’ve already shown – if god does not have LFW – then he doesn’t have multiple options from which to choose.
And so the answer to your question is NO.
There is no such thing as “Infinity possible” for him.
Only what is determined by factors outside of his control are available to him.
Perhaps the truth is – you do SECRETLY embrace LFW
But social pressures (Calvinism’s social structure) forbids you to call what you embrace LFW.
That is very consistent behavior within the Calvinist ranks.
So I guess you are an Open Theist? And please don’t respond with the canard that knowing doesn’t mean doing. That logic works for humans but not for a timeless God with omni-attributes.
Mike
So I guess you are an Open Theist?
br.d
How does that logically follow from what I’ve laid out logically?
Explain infinity from a non Open Theist view.
Can love be forced? Can love be conditioned? Can love be commanded? Can choice be forced, conditioned or commanded?
I’m starting to wonder if these questions are red-herrings :-]
Sure, because they get harder as you go deeper!
Funny!
Mike
Can love be forced?
br.d
That depends on how one defines love.
I suppose one can define love to be compatible with it being forced.
But most people see that as counter intuitive
Mike
Can love be conditioned?
br.d
That depends again on how one defines love.
The orthodox definition for divine love is that it is not based on conditions.
Mike
Can love be commanded?
br.d
Well it is certainly commanded in scripture.
But on Calvinism – that command represents the ENUNCIATED will
Which can be the direct opposite of the SECRET will
And in such case – functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.
And thus any divine expectation of it would logically follow as a FALSE expectation.
And any divine permission of it would be none existent.
Mike
Can choice be forced, conditioned or commanded?
br.d
On whether it can be commanded – see answer directly above this question.
On whether it can be forced or conditioned – see answers of similar questions above.
I don’t see these questions as “harder” – I see them as red-herrings :-]
You see them as red-herrings only because you approach every question as a refutation of Calvinism. But these are not trick questions. What is a command? Is it not an order to do something? Does an authority have to consider your particular likes and dislikes before a command is given? Are there not many commands (laws) that go against our particular free will choices? Are not many of these commands and laws forced on us against our free will? Can you freely choose to believe a lie that you know for certain is a lie? Can you not see the connection I am making between free will choices and love?
Can love be conditioned is not, is it based on conditions. But let’s explore both. Loving God is part of the gospel. Ariminians (Provisionists) believe that the gospel comes with conditions. And you have stated elsewhere that within Soft-Libertarianism people can freely choose to surrender their free will to repeated conditioning.
Mike
These are not trick questions. ……Can you not see the connection I am making between free will choices and love?
br.d
No – you are simply asking me questions – which I am answering.
But you are not connecting any logical dots in the process.
It would be better if you could produce a solid sequential logical deduction of some kind
Mike
Love based on conditions. But let’s explore both. Loving God is part of the gospel. Ariminians (Provisionists) believe that the gospel comes with conditions. And you have stated elsewhere that within Soft-Libertarianism people can freely choose to surrender their free will to repeated condition.
br.d
Firstly, I don’t use the term “Soft-Libertarianism” – so you can’t attribute that to me – unless you can first show me logically – how it applies to me.
Secondly – I don’t remember asserting anything anything about people freely choosing to surrender their free will.
What I did point out – is that on Determinism/Compatibilism – nothing – including your will is UP TO you.
And it is a logically impossible to surrender something that is not UP TO you to surrender.
But ****WHAT IF**** multiple options are in fact nothing more than ILLUSIONS?
That would mean that Determinism/Compatibilism is TRUE and LFW does not exist.
But if LFW does not exist – then god does not have LFW.
Which means – that god does not have multiple options from which to choose – during his choice-making.
Any perception in his mind that he has multiple options is an ILLUSION.
Where the scripture says “Choose ye this day whom you will serve” – god is speaking that knowing he is deceiving people with ILLUSIONS of multiple options – which even he does not have.
And since all of god’s choices are determined *FOR* him by factors outside of his control.
Then he does not have the capacity to determine TRUE from FALSE because that is determined by factors outside of his control.
We can say the LFW does not exist.
And we can say that LFW is incoherent.
But what I’ve detailed above – logically follows if we don’t have LFW.
And for me – taking the attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism – because I need to claim LFW doesn’t exist – fails under scrutiny of rational reasoning.
BR.D: But ****WHAT IF**** multiple options are in fact nothing more than ILLUSIONS?
Mike: No one argues against options.
BR.D: That would mean that Determinism/Compatibilism is TRUE and LFW does not exist.
Mike: No, it would mean that free will does not exist.
BR.D: But if LFW does not exist – then god does not have LFW.
Which means – that god does not have multiple options from which to choose – during his choice-making.
Any perception in his mind that he has multiple options is an ILLUSION.
Mike: How does an omniscient God choose? How does God deliberate between multiple options? What does it mean to deliberate? Doesn’t deliberation not entail moments of indecision where the validity of options are assessed? “At the end of a trial, after the evidence is presented, the twelve members of a jury retreat to a room to deliberate, i.e., talk through the trial and come to a verdict.” It can not be that the way God chooses it distinctly different from the way human being choose because then all logic would become irrelevant.
BR.D: Where the scripture says “Choose ye this day whom you will serve” – god is speaking that knowing he is deceiving people with ILLUSIONS of multiple options – which even he does not have.
Mike: When Jesus says, “Be ye perfect as you Father in heaven is perfect” he is speaking that knowing he is deceiving people with the ILLUSION that people have the ability to become like God which he know is not possible.
BR.D: And since all of god’s choices are determined *FOR* him by factors outside of his control.
Then he does not have the capacity to determine TRUE from FALSE because that is determined by factors outside of his control.
Mike: This is the Euthyphro Dilemma which falsifies LFW.
BR.D: We can say the LFW does not exist.
And we can say that LFW is incoherent.
But what I’ve detailed above – logically follows if we don’t have LFW.
Mike: God (and Jesus, for that matter) does not have the options to sin or not to sin therefore He does not have LFW.
BR.D: And for me – taking the attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism – because I need to claim LFW doesn’t exist – fails under scrutiny of rational reasoning.
Mike: You assume that there is only one form of determinism and that it is the opposite of LFW and then you dismantle it. Then you assume LFW by default.
BR.D: But ****WHAT IF**** multiple options are in fact nothing more than ILLUSIONS?
Mike: No one argues against options.
br.d
FALSE!
If you are infallibly decreed to choose left – then where do you get the option to falsify that infallible decree?
How are you ever permitted to “Do Otherwise” than what is infallibly decreed?
BR.D: That would mean that Determinism/Compatibilism is TRUE and LFW does not exist.
Mike: No, it would mean that free will does not exist.
br.d
FALSE!
Because on Calvinism – you are said to be RENDERED-CERTAIN to be -quote “MADE WILLING” and you come -quote “MOST FREELY”.
And in Calvinism – there is absolutely no multiple options available.
That is Determinism/Compatibilism – as enunciated by the Westminster confession.
Only one single option is made available to you
You *WILL* come “MOST FREELY” and you have absolutely no other Alternative Possibility.
Which means you do not have multiple options.
I can understand why you would feel the emotional need for having Determinism/Compatibilism and at the same time having PAP “Alternative Possibilities” But any perception of multiple options in determinism are simply illusions
Remember Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
That word “ONE” means only “ONE”.
There is no such thing as multiple options from which to choose in Determinism/Compatibilism
And that is TRUE for all choices that you are RENDERED-CERTAIN to make
BR.D: But if LFW does not exist – then god does not have LFW.
Which means – that god does not have multiple options from which to choose – during his choice-making.
Any perception in his mind that he has multiple options is an ILLUSION.
Mike: How does an omniscient God choose?
br.d
You’ve already asked this question.
If he does not have LFW – then he is not the determiner of his choices.
His choices are determined *FOR* him – by factors outside of his control
Mike
How does God deliberate between multiple options?
br.d
Again – if he doesn’t have LFW – and if he perceives himself having multiple options – then his perception is an illusion.
Mike
Doesn’t deliberation not entail moments of indecision where the validity of options are assessed?
br.d
Yes – but only where multiple options exist
And in Determinism/Compatiblism – multiple options are excluded – at pain of falsifying what is determined.
Mike
“At the end of a trial, after the evidence is presented, the twelve members of a jury retreat to a room to deliberate, i.e., talk through the trial and come to a verdict.” It can not be that the way God chooses it distinctly different from the way human being choose because then all logic would become irrelevant.
br.d
If their conclusions are all determined at the foundation of the world – then they did not reach their conclusion through deliberation.
That conclusion was already determined *FOR* them by an external mind.
As a matter of fact – every pathway of every neurological impulse which came to pass within their brains was determined by that external mind. Every impulse occurred infallibly – and thus IRRESISTIBLY.
And since the conclusion was determined before they existed – then it was never UP TO them.
BR.D: Where the scripture says “Choose ye this day whom you will serve” – god is speaking that knowing he is deceiving people with ILLUSIONS of multiple options – which even he does not have.
Mike: When Jesus says, “Be ye perfect as you Father in heaven is perfect” he is speaking that knowing he is deceiving people with the ILLUSION that people have the ability to become like God which he know is not possible.
br.d
That would logically follow if Determinism/Compatibilism is TRUE
You would take that verse the exact same way Calvinism takes the verse “no one can come to me unless the father draws them”.
Whether or not a person is “perfect” would solely be determined at the foundation of the world.
And as such case it is already FIXED as one single RENDERED-CERTAIN future.
And not one part of it was ever UP TO that person.
BR.D: And since all of god’s choices are determined *FOR* him by factors outside of his control.
Then he does not have the capacity to determine TRUE from FALSE because that is determined by factors outside of his control.
Mike: This is the Euthyphro Dilemma which falsifies LFW.
br.d
You are making a claim here.
Please show how it is the case logically.
BR.D: We can say the LFW does not exist.
And we can say that LFW is incoherent.
But what I’ve detailed above – logically follows if we don’t have LFW.
Mike: God (and Jesus, for that matter) does not have the options to sin or not to sin therefore He does not have LFW.
br.d
If you want to make that conclusion – then you will be considered as holding to an UN-Orthodox position.
That’s fine with me – if its ok with you.
BR.D: And for me – taking the attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism – because I need to claim LFW doesn’t exist – fails under scrutiny of rational reasoning.
Mike: You assume that there is only one form of determinism and that it is the opposite of LFW and then you dismantle it. Then you assume LFW by default.
br.d
No I don’t assume LFW by default.
What I do is to use logic to point out what you don’t have if you don’t have LFW.
And Determinism is classified as “Determinism Simpliciter”
It appears in a few different forms such as: Theological Determinism – and – Natural Determinism.
But both of these are in fact Determinism – which retain all of the attributes of Determinism Simpliciter.
The difference between the two is simply who the “Determiner” is.
In Theological Determinism – a THEOS is the determiner
In Natural Determinism – Nature is the determiner.
But they both retain all of the properties that I’ve detailed.
And that is why the Theological Determinist John Calvin – and the Natural Determinist Stephen Hawking – both come to the same conclusion. They must go about their office *AS-IF* their belief system is FALSE in order to retain a sense of normalcy in life.
br.d writes, ‘How are you ever permitted to “Do Otherwise” than what is infallibly decreed?”
One can always do otherwise than his nature even when the choice is infallibly decreed, but he will always choose consistent with his nature and with the infallible decree. We understand that and God understood it before He even created the universe. Just because I hate liver and would never, ever willingly eat it, eating liver is still an option for me – not eating liver is consistent with my nature. Perhaps God made it an infallible decree that I would hate liver and never eat it – Well, I now hate liver and will never eat it, and I don’t miss liver.
br.d
How are you ever permitted to “Do Otherwise” than what is infallibly decreed?”
rhutchin
One can always do otherwise than his nature even when the choice is infallibly decreed, but he will always choose consistent with his nature and with the infallible decree.
br.d
Which is just a round-about way of acknowledging that it is logically impossible to “Do Otherwise” than what is infallibly decreed.
So NO you are NOT Permitted to “Do Otherwise” than what is infallibly decreed.
And take note of what “Do Otherwise” is at work in Determinism.
It is not really YOU that is “Doing Otherwise” it is the DETERMINER – who in the process of using LFW – can decree you to “Do Otherwise”. So “Do Otherwise” actually occurs at the level of LFW.
rhutchin
We understand that and God understood it before He even created the universe. Just because I hate liver and would never, ever willingly eat it, eating liver is still an option for me
br.d
FALSE
Your perception of having an option would exist only as a infallibly decreed ILLUSION
If you hate liver – then it was infallibly decreed that you hate liver.
And on Theological Determinism – the principle of PAP “Alternative Possibilities” is eradicated.
Thus you do NOT have any other “Alternative Possible” than what is determined.
It is RENDERED-CERTAIN that you hate liver.
Any other option would make the event RENDERED **UNCERTAIN**
You do NOT have any other option – than to hate liver – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
Additionally – your hating liver would be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
And the Alternative option would be NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Which means you are NOT FREE and NOT PERMITTED to have that option.
It is hard to respond to this because, as I have said, you take everything as some kind of trick question. All your replies are just refutations of Calvinism. You can’t seem to see beyond the debate. Some of these questions are historic inquiries regarding the attributes of God and have nothing to do with Calvinism. Try putting the Calvinisim Debate aside and ask yourself these questions in the light of your belief in LFW.
The idea that God can not sin is not un-orthodox and, in fact, is not only supported by scripture but is the historic doctrine of the church!
Again – if you could lay out a sequentially deductive logical argument – rather than asking questions – you might be successful
Mike
The idea that God can not sin is not un-orthodox and, in fact, is not only supported by scripture but is the historic doctrine of the church!
br.d
That was not he aspect I called UN-orthodox.
You said
“and Jesus, for that matter) does not have the options to sin or not to sin therefore He does not have LFW”
Is that Orthodox?
That Jesus is sinless, and that he could not sin? Yes, that is orthodox. I’m surprised that you do not know the history of that doctrine.
That Jesus is without sin is taken for granted
But that he doesn’t have any choice in the matter is another thing altogether.
Now here is a different example about Jesus:
Jesus said “Don’t you know that I can call a host of Angels if I want to”?
Obviously this is describing multiple options Jesus is indicating are available to him.
But if 100% of Jesus’ choices are determined – and all of his choices are determine *FOR* him – then only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree
In such case his decision to call a host of angels or not – would not be UP TO him.
He can only call a host of Angels if is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and not determined by himself.
But if he has LFW – then he has multiple options from which to choose.
To call the Angels – or to NOT call the Angels – is available to him.
And I do you find anywhere in official Reformed statements of faith – that god does not have multiple options from which to choose?
Or do you find statements indicating his choices are determined by factors outside of his control?
I can’t help but see Calvin’s view – and the Reformed view – as one in which god certainly has LFW.
In the philosophical literature LFW is distinct from free will, just as determinism is distinct from compatiibilism, though there is overlap and disagreement.
God and Jesus have free will—multiple options. God can not sin. Jesus is God. Jesus can not sin. Like every Christian doctrine there are those who dispute and questions this. But it is part of orthodox Classical Theistic and Reformed doctrine.
Mike – saying that LFW is distinct from free will – is like saying a pickup truck is distinct from a truck :-]
However it would be logical to call LFW a distinct form of free will.
But it is a distinct form of free will that – as Paul Helm’s acknowledges – which mutually excludes determinism
Compatibilism is also a form of free will
But it is a form of free will that (of necessity) COMPATIBLE with determinism.
So the degree to which determinism is diminished – is the degree to which compatibilism has nothing to be COMPATIBLE with.
Yes there are different kinds of trucks. You’re getting on my case because I didn’t use the word “form” with “distinct”? Man, are you picky. Sorry, you’re right.
Sorry!
Its easy to slip down into a rabbit hole on any turn in these conversations!
I apologize Mike
br.d writes, “Now here is a different example about Jesus: Jesus said “Don’t you know that I can call a host of Angels if I want to”?”
In saying , “I can…” Jesus is expressing both His power and His authority and He uses the example, “call a host of Angels,” to demonstrate that power and authority. Jesus is not saying that He is considering that action as He already knew that He would not do so.
Then, “I can’t help but see Calvin’s view – and the Reformed view – as one in which god certainly has LFW.”
Didn’t Mike establish that God cannot have free will because He cannot sin, cannot lie, and cannot do anything that doesn’t glorify Himself. Moreover, God cannot have LFW because LFW choices have to be spontaneous and God decides based on the counsel,of His will.
rhutchin
In saying , “I can…” Jesus is expressing both His power and His authority and He uses the example, “call a host of Angels,” to demonstrate that power and authority. Jesus is not saying that He is considering that action as He already knew that He would not do so.
br.d
rhutchin – you must be having a very bad hair day!
The fact that you know you “would not” eat liver – means you know you “cannot” eat liver?
One more square-circle! :-]
Then, “I can’t help but see Calvin’s view – and the Reformed view – as one in which god certainly has LFW.”
Didn’t Mike establish that God cannot have free will because He cannot sin, cannot lie, and cannot do anything that doesn’t glorify Himself. Moreover, God cannot have LFW because LFW choices have to be spontaneous and God decides based on the counsel,of His will.
br.d
rhutchin – go back to the definition I presented of LFW
1) The ability to choose among a range of options (i.e., multiple options)
2) Those options existing as all logically available from which to choose
3) That choice NOT being made *FOR* one by an external mind – or by factors outside of one’s control
4) That choice compatible (i.e. agreeable) with one’s nature
Those are all attributes of LFW which are eradicated by Determinism/Compatibilism
So your argument against those attributes – is your way of saying Calvin’s god does not have them
If Calvin’s god does not have LFW – then his impulses and choices are determined by factors outside of his control.
If you want Calvin’s god to make decisions based on the counsel of his will – then you don’t have determinism in that model.
What you in fact have is LFW.
Even though you can’t allow yourself to call it that! :-]
br.d writes, “The fact that you know you “would not” eat liver – means you know you “cannot” eat liver?”
I thought it was clear that eating liver was an option, but one that was not consistent with my nature, so not a possible choice. Of course, I can eat liver. However, my dislike of liver determines my rejection of liver. I choose compatible with my nature and according to the strongest desire regarding liver in that choice.
RHutchin: “Didn’t Mike establish that God cannot have free will because He cannot sin, cannot lie,”
br.d: “So your argument against those attributes – is your way of saying Calvin’s god does not have them…If you want Calvin’s god to make decisions based on the counsel of his will – then you don’t have determinism in that model. What you in fact have is LFW.”
Your definition of LFW is no different than the Calvinist definition of free will – the key part being, “4) That choice compatible (i.e. agreeable) with one’s nature,” So, I guess both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree on free will – but each calls it something different than the other. It is important to note that God’s inability to sin or tell a lie does not disqualify Him from having LFW based on the part saying, “2) Those options existing as all logically available from which to choose.” Calvinist insistence that an inability to do X does not negate free will has been contested. Even you seem to have argued that determinism, because it excludes certain options available to people, destroys free will. Now, you say, an inability to choose certain options is not a hindrance to LFW. Perhaps, I have misunderstood your position.
br.d
The fact that you know you “would not” eat liver – means you know you “cannot” eat liver?”
rhutchin
I thought it was clear that eating liver was an option, but one that was not consistent with my nature, so not a possible choice.
br.d
This is another doozy!
The fact that you don’t like to eat liver – in your mind makes it the case that it is never possible for you to choose to eat liver.
That one doesn’t deserve a response from a rational person!
rhutchin
Of course, I can eat liver.
br.d
Oh so now it IS POSSIBLE for you to choose – even though you know you won’t
rhutchin
However, my dislike of liver determines my rejection of liver. I choose compatible with my nature and according to the strongest desire regarding liver in that choice.
br.d
Total red-herring – which goes no where fast – since the TRUTH is – your thinking once again fails.
Just because Jesus chooses not to call a host of Angels doesn’t eradicate that as a possible option for him.
Thus he does have multiple options – to call or not to call Angels.
Which means is NOT POSSIBLE under determinism
And thus the existence of multiple options – is one of the attributes of LFW
RHutchin
Didn’t Mike establish that God cannot have free will because He cannot sin, cannot lie,”
br,d
The ironic thing about this statement – is that for how many years – have you been asserting that man has free will?
And now Calvin’s god doesn’t!
Once again – rhutchin’s statements follow the pattern of a pin-ball game! :-]
rhutchin
Your definition of LFW is no different than the Calvinist definition of free will –
br.d
FALSE
1) The Calvinist is a Theological Determinist!
2) And how many times do you have to be reminded – that multiple options don’t exist – in a world in which every event can only resolve to ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE?
Repeat this to yourself 50 times rhutchin
PAP “Alternative Possibilities” do not exist in Determinism
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to RENDER-CERTAIN both [A] and [NOT A] – because one of them will falsifying an infallible decree – thus multiple options to not exist in Theological Determinism
John Calvin understood that – but you can’t?
And once again I will quote Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
br.d: “The fact that you don’t like to eat liver – in your mind makes it the case that it is never possible for you to choose to eat liver.”
My dislike of liver makes it impossible for me to choose to eat liver. If liver were an option, I would never choose it. If liver were the only option, I would not choose it, cateris paribus.
rhutchin: “Of course, I can eat liver.”
br.d: “Oh so now it IS POSSIBLE for you to choose – even though you know you won’t.”
Which means nothing. My ability to eat liver does not negate my aversion to liver. So, “possible,” does not change anything.
br.d writes, ‘Just because Jesus chooses not to call a host of Angels doesn’t eradicate that as a possible option for him.”
Jesus used “calling a host of Angels,” to illustrate His attachment to God. Given the situation, we know that Jesus did not mean that He would actually request angels to save Him from the cross. This is not a free will issue.
RHutchin: “Didn’t Mike establish that God cannot have free will because He cannot sin, cannot lie,”
br,d: “The ironic thing about this statement – is that for how many years – have you been asserting that man has free will?
And now Calvin’s god doesn’t!”
How about answering the question, Didn’t Mike establish that God cannot have free will because He cannot sin, cannot lie, I think we both know that an inability to choose an option that is logically available is not a hindrance to free will. Thus, under Calvinism, an inability to not sin does not negate free will in people. You seem to agree with this.
rhutchin: “Your definition of LFW is no different than the Calvinist definition of free will –”
br.d: “FALSE 1) The Calvinist is a Theological Determinist!”
Nonehteless, your definition of free will is no different than the Calvinist definition. The key point of agreement is your “4) That choice compatible (i.e. agreeable) with one’s nature,” Even if there were only one true option, the person can still choose either A or ~A and God’s decree accurately reflects the wants and desires of the person so that the person’s wants and desires determine his decision to chooses A.
Then, “2) And how many times do you have to be reminded – that multiple options don’t exist – in a world in which every event can only resolve to ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE?”
As you seem to have said earlier, a person having no option (as with God being unable to sin) does not negate free will. Why, all of a sudden does it negate free will here?
Then, “It is a LOGICAL impossibility to RENDER-CERTAIN both [A] and [NOT A] – because one of them will falsifying an infallible decree – thus multiple options to not exist in Theological Determinism”
So, if God cannot sin (and this does not even require an infallible decree to be true), He cannot have free will?
br.d
The fact that you don’t like to eat liver – in your mind makes it the case that it is never possible for you to choose to eat liver.
The fact that you think that is a rational thought – says everything! :-]
rhutchin
My dislike of liver makes it impossible for me to choose to eat liver.
br.d
The error here is to conflate logical impossibility with improbability.
If for example – you were stranded at a location in which the only food available to exist on was liver – I’m pretty sure that your IMAGINED impossibility would quickly vanish! 😀
rhutchin: “Of course, I can eat liver.”
br.d: “Oh so now it IS POSSIBLE for you to choose – even though you know you won’t.”
rhutchin
Which means nothing.
br.d
The fact that a Calvinist claims [X] as IMPOSSIBLE one minute and then claims [X] is POSSIBLE the next – of course means “nothing” to the Calvinist.
But it does mean “something” to a rational person! 😀
So just because Jesus chooses not to call a host of Angels doesn’t eradicate that as a possible option for him.
rhutchin
Jesus used “calling a host of Angels,” to illustrate His attachment to God.
br.d
You are certainly pushing your Bovine Serum skill-set at this point rhutchin!!!
Jesus told that to his disciples because he wanted them to know it was POSSIBLE for him to call a host of Angels
It doesn’t get more simple than that.
You obviously have to twist scripture into an irrational pretzel in order to make mold it into the form you need at any given moment.
rhutchin
Given the situation, we know that Jesus did not mean that He would actually request angels to save Him from the cross.
br.d
Which on this question is irrelevant – because the fact is – he stated that it was a POSSIBLE OPTION – and choose a different POSSIBLE OPTION. Therefore he had MULTIPLE OPTIONS.
Which does not exist in Theological Determinism – because PAP “Alternative Possibilities” are noy LOGICALLY possible.
Because in Determinism every event resolves down to one single RENDERED-CERTAIN option – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
And once again I give you Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
“Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.”
rhutchin
This is not a free will issue.
br.d
What a hoot you are rhutchin!
You remind me of a Great Dane I used to know when I was a kid.
He was like a bull in a china cabinet.
And when you need to get your way on something – your brain appears to function the same way. :-]
Jesus’ declaration proves that PAP “Alternative Possibility” was available to him.
It was POSSIBLE for him to call a host of Angels
And it was POSSIBLE for him not to call a host of Angel
Thus you have an “Alternative Possibility” which does not exist in Determinism/Compatibilism
And thus serves as an example of (1-4) of the definition that I provided as LFW.
Sorry rhutchin – your *AS-IF* thinking doesn’t work for rational people! :-]
br.d: “The fact that a Calvinist claims [X] as IMPOSSIBLE one minute and then claims [X] is POSSIBLE the next – of course means “nothing” to the Calvinist. But it does mean “something” to a rational person! ”
Yes, it means something has changed. For example, “stranded at a location in which the only food available to exist on was liver” is a form of coercion even if I still can choose to eat or not to eat. One can always imagine hypotheticals to get an exception to the general situation.
Then, “Jesus told that to his disciples because he wanted them to know it was POSSIBLE for him to call a host of Angels”
That was my point. Jesus had no intent to prevent His death but wanted to show that he went to the cross willingly. He did this in obedience to God, so while it was possible, in theory, for him to avoid that death, it was not possible in reality. That issue was settled in eternity past. It is good to see you agree that settled decisions can still be viewed as encompassing options at the time they are implemented. So, even the salvation of a person that was settled by God before creation, allows a person the option to override his nature and choose otherwise. People, generally, see themselves choosing even knowing tat God has ordained the result and did so long ago.
Then, ‘Because in Determinism every event resolves down to one single RENDERED-CERTAIN option – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree. ”
As we see in the case of Jesus, the determined outcome does not negate Jesus having options. So, it doesn’t really matter that the result had been determined – options still exist even if the outcome is certain.
Then, “Jesus’ declaration proves that PAP “Alternative Possibility” was available to him.”
Yes. And this even though the outcome was determined. That’s the point.
Then, ‘Thus you have an “Alternative Possibility” which does not exist in Determinism/Compatibilism”
Why not? Jesus death on the cross was decreed by God but Jesus still had options because, “Jesus’ declaration proves that PAP “Alternative Possibility” was available to him.”
Then, ‘And thus serves as an example of (1-4) of the definition that I provided as LFW.”
A definition of free will no different than that offered by Calvinists.
br.d: “The fact that a Calvinist claims [X] as IMPOSSIBLE one minute and then claims [X] is POSSIBLE the next – of course means “nothing” to the Calvinist. But it does mean “something” to a rational person! ”
rhutchin
Yes, it means something has changed.
br.d
It means both claims are bogus! 😀
rhutchin
stranded at a location in which the only food available to exist on was liver” is a form of coercion
br.d
Only in a child’s mind!
You should be thankful for the food divine providence provides for you – and not call eating it coercion! :-]
rhutchin
even if I still can choose to eat or not to eat. One can always imagine hypotheticals to get an exception to the general situation.
br.d
Right! It shows the claim of your IMAGINED IMPOSSIBLE was bogus!
What a hoot!
I’m starting to get the feeling that I’m talking to a 5 year old!
What grade in school did you say you were?
And on Jesus – Jesus told that to his disciples because he wanted them to know it was POSSIBLE for him to call a host of Angels.
rhutchin
That was my point.
As we see in the case of Jesus, the determined outcome does not negate Jesus having options.
br.d
This move is called the fallacy of question begging.
You start with asserting a supposed “determined outcome” *AS-IF* determinism is the case – when in fact PAP “Alternative Possibilities” is clearly present. And since PAP doesn’t exist in determinism – your question begging fallacy fails :-]
Thus you have an “Alternative Possibility” which does not exist in Determinism/Compatibilism”
rhutchin
Why not?
br.d
And I’ve told you this 1000 times now!!
Calvin’s god can RENDER-CERTAIN that Jesus call a host of Angels – with an infallible decree.
In such case Jesus calling a host of Angels will obviously be POSSIBLE.
However any “Alternative” to what is infallibly decreed is logically IMPOSSIBLE – at pain of falsifying that infallible decree
For the 1000s time – I repeat Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
John Calvin understood this – and that is why he instructs you to treat future event *AS-IF* they can happen one way or another.
rhutchin
Jesus death on the cross was decreed by God but Jesus still had options because,
br.d
NOPE!
Can’t infallibly decree [X] come to pass – and then permit [NOT X] to come to pass.
The infallible decree allows for absolutely NO “Alternative” – at pain of falsifying the infallible decree
And thus this serves as an example of (1-4) of the definition that I provided as LFW.”
rhutchin
A definition of free will no different than that offered by Calvinists.
br.d
Well this tells me that your mind is conditioned to go about your office *AS-IF” alternatives from what is infallibly decreed are possible.
So what you are providing at this point is an example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking model.
And rational minds know better! :-]
“What if their was a pill that you could give to your new born child that would guarantee that she will always love you—it would take away her ability to freely reject you.”
Isn’t that the effect of faith in the born-again believer? Doesn’t faith result in a believer always loving God while .taking away the believer’s ability to freely reject God? Isn’t that what Paul wrote in Philippians, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
Yes, that’s the way I would read it. God removes our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. He give us a new spirit. Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26; Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10
Mike
Yes, that’s the way I would read it. God removes our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. He give us a new spirit. Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26; Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10
br.d
That interpretation would be consistent with Determinism/Compatiblism.
And as you can see – absolutely none of it was ever UP TO you.
It was solely determined at the foundation of the world – before you exist.
rhutchin
Isn’t that the effect of faith in the born-again believer? Doesn’t faith result in a believer always loving God while .taking away the believer’s ability to freely reject God? Isn’t that what Paul wrote in Philippians, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
br.d
That is certainly the way the Calvinist would have to interpret it – yes!!
There is no such thing as “Do Otherwise” in Theological Determinism.
But faith is not a necessary component of that.
The only thing that is necessary for [X] is that [X] is what was determined.
Faith could be considered a secondary means – to accomplish [X].
But any number of things can decreed to be a secondary means to accomplish [X] – unless the THEOS is not omnipotent and is thus limited in his options
br.d writes, “There is no such thing as “Do Otherwise” in Theological Determinism.”
In your definition of LFW, there is no such thing as “Do Otherwise.” When you have “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” then one cannot choose otherwise than that which is compatible with one’s nature. That is what Calvinism says also.
rhutchin
In your definition of LFW, there is no such thing as “Do Otherwise.” When you have “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” then one cannot choose otherwise than that which is compatible with one’s nature. That is what Calvinism says also.
br.d
The error here is to conflate the term “Compatible” with the term “Determined”
Compatible with one’s nature does not entail – determined by one’s nature.
Otherwise you have Calvin’s god’s decisions being determined by his nature – and thus by factors outside of his control.
Remember – all of those LFW attributes are attributes that Calvin’s god enjoys as LFW.
So your attempts to disqualify any of them – are attempts to disqualify something from Calvin’s god.
If Calvin’s god does not have LFW – then his decisions are determined by factors outside of his control.
You might as well argue he’s not sovereign. :-]
This is not a trick question. It is kind of a thought experiment. If one is in a maze and trying to reach the only one exit does this not restrict one’s freedom of action—or outcome? The one is still free to go left or right, back and forth, leave or stay. But if one wants to leave there is only one way. With no multiple exits how free is the person in the maze?
Wonderful example!
Very insightful!
Yes – if you are familiar with the original star-wars trilogy – then you may remember Luke Skywalker goes to the cloud city to rescue Hans Solo.
When he gets there – a door opens – he steps in – it closes behind him.
He cannot move backwards – he cannot move to the left or to the right.
Darth Vader is DETERMINING his choices
Now where this model of Determinism deviates from Theological Determinism is in the SCOPE of what is determined.
In Theological Determinism that scope is UNIVERSAL/ABSOLUTE/EXHAUSTIVE
So in the story Luke still is the “Determiner’ of whether he moves at all.
He could decide to stay put and not go anywhere.
Darth Vader does not determine 100% of Luke’s will
But in Calvinism – man does not have a will – apart from what is determined by an external mind.
So the limitation that we are recognizing in this model – is ABSOLUTE.
John Calvin will accept nothing less than total abject subjection.
Okay but is this the kind of free will that that advocates of LFW accept? This kind of “mouse in a maze” free will? A kind of “Sophie’s Choice”—which of your children do you want to die? Your money or your life?
Mike
Okay but is this the kind of free will that that advocates of LFW accept? This kind of “mouse in a maze” free will? A kind of “Sophie’s Choice”—which of your children do you want to die? Your money or your life
br.d
If the don’t accept it – I can’t see how they would be logical.
That’s why I personally lean towards Robert Kanes “Nebulous” instances of self-forming actions.
To date – we can’t or don’t have irrefutable evidence of anything we can call self-forming actions.
They are simply postulations – nothing more than a theory.
But it does have value – because it leans towards explaining why we experience having multiple options from which to choose – and we experience ourselves as the determiners of our choices.
Whereas – if Determinism is true – then both of those perceptions are illusions.
And in the case of Theological Determinism – those illusions would have to be infallibly decreed.
And we would have to add to that – the fact that Determinism does not leave us with any epistemic capacity to determine TRUE from FALSE.
All of which is counter to what we personally experience and what we read in the general narrative of scripture.
The God of scripture treats people *AS-IF* he does grant them multiple options
And *AS-IF* he does not determine their choices for them.
The non-determinist believer interprets scripture that way – and takes it at face value – that it is really the case.
The Determinist believer – at least at some level – must conclude that the God of scripture designed man to live out a false reality.
A God who commands man to do things which he does not permit man to do – while indicating that he does.
Which points to a God whose word cannot be trusted – because the human mind cannot trust what it cannot know is TRUE or FALSE.
There is a lot here but I finally think we are getting somewhere (I hope). So without going all over the place and addressing everything all at once let me try to understand your position here. Let’s break it down to its basics before we expand. So, instead of the maze let’s use a tunnel. The person is forced into the tunnel. Or better the person is born or created in the tunnel. The person has an innate desire to exit the tunnel—where that desire comes from is unknown. The person has the choice to either stay and die in the tunnel or leave the tunnel but exiting the tunnel is the desired choice. So, is this LFW? And do you think that most libertarians would accept this scenario as a legitimate example of LFW?
I probably should only speak for myself.
I would have to say YES – the tunnel is a reality as far as I can comprehend what reality is.
But I wouldn’t say the person has an innate desire to exit the tunnel – because that would be exiting one’s reality.
I personally assume that SOME of my impulses are ACCORDING TO LOGIC determined by factors outside of my control.
All of the circumstances in which I exist equate to factors which logically reduce my options.
If I were born from a wealthy father for example – who raised me in principles of wealth – I would have a whole different set of options.
But still as small as my world is – and with the limited options available to me – it is still my perception that I am the determiner of certain choices that I make – and that in the process of making those choices – multiple options do in fact exist as real and they are not illusions.
I would suspect that someone like Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett might call that a form of delusion! :-]
Does that help?
Yes, it helps a lot. It also demonstrate how we have been talking passed each other on, what I think, is the major issue.
When you say the innate desire would be exiting one’s reality I think you are mixing the metaphor. Within the example the person simply has the desire to leave. The fact that the tunnel has an opening at one end means there is something beyond the tunnel. And I’m not relating this to death or the afterlife. But you get the main point that the person has free will but is in a kind of straight jacket situation.
I have repeatedly asked what effects do environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, etc. have on free will. And the notion that a person is the product of his environment, and to some extent—and this is the debatable point—the external environment and events determine the free will choices that he will make. What percentage of these determinant factors make real free will irrelevant?
Socrates is sitting. He has the potential to stand. If his legs are cut off he no longer has the potential to stand. But if he is strapped to the chair he doesn’t loose his potential to stand. Or if he simply never stands he still has the potential to stand. Although if he is not strapped to the chair and he never stands an onlooker may question whether he truly has the potential to stand if he never stands.
MIke
When you say the innate desire would be exiting one’s reality I think you are mixing the metaphor.
br.d
Did I say that?
What I remember saying is that the tunnel is one’s reality – and I don’t see the person trying to escape from reality.
Your version of it was “The person has an innate desire to exit the tunnel”
I didn’t agree with that part of the analogy.
But now that you mention it – if the tunnel is determinism – that is what I in fact observe with Calvinists.
But in that case – they see a different reality (i.e. tunnel) which most of the worlds population has – and they don’t want to be considered sub-normal. So they want the LFW tunnel.
Mike
Within the example the person simply has the desire to leave.
br.d
Well – I’m not seeing that as applicable to myself.
Mike
The fact that the tunnel has an opening at one end means there is something beyond the tunnel.
br.d
Now we’re introducing a new parameter – the opening.
Since I have no reason to leave – I personally don’t see an opening to get out of the tunnel.
MIke
And I’m not relating this to death or the afterlife. But you get the main point that the person has free will but is in a kind of straight jacket situation.
br.d
Hmmmm – I suspect this is a reflection of your personal sense about the tunnel – rather than mine.
Mike
I have repeatedly asked what effects do environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, etc. have on free will. And the notion that a person is the product of his environment, and to some extent—and this is the debatable point—the external environment and events determine the free will choices that he will make.
br.d
Please take note that you are now describing NATURAL determinism in this statement
Because there is no THEOS as the determiner in this statement.
Mike
What percentage of these determinant factors make real free will irrelevant?
br.d
Well – one can only go by perception – right!
And as I’ve stated earlier – my perception is ACCORDING TO LOGIC – there must be a certain degree of impulses that are determined by factors outside of my control. But (1) I still have the perception of being the “determining” determiner of my decisions. (2) The general narrative of scripture strongly implies that I am “determining” determiner of my decisions – and that I am held responsible for them for that exact reason. (3) I have the perception that I am granted multiple options from which to choose. And (4) the general narrative of scripture strongly implies that I am granted multiple options from which to choose.
What percentage of factors that are outside of my control – vs what percentage are within my control – I cannot ascertain.
But I supposed I could take a wild guess – and say perhaps 5% of the choices I perceive myself making on a daily basis are determined by factors outside of my control.
Mike
Socrates is sitting. He has the potential to stand. If his legs are cut off he no longer has the potential to stand. But if he is strapped to the chair he doesn’t loose his potential to stand. Or if he simply never stands he still has the potential to stand. Although if he is not strapped to the chair and he never stands an onlooker may question whether he truly has the potential to stand if he never stands.
br.d
Wooow – that sounded like a bunch of thoughts that were garbled up.
And some of it didn’t sound like sound reasoning.
Can you take it from the top again – and make sure every preceding statement is stated such that it is completely logical?
I suggest you group statements into movements – and if possible number each movement
So it is discernible which statements go with which – and there is a discernible sequence in the logic.
br.d: Your version of it was “The person has an innate desire to exit the tunnel” I didn’t agree with that part of the analogy.
Mike: I think you’re imposing the meaning of the analogy onto the analogy. Where in the example did I say that the tunnel was the only reality? The tunnel has an opening at one end. So the person’s reality consists on the tunnel and what is beyond the tunnel.
br.d: But now that you mention it – if the tunnel is determinism – that is what I in fact observe with Calvinists.
Mike: Okay, look, we’re moving backwards here because you think that I am trying to trap you into something. So you are trying to anticipate the meaning of the analogy. Hey, it’s my analogy. I’m not trying to trick you! The person has LFW. The tunnel is limiting his choices severely. If he had no desire to leave the tunnel than the constraint of the tunnel would not be oppressive—we might even say that the option to leave was not a relevant choice. Forget the debate for one second! I’m trying to understand LFW. If I wanted the analogy to represent your view of Calvinism it would a tunnel with a rock on a conveyor belt moving to the opening!
br.d: Well – I’m not seeing that as applicable to myself.
Mike: It’s not about you!
br.d: Now we’re introducing a new parameter – the opening.
Mike: It’s a tunnel, there’s usually an opening in a tunnel. Sorry, I just came up with this, I didn’t cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s. I should have specified that the tunnel is closed at one end and has an opening at the other end that can be seen. Gimme a break.
br.d: Hmmmm – I suspect this is a reflection of your personal sense about the tunnel – rather than mine.
Mike: Holy smoke. It’s not about you or me! Give me some slack here, will yeah.
br.d: Please take note that you are now describing NATURAL determinism in this statement…
Mike: Yeah, I don’t care. At this point I just want to establish the nature of LFW. Forget the darn debate for one second!
br.d: Well – one can only go by perception – right! … What percentage of factors that are outside of my control – vs what percentage are within my control – I cannot ascertain. But I supposed I could take a wild guess – and say perhaps 5%…
Mike: Boy, you really think that I’m trying to put one over on you. Sure perception, what ever. Bring in scripture at this point just lead us down the rabbit hole. Okay, so it’s 5%. Would you say the person in the tunnel has 95% control of his environment? If not how useful is his LFW to him?
br.d: Wooow – that sounded like a bunch of thoughts that were garbled up.
Mike: Forget about it. It’s not important. Just answer the last two questions. And I’d really appreciate it if you addressed my Euthyphro question from the last post.
Mike
Where in the example did I say that the tunnel was the only reality?
br.d
You didn’t
That was what I expressed as my personal understanding of your analogy.
I assumed that was what you wanted.
Mike
The tunnel …..it’s not about you!
br.d
AH!
Ok – I won’t try to see myself in it then – thanks for clarifying that.
Mike – (after I answered with a guess – what percentage I perceive as determined by factors outside my control)
Okay, so it’s 5%. Would you say the person in the tunnel has 95% control of his environment? If not how useful is his LFW to him?
br.d
Again – I’m only guessing here.
But – now the question of whether one has control over his environment is a very different question.
I would have to say – we have much less than 95% control over our environment.
Much of our environment is part of the created order – which we have no control over at all.
So on those things which we have no control – then LFW does not come into play.
On a theological level – for me – LFW would only have value – in that it is something that is granted to me – and I am accordingly held accountable to what I do with it – (parable of the talents)
But if I were to venture a guess at what aspects of our environment that are within our control – I would say perhaps 40%
Mike
I’d really appreciate it if you addressed my Euthyphro question from the last post.
Can you re-iterate the point you wanted to make with that?
br.d: “On a theological level – for me – LFW would only have value – in that it is something that is granted to me – and I am accordingly held accountable to what I do with it – (parable of the talents)”
Of course, without faith, you would be unable to please God, and of course, being unable to please God means that you would be unable to obey Him despite having LFW.
Yes! This is why if you hold to a hard-libertinism then you nullify the Euthyphro Dilemma response. Is the good good because God wills it?Everything God wills is made good even evil. Or does God will the good because it is good? The good is something outside of God. This is a false dilemma because it ignores a third option. God is the good! The good is part of His nature and He can’t will against His nature.
I appreciate BR.D including “choice being compatible with one’s nature” in his definition of LFW but it is not part of the standard definition. And, as you have pointed out, it goes against the PAP and ability to do otherwise that are so important to the common definition of LFW.
Mike
Yes! This is why if you hold to a hard-libertinism then you nullify the Euthyphro Dilemma response. Is the good good because God wills it?Everything God wills is made good even evil. Or does God will the good because it is good? The good is something outside of God. This is a false dilemma because it ignores a third option. God is the good! The good is part of His nature and He can’t will against His nature.
br.d
It appears like you are refuting the Euthyphro Dilemma here – which I can understand.
But by doing so you’ve removed the efficacy of the Euthyphro Dilemma argument
And in such case the Euthyphro Dilemma no longer refutes anything.
Also – we need to be careful with adding new terms like “hard-libertinism” because we open up a new can of worms with terms that have vague meanings.
Mike
I appreciate BR.D including “choice being compatible with one’s nature” in his definition of LFW but it is not part of the standard definition. And, as you have pointed out, it goes against the PAP and ability to do otherwise that are so important to the common definition of LFW.
br.d
Actually it doesn’t – because the idea that it does is based on a conflation of terms.
“compatible” does not logically equate to “determined”
As I mentioned to RH – if that were the case then Calvin’s god’s decisions would be determined by his nature – and thus his decisions determined by factors outside of his control.
When you compromise the attributes I sited as LFW – you are compromising attributes of the “Imago Dei”
BR.D: But by doing so you’ve removed the efficacy of the Euthyphro Dilemma argument. And in such case the Euthyphro Dilemma no longer refutes anything.
Mike: Yeah, I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
BR.D: We need to be careful with adding new terms like “hard-libertinism” because we open up a new can of worms with terms that have vague meanings.
Mike: Sorry, but that “is” part of the literature.
BR.D: “compatible” does not logically equate to “determined”
Mike: Wow, talk about double standards. You get to say that determined and compatible are a conflation of terms but not me. Not the compatibiltsts, they’re all just deluded!
Mike: Yeah, I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
br.d
Where you correctly sited the Euthyphro Dilemma argument – as a false dilemma.
Something that turns out to be false – has lost its efficacy to refute anything.
Mike: Wow, talk about double standards. You get to say that determined and compatible are a conflation of terms but not me. Not the compatibiltsts, they’re all just deluded!
br.d
Did I ever say anyone is “deluded”?
If I did – that should be retracted – as it is definitely wrong!
What I remember saying is that I understand the urgency both the Theological Determinist and the Natural Determinist have.
They must live *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE and LFW is true.
The Natural Determinist has a tendency to concede to the logic – and acknowledge that “He” is not the determiner of anything.
But the Theological Determinist sees himself deviating from the general narrative of scripture when he takes Determinism to its logical conclusions.
And as William James observes
-quote
The Compatibilists strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.
In other words – taking the attributes of LFW and claiming them as attributes of compatibilism.
But that is a very sophisticated strategy!
A person of that sophistication certainly can’t be called “deluded”.
br.d: Where you correctly sited the Euthyphro Dilemma argument – as a false dilemma. Something that turns out to be false – has lost its efficacy to refute anything.
Mike: I really wish I knew what you where talking about. How has what I said lost the efficacy of the refutation?
I know you never used the word deluded. I just assumed that might be what you were implying instead of saying they were lying—which you also did’t say. Not sure what the right word is. But both you and James are implying some kind of deception. Anyway, I would much rather you explain your objection to my use of Euthyphro.
I didn’t make an objection to your use of Euthyphro Dilemma
You eventually concluded that it was a false dilemma – did you not?
On the “deluded” issue – you have insightfully pointed out that we are all essentially in the same condition.
We are all different about it of course.
But we are all subject to the same weaknesses.
So I would be a hypocrite to not acknowledge that.
But consider the phenomenon of the girl who refuses to acknowledge her boyfriend beats her.
She shows up at her parents house with black and blue marks on her face etc.
Her parents try to reason with her – but she blames her beatings on herself.
Consider that as the situation a Calvinist subconsciously finds himself.
And why John Calvin essentially acknowledges – the decree produces a sense of horror within a person.
I used to ponder about this – until I got came across the research of Dr. Bella Depaulo on “Altruistic dishonesty”
Altruistic dishonesty is what the girl exhibits – when she blames herself for her boyfriend beating her.
Dr. Depaulo
-quote
Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
Okay, I got yeah, but I would really like to understand your objection to my Euthyphro assertion. Yes it is a false dilemma because there is a third option.
My comment was essentially – that if you’ve identified it as a false dilemma -then what efficacy does a false dilemma have to refute anything?
Yes but you have to explain why it is a false dilemma. You can’t just make the assertion and then leave it at that. How was my explanation of the response in error?
Mike – you are the one who declared it a false dilemma – please go back and read your post.
If you think there is some efficacy of it then perhaps you could try to explain it.
But I don’t know why you’d want to do that after calling it a false dilemma.
I think antimony is an element.
Good catch Richard!
A typo on my part :-]
Got the “n” and the “m” swapped on antinomy
DOES DETERMINISTIC THINKING PRODUCE COGNITIVE DISTORTION
Cognitive distortion is generally defined as the mind treating something that is true *AS-IF* it is false. Or treating something that is false *AS-IF* it is true.
In the classic “Conformity Experiment” designed by Solomon Asch (see youtube videos), we have social pressures at work. Lines on a piece of paper are drawn. One line is observably longer than the other.
The group is instructed by its authority figure – to treat the long line *AS-IF* it is the short line. And a newly introduced member of the group is compelled by the need for social adhesion to conform to the pattern.
So we have something that is false – being treated *AS-IF* it is true. Or something that is true being treated *AS-IF* it is false.
But what happens if this mental condition continues over a prolonged period of time? Eventually the mind will start to automatically treat the long line *AS-IF* it is short. And treat the short line *AS-IF* it is long. The mind is pliable and learns to think the way we condition it to think.
Now listen to the following instructions by John Calvin to his disciples:
-quote
“We hold future things *AS-IF* they might happen either one way or another”
-quote
“Each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”
Are you starting to connect some dots here!!
John Calvin has engineered a social structure in which certain things, which according to his doctrine are logically false, are treated *AS-IF* they are true. Or certain things which according to his doctrine are logically true, are treated *AS-IF* they are false.
We have here a form of Voluntary Cognitive Distortion. The young and restless Calvinist – will allow his mind to be conformed exactly as the Asch experiment shows.
Eventually – over time – the mind is conditioned to treat the attributes of IN-DETERMINISM *AS-IF* they are attributes of DETERMINISM.
The mind will thus be conditioned to take the attributes of Libertarian Freedom, and by habitually treating them *AS-IF* they are attributes of Determinism/Compatibilism, the mind eventually treats them as such, automatically and subconsciously.
This is why Paul Helm’s when asked “what kind of freedom do you have?” answers “The kind of freedom everyone has”. Helm’s knows that determinism logically rules out “Alternatives” from what is determined. He therefore knows that “Alternative Possibilities” do not exist in determinism.
But following the instructions of John Calvin – his mind treats events *AS-IF* they are not determined in every part – and treats things *AS-IF* they can happen one way or another. If when Helm’s is asked this question – he points out there is a difference between Compatibilistic freedom and Libertarian Freedom – he knows he will be asked to enunciate that difference. He is not inclined to do that because his mind is treating them *AS-IF* they are not different at all.
This *AS-IF* thinking pattern – is why a Calvinist automatically assumes himself the determiner of the perceptions which come to pass within his mind. And automatically assumes himself the determiner of the choices he makes. And why he automatically assumes that “Alternative Possibilities” exist for him during choice-making, when logic tells him they do not.
It should be obvious that any “Alternative” from what has been infallibly decreed will falsifying that infallible decree. Accordingly then, every future event can only resolve to one physically possible future. But the mind learns to automatically and subconsciously treat events *AS-IF* the opposite is the case.
The mind is conditioned to treat certain things which are logically false *AS-IF* they are true. And to treat certain things which are logically true *AS-IF* they are false.
So here we have the quintessential definition of Voluntary Cognitive Distortion.
So, what are the implications of this for LFW? You see, you can’t just dump all this on the shoulders of Calvinism. You really need to ask yourself what all this means for what I believe, as well. If you do not then you’re committing the same error as you are accusing your opponent. And you are treating your own view “AS-IF” it is the only correct view.
Setting aside the criticism of the experiment by Perrin and Spencer—that of gender, status and cultural bias—this is a perfect example of how external influence and conditioning over time can control our LFW. Extensions of this study are the Milgram experiment in the 60s and the Stanford Prison experiment in the 70s.
BR.D: But what happens if this mental condition continued without alteration over a prolonged period of time? Eventually the mind will start to automatically treat the long line *AS-IF* it is short. And treat the short line *AS-IF* it is long. The mind is pliable and learns to think the way we condition it to think.
Yes, what happens? So over time one’s free will choices are determined by prior events to the the point where the person thinks they are making a free will choice when, in fact through conditioning, their choices are determined and predictable! Social influence or peer pressure, along with environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, education, etc. is why LFW can never be absolutely free!
MIke
So, what are the implications of this for LFW? ….. you are treating your own view “AS-IF” it is the only correct view.
br.d
Firstly – what I’ve done was to lay details concerning the Calvinist’s psychological response to his doctrine.
I did that by holing his psychological response up to the measuring rod of logic.
I’m sure – you measure things all the time – and don’t tell yourself that you are obligated to measure every related or opposite.
In this case we are talking about a cognitive distortion as a current condition.
When your doctor lays out details concerning your current condition – do you obligate your doctor to lay out the details of every other condition?
MIke
Setting aside the criticism of the experiment by Perrin and Spencer—that of gender, status and cultural bias—this is a perfect example of how external influence and conditioning over time can control our LFW. Extensions of this study are the Milgram experiment in the 60s and the Stanford Prison experiment in the 70s.
br.d
Very interesting!
It sounds like you also have some details to lay out.
Can you do that so that we can see what they are?
Mike
Yes, what happens when Calvinism’s mental condition is continued without alteration over a prolonged period of time?
The mind is pliable and learns to think the way we condition it to think.
So over time one’s free will choices are determined by prior events to the the point where the person thinks they are making a free will choice when, in fact through conditioning, their choices are determined and predictable! Social influence or peer pressure, along with environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, education, etc. is why LFW can never be absolutely free!
br.d
AH!
So you have a theory here!
Your theory is in response to what analytical philosophers note about perceptions which all people consider normative.
Two of those perceptions – for example are
1) When faced with a choice – to sin or not to sin for example – the human mind has the perception that it is the sole determiner of that choice – when the human mind also knows – according to one’s doctrine – that that must be recognized and acknowledged as a false perception.
2) When faced with a choice between [A] and [NOT A] the human mind has the perception that PAP “Alternative Possibilities” exist – when the human mind also knows – according to one’s doctrine – that that also must be recognized and acknowledged as a false perception.
So now Mike can lay out details of a certain cognitive distortion.
He can lay out details of certain false perceptions which are considered normative.
And he can lay out details of why humans go throughout their day experiencing hundreds of continuous false perceptions of reality
Mike can lay out these details of because Theological Determinism (aka Calvinist) is true – and Mike Theological Determinism provides the WHY answer concerning this cognitive distortion.
.
A THEOS at the foundation of the world determines ever impulse which comes to pass within his brain.
This THEOS thus designed man to live a life of cognitive distortions in the form of hundreds of false perceptions.
And Mike can lay out the logical details – and conclude that a great deal of his discernment of TRUE vs FALSE is predicated on divinely decreed false perceptions. And Mike can thus conclude that a THEOS designed mankind with no Epistemic function to tell TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
If that is your analysis – seeing that Theological Determinism is true – then I think it is a logical one – and you should present it.
But what about the person whose doctrine holds that Exhaustive Determinism is not true?
One’s doctrine does not contain a THEOS who determines every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain.
These people must also have false perceptions!!
Surely logic clearly tells us that.
What are the false perceptions these people have – given that LFW exists?
Well – we should be able to look to the literature written by experts on cognitive distortion – and see what cognitive distortions they site as current examples. We could definitely see that as our evidence.
Perhaps a cognitive distortion that I personally have – is an inability to recognized cognitive distortions in myself.
Jesus did say – before you can take the straw out of someone else’s eye – you must take the log out of your own eye.
What log do I have in my eye?
We would probably say that one of my cognitive distortions is the inability to know what logs are in my eye.
If LFW does exist – then I could definitely pray and ask the Lord to show me what logs (i.e., cognitive distortions) I have in my eye.
And expect the Lord to answer that prayer.
I’ll do that – and lets see what happens.
br.d: I’m sure – you measure things all the time – and don’t tell yourself that you are obligated to measure every related or opposite.
Mike: When making an important decision one should always consider all variables and implications. When debating one should not only examine flaws and inconsistencies in the opponent’s view but also in one’s own view. Dismantling the opponent’s arguments does not necessarily make one’s own arguments correct.
br.d: When your doctor lays out details concerning your current condition – do you obligate your doctor to lay out the details of every other condition?
Mike: If the condition is serious you ask for a second opinion.
br.d: Very interesting! It sounds like you also have some details to lay out. Can you do that so that we can see what they are?
Mike: I’ve done this in my last post and in many previous posts.
br.d: 1) When faced with a choice…
Mike: Hard Determinism. Not my view. Though through social conditioning it can be difficult know if one is making an unbiased choice or if the choice is a product of the conditioning.
br.d: 2) When faced with a choice between…
Mike: Yes, and it swings both ways!
br.d: If that is your analysis – seeing that Theological Determinism is true – then I think it is a logical one – and you should present it.
Mike: When I say the LFW is incoherent or does not exist it should be understood that I am talking about a particular definition of LFW. Many, including some Calvinists, equate free will and LFW as being the same thing—that is defined in the same way. In this case I would not argue against LFW.
I would like you to take some time to search for and watch the following YouTube videos. And search for the PDF of “Can a Libertarian Hold that our Free Acts are Caused by God?” by W. Matthews Grant.
I would call his view compatibilism but I understand he is coming from a Thomisic perspective and and there is much debate on whether Aquinas was a libertarian or compabilist (and the same for Anselm).
1. Matthews Grant – What is Divine Providence?
2. Matthews Grant – Does God’s Knowledge Quash Free Will?
3. Philosopher Interview: W. Matthews Grant on Divine Causality & Human Freedom
Ok,
I’ll take some time and find those things and give them a read.
Are they in PDF form?
PDF: Can a Libertarian Hold that our Free Acts are Caused by God?
YouTube:
1. Matthews Grant – What is Divine Providence?
2. Matthews Grant – Does God’s Knowledge Quash Free Will?
3. Philosopher Interview: W. Matthews Grant on Divine Causality & Human Freedom
Awesome!
Thanks Mike :-]
Preliminary thoughts on “Can a Libertarian Hold that our Free Acts are Caused by God?”
Mike – It will take me some time to process through the complete document.
But here are some preliminary thoughts since I think I already have an idea of where this is going.
-quote
According to prevailing opinion, if a creaturely act is caused by God, then it cannot be free in the libertarian sense.
Br.d
The problem with this language is vagueness with the term “caused”. For in one sense a libertarian leaning thinker can acknowledge a divine creator as the “Ultimate” cause of all biological life and thus in an “Ultimate” sense, the cause of all consequent acts.
I think it would be more precise to say – if a creaturely act is caused to infallibly come out only one way, having been rendered-certain to do so by supernatural antecedent factors outside of a person’s control , then that person’s act cannot be said to be “free” in the Libertarian sense.
-quote
It follows that a libertarian account of human freedom is consistent with God’s being the source and cause of all being apart from himself, including the being of free human actions.
Br.d
Yes – this is essentially what I was alluding to in my previous statement. The question must then be asked – from the very first statement in the introduction “According to whose prevailing opinion”. Whose opinion are we referencing here? The author does not state this. I think we can rule out my personal opinion as a reference. :-]
I suspect what we are going to see as the underlying foundation here – is the classic appeal to secondary causes, which is very consistent in Calvinist appeals trying to distance the THEOS from certain events within the causal picture.
This appeal inevitably boils down to the Theological Determinist denying Theological Determinism – by punting to Natural Determinism, as if the THEOS has magically disappeared from the picture. The problem with this appeal is that it totally ignores the fact that every secondary *SUFFICIENT* cause is by necessity preceded by an antecedent primary and *NECESSARY* cause. And when we follow the deterministic causal chain back to its origin, we always wind up with a THEOS as a cause which limits every event to one single physically possible future.
-quote
On the account I am recommending, by contrast, although God’s causal power is certainly intrinsic to God, the actual exercise of this power in producing an effect does not occur in virtue of something intrinsic to God that would be otherwise were God not bringing about the effect.
br.d
Well there is a glaring problem here which I haven’t so far seen addressed anywhere in this writing – although I’m still working through it.
Nature does not have the power to make anything come to pass infallibly, because Nature does not have the attribute of infallibility. The earth does not have the power to move one fraction in its orbit infallibly. Gravity does not have the power to cause an object to move infallibility.
There is only one being in the universe who has that power. So, when it is the case that every movement down to the slightest vibration of an atomic particle occurs as an infallible movement – then we no longer have Natural Determinism, and we can’t rationally attribute even the slighted atomic movement to a secondary cause.
Movements of nature which occur infallibly cannot rationally be called “Naturally Occurring” movements, because Nature does not have the power to make an infallible movement occur. The only being who can make an impulse come to pass infallibly within a human brain is an infallible being. That impulse cannot be construed as a “Naturally Occurring” impulse because the human brain doesn’t have the power to make an impulse come to pass infallibly. The impulse occurs infallibly and thus irresistibly.
The only freedom permitted under the rules of that model – is the freedom to be/do what a divine external mind infallibly decreed one be/do. And no alternative possibility is permitted or made available – at pain of falsifying that infallible decree. And that totally rules out freedom in a Libertarian sense.
But I will keep reading :-]
Mike – here is one more note on “Can a Libertarian Hold that our free acts are caused by god”
-quote
I should note one assumption I make throughout the paper. I will assume that an act’s being caused by God is consistent with its being performed by its creaturely agent, where “per-formed” indicates that the act is VOLUNTARY, intentional, and rational (mo-tivated by reasons).
The idea of a creature’s act being “Voluntary” is also ruled out by Theological Determinism – because it is impossible for you to “Volunteer” something that is not UP TO YOU to “Volunteer”.
And where it is the case that Whatsoever comes to pass is infallibly decreed prior to your existence – then it follows absolutely nothing is UP TO YOU. Your will is thus NOT UP TO YOU to volunteer – and neither is any human functionality of any kind UP TO YOU – because all human functionality is FIXED before you exist. Every impulse which comes to pass within your brain is FIXED before you exist.
Peter Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument:
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those thoughts, choices, desires, and actions, are framed within the boundaries of nature, which exist at the time in which they are actualized in our lives.
3) But then it is not UP TO US what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we were born.
4) And neither is it UP TO US what attributes of nature – including our own – exist at any time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US
Also the “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP is much more accurate when it is thus:
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
Mike – – what I believe to be final thoughts on “Can a Libertarian Hold that our free acts are caused by god”.
Grant completely deviates from the Reformed (i.e. Calvin’s) position on divine permission. For Calvin divine permission works thus:
1) You are permitted ONLY to be/do what the THEOS infallibly decrees you to be/do
2) You are NOT permitted to be/do otherwise
Grant assumes a Thomistic view of divine permission which rejects the Reformed (i.e. Calvin’s) position.
This essentially resolves to a form of “Semi-Determinism” where 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is NOT determined by infallible decree – but the THEOS “Permits” man to be the determiner of some of his functionality.
Calvin mocks those who appeal to this form of divine permission.
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
-quote
“These instances may refer also to DIVINE PERMISSION…But……such a solution is too ABSURD.”
-quote
“They recur to a distinction between will and PERMISSION…..*AS-IF* god had not DETERMINED what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be.”
-quote
From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [god’s] will, but MERELY by his permission.”
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely PERMITS them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them.
In the Old French of Calvin’s day – the word AUTHOR is: “Auctor” – meaning: Originator, Instigator
-quote
In the creature there is NO power, NO action, and NO motion that is not fully controlled by the divine decree. They are thus governed by the secret counsel of god. (Institutes)
-quote
“The internal affections of men are no less ruled by the hand of god then their external actions are preceded by his eternal
decree.”
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
I would say – you can assume a Thomistic view of divine providence if you prefer it to Calvin’s.
But you would be wise to keep that to yourself when in the presence of other Calvinists.
Its definitely a deviation from the Reformed position.
You would be adopting a position which deviates in some essential aspects of Calvinism.
I don’t think you really understood Grant—your cursory reading jumped to some wrong conclusions—but he is quite difficult. He is presenting an idea from a Classical Theist perspective. Also you need to understand Thomistic metaphysics. It’s funny that you are not more positive to his view since you seem to accept anyone who says they agree with LFW—Open Theists, Molinists, why not Thomists? (But I guess that’s just part of the LFW double standard.)
I have to say the main thing that frustrates me—and it is certainly not just you—is the double stands. I’ve talked about this before and you have never really addressed it—or you just don’t see it.
You define terms in relation to Calvinism the way you want but won’t accept my definitions for LFW. You get to use quotes from Calvin and other Calvinists that support your definitions and arguments but when I do the same with Libertarians they are teated as irrelevant or wrong. You can take the hardline on Calvinism but when I do the same for LFW it’s ignored. All alternatives and exceptions and variations in LFW is all good but I’m only permitted the very narrow definition you define for me. You quote scholars, like van Inwagen, as authorities when they support your ideas—and ignore van Inwagen when he admits to LFW’s possible incoherent—but the scholars I quote are all fringe and not mainstream!
Do you think Tim Stratton is mainstream? Stratton is the only one who you and I could find who holds to a view that LFW is compatilbile with one’s nature, and in fact the mainstream view is the opposite—you can even find the view that one CAN choose against one’s nature on Flowers’ podcast. Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature. If humans are bound (controlled) by their nature then the ability to do otherwise (at least for moral choices) is compromised. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the Euthyphro Response is not dependent on free will choice.
Here’s a quote from Stratton, “In my current research I have located quotes from the majority of theologians over the past 2000 years who have written on the topic of free will (including Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin) supporting this view of LIMITED LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM and this MODIFIED version of COMPATIBILISM (that is logically compatible with libertarian freedom).” This just goes to show that Libertarians like to play fast and loose with language just like Calvinists. I couldn’t find his dissertation on the website but his views are certainly not mainstream Libertarianism. (Incidentally, he did a terrible job in the debate with Guillaume Bignon.)
Stratton and Craig are Molinists. Do you think Molinism is mainstream? If there are no problems with LFW then why does Molinism even exist? Why aren’t you a Molinist like the majority of theological philosophers who accept LFW, and that you like to quote? How can you and other Libertarians see the determinism in Calvinism and be ignorant of it in Molinism? This is just another double standard.
LFW believes that there is something beyond God. LFW believes in luck and chance and random indeterminism. For the Libertarian cause-and-effect work for the Kalam argument—the creation of the universe—but not for created beings. The universe didn’t just pop out of nothing and neither do human choices and actions.
God is all in all. Nothing happens without a purpose. God didn’t just predict that you might exist. God created you and he has a definite plan for your life!
Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21, Psalm 37:23, Psalm 139:16, Psalm 138:8, Isaiah 14:24, Matthew 6:27, Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 15:28, Ephesians 1:4-5, Ephesians 1:9-10, Ephesians 2:10, Ephesians 4:6, Philippians 1:6
Mike
I don’t think you really understood Grant—your cursory reading jumped to some wrong conclusions—but he is quite difficult. He is presenting an idea from a Classical Theist perspective. Also you need to understand Thomistic metaphysics. It’s funny that you are not more positive to his view since you seem to accept anyone who says they agree with LFW—Open Theists, Molinists, why not Thomists? (But I guess that’s just part of the LFW double standard.)
br.d
My position on this was to ascertain what I thought you were seeing it as – as a possible variance of Reformed theology.
In our dialogs you seem to be consistently presenting yourself as a Calvinist.
And your interest in defending Calvinism – which is why you would pick up a dialog with me.
And so I assumed this was for you a variance of Calvinism.
That is why – once I understood how much it denies core propositions of Reformed doctrine – I didn’t bother to proceed any further with it.
And I thought I made my final statement pretty clear.
You are free to adopt it if you like it
But then I don’t think its correct for you to be presenting it as Calvinism.
So my liking or acceptance of it really has no bearing in my mind of why you wanted me to review it.
In my mind I was asked to review it as a viable variation of Calvinism
Which it really can’t be.
There are many people who have variations of different doctrines which they adopt and which have aspects which I would agree with.
But those people don’t claim to be presenting Calvinism.
Why don’t you just give up Calvinism?
Mike
Do you think Tim Stratton is mainstream? Stratton is the only one who you and I could find who holds to a view that LFW is compatilbile with one’s nature, and in fact the mainstream view is the opposite
br.d
So you don’t accept the proposition that god’s choices are compatible with his nature?
And you don’t think god has LFW?
And you don’t seem to want the alternative (i.e. Determinism) where god’s choices are determined by factors outside of his control.
Personally I don’t see how you can evade it.
Mike
you can even find the view that one CAN choose against one’s nature on Flowers’ podcast.
I think I addressed this.
Again – there is a difference between “Compatible” with one’s nature – and being determined by one’s nature.
Mike you are an interesting mix of wants and desires.
For yourself – you want to try to have Calvinism and compatibilism without determinism
But for anyone else – you want compatibilism to in fact be just another name for determinism?
Mike
Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature.
br.d
Firstly – I don’t think you have the ability to show this to be ABSOLUTELY the case.
Secondly – I’m seeing your contradictions again – because this statement tells me you adopt the very Determinism – which you’ve just spent the last few days and many arguments trying to escape.
Mike
Here’s a quote from Stratton, “In my current research I have located quotes from the majority of theologians over the past 2000 years who have written on the topic of free will (including Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin) supporting this view of LIMITED LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM and this MODIFIED version of COMPATIBILISM (that is logically compatible with libertarian freedom).”
Mike
This just goes to show that Libertarians like to play fast and loose with language just like Calvinists.
br.d
I think this again stems from a conflation in your mind – where you are (in this context but not your own) making compatibilism just another word for determinism.
Mike
I couldn’t find his dissertation on the website but his views are certainly not mainstream Libertarianism. (Incidentally, he did a terrible job in the debate with Guillaume Bignon.)
br.d
Its interesting how we observe things.
I had the opposite observation.
In MHO most of Bignon’s arguments are based on semantics.
For example he argues that determinism has its own version of “Do Otherwise”
If a coin is infallibly determined to land heads-up – that coin “Can Do otherwise” – it can land tails-up.
Well what he is doing there is simply shifting the referent.
The truth is that the “Do Otherwise” in that situation occurs at the level of the THEOS who rather than decreeing the coin to land heads-up can “Do Otherwise” and make the coin land tails-up.
In such case what we find is “Do Otherwise” actually occurs at the THEOS level and not at the determined object (i.e. the coin) level.
Which means that “Do Otherwise” occurs where LFW exists – because the THEOS using his LFW can decree [A] or “Do Otherwise” and decree [NOT A]. But the coin cannot “Do Otherwise” from what is decreed. So its really not the coin that is “Doing Otherwise” its the THEOS who is “Doing Otherwise”.
So its misleading semantics to say the coin *CAN* Do otherwise.
Its more the case that the coin *WILL* Do Otherwise.
But the coin does not have LFW – and thus the coin does not have multiple options.
So we’re not talking about the same “Do Otherwise”.
Which means we are using the phrase “Do Otherwise” in an equivocal manner, which is misleading – and if not recognized results in a false conclusion.
Mike: “Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature.”
br.d: “Firstly – I don’t think you have the ability to show this to be ABSOLUTELY the case.”
No one is born with faith as faith comes through hearing the word. A person without faith has a nature described by Paul in Romans 3, “As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one;…etc.” No one chooses not to have faith; that is the condition from birth (or from conception). Who determined this condition? In Acts 17, “…in God we live and move and have our being,…” Thus, God is the external force that determined that a person would be born without faith. The consequence of this is described by Paul in Romans 8, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” By using the term, “carnal mind,” Paul refers to the person’s nature. Paul says that the carnal mind cannot please God emphasizing the lack of faith, as faith is necessary to please God.
rhutchin
No one is born with faith as faith comes through hearing the word……..
br.d
Oh but for the Calvinist – its *MUCH MUCH MUCH* more **RADICAL** than that!
The Calvinist is not granted the epistemic ability to know whether or not Calvin’s god has given him a FALSE “faith”
In order to survive mentally – the Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god has given him a TRUE “faith”
That is a consequence of Exhaustive Divine Determinism – aka Calvinist theology:
The Calvinist brain is **NEVER** permitted – to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Because 100% of whatsoever [ impulses, perceptions, etc] come to pass within the brain – are solely and exclusively determined by an external mind.
As a matter of fact – the Calvinist brain is NOT PERMITTED to be the determiner of anything!!
And the external mind determines FALSE perceptions to be perceived as TRUE.
And the ability to have a Libertarian Free choice between TRUE and FALSE also does not exist for the Calvinist.
However, in order to survive – he must go about his office *AS-IF* a Libertarian Free choice between TRUE from FALSE does exist for his brain.
So we can see – that life as a Calvinist is *MUCH MUCH MUCH* more *RADICAL* than he lets on.
Life for a Calvinist is all about living *AS-IF* things are TRUE when he has no epistemic ability to know when they are in fact FALSE
So life for a Calvinist is all about living *AS-IF* Libertarian Free choice between TRUE and FALSE exists for his brain.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that *AS-IF* thinking! :-]
BR.D, I’ve talked a lot about double standards but I don’t think you really know what I’m talking about. So here is an example of a post I could send you if I were completely unsympathetic to your views and wanted to take a hardline on LFW.
Oh but for the Arminian – its *MUCH MUCH MUCH* more **RADICAL** than that!
The Arminian is not granted the epistemic ability to know whether or not Arminius’ god has given him a FALSE “faith.”
In order to survive mentally – the Arminian must go about his office *AS-IF* Arminius’ god has given him a TRUE “faith.”
That is a consequence of Exhaustive Indeterminism – aka Arminian theology:
The Arminian brain is **NEVER** permitted – to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Because 100% of whatsoever [impulses, perceptions, etc] come to pass within the brain – are solely and exclusively indetermined and random.
As a matter of fact – the Arminian brain is NOT PERMITTED to be the determiner of anything!!
And the all perceptions are just a roll-of-the-dice.
And the ability to have a reasoned choice between TRUE and FALSE also does not exist for the Arminian.
However, in order to survive – he must go about his office *AS-IF* a reasonable choice between TRUE from FALSE does exist for his brain.
So we can see – that life as an Arminian is *MUCH MUCH MUCH* more *RADICAL* than he lets on.
Life for an Arminian is all about living *AS-IF* things are TRUE when he has no epistemic ability to know when they are in fact FALSE.
So life for an Arminian is all about living *AS-IF* reason and deduction to determine between TRUE and FALSE exists for his brain.
Arminians are so blessed to have that *AS-IF* thinking! :-]
Hi Mike
Well – lets carry your reasoning to its logical conclusions.
What makes the “role of the dice” factor – on your view – is that for you it is the logically coherent way to understand LFW.
So – lets say your view is TRUE
What do we have?
We have a THEOS who *APPEARS* to be able to make a LFW determination between TRUE and FALSE in his mind
But that determination is actually nothing more than a “role of dice”.
All impulses and perceptions which come to pass within his mind are all nothing more than the “role of the dice”.
Which means he doesn’t *REALLY* have the ability to make a determination between TRUE and FALSE in his mind.
The truth is – 100% of his impulses and perceptions are Exhaustively determined by factors outside of his control.
And this THEOS – in order to survive must (just like you do) – go about his office *AS-IF* he does have the ability to make a Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE.
There you go!
That is your belief system!
You have a god – who has no epistemic ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter
So for you – when the scripture says – you are made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”)
What that means is that – that image that you are made in is an image in which neither you or your god have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Congratulations! :-]
Don’t congratulate me. I’m not the one pushing for a LFW that is indeterministic, incompatibilistic, contra-causal, non-causal, no cause, uncaused. That’s your LFW! A god of chance, luck and randomness!
Well – you and I either have a god of chance luck and randomness – who is incapable of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Or you and I have a god whose perceptions and impulses are 100% determined by factors outside of his control – and thus is incapable of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
But just remember – either way – you and I have no way of knowing what is TRUE or what is FALSE
Because either way we have no epistemic ability to determine TRUE from FALSE.
The difference between us:
You live *AS-IF* LFW is TRUE – while holding it to be FALSE
I live *AS-IF* LFW is TRUE – while holding it to be TRUE
But on your view – either way – both of us have nothing discernible to worry about!
And that is why congratulations are in order. :-]
You’re correct but living as if something is true or false while holding that it is either true or false don’t make it true or false. Our entire lives are filled with stuff we just assume is true because we have to live. This is why it is so traumatic when we find out that we have been lied to or that one of our cherished beliefs is false. The main point with this last discussion is that your logic that defines determinism also defines its opposite, unless you want to admit to some kind of compromise—where determinism and indeterminism can coexist or are compatible (which is what all LFW indeterminists/incompatibilists do).
Mike
The main point with this last discussion is that your logic that defines determinism also defines its opposite.
br.d
Correct – but it is not *MY* logic is it?
It is in fact – just logic.
And I – as an IN-determinist – am happy to acknowledge it.
And not try to paint FALSE pictures of it.
And I think the Lord is pleased with that honesty.
I’m not going about using cosmetic equivocal language – to paint over the face of my *AS-IF* belief system – in order to falsely advertise a product – trying to make it look like something it isn’t.
I’m also not going about boasting that my *AS-IF* belief system is superior over others.
Calling other believers heretics – and semi-xyz(s) etc
I also don’t go about posturing *AS-IF* I have access to an endless stream of divine secrets and the insider information about every divine impulse.
So why is it then – I so consistently find – that to be the case with Calvinists?
You – of course – are an exception!
And I think the Lord is pleased with your honesty.
But when Calvinists come here and try to paint deceptive pictures – I think the Lord is also pleased – for there to be someone here to help SOT101 readers – to not be deceived by them.
Why would a holy God – require ministers of TRUTH – to use deceptive language – and paint cosmetic masks over the face of their belief system – in order to masquerade that belief system as something it isn’t?
Well, yes, it is just logic, but you assert that comptibilism is illogic and to say this you have to say—and you are not alone—that the majority of philosophers who are comptibilists and assert the logic of comptibilism are wrong—and worse, deceptive!
You don’t acknowledge exhaustive indeterminism because you believe a “limited” LFW and “modified compatibilism,” just like Tim Stratton and all libertarians, though they don’t use those terms. But more importantly exhaustive indeterminism doesn’t get you free will!
I have a problem with the way some Calvinists argue their points—absolutely—that is why I read many of the “so called” Calvinist alternativists. I don’t believe most people are trying to be deceptive. I think the average person wants simple answers and they are not interesting in going deeper. Whereas the philosophers understand the history and complexity of the debate and admit that there are no simple answers to the big question of free will.
You’ve listened to Dale Tuggy’s podcast. He’s a unitarian philosopher. He argues the illogic and deceptive language of the Trinity, that is, “person” is being and can only logically be singular. Libertarian’s often argue their case like unitarians. But whatever arguments are give in favour of the Trinity the final statement must be that it is a divine mystery!
Mike
Well, yes, it is just logic, but you assert that compatibilism is illogic
br.d
Nope!
I rightly recognize [in the case of Theological Determinism] what compatibilism means.
It is freedom that is COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
There is not contradiction to logic in that.
The contradiction comes in other ways:
1) By defining compatibilism as freedom which MUST be COMPATIBLE with what is determined – without determinism.
The contradiction there is to assert determinism as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
2) By asserting freedom as COMPATIBLE with what is determined as TRUE – while going about one’s office *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Mike
and to say this you have to say—and you are not alone—that the majority of philosophers who are comptibilists and assert the logic of comptibilism are wrong—and worse, deceptive!
br.d
See answer above.
You will not find a quote from me which asserts that Determinism/compatibilism is “wrong”.
You will find tons of posts in which I provide an analysis of the logical consequences of Determinism/Compatibilism
Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” is a great example
It starts out with the statement “IF Universal Divine Determinism is TRUE – then…….
Such an argument never seeks to show that Universal Divine Determinism is FALSE or “wrong”.
It only seeks to show – what logically follows IF it is TRUE
Mike
You don’t acknowledge exhaustive indeterminism because you believe a “limited” LFW and “modified compatibilism,”
br.d
Yes on the limited LFW.
But I don’t know where you get “modified compatibilism”
We need to understand the contexts in which we are using the term “compatible”
When we say one’s freedom MUST be compatible with that person being 100% determined by factors outside of one’s control – we are in effect acknowledging that one is in fact 100% determined by factors outside of one’s control. That is what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS with the term “compatible” in the context of determinism.
In this case “Freedom” is what is compatible with determinism.
But outside of the context of determinism – the term “compatible” does not automatically entail determinism
This is why it is normal for you to say – you are “compatible” with your wife.
And by saying that – it is not automatically assumed that what you are saying – is that you are determined by your wife.
Mike
just like Tim Stratton and all libertarians, though they don’t use those terms. But more importantly exhaustive indeterminism doesn’t get you free will!
br.d
Firstly – Dr. Stratton does use those terms.
He does conclude a limited form of LFW – so he does use those terms.
Secondly:
Where do you get “Exhaustive” IN-determism from?
You won’t see it in Dr. Stratton, or William Lane Craig, or Alvin Plantinga, or Peter Van Inwagen
And you won’t see it in anything I post here.
The problem the Calvinist faces – which forces him to live *AS-IF* his belief system if FALSE – is in fact the “Universal” “Exhaustive” “Absolute” scope of Determinism – which is Calvinism’s foundational core.
The Calvinist does not live *AS-IF* the THEOS determines *ALL* things in every part.
And the Non-Calvinist does not live *AS-IF* the THEOS doesn’t determine *ANYTHING*.
To present these as black-&-white is not the way you live your life.
And it is not the way a Non-Calvinist lives his life.
Mike
I have a problem with the way some Calvinists argue their points—absolutely—that is why I read many of the “so called” Calvinist alternativists. I don’t believe most people are trying to be deceptive. I think the average person wants simple answers and they are not interesting in going deeper. Whereas the philosophers understand the history and complexity of the debate and admit that there are no simple answers to the big question of free will.
br.d
Mike – I’ve been wanting to thank you again for how sincere and honest you are!
And much I appreciate that!!
You are definitely a man above men in that regard!
You know – if I did not allow myself to acknowledge the vulnerabilities of my own position I would not be in a condition to be able to understand your arguments. And I think the same must be true in the other direction.
Now on the business of how Calvinist language is consistently cosmetic in nature – highly equivocal – and often designed to be strategically misleading is an issue – especially for someone who considers himself a follower of Jesus.
Personally – I am persuaded that the Calvinist is forced into what Dr. Bella Depaulo describes as “Altruistic Dishonesty”
It is the kind of dishonesty one finds with a girl whose boyfriend is beating her – and she cannot acknowledge it.
She blames herself – or she blames everything and everyone else – because she is protecting a “target”.
She actually does tell herself lies.
And when she conveys those things that she tells herself to others – then technically she is telling them lies also.
But her intent is not to deceive people.
Her intent is to protect a “target”.
I think “Altruistic Dishonesty” is an excellent way of understanding the nature of Calvinist language.
Mike
You’ve listened to Dale Tuggy’s podcast. He’s a unitarian philosopher. He argues the illogic and deceptive language of the Trinity, that is, “person” is being and can only logically be singular. Libertarian’s often argue their case like unitarians. But whatever arguments are give in favour of the Trinity the final statement must be that it is a divine mystery!
br.d
Is there a response by scholar on his argument – that we would also have to consider?
BR.D: It only seeks to show – what logically follows IF it is TRUE.
Yeah right. That’s just the the passive-aggressive way of saying you are wrong. You’re getting that from Flowers. He the poster-child for passive-aggressive! And every time you quote van Inwagen I can quote him saying that LFW is incoherent.
BR.D: Where do you get “Exhaustive” IN-determism from?
Where do you get exhaustive determinism from? You won’t see in Calvin, or Edwards or Helm or Bignon.
BR.D: To present these as black-&-white is not the way you live your life.
Man oh man, you need to listen to your own words! What’s the middle ground between determinism and indeterminism?
BR.D: Is there a response by scholar on his (Tuggy’s) argument – that we would also have to consider?
Sure, there are a number of Trinitarian metaphysical arguments but Tuggy just argues the down-to-earth human logic that person and being are a single entity, period! You should listing to some of his podcasts on unitarianism.
BR.D
It only seeks to show – what logically follows IF it is TRUE.
Mike
Yeah right. That’s just the the passive-aggressive way of saying you are wrong.
br.d
Cm-on Mike!
Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” is not classified as a passive aggressive way to say something is false.
BR.D: Where do you get “Exhaustive” IN-determism from?
Mike
Where do you get exhaustive determinism from?
br.d
I’ve explained this before.
One is well to be familiar with concepts like the square of opposition – where we differentiate between a UNIVERSAL proposition and a PARTICULAR proposition.
The UNIVERSAL (i.e. Exhaustive) scope of determinism comes right out of Reformed declarations.
The term “WHATSOEVER” is a UNIVERSAL term.
It does not assert that “SOME” of what comes to pass is infallibly determined at the foundation of the world.
It says “Whatsoever” comes to pass – is infallibly determined.
That is where I get the mathematics of it.
Where 100% of whatsoever perceptions which come to pass within your brain are determined by an external mind.
Leaving ZERO% left over for anything to be UP TO you.
And this is where Peter Van Inwagen logically concludes that ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass is “UP TO” you.
Mike
you won’t see in Calvin, or Edwards or Helm or Bignon.
br.d
Well – that is why Dr. Craig says: “Unfortunately – yet consistently – Calvinists fail to enunciate the radical distinctions of their belief system.”
It makes sense that Calvin assumes Exhaustive Determinism – where he says ” go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in every part.” It makes no sense to do this if one does not in fact hold that absolutely everything is determined in every part.
And the fact that the Calvinist is forced to live in this world of *AS-IF* thinking – is in fact the reason why Dr. Craig’s statement above is the case. It is why Calvinist language is saturated with double-speak.
Mike
Man oh man, you need to listen to your own words! What’s the middle ground between determinism and indeterminism?
br.d
Just what I’ve stated – and just what the Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* is the case.
I call it semi-determinism
Mike
Sure, there are a number of Trinitarian metaphysical arguments but Tuggy just argues the down-to-earth human logic that person and being are a single entity, period! You should listing to some of his podcasts on unitarianism.
br.d
Thanks!
Good suggestion!
I’ll try to make the time to do that. :-]
BR.D: And you left out what also logically follows – that his nature is determined by factors outside of his control.
His nature is not determined outside of his control. God is His nature and God is in control.
BR.D: If as you say- he is the determiner of his determinations – then you no longer have determinism.
In the human sense perhaps.
BR.D: And what you’ve just described looks alot like what I call LFW.
Sure, if you define it as compatibility with God’s nature and that God is the sole determiner. This is why some Calvinists believe in LFW, but they only believe that God has it—and maybe man before the Fall, and possibly Angels before the war in heaven.
BR.D: And if the attribute of being the determiner of his determinations is part of his Imago Dei (“image of God”) then why is he unable or unwilling to make that a part of man’s?
First of all, you are assuming that LFW, defined by you in a very specific way that is not shared by all libertarians, is part of the Imago Dei that is gifted to man. Second, show me the specific, common and agreed upon doctrine of the Imago Dei.
BR.D: Well – since that is not LOGICALLY possible if Exhaustive determinism is the case – then there goes determinism. :-] And what you are left with must therefore be some form of LFW.
Is it LOGICALLY possible if Exhaustive Indeterminism is the case? “Some form” of LFW? What does that mean? Is that like Soft-LFW? Isn’t there a common definition of LFW that everyone agrees with?
BR.D: But the intent of it (Molinism) is to find a LOGICAL way to have semi-determinism with a limited degree of LFW.
Semi-determinism? Limited degree of LFW? Where is this coming from? You’re not suggesting that there is a way to make determinism and free will compatible are you? Because you know what that’s called?
BR.D: And since the Calvinist is already forced to go about his office *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE – Molinism has been found to provide a more intellectually satisfying alternative.
So the LFW Molinist can sit down with the Calvinist Molinist and sing kumbaya?
BR.D: That is where I get the mathematics of it. Where 100% of whatsoever perceptions which come to pass within your brain are determined by an external mind. Leaving ZERO% left over for anything to be UP TO you.
Exhaustive indetermism is the logical opposite of exhaustive determinism. Where 100% of indeterminate contra-causal perceptions which come to pass within your brain are indetermined leaving ZERO% left over for anything to be UP TO you. I can do this all day!
BR.D: It makes sense that Calvin assumes Exhaustive Determinism – where he says ”go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in every part.” It makes no sense to do this if one does not in fact hold that absolutely everything is determined in every part.
Really? Can a person be ignorant of aerodynamics and still fly in a plane AS-IF it will fly?
BR.D: And the fact that the Calvinist is forced to live in this world of *AS-IF* thinking – is in fact the reason why Dr. Craig’s statement above is the case. It is why Calvinist language is saturated with double-speak
I think I’ve demonstrated similar double-speak in the LFW camp. And Molinism is certainly saturated with semantic double-speak.
BR.D: Just what I’ve stated – and just what the Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* is the case. I call it semi-determinism
You call it semi-determinism? Is that in the literature? Isn’t that just double-speak for exhaustive determinism?
BR.D: And you left out what also logically follows – that his nature is determined by factors outside of his control.
mike
His nature is not determined outside of his control. God is His nature and God is in control.
br.d
Well – there goes determinism!
Hello some form of LFW :-]
BR.D
If as you say- he is the determiner of his determinations – then you no longer have determinism.
Mike
In the human sense perhaps.
br.d
More precisely – in the logical sense.
Unless we are going off into the land of “anything goes” thinking.
BR.D:
And what you’ve just described looks alot like what I call LFW.
Mike
Sure, if you define it as compatibility with God’s nature and that God is the sole determiner.
br.d
Yes – those are points 3 & 4 of my definition
And don’t forget points 1 & 2
1) He has the ability to choose from a range of options.
2) Those options being logically and psychically available from which to choose.
Both of which are LOGICALLY impossible with determinism – which dictates that only one single already “DETERMINED” option is logically available. So when for example – he came to the point of choosing to make man in his image – the truth was – he didn’t have the option to do otherwise. So he wouldn’t have said “Let us make man”. He would have said “It has been determined that I will make man”.
And if we apply that aspect of determinism to the assertion that his choices are determined by his nature – then we have nature only permitting him one single PRE-DETERMINED option to be logically available
Thus during his choice-making he doesn’t have multiple options available from which to choose.
And if he speaks *AS-IF* he does have multiple options from which to choose – then he is speaking a falsehood.
Mike
This is why some Calvinists believe in LFW, but they only believe that God has it—and maybe man before the Fall, and possibly Angels before the war in heaven.
br.d
I know some Calvinists will say man had LFW before the fall
But think about it.
How can that possibly be if the doctrine of decrees is TRUE – where 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined PRIOR to creation. That rules out any form of of LFW ever existing for any part of creation.
I can understand a Calvinist thinking that the God of the universe has LFW.
Because otherwise they are left with determinism – and all of the LOGICAL implications we’ve been discussing.
Mike
First of all, you are assuming that LFW, defined by you in a very specific way that is not shared by all libertarians, is part of the Imago Dei that is gifted to man. Second, show me the specific, common and agreed upon doctrine of the Imago Dei.
br.d
The reference to Imago Dei.is from scripture itself.
Let us make man in our image and likeness.
If God – during his choice making – had the ability to choose from a range of options
Those options being logically available from which to choose.
Then that is a part of his Imago Dei – right?
And in such case – why is he unable or unwilling to grant that aspect of his Imago Dei. to be granted to man?
MIke
The vast majority of Christians in the world believe in a God who knows what is TRUE and FALSE
BR.D
Well – since that is not LOGICALLY possible if Exhaustive determinism is the case – then there goes determinism.
And what you are left with must therefore be some form of LFW.
Mike
Is it LOGICALLY possible if Exhaustive Indeterminism is the case?
br.d
Correct!
If determinism is TRUE then his perceptions and impulses are all pre-determined
And he has ability to make a Libertarian ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE
So that leaves us with some form” of LFW
Mike
Some form of LFW?
What does that mean
br.d
It would be that form of LFW in which he has attributes which are otherwise ruled out by determinism.
Mike
Is that like Soft-LFW? Isn’t there a common definition of LFW that everyone agrees with?
br.d
I guess you could call it anything you like.
But it is at least those attributes which are otherwise ruled about by determinism.
And do you know any Christian who holds that the choice between TRUE and FALSE is determined for God – rather than determined by him? Therefore the 4 aspects that I’ve sighted are at least part of the common understanding of LFW.
Mike
Semi-determinism? Limited degree of LFW? Where is this coming from?
br.d
I’m not getting how you and I didn’t cover this territory before.
This will not be the first time I’ve stated my current position as a form of “Semi-Determinism”
And I don’t know of any Christian philosophers who hold to Exhaustive IN-determinism.
So that logically leaves one with semi-determinism
Mike
You’re not suggesting that there is a way to make determinism and free will compatible are you?
Because you know what that’s called?
br.d
No
I’m suggesting that not *ALL* things are exhaustively determined.
That would be described as PARTIAL rather than Universal divine causal determinism.
And interestingly enough – that would be the kind of determinism – all Calvinists go about their offices *AS-IF* is the case.
Every time a Calvinist says that he can determine TRUE from FALSE on some matter – or was the determiner of his determination – on some matter – etc – is a time that Calvinist is assuming some kind of Semi-Determinism.
Mike
So the LFW Molinist can sit down with the Calvinist Molinist and sing kumbaya?
br.d
Yes – I’ll be there are some somewhere right now doing that!
And having a grand ol time! :-]
Mike
Exhaustive indetermism is the logical opposite of exhaustive determinism.
br.d
Yes – but I don’t see how it could possibly be a rational position to take.
MIke
Where 100% of indeterminate contra-causal perceptions which come to pass within your brain are indetermined leaving ZERO% left over for anything to be UP TO you. I can do this all day!
br.d
You could do that all day – but you wouldn’t be describing me – because my doctrine does not logically entail Exhaustive IN-determinism
BR.D
It makes sense that Calvin assumes Exhaustive Determinism – where he says ”go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in every part.” It makes no sense to do this if one does not in fact hold that absolutely everything is determined in every part.
Really? Can a person be ignorant of aerodynamics and still fly in a plane AS-IF it will fly?
br.d
But that is really not what we are talking about here with Calvin.
A closer metaphor would be – you don’t know what your wife is going eat today – so you go about your office *AS-IF* she isn’t going to eat anything in any part.
Mike
I think I’ve demonstrated similar double-speak in the LFW camp. And Molinism is certainly saturated with semantic double-speak.
br.d
I’d be interested in some quotes that you logically deduce as double-speak.
By double-speak – we are talking about having the belief that [A] is TRUE while speaking *AS-IF* [A] is false. or vise versa.
And we know that the Calvinist goes about his office *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE for some things – so that resolves to a form of Semi-Determinism.
MIke
You call it semi-determinism? Is that in the literature? Isn’t that just double-speak for exhaustive determinism?
br.d
Remember – double-speak is holding to the proposition that [A] is TRUE – while speaking *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
We can call it Semi-Determinism
We can call it Partial-Determinism.
But we understand there are both Universal Propositions and Partial Propositions in logic.
So Partial-Determinism is not ruled out as logically impossible.
And truth be known – you wouldn’t want it to be! :-]
br.d writes, “We have a THEOS who *APPEARS* to be able to make a LFW determination between TRUE and FALSE in his mind
But that determination is actually nothing more than a “role of dice”.
All impulses and perceptions which come to pass within his mind are all nothing more than the “role of the dice”.”
God’s decisions are based on the counsel of His will and have the purpose of glorifying Himself. God’s decisions are not just compatible with His nature, they arise from His nature (e.g., His holiness); and they are His ill.
Some people who advocate free will see the need to separate a person’s decisions from his nature because they see that compatibilism does not separate a person’s decisions from his nature. Therefore, if one is to distinguish LFW from compatibilist free will, he must do it by distinguishing how a person’s nature enters into decisionmaking. Because br.d allows that his version of LFW allows for a person’s choices being compatible with his nature making his version of LFW no different than the compatibilist version. This is a minority position in the LFW world.. That is why Mike asked, “Can you provide a quote from any libertarian scholar or philosopher who defines LFW as “choice being compatible with one’s nature?” br.d’s response only cited Tim Stratton and now there is discussion of Tim Stratton whose claim to fame is that he is a Molinist as if Molinism should mean something in the LFW debate.
rhutchin
God’s decisions are based on the counsel of His will and have the purpose of glorifying Himself. God’s decisions are not just compatible with His nature, they arise from His nature (e.g., His holiness); and they are His ill.
br.d
Aren’t we blessed to have Calvinists here!
Otherwise we wouldn’t have access to an endless stream of divine secrets – and insider information of every divine impulse :-]
rhutchin
Some people who advocate free will see the need to separate a person’s decisions from his nature because they see that compatibilism does not separate a person’s decisions from his nature.
br.d
Which is so say – in Exhaustive Determinism – factors outside of once control determine 100% of a person – by the process of determining 100% of one’s nature – which in the Calvinist’s case – is 100% determined by an external mind.
And thus we have the TRUE “T” in the Calvinist TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
rhutchin
Therefore, if one is to distinguish LFW from compatibilist free will, he must do it by distinguishing how a person’s nature enters into decision-making.
br.d
Correct – and how does that work with Calvin’s god?
If Calvin’s god does not have LFW – where his nature is compatible his choices – then DETERMINISM is the case.
In such case – the “counsel of his will” is DETERMINED by his nature – which is DETERMINED by factors outside of his control
And thus – he has no epistemic ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter
And its an awesome god who can’t determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter! :-]
rhutchin
Because br.d allows that his version of LFW allows for a person’s choices being compatible with his nature making his version of LFW no different than the compatibilist version.
br.d
Which of course is a non-sequitur
A man can be compatible with his wife – without being DETERMINED by his wife! :-]
rhutchin
This is a minority position in the LFW world..
br.d
FALSE
The opposite is the minority view.
The vast majority of Christians in the world believe in a God who has the ability to make a Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE
Sorry – your god doesn’t! ;-]
rhutchin
That is why Mike asked, “Can you provide a quote from any libertarian scholar or philosopher who defines LFW as “choice being compatible with one’s nature?” br.d’s response only cited Tim Stratton and now there is discussion of Tim Stratton whose claim to fame is that he is a Molinist as if Molinism should mean something in the LFW debate.
br.d
rhutchin – why do you have to lower yourself?
One does not acquire a doctorate by being a Molinist
DUH!!
br.d writes, “And thus we have the TRUE “T” in the Calvinist TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:”
This is because God does not impart faith to a person at birth but only in the course of time as people hear the gospel and God then gives them faith that is then the basis for acceptance of the salvation God offers. Even though the nature is predetermined by a lack of faith, it is still true that the person without faith is described by Paul in Romans 3, ““There is none righteous, no, not one;…” and there is nothing a person can do about this as Paul describes in Romans 8, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Jesus said of the person who is without faith, “No one can come to Me.” Even if predetermined, the result is that the person without faith is totally depraved and a person without faith has no ability to change who he is – only God can do that.
br.d writes, “And thus we have the TRUE “T” in the Calvinist TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:”
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
rhutchin
This is because God does not impart faith to a person at birth……
br.d
This is like saying the flood caused the rain to fall! :-]
Since on Calvinism – the state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation – then whether or not one has “faith” or not is also totally predestined prior to creation.
And – since you’ve tacitly acknowledged the TRUE “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP
Then it follows – you acknowledge:
A THEOS – at the foundation of the world – determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass with every creature
Leaving ZERO% undetermined.
Thus – leaving ZERO% UP TO you to determine
And thus – your inability to know whether or not the faith Calvin’s god has given you is not in fact a FALSE faith.
Good luck with that! :-]
br.d writes, ‘Since on Calvinism – the state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation – then whether or not one has “faith” or not is also totally predestined prior to creation.”
This is because God does give a person faith at birth but later through the hearing of the Scriptures. Despite not having faith, people still choose to reject God even though God made Himself known to them per Romans 1. Then in Romans 2, Paul explains that people are able to discern relative good and evil by judging people who do the things that they do per Romans 2. So, despite God not giving people faith and knowing everything that is to happen in the future so that the future is determined, God still holds people accountable for their actions for Paul asks the rhetorical question, “do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?”. That all events are determined does not absolve people from judgment. Whether a person does that which he was determined to do for whatever reason (i.e., lack of faith, inadequate knowledge, little understanding, etc.) or does so freely within the limitations imposed by lack of faith and other inadequacies (that act to determine choices he does not have), is immaterial as God’s understanding extends to both situations and the person makes the same choices whether determined or free. So, what advantage does the person have who claims to make decisions freely if he ends up making the same choices under determinism.
Letting God be God means that everything is determined by Him and everything necessariiy fits together for the purpose of accomplishing His will so that your statement , “[God] – at the foundation of the world – determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass with every creature Leaving ZERO% undetermined.” So what? That is the result of God being God.
Then, “Thus – leaving ZERO% UP TO you to determine”
Is that true? If all things are determined but no one is forced to act in any particular way but makes decisions that he perceives are the best for him, has not God been able to incorporate that person into the determining mechanism If a person has an active role in making choices and makes his choices free of external coercion, how is he free from determining the things he does? God holds the person accountable; why shouldn’t we?
br.d writes
And thus we have the TRUE “T” in the Calvinist TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:”
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever UP TO any man.
‘Since on Calvinism – the state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation – then whether or not one has “faith” or not is also totally predestined prior to creation.”
rhutchin
This is because God does give a person faith at birth…..
br.d
Woops!
You mean Calvin’s god does not make the normal human faculty of faith available to people at birth. :-]
This is especially true of Calvinists!
As a matter of fact – Calvin’s god exclusively determines every perception and impulse that will come to pass within the Calvinist brain – throughout the Calvinists life.
And the MANY within the Calvinist fold – Calvin’s god gives a FALSE faith.
As Calvin puts it – he:
– Holds out salvation to them as a savor of condemnation.
– Gives them a SENSE of goodness – but without the spirit of adoption
– Illumines them for a time to partake of it
– And then strikes them with greater blindness
Because all along – he designed them exclusively for eternal torment in the lake if fire – for his good pleasure.
And lets look at some simple math again:
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass for all creation
Leaving ZERO% undetermined
Thus – leaving ZERO% UP TO you to determine
rhutchin
Is that true?
br.d
Unless you can figure out a way to make [X] minus 100% of [X] not equal ZERO% of [X]
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
If all things are determined but no one is forced ….
br.d
So when you’ve paid 100% of your electric bill for the month – in your mind you still have some of it to pay?
And that for you is true because the electric company didn’t force you to pay it?
Good thing your not handling my finances!! ;-D
rhutchin
God been able to incorporate that person into the determining mechanism….
br.d
Well – the fact that Calvin’s god determined every perception and impulse that will come to pass within your brain – tells me what determinative role you play in Calvin’s god’s “determining “mechanism” :-]
rhutchin
If a person has an active role in making choices and makes his choices free of external coercion, how is he free from determining the things he does?
br.d
You should already know the answer.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) a person is ONLY free to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
Nothing more and nothing less is permitted – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
And since 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is solely and exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god
Who leaves ZERO% left over undetermined.
Then it logically follows ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass – is UP TO any man
And since you’ve acknowledged the TRUE “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:”
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever UP TO any man.
Then whether you like it or not – you’ve acknowledged – that absolutely NOTHING is ever UP TO any man.
rhutchin
God holds the person accountable; why shouldn’t we?
br.d
Well yes – you should definitely follow Calvin’s instructions – going about your office *AS-IF* some things are UP TO others.
For example – you can go about your office *AS-IF* some things are UP TO your children
That would give you the opportunity to take pleasure in punishing them.
If Calvin’s god does not have LFW—meaning God’s choices are not undetermined or random, but instead his nature is compatible his choices—then DETERMINISM is the case.
In such a case—the “counsel of his will” is DETERMINED by his nature— which is DETERMINED by God because God is His nature!
And thus—he has epistemic ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
I can do this all day!
The word “compatible” has a semantic domain. One can be compatible with a person in many ways but this does not mean there never will be conflict. Aside from this, God is not a man. God has omni attributes. And God does not change. He is simple in the Classical Theistic sense. Therefore to be compatible with his nature is to be determined by His nature, the determiner being God Himself.
The vast majority of Christians in the world believe in a God who knows what is TRUE and FALSE—He proclaims it and decrees it—because He is TRUTH and He is unable to believe or do anything false.
WLC will only admit to non-cohesion with regard to LFW (which is compatible with the comaptibilists). Stratton has is own special thesis he’s working on. Molinism is a way to make free will and determinism compatible in its own semantic way that claims to preserve LFW but is in fact quite deterministic.
Mike
The word “compatible” has a semantic domain.
br.d
Well – in the context of Determinism it comes with logical consequences.
But as I’ve clearly shown – outside of that context it does not automatically entail determinism.
Mike
One can be compatible with a person in many ways but this does not mean there never will be conflict.
br.d
Sure!
Mike
Aside from this, God is not a man. God has omni attributes. And God does not change. He is simple in the Classical Theistic sense. Therefore to be compatible with his nature is to be determined by His nature, the determiner being God Himself.
br.d
Wait!
How does his omni attributes etc make it the case that he is determined by his nature?
And you left out what also logically follows – that his nature is determined by factors outside of his control
How do you get all that from his omni attributes?
If as you say- he is the determiner of his determinations – then you no longer have determinism.
And what you’ve just described looks alot like what I call LFW.
And if the attribute of being the determiner of his determinations is part of his Imago Dei (“image of God”) then why is he unable or unwilling to make that a part of man’s?
Mike
The vast majority of Christians in the world believe in a God who knows what is TRUE and FALSE—He proclaims it and decrees it—because He is TRUTH and He is unable to believe or do anything false.
br.d
Well – since that is not LOGICALLY possible if Exhaustive determinism is the case – then there goes determinism. :-]
And what you are left with must therefore be some form of LFW.
Mike
WLC will only admit to non-cohesion with regard to LFW (which is compatible with the comaptibilists).
br.d
What do you mean by “non-cohesion”?
Can you provide a quote from Dr. Craig to explain what you are referring to here?
Mike
Stratton has is own special thesis he’s working on. Molinism is a way to make free will and determinism compatible in its own semantic way that claims to preserve LFW but is in fact quite deterministic.
br.d
Everyone familiar with Molinism recognizes it as a kind of middle ground.
So yes – it is more deterministic.
But the intent of it is to find a LOGICAL way to have semi-determinism with a limited degree of LFW
What Calvinists find attractive about Molinism – is that it provides both logical and morally satisfying answers to dilemmas which the Calvinist would otherwise be forced to play “see no evil” over.
And since the Calvinist is already forced to go about his office *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE – Molinism has been found to provide a more intellectually satisfying alternative.
rhutchin: “No one is born with faith as faith comes through hearing the word…….”.
br.d: “Oh but for the Calvinist – its *MUCH MUCH MUCH* more **RADICAL** than that! etc.”
br.d does not raise any objections to what I presented, so br.d has backtracked on his complaint about Mike’s statement that ““Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature.”” where br.d said, “I don’t think you have the ability to show this to be ABSOLUTELY the case.”
rhutchin
br.d does not raise any objections to what I presented,
br.d
All that is needed – is to show how absurd and misleading the UNDERLYING premise is.
Which of course you are not about to reveal! :-]
rhtuchin
so br.d has backtracked on his complaint about Mike’s statement that ““Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature.”” where br.d said, “I don’t think you have the ability to show this to be ABSOLUTELY the case.”
br.d
Firstly
We all understand – trying to paint a logical analysis – to make it look like a “complaint” is a classic Calvinist straw-man.
So thank for for that example.
Secondly – I’m guessing – you think that statement is rational. :-]
rhutchin: “br.d does not raise any objections to what I presented,
br.d: “All that is needed – is to show how absurd and misleading the UNDERLYING premise is.”
br.d does not do that which he proposed. Apparently, br.d’s only complaint is my description of his statement as a complaint. Still, there is a proof to address what he said, “I don’t think you have the ability to show this to be ABSOLUTELY the case,” so we can affirm the validity of Mike’s statement, “Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature.”
rhutchin
br.d does not raise any objections to what I presented – where he states “All that is needed – is to show how absurd and misleading the UNDERLYING premise is.” br.d does not do that which he proposed.
br.d
Well – not for a RATIONAL thinking person :-]
Using LOGIC to show that on your UNDERLYING premise it LOGICALLY follows – you don’t have any epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter – and you have no epistemic ability to know if Calvin’s god has given you a FALSE faith – pretty much shows the self-refuting nature of your UNDERLYING premise.
rhutchin
Apparently, br.d’s only complaint….. is my description of his statement as a complaint.
br.d
Here we go again – trying to pain a LOGICAL analysis as a “complaint”.
Beam me up Scotty – there is no intelligent life here! :-]
rhutchin
Still, there is a proof to address what he said, “I don’t think you have the ability to show this to be ABSOLUTELY the case,” so we can affirm the validity of Mike’s statement, “Human nature is formed by forces outside of an individual’s control—no one chooses their nature.”
br.d
Firstly:
All you done here is make a claim – and call that “affirm validity”
Why don’t you try an argument that has some LOGICAL content in it?
Secondly:
It is a non-sequitur to conclude – the inability of being able to ABSOLUTELY show [X] to be TRUE as auto-magically making [X] TRUE.
Thirdly:
Your conclusion LOGICALLY entails that Calvin’s god’s nature is formed by forces outside of his control.
That the “counsel of his will” is determined by his nature.
And therefore the “counsel of his will” is – by extension – formed by forces outside of his control.
Congratulations! :-]
In order to show that “no one chooses their nature” all one has to do is demonstrate the illogic and absurdity of the statement to the contrary and its inconsistency with other apologetic arguments.
The fastest way to argue this is with the Euthyphro Defence. Theological philosophers and theologians agree that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma because it is not either/or (di = twice, lemma = premise). God does not choose the good because it is good nor is the good good because God chooses it. God’s nature is the good. The good is God and God is the good! If God is able to choose his own nature than the dilemma is just pushed back further and is unrefuted!
mike
The fastest way to argue this is with the Euthyphro Defence. Theological philosophers and theologians agree that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma because it is not either/or (di = twice, lemma = premise).
br.d
I’m again glad that you acknowledge it as a false dilemma
But after calling a false dilemma – will you then proceed to use it *AS-IF* it isn’t a false dilemma?
Mike
God does not choose the good because it is good nor is the good good because God chooses it.
God’s nature is the good.
The good is God and God is the good!
br.d
So far – so good!
But please notice here – how this statement is limited to describing what God does.
It does describe what God is ABLE – or – UNABLE to do.
Now lets look at your next statement to see how you depart from the foundation of your last step in logic [what God does]
And proceed from there – to make a huge leap – in which you end up somehow with what God is UNABLE to do.
Mike
If God is able to choose his own nature than the dilemma is just pushed back further and is unrefuted!
br.d
And here is where you treat a false dilemma *AS-IF* it needs to be refuted.
You start out by calling it a false dilemma – and then proceed to use it *AS-IF* it isn’t a false dilemma.
And then conclude that by following its logic – it becomes unrefuted.
The Euthyphro dilemma can be stated as breaking down because it poses only two options – [A] or [B]
When in fact there is a [C] option available.
In this case – God’s choices are compatible with his nature, and his nature is compatible with his choices.
It’s false dilemma because there is a third option. “Di” means “two.” And yes, it describes what God is able or unable to do, that’s the point!
Sorry I just don’t see your point here. You seem to be disagreeing and agreeing with me at the same time and for the same reasons.
I don’t see how we can call a false dilemma – a false dilemma – and then use it in an argument as-if it isn’t a false dilemma.
I think my final statement on it would represent the classic response to it – as it applies to the context of God’s relationship to his nature.
I really wish I understood your point here but I just don’t get it, sorry!
You might want to go back and read your previous argument where you concluded a false dilemma remains un-refuted.
Here is a direct quote from William Lane Craig regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma: “I think however that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma because there’s a third alternative. It’s not the case that God wills something because it is good, nor is it the case that something is good just because God wills it. Rather God wills something because he is good. That is to say, it is God’s own nature which determines what is the good. God is by nature essentially compassionate, just, fair, kind, loving, and so forth. And because he is good his commandments to us reflect necessarily his nature.” This is almost word for word what I have said.
And does it contradict my final statement in response to the Euthyphro dilemma?
WLC affirms for both of us – that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
We should therefore treat it as unreliable
Notice also that WLC does not say – god’s nature determines his will – as we have in Exhaustive determinism.
He states that god’s nature determines what is the good.
And I’m sure you would say that god’s will also determines what is the good.
So god’s will does not function like a computer program that is determined by his nature – as we have in determinism.
Therefore we don’t have god’s nature determining his choices – as if his nature is sovereign over his will.
But we have god’s nature being compatible with his will and compatible with his choices.
And if I remember correctly – you also concluded two of my 4 points with which I defined LFW.
When you stated – he is the determiner of his determinations – that coincides with one of the LFW attributes
That his choices are not determined by an external mind – or by factors outside of his control – which we have with determinism.
So it seems to me – that you and I are – at least to a degree – on the same page.
Except the attributes or capabilities which I see as logically coherent with LFW – you don’t.
But also from my first two LFW points – if determinism is the case with god – then he does not have multiple options from which to choose from – because we can’t have [X] determined and [X] OPEN (i.e. undetermined) a the same time.
That is why – if determinism is the case – he does not have multiple options from which to choose.
Only one predetermined choice exists.
And since that is not the case – then determinism cannot be the case
And for me – that leaves god with some form of LFW.
br.d writes, “we have god’s nature being compatible with his will and compatible with his choices.”
God’s will is compatible with His nature and God does not will anything that is contrary to His nature. God’s nature is to be just, so God does not will injustice to anyone. God’s choices are compatible with His nature and determined by His nature. Thus, the disagreement with br.d.
rhutchin
God’s will is compatible with His nature
br.d
Thank you for affirming one of the definitions of divine Libertarian choice.
rhutchin
God’s choices are determined by His nature.
br.d
AH!
Here is where the Calvinist must cling to determinism
Or at least the APPEARANCE of it.
But this brings about its own host of PSYCHOLOGICAL consequences.
In order to have some semblance of normalcy – the Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s nature doesn’t determine everything in every part.
The Calvinist wants to believe Libertarian choice does not exist for himself
But he then must MAKE-BELIEVE his brain has the function of making Libertarian choices determine TRUE from FALSE.
Otherwise – his brain is VOID of the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE.
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-Determinism – reciting double-speak talking points. :-]
rhutchin: “God’s will is compatible with His nature”
br.d: “Thank you for affirming one of the definitions of divine Libertarian choice.”
Yes. It’s also a definition of Theological determinism. LFW folks have a hard time differentiating LFW from Theological determinism because everyone recognizes that there is s reason for every choice a person makes. John identified three causes of a person’s choices – selfishness, coveteousness, and pride. These drive the unbeliever to choose and plague the believers even overcoming their faith.
Then, “But this brings about its own host of PSYCHOLOGICAL consequences.in order to have some semblance of normalcy – the Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s nature doesn’t determine everything in every part. ”
Perhaps baby Calvinists do this, but the majority do not. That God controls all that happens and ordains all that happens was a great comfort to Job, and any number of Christ martyrs throughout the centuries – of course, there were those who recanted rather than suffer. As Paul wrote to God’s elect in Philippi, “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,…”
Then, ‘The Calvinist wants to believe Libertarian choice does not exist for himself”
The Calvinist knows that there is a reason for the choices he makes – some being founded in his faith; others in the old man of depravity from his former life but both founded in his nature, whether new or old. No one is really free, in the libertarian sense, so long as he is not God.
rhutchin: “God’s will is compatible with His nature”
br.d: “Thank you for affirming one of the definitions of divine Libertarian choice.”
rhutchin
Yes. It’s also a definition of Theological determinism.
br.d
Not quite
If determinism is TRUE
1) Both his choices and his nature (along with everything else about him) are determined by factors outside of his control.
2) He really doesn’t have choice(s) “PLURAL” because in determinism there is no such thing as multople options from which to choose.
There is only ONE SINGLE already DETERMINED option available from which to choose.
And since everything is determined *FOR* him – he is really not the DETERMINER of anything.
rhutchin
LFW folks have a hard time differentiating LFW from Theological determinism because everyone recognizes that there is s reason for every choice a person makes.
br.d
NAH!
That’s just what the determinist must tell himself – because he SECRETLY needs to believe his brain can make a Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE. Otherwise – his brain is VOID of the epistemic ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
rhutchin
John identified three causes of a person’s choices – selfishness, coveteousness, and pride. These drive the unbeliever to choose and plague the believers even overcoming their faith.
br.d
Thank you for providing another example of how the Calvinist can’t tell the WHOLE-TRUTH
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god wasn’t the DETERMINATIVE determiner of those human impulses!
And
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t determine those impulses to INFALLIBLY and IRRESISTIBLY come to pass in your brain. :-]
Again – reveals the host of PSYCHOLOGICAL consequences for the Calvinist
In order to have some semblance of normalcy – the Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s nature doesn’t determine everything in every part. ”
rhutchin
Perhaps baby Calvinists do this,
br.d
Well – since 90% of your posts follow that model – and what you just in fact did – guess who is a baby Calvinist! :-]
Nah!
The WHOLE-TRUTH is – a Calvinist would have to be divine in order to avoid such PSYCHOLOGICAL consequences.
And this is why John Calvin himself gave it as instructions.
And this is why we see *ALL* Calvinists going about their office *AS-IF* their brain has the epistemic ability to make a Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE.
They can’t acknowledge – an external mind (rather than their mind) determining their every perception of TRUE from FALSE – leaving them with no epistemic ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Might just as well call themselves brain-dead! :-]
rhutchin
That God controls all that happens and ordains all that happens was a great comfort to Job
br.d
Thank you!
Another excellent example of the *AS-IF* thinking pattern – supposedly only the baby Calvinists exhibit.
On Theological Determinism – the only instance in time – a human brain can experience the perception of “comfort” – is an instance in time in which an external mind determined that perception to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within that human mind.
Thus we have the Calvinist who wants to believe Libertarian choice does not exist for himself – while having the ability to make a Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE.
The Calvinist – dutifully struggling – to MAKE-BELIEVE he (and not an external mind) is the determiner of the perceptions which come to pass within his brain!
Calvinists are so blessed to have that! :-]
br.d: “If determinism is TRUE
1) Both his choices and his nature (along with everything else about him) are determined by factors outside of his control.;”
Given that there was nothing outside God when He decreed to create, I guess determinism does not apply to Him. Even where determinism’s limited to describing that which God created, determinism would not apply as God made His decree prior to creating when God was all that was prior to creation. Determinism is not an applicable descriptor of God or His decree to create.
br.d: “f determinism is TRUE
2) He really doesn’t have choice(s) “PLURAL” because in determinism there is no such thing as multople options from which to choose.
There is only ONE SINGLE (PRE-DETERMINED) option available from which to choose.”
I don’t see that this applies to God so more evidence that determinism is not an applicable descriptor of God.
br.d: “If determinism is TRUE
1) Both his choices and his nature (along with everything else about him) are determined by factors outside of his control.;”
rhutchin
Given that there was nothing outside God when He decreed to create, I guess determinism does not apply to Him……Determinism is not an applicable descriptor of God.
br.d
A LOGICAL conclusion- asserted as an “Explicit” statement
But alas – all one need do now is wait – and this statement is bound to implicitly denied a few sentences (or posts) later.
such is the nature of Calvinist language. :-]
br.d: IF determinism is TRUE
2) He really doesn’t have choice(s) “PLURAL” because in determinism there is no such thing as multople options from which to choose.
There is only ONE SINGLE (PRE-DETERMINED) option available from which to choose.”
rhutchin
I don’t see that this applies to God so more evidence that determinism is not an applicable descriptor of God.
br.d
Well done!
And you’ve also stated before that Calvin’s god has the only TRUE form of LIBERTARIAN freedom.
So this is another acknowledgement of that position.
But can the Calvinist mind – which is conditioned to treat so many things as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time – not do do the same with this?
br.d writes, “Notice also that WLC does not say – god’s nature determines his will – as we have in Exhaustive determinism.
He states that god’s nature determines what is the good.
And I’m sure you would say that god’s will also determines what is the good.”
The Calvinist says that God’s nature determines that He is good and that which God wills, or decrees, is thereby good because God’s nature and will are perfectly compatible – since God by nature is good, He cannot will anything that is not good. God’s will flows out of His nature, thus God’s nature determines His will, an issue Craig chooses not to involve himself – so, of course, Craig says nothing about this.
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that God’s nature determines that He is good ….etc
br.
Calvinists do love to posture their own customized MASQUERADES!!!
John Calvin
-quote
“God’s WILL is said to be the CAUSE of all things
You won’t find John Calvin anywhere claiming that the “Nature” of Calvin’s god determines Calvin’s god’s will.
And the Reformed confessions state – Calvin’s god’s choices are -quote “MADE WITHIN HIMSELF”.
Which means his WILL is the DETERMINER of his choices – and thus his WILL is the DETERMINER of his nature.
So
1) That rules out Calvin’s god choices being determined by factors outside of his control
And
2) Calvin’s god has multiple options from which to choose – during choice making
And multiple options from which to choose do not exist in Exhaustive Determinism
Because in Exhaustive Determinism only ONE SINGLE ALREADY DETERMINED is logically available.
CONCLUSION:
Those attributes together – show that Calvin’s god has the function of Libertarian Choice.
Which rules out Exhaustive Determinism in regard to his will, his choices, and his nature.
rhutchin
God’s will flows out of His nature, thus God’s nature determines His will,
br.d
Not according to John Calvin (see above)
rhutchin
an issue Craig chooses not to involve himself…… of course, Craig says nothing about this.
br.d
Well – I’d say you should publicly correct Dr. Craig – and let everyone in the world know how superior you are. ;-D
br.d writes, “John Calvin -quote – “God’s WILL is said to be the CAUSE of all things”
In His creation. Otherwise, “You won’t find John Calvin anywhere claiming that the “Nature” of Calvin’s god determines Calvin’s god’s will.”
Then, “Which means his WILL is the DETERMINER of his choices – and thus his WILL is the DETERMINER of his nature.”
LOL!!! God’s nature is inherent to Him – God did not choose His nature – it is what He is. God’s choices reflect who He is – His attributes. God did not choose His attributes.
Then, “So, 1) That rules out Calvin’s god choices being determined by factors outside of his control”
LOL!!!! br.d can be so funny.
rhutchin
LOL!!! God’s nature is inherent to Him –
br.d
So far so good – but lets see where you proceed to fall into a non-sequitur
rhutchin
God did not choose His nature
LOL!!!! br.d can be so funny.
br.d
AH! but
If Calvin’s god’s will is not the determiner of his nature – and Calvin’s god’s nature is the determiner of his will – then it LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s gods will is determined by factors outside of its control.
So what turns out to be the REAL funny – is how consistently the Calvinist needs [X] to be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time :-]
Additionally –
If Calvin’s god’s mind has the epistemic ability to choose between TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Then Calvin’s god’s mind – has a LIBERTARIAN function
Because Determinism exclusively rules out all but ONE SINGLE PREDETERMINED option.
As Peter Van Inwagen states
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
Sorry Rhutchin
On Determinism – both you and Calvin’s god don’t have the Epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
And that *IS* funny! :-]
br.d writes, “If Calvin’s god’s will is not the determiner of his nature – and Calvin’s god’s nature is the determiner of his will – then it LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s gods will is determined by factors outside of its control.”
But not outside Himself. So, God cannot control His eternal being – God cannot chose to make Himself not eternal. God has always been eternal and will always be eternal. Same for His other attributes. Why should we care about this?
Then, “So what turns out to be the REAL funny – is how consistently the Calvinist needs [X] to be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time”
What is [X] that Calvinists need to be both true and false. Certainly not God’s attributes or that God’s attributes drive His will.
Then, “If Calvin’s god’s mind has the epistemic ability to choose between TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Then Calvin’s god’s mind – has a LIBERTARIAN function
Because Determinism exclusively rules out all but ONE SINGLE PREDETERMINED option.”
Earlier, you said that determinism involves factors external to the person controlling the choices made. Now you say that determinism exists where internal factors control a person’s choices when the person cannot control those factors. Under that scheme, no one can have free will and all choices are determined by uncontrolled factors as everyone has internal factors – lack of faith, limited knowledge, limited understanding, etc – that place the person in a prison cell where choices are limited – in most instances, there is only one single predetermined outcome. The Calvinist says that a person in a prison cell still has free will even if he has cooptions on any event.
Then, “On Determinism – both you and Calvin’s god don’t have the Epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.”
God can know true on false on any matter because He defines what is true and false. What God says is true, is true, and what God says is false, is false. n saying, “Determinism…is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future,” then by virtue of God’s omniscience of the future, all things are determined. Once God created the universe, everything was determined because God knew everything that was to happen. God is the external factor determining all things.
br.d
If Calvin’s god’s will is not the determiner of his nature – and Calvin’s god’s nature is the determiner of his will – then it LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s gods will is determined by factors outside of its control.”
rhutchin
But not outside Himself.
br.d
Thank you for once again affirming divine LIBERTARIAN functionality
Which rules out determinism.
rhutchin
God cannot chose to make Himself not eternal.
br.d
TRUE – that would be a LOGICAL impossibility – and not a lack of omnipotence.
rhutchin
What is [X] that Calvinists need to be both true and false. Certainly not God’s attributes or that God’s attributes drive His will.
br.d
It is totally hilarious how blinded to *AS-IF* thinking the Calvinist mind becomes.
It eventually becomes so automatic – his mind cannot discern it.
[X] = Every event without exclusion is determined in every part prior to creation.
John Calvin
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part
[X] = Every event without exception is RENDERED-CERTAIN to turn out only one way – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
John Calvin
“We treat events *AS-IF* they can happen one way or another”
rhutchin
Earlier, you said that determinism involves factors external to the person controlling the choices made.
br.d
And if you are rational – then you will agree with that. :-]
rhutchin
Now you say that determinism exists where internal factors control a person’s choices when the person cannot control those factors. Under that scheme, no one can have “free will” and all choices are determined by uncontrolled factors as everyone has internal factors
br.d
Your forgetting what is called “Compatibilism”
Where the “free will” of a choice – is defined as freedom that is COMPATIBLE with those choices being determined by factors outside of one’s control.
rhutchin
lack of faith, limited knowledge, limited understanding, etc – that place the person in a prison cell where choices are limited – in most instances, there is only one single predetermined outcome.
br.d
And that is why Calvin instructs your mind to hold the opposite – to treat events *AS-IF* they can turn out one way or another!
Every morning as soon as your mind is cognizant – it is fully engaged in making decisions which are fully predicated on the unquestioned premise that multiple options exist available for your mind to choose.
Otherwise – the next time your mind is predisposed towards sin – you will conclude Calvin’s god predestined that as an event having only that one single PREDESTINED option – and thus the choice was ever UP TO you – while he treats you *AS-IF* what he knows to be TRUE is in fact FALSE.
But that thought is way to LOGICAL for a mind that is conditioned to hold Exhaustive Determinism as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time. :-]
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that a person in a prison cell still has free will even if he has cooptions on any event.
br.d
Here for the thousands time – you are manifesting Calvin’s *AS-IF* instructions:
When you say “has options” PLURAL – what you mean is:
*AS-IF* options PLURAL is exist
While at the same time holding that as FALSE – because – as you’ve acknowledged above -quote “there is only one single predetermined outcome”
Now if you still argue that Calvin’s *AS-IF* thinking is manifest only by baby Calvinists – then once again you provide the example :-]
Also:
“On Determinism – both you and Calvin’s god don’t have the Epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Because all perceptions are determined by factors outside of the mind’s control
rhutchin
God can know true on false on any matter because He defines what is true and false.
br.d
Well – you’ve already acknowledged in multiple ways that Calvin’s god’s mind as the LIBERTARIAN function of choosing between mutlple options – such as TRUE from FALSE.
So thank you once again for affirming LIBERTARIAN functionality.
rhutchin
Determinism…is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future,” then by virtue of God’s omniscience of the future, all things are determined.
br.d
So now we’ve established that LIBERTARIAN freedom does exist as part of the “Imago Dei” (Image of God).
So the next question is – why does Calvinism insist that aspect of the Imago Dei” be granted to man.
Your answer here is that if LIBERTARIAN freedom (which gives one the epistemic function of knowing TRUE from FALSE on any matter) is given to man – then that would disqualify divine omniscience.
But this argument is predicated on a FALSE dichotomy.
There is an optional solution – known as Middle knowledge – in which creatures can be granted a limited form of this aspect of the divine “Imago Dei”. Just as all human attributes are limited.
rhutchin
Once God created the universe, everything was determined because God knew everything that was to happen. God is the external factor determining all things.
br.d
There is an explicit declaration of Universal Divine Causal determinism.
And along with that – an acknowledgement of the fact that in a world in which whatsoever thought and perception comes to pass within your brain – was determined by an external mind – your mind is thus VOID of the Epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any mater.
Congratulations!
You are able to make claims about divine things without having any Epistemic ability to know whether they are TRUE or FALSE.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that! :-]
“br.d: But this argument is predicated on a FALSE dichotomy. There is an optional solution – known as Middle knowledge – in which creatures can be granted a limited form of this aspect of the divine “Imago Dei”. Just as all human attributes are limited.”
If it is a false dichotomy why do you need to explain it? And are you a Molinist? If not, the only reason to jump into their camp is because you can’t explain it from your own view of LFW.
Mike
If it is a false dichotomy why do you need to explain it?
br.d
Because a claim without evidence is nothing more than a claim.
Evidence must be provided.
Mike
And are you a Molinist?
br.d
One does not have to be a Molinist to recognize the genius of Middle knowledge.
I think I’ve already stated this to you before – but.
If you find mouse signs in your kitchen and you put out a baited trap – and the next morning you find a dead mouse – with what kind of knowledge did you know that future event would happen?
Why can’t a divine being – who knows every impulse which comes to pass within our brains – can’t know what we will do in any circumstance he places us?
Mike
If not, the only reason to jump into their camp is because you can’t explain it from your own view of LFW.
br.d
Where this fails – is with lack of familiarity.
The existence of LFW was in fact a core premise for Molina’s approach to divine omniscience.
You have stated you are not a 100% follower of John Calvin.
I’m happy if you grant that same liberty – to those who appreciate Middle knowledge without having to be a follower of Molina
“br.d: Because a claim without evidence is nothing more than a claim. Evidence must be provided.” Yes, but you have repeatedly denied this in regard in to the Euthyphro Response from myself and WLC. That’s called a double-standard!
Non-Molinists called this hypothetical knowledge. No one disputes that God has hypothetical knowledge. Molinists label it so that they can systematize and obfuscate the obvious. Problem is that Middle Knowledge is now a Molinists term that brings with it all the Molinist baggage!
I’ve read extensively on Molinism. I am not unfamiliar with it.
When you respond to my question as to whether you disagree with Kalam, I may have an interesting argument for you to consider.
br.d
Because a claim without evidence is nothing more than a claim. Evidence must be provided.” Yes, but you have repeatedly denied this in regard in to the Euthyphro Response from myself and WLC. That’s called a double-standard!
Mike
Dr. Craig rightly stated it as a FALSE dilemma – therefore it is FALLACIOUS to treat it otherwise.
And you actually think Dr. Craig would treat a FALSE argument *AS-IF* it is a TRUE argument?
Mike
Non-Molinists called this hypothetical knowledge.
br.d
Sure – and Molinist have also been known to call it theoretical knowledge.
Mike
No one disputes that God has hypothetical knowledge.
br.d
And with that knowledge he can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do – given circumstances he would put them in. Just as he knew with divine certainty – that if David remained in the city – Saul would attack it – and the people of the city would deliver David into Saul’s hands. He told David what would certainly happen and David assumed god had certainty about it.
Therefore Exhaustive determinism is not the only way a divine being can have certainty of future events.
Mike
Molinists label it so that they can systematize and obfuscate the obvious.
br.d
There you go again making claims
What is it they are supposedly obfuscating???????
Why is it that you follow a consistent pattern of making claims VOID of evidence?
Perhaps you have people around you who believe any claim they hear without evidence – so you’ve become used to that?
Mike
Problem is that Middle Knowledge is now a Molinists term that brings with it all the Molinist baggage!
br.d
Well – to have baggage is human! :-]
And besides that – Middle knowledge was established before current day Molinists exist
Which means it goes back prior to any current day Molinists and their current baggage
Mike
I’ve read extensively on Molinism. I am not unfamiliar with it.
br.d
I didn’t have to read everything there is to know about Molinism to understand Middle knowledge.
I don’t think anyone does.
Mike
When you respond to my question as to whether you disagree with Kalam, I may have an interesting argument for you to consider
br.d
I’m not up to speed or have enough familiarity with the various parts/pieces of the Kalam.
Except I understand the “Fine-Tuning of the Universe” is part of the its “Teleological” portion.
And I have a special fondness for that.
I certainly don’t have any disagreement with what I know – and can’t possibly disagree with what I don’t know.
I’m going to have to give up on mentioning Euthyphro. There is an obvious double-standard here. Some how WLC is right and I’m wrong even though our explanations are exactly the same.
Once again you employ a double-standard. You make claims but I can’t. You give evidence but my evidence is void. There is a debating exercise you should try. Try to take your opponent’s side and argue for it as best you can. I think this would be helpful as you really struggle to see other peoples’ points of view.
Molinism obfuscates free will for people like yourself who think that the term Middle Knowledge maintains LFW. Frankfurt cases demonstrated that free will can exist without the PAP. Van Inwagen admits that indeterminism is incompatible with free will. Libertarians are against coercion or situations in which individuals are forced to make decisions with no alternate options.
You are unable to see the determinism in your own description: “he can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do – GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES HE WOULD PUT THEM IN.” A mouse in a maze or a tunnel with only one exit is NOT an example of LFW.
The ability to do otherwise is essential to LFW but in Molinsim this is only hypothetical or theoretical. God uses His “Middle Knowledge” to determine which scenarios will ensure free will choices that will bring about His desired plan for the optimal world. He then actualizes that world and the real world now plays out as scripted. Somehow this is kind of determinism is acceptable to you, or at least you give it a pass—but you can’t accept Calvinism? That’s a blatant double standard!
Molinism obfuscates determinism in the language of libertarian free will. Molinists are compatibilists in denial. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid man!
“to have baggage is human!” So it being stubborn!
“Middle knowledge was established before current day Molinists” If you are saying that Luis de Molina and Pedro da Fonseca did not coin the term “Middle Knowledge” can you substantiate that or are you just making another claim without evidence?
“I didn’t have to read everything there is to know about Molinism to understand Middle knowledge.” First you get on my case for not being familiar with Molinism and then when I say that I am it is now irrelevant! The double-standards just keep on coming!
“I’m not up to speed or have enough familiarity with the various parts/pieces of the Kalam.” The foundation of the cosmological argument is that something can’t come from nothing. This is applied to the physical but it has a direct relation to the non-physical in the form of the PSR. This idea goes on to state that LFW is unintelligible. But as you don’t know anything about this I will refrain from any further explanation.
Mike said:
“The foundation of the cosmological argument is that something can’t come from nothing. This is applied to the physical but it has a direct relation to the non-physical in the form of the PSR. This idea goes on to state that LFW is unintelligible. But as you don’t know anything about this I will refrain from any further explanation.”
My response:
Is this also your position, as well? Or are you just making a statement? Are you saying that before God CREATED the HEAVENS and the Earth, that the universe was ALREADY HERE? And it is with THAT thinking that you agree that LFW is unintelligible?
OKIE DOKIE then. Interesting concept. Not buying the logic. You really believe that something can’t come from nothing? Yet, YOU, at one point, NEVER EXISTED. You were NOTHING. But you existed in some form anyway? How did that happen?
Ed
chapmaned24 writes, “But you existed in some form anyway? How did that happen?”
He was conceived in the mind of God and was brought to life in the course of time consequent to God’s creation of the universe – as God conceived it.
Conceived in ther mind of God… wow… what book on Amazon did you read this?
It’s called the Bible. Check it out And, yes you can get it on Amazon!
Jeremiah 1:4-5, Isaiah 44:2, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16, Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:4-5
Mike responds, but didn’t respond to my series of posts the other day…
Mike states:
“It’s called the Bible. Check it out And, yes you can get it on Amazon!
Jeremiah 1:4-5, Isaiah 44:2, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16, Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:4-5”
My response:
I DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT interpret any of those to say: “He was conceived in the mind of God and was brought to life in the course of time consequent to God’s creation of the universe – as God conceived it.”
Why?
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/why-young-earth-creation-is-wrong/
That’s why.
We are A SPIRIT first and foremost, we are not our body. Spirit came first, body came last. Plant spirit in dirt, and Adam became a living thinker.
WE do NOT remember anything of being WITH GOD in the spirit. We were all created at the same exact time. I know, I know, you will tell me that this sounds like Mormonism, or something cultish. But read my post.
John 8:58 “before Abraham was, I am”
Was, is an imperfect use of the word am. Am means “be” and “be” means “exist”.
Before Abraham “exitsted”, Jesus “exists”.
Your references are discussing BEFORE WE WERE BORN OF THE FLESH, not before we existed as a spirit, without a body.
But then again, someone else TOLD you what to believe.
NEXT?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Conceived in ther mind of God… wow… what book on Amazon did you read this?”
The Bible. The Bible explains how man sinned and that Christ was slain before creation to deal will sin. Then, many events in the life of Christ were foretold by the prophets and brought to pass by God in the course of time. All that happened regarding Christ was according to the eternal purpose of God as were all other worldly events. You can purchase the Bible on Amazon at a reasonably price and read it to discover many things that that God purposed to do.
rhutchin states:
“The Bible. The Bible explains how man sinned and that Christ was slain before creation to deal will sin. Then, many events in the life of Christ were foretold by the prophets and brought to pass by God in the course of time. All that happened regarding Christ was according to the eternal purpose of God as were all other worldly events. You can purchase the Bible on Amazon at a reasonably price and read it to discover many things that that God purposed to do.”
My response:
I disagree with ALL of what you said.
First of all, KNOWLEDGE is a key word in the name of the tree. Adam hid, because he KNEW he was NAKED. That was the consequence of the TREE OF “KNOWLEDGE” of good and evil. God asked Adam, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?”
So, I ask you the same: Who told Adam that he was naked? Why did Adam get a guilt conscience about being naked?
It’s not about HOW Adam sinned, it’s that he learned that being naked was a sin. Otherwise, he would not have sewed fig leaves together to COVER UP his nakedness. He was alreading sinning, just by being naked, otherwise, there would have been no guilt for being naked. But ya know what? He didn’t know that he was naked. He didn’t have any KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. And it was that NO KNOWLEDGE that kept him innocent of any sin. So now you will tell me that God put Adam in the garden naked and said that it was good, right? It was good…UNTIL ADAM GOT KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS NAKED.
But the name of that tree has NO SIGNIFICANCE to you. To you, it’s just a tree that God told him not to eat from, in which Adam disobeyed. I will repeat something that I had already said a number of days ago. If you tell your children to not play with matches, WHY? Just to see if they will obey? Or is it so that they won’t get burnt by the fire? Well, God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil SO THAT they would NOT KNOW WHAT SIN IS.
The point is that you can sin all day long, and twice on Sunday, and if you have NO IDEA that you are sinning…YOU ARE INNOCENT. You are NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME. Why? Because IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS INDEED THE EXCUSE.
NEXT…
You comment of a Revelation verse that Christ was slain before the foundation of the earth…NO, THAT IS NOT HOW I READ THAT VERSE AT ALL. The topic of that verse was the BOOK OF LIFE at the foundation of the earth, not the lamb slain at the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
At first glance, you might read that in a manner as you explained. But, there is more to read.
Revelation 17:8
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
You see from the above verse that the book of life from the foundation of the earth. And if you read all of the references to the book of life, names are BLOTTED OUT, indicating that at the foundation, EVERYONE’S NAME is in the book of life, and in the course of time, names are blotted out.
So in Rev 13:8, Jesus is the lamb slain, but not from the foundation of the world. The book of life is from the foundation of the world.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
My previous comment regarding Adam being naked, is the same exact reason that I mention Abraham and Sister Sarah. According to the Law of Moses, playing flippy flop with your sister is a sin. So much so, that it is mentioned NUMEROUS times. But Abraham did not know that this was a sin. There was no law telling him. And God never told him either. And God gave brother/sister an inbred promised child, named Isaac. Do you see where I’m going with this? Without KNOWLEDGE of the sin, you are INNOCENT of any charges against you.
It’s always humorous at the explanations that I hear from those decendent from Catholicism that was brought forth to the reformers. The “church fathers” distorted a lot of things, and then they have the audacity to call it ORTHODOX, meaning that everyone MUST believe what they taught…even in the reform world. Well, I reject their teachings, including those that reformers brought with them from the
Catholics.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
And lastly, Mike had also made a comment to me regarding the bible on Amazon. To which I also replied to him. You might want to read that. You may not be aware, but we EXISTED as a spirit BEFORE we were in the womb being formed, and THAT is the basis that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. You might want to make a purchase of the Bible from Amazon and read it sometime.
IF you didn’t already know that you are a spirit, then I don’t know what to tell you. God rested on the 7th Day “OF CREATION”, and he is STILL AT REST
chapmaned24 writes, “And lastly, Mike had also made a comment to me regarding the bible on Amazon. ”
Mike and I commented on the issue of God conceiving all things prior to anything existing. As you have gone down your usual rabbit holes, can we presume that you concede that God does conceive people and events prior to their existence?
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Mike and I commented on the issue of God conceiving all things prior to anything existing. As you have gone down your usual rabbit holes, can we presume that you concede that God does conceive people and events prior to their existence?”
My response:
Presume? You presume way too much. I never agreed. Period.
Rabbit holes? So if you have children, can we also assume that you also conceived your children prior to them being born?
Do you know that you are a spirit, or do you deny that you are a spirit? Because that is KEY to my answer, which you are obviously rejecting. Spirits come first before a body does. But you don’t acknowledge that?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Presume? You presume way too much. I never agreed. Period.”
So, you just moved on presumably (?) until you can figure out a response. So, let’s wait until you figure out how you want to respond and after you do respond, we can move on to you other issues.
rhutchin,
When the bible states that God knew Jeremiah, do you reject the idea that Jeremia ALSO knew God back?
Look at this:
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Me, I ALSO take that one in the reverse, in that WE ALSO KNEW GOD, but we don’t remember it.
So this is why I reject your notion about “He was conceived in the mind of God and was brought to life in the course of time consequent to God’s creation of the universe – as God conceived it.”.
If you have ever studied the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t believe that Jesus is God, and your “He was conceived in the mind of God and was brought to life in the course of time consequent to God’s creation of the universe – as God conceived it.” sounds almost verbatim as to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses say about Jesus being “in the mind of God”.
Ed
chapmaned24 writes, “Me, I ALSO take that one in the reverse, in that WE ALSO KNEW GOD, but we don’t remember it.”
LOL!!! Imaginative.
rhutchin
You state:
“chapmaned24 writes, “Me, I ALSO take that one in the reverse, in that WE ALSO KNEW GOD, but we don’t remember it.”
LOL!!! Imaginative.”
My response:
Are you a spirit dressed in a body or not? When you die, where do you go…without a body? You are a spirit without a body.
Life is spirit in a body. The body is dead without you in it (James 2:26).
Do the math, man. You exist PRIOR to being conceived in the womb as a spirit. Why do you not get this?
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
The following is a full explanation from my blog regarding you being a spirit created at the same time that Adam was…and Jeremiah:
Many seem to agree that Genesis chapter 2 is a review of Genesis chapter 1, specifically in regards to day number 6, man’s creation. I disagree that Genesis chapter 2 is a review of chapter 1. Why? Simple:
1. Genesis Chapter 1 is CREATION
2. Genesis Chapter 2 is FORMATION
1. Genesis Chapter 1: Creation of the SPIRITS (SEED), (BREATH OF LIFE) of man.
2. Genesis Chapter 2: Formation of the Body (Dirt) of man.
The ORDER OF EVENTS is DIFFERENT between the two chapters.
Many have not even noticed this.
In Genesis Chapter 1, notice that man was created AFTER the animals.
Day # 5 is ANIMALS.
Day # 6 is MAN.
But In Genesis Chapter 2, notice that animals were FORMED AFTER ADAM.
Then, after all of the animals were formed, FINALLY Eve was FORMED, and yet, in chapter 1, Eve was created at the same time as Adam. Many people assume that Adam was the first human CREATED. No, We were all created on the same day, as spirits.
We were all created IN HEAVEN. One by one, God plants a seed (spirit) in dirt (BODY), and each one of us became a living soul. Life begins at conception. The sperm and the egg are dirt (BODY), but our spirit gives the body life (James 2:26). When we die, WE GO “HOME”. Home is where we came from, where we were created. We were not created on earth, we were formed on earth. All of us were created, at the same time, in heaven. God is still resting from creation. Man does not create man. And since God is still at rest from his creation, that means that you and I were created at the same time that Adam was created, in God’s image (to be eternal from the moment of creation).
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “But In Genesis Chapter 2, notice that animals were FORMED AFTER ADAM.”
This depends on the translation of the Hebrew verb – whether it should be “formed” or “had formed.” I’ll go with “had formed” until the issue is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“chapmaned24 writes, “But In Genesis Chapter 2, notice that animals were FORMED AFTER ADAM.”
This depends on the translation of the Hebrew verb – whether it should be “formed” or “had formed.” I’ll go with “had formed” until the issue is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.”
My response:
Hebrew words here have nothing to do with it. The order of events do.
Genesis 1 Animals created before man, not after man.
Genesis 2 Adam was formed BEFORE the animals, not after the animals.
Look at the order of events difference, not the Hebrew words.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Look at the order of events difference, not the Hebrew words.”
LOL!!! So, it is the Hebrew words that, when translated, give us the order of events but we should not really look at the Hebrew words or the order of events they seem to describe – or sometimes we look at the Hebrew words and sometimes we do not.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“chapmaned24 writes, “Look at the order of events difference, not the Hebrew words.”
LOL!!! So, it is the Hebrew words that, when translated, give us the order of events but we should not really look at the Hebrew words or the order of events they seem to describe – or sometimes we look at the Hebrew words and sometimes we do not.”
My response:
The bible was already translated from Hebrew to English. My consentration is on the order of events.
But you go ahead an concentrate on the Hebrew. My point still stands, in that Genesis 1 is Animals BEFORE Adam, whereas chapter 2 is Adam BEFORE animals. That shows a different order of events.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “But you go ahead an concentrate on the Hebrew. My point still stands, in that Genesis 1 is Animals BEFORE Adam, whereas chapter 2 is Adam BEFORE animals. That shows a different order of events.”
The translation of Chapter 2 is contested. Some say, the Hebrew is to be translated “had formed” to get an accurate rendering of the Hebrew so that the reference is to the animals being formed before Adam thereby agreeing with chapter 1
rhutchin,
You state:
The translation of Chapter 2 is contested. Some say, the Hebrew is to be translated “had formed” to get an accurate rendering of the Hebrew so that the reference is to the animals being formed before Adam thereby agreeing with chapter 1.
Dude, please, man, listen.
I’m not paying attention to 2 WORDS. I am paying attention to PARAGRAPHS. I’m discussing SEVERAL VERSES in succession to one another.
If you want to stumble over ONE WORD that YOU SAY is contested, go ahead, contest it. I’m concentrating on the STORY LINE of EVENTS in succession to one another, to wit:
CHAPTER 1= ANIMALS BEFORE MAN
CHAPTER 2= MAN BEFORE ANIMALS.
Even if you contest 2 words, you still have a different order of events. And that proves that you were CREATED as a spirit, and formed a body.
When you die, YOU DEPART YOUR BODY, thus proving that YOU WERE CREATED as a spirit, and Genesis chapter 2 has no bearing on creation at all.
So you go ahead and contest contest contest. It does not change chapter 1 = Animals before man, chapter 2 = Man before animals.
Bottom line, YOU ARE A SPIRIT, no matter if you contest 2 words, or not. When you die, YOU DEPART YOUR BODY.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “So you go ahead and contest contest contest. It does not change chapter 1 = Animals before man, chapter 2 = Man before animals.”
Only 2:19 is relevant. Here, it should read, “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed…” as the ESV has it. There is no conflict between chapters 1 and 2.
rhutchin,
2nd response to:
The translation of Chapter 2 is contested. Some say, the Hebrew is to be translated “had formed” to get an accurate rendering of the Hebrew so that the reference is to the animals being formed before Adam thereby agreeing with chapter 1.
The only ones that I know that would “contest” this is those who believe in “soul sleep”, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and the Herbert W Armstrong clan, who believes that when you die, END OF STORY until resurrection.
But even still, chapter 1=animals before man, and chapter 2=man before animals. And no matter how you slice it, the totality of the storyline STILL SHOWS a different order of events, even if a word or 2 is contested.
Again, when you die, YOU DEPART YOUR BODY, and you either go to heaven or hell. That is your spirit, NOT YOUR BODY. Two different things. So chapter 1 is discussing your spirit, and chapter 2 is discussing your body, whether you contest 2 words or not.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “So chapter 1 is discussing your spirit, and chapter 2 is discussing your body, whether you contest 2 words or not.”
I’m not buying what your selling.
rhutich states:
“I’m not buying what your selling.”
My response:
I know you don’t, but why? Because you investigated the matter independently, or you are being TOLD by your doctrines to not buy it?
chpmaned24 writes, “I know you don’t, but why? Because you investigated the matter independently, or you are being TOLD by your doctrines to not buy it?”
You make a claim without offering substance to back it up.
rhutchin,
Hey, I know it’s been a few days since I got back to you, but I have a question for you.
You had said:
“chpmaned24 writes, “I know you don’t, but why? Because you investigated the matter independently, or you are being TOLD by your doctrines to not buy it?”
You make a claim without offering substance to back it up.”
My response:
We had been arguing about a word “had”.
My contention is that Chapter 1 indicates that spirits were created in chapter 1, and bodies formed in chapter 2. You said that this is contested, due to a word in chapter 2 called, “had”.
So my question to you is this: What is your conclusion if the word “had” is valid? What is your take on the difference between chapter 1 and chapter 2 with differing orders of events?
Is it by putting the word “had” in the sentences a means for God to say, “Oh, ya, buy the way, I forgot to mention that I had formed animals before I formed Adam!”?
If that is your contention, I have another word for you to look at, that is indeed in the bible. The word “AND”. The word “AND” in EACH VERSE, indicates a succession of events, one after another, which thereby would reject the idea of God indicating an “OH, BY THE WAY” statement.
Over the last few days, I’ve been commenting with a retired professor, Dr. (Without a stethoscope) Claude Mariottini, via his blog and personal email.
His conclusion of the 2 different order of events between chapters 1 and 2 is due to a SEPARATE creation event. He has NO CLUE that we are a spirit in a body. He states that is UNBIBLICAL. However, if this retired professor was to look at ONE VERSE, that would reverse his whole view of a separate creation. That one verse is…
Wait, before I mention it, he indicates that MAYBE Cain got his wife from this OTHER creation. Maybe not. But regardless of that, he indicates that the town that Cain went to, NOD, was already populated with people.
Now the verse:
Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Look at the last 2 words. If there was this separate creation, then Adam could not have named Eve, Eve. He would have chosen a different word. However, if there was a separte creation, and Eve really is the mother of ALL LIVING, then she had an affair with the first male of a different creation, thereby committing adultery with this guy. Or…if you are a Calvinist, ALL doesn’t mean ALL afterALL.
Or, there is no such thing as a separate creation. I choose the latter. What say you? Anyway, just mostly some info for you, but I really wish I knew where you were going with the word “had”. Do you mean for had to be an, “OH, BY THE WAY” statement, or what?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “My contention is that Chapter 1 indicates that spirits were created in chapter 1, and bodies formed in chapter 2.”
OK. So, where is your argument for this position out of the Scriptures.
Then, “Or, there is no such thing as a separate creation. I choose the latter. What say you?”
I agree with you.
Then, “I really wish I knew where you were going with the word “had”.
The accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 were written by Adam. Genesis 1 was based on information provided to Adam by God. Genesis 2 was based on Adam’s personal experience. I don’t think Adam was confused about what God told him and what he experienced.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Only 2:19 is relevant. Here, it should read, “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed…” as the ESV has it. There is no conflict between chapters 1 and 2.”
My respone:
Chapter 1 does not include the word “FORMED” in it. It states the word CREATED. Huge difference. HUGE.
chapmaned24 writes, “Chapter 1 does not include the word “FORMED” in it. It states the word CREATED. Huge difference. HUGE.”
I don’t think all the translations have “create.” NET Bible has, “let the land produce…” and “God made” with regard to animals. You will have to check the Hebrew text to see what is going on.
rhutchin,
I’m gonna add ONE MORE THING regarding the ORDER OF EVENTS in the STORY LINE.
After God “formed” Adam of the dirt, THEN he blew into him the BREATH OF LIFE. The breath of life is YOU; YOU were breathed into your DIRT BODY.
That indicates that YOU were in existance before the dirt was formed.
But that’s not all.
Eve didn’t come into the picture for a while. She was NOT AROUND when God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God said that man should not be alone, and put Adam in a deep sleep, and FORMED (FORMED) Eve from Adam’s rib.
What’s my point?
According to Genesis chapter 1, they were BOTH CREATED at the same time. Day number 6.
Animals were created on Day number 5, but animals were formed AFTER Adam, and EVE was LAST.
So if Eve was FORMED from a rib, AFTER Adam, how does that match up with Day number 6 in genesis 1:26-31?
Genesis 2:
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
So after all the animals were named by Adam, FINALLY God indicates that Adam needs a partner, yet Chapter 1 indicates what on DAY 6?
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR ADAM TO NAME ALL THE ANIMALS OF THE PLANET? HOW LONG FROM WHEN ADAM WAS FORMED UNTIL EVE WAS FORMED? BOTH MALE AND FEMALE CREATED ON DAY 6.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
My point: There is a timeline of events, meaning that your contested word(s) is bogus.
You are trying to force the bible to state your theology, which is why you contest it.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That indicates that YOU were in existance before the dirt was formed.”
Or Adam came into existence the moment God breathed life into Adam’s body, Then, Adam’s children came into existence at conception or at birth.
Then, “According to Genesis chapter 1, they were BOTH CREATED at the same time. Day number 6.”
No. On the same day – day 6. Genesis 1 tells us that God created man and women. Genesis 2 provides details of this creation not provided in Chapter 1..
Then, “So if Eve was FORMED from a rib, AFTER Adam, how does that match up with Day number 6 in genesis 1:26-31??
Perfectly.
Then, “You are trying to force the bible to state your theology, which is why you contest it.”
How about letting the Bible say whatever it wants and we work with that.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Or Adam came into existence the moment God breathed life into Adam’s body, Then, Adam’s children came into existence at conception or at birth”
My response:
We Christians believe that LIFE begins at conception. Right? Well, as James 2:26 states:
James 2:26
the body without the spirit is dead
And Hebrews 4:3 states:
Hebrews 4:3
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Creation was OVER and complete when God rested on the 7th day. Creation is OVER. God is NOT still creating. God is still at rest from his creation. We are to ENTER into God’s rest, according to Hebrews 4.
So since LIFE begins at conception, then your spirit exists PRIOR to being inserted into fertilized egg. And when was that spirit, which is YOU, created, since God is not still creating, and hasn’t since he began his rest on the 7th day?
What you say is that EXISTENCE began at conception. But what I say, existance began on day 6, NOT at conception. Life began at conception, not existance. Just as DEATH is not the non-existance, since you depart your body at death, you still exist. Just not in a body.
You MUST read the whole book about the topic, and not limit yourself to JUST Genesis 2. Then you get a complete story. Which is why I included James 2:26, and Hebrews 4:3.
We know that LIFE begins at conception for MANY reasons that way. Not just because John the Baptist leaped for joy in the womb of Elizabeth at the presence of Jesus in the womb of Mary.
It is your spirit that gives your body life, and you are dead when your spirit departs your body. And since that is the case, your spirit exists PRIOR to your body being FORMED in the womb.
This is why I do not contest a word in Genesis 2. I’ve read the controversies regarding the differences between the 2 chapters. Some speculate that there were 2 different creation events…one prior to Adam, and one after Adam, which to them justifies one of 2 things.
1. Cain got his wife from a PREVIOUS creation story.
2. Evolution
But me, I see it as CREATION OF SPIRITS vs. FORMATION OF BODY’s. Animals CREATED before man, but man FORMED before animals.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “James 2:26 – “….the body without the spirit is dead,…”
James 2, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
We also have Ephesians 1 – “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
So, the person without the Spirit – Holy Spirit – is dead and without faith. When a person hears the gospel (by which faith is conveyed to the person), the person believes and is then indwelt by the Holy Spirit who is given to the person as a guarantee of his inheritance.
I think James refers to the Holy Spirit who does not inhabit people without faith. Once a person receives faith, he believes the gospel and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit begins to produce fruit that provides the foundation for works as Paul explained, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” and “the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth.” When James writes, “faith without works is dead,” I think he has in mind those works that require the Holy Spirit to accomplish.
rhitchin,
No, the James reference is not in regards to the holy spirit. I’ll explain tonight with a few verses. Working now, won’t be home for about 5 hours. But James is discussing your own spirit. When you die, YOU go somewhere. Your body doesn’t go anywhere, but back to the dust. Your spirit does. Your spirit is YOU. The invisible you. A ghost. It really surprises me that orthodox christianity doesn’t have a clue about this stuff.
rhutchin,
OK, finally home:
You had said:
“James 2, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.””
And
“I think James refers to the Holy Spirit who does not inhabit people without faith”
My response:
That’s not what James was saying. He was EQUATING a DEAD BODY with someone who STATES that he has faith, but DOES NOTHING to show it.
So let me break the DEAD BODY thing down for you for a moment.
LIFE requires a body. Without a body, you are DEAD. Are you with me so far? When your spirit (ghost) departs your body, you are dead.
But, YOU STILL EXIST. My goodness, if you don’t know that you still exist after you die, I’m not sure what to tell you. You do realize that you STILL EXIST after you died, right?
Did the Baptists and/or Calvinists and/or Catholics fail to mention this to you?
Spirits are INVISIBLE. So what does that mean in English?
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
My point in referencing that verse:
Spirits are ETERNAL, not mortal, not immortal. Bodies are mortal, the resurrected body is immortal.
Jesus is both ETERNAL (spirit) and immortal (body). And so will you be one day, IF YOU GET SAVED.
We say that Jesus is INCARNATE God. Well, what the heck does that mean, INCARNATE? What is it that is INCARNATE, and in what?
incarnate (v.) “clothe or embody in flesh,”
We are a spirit DRESSED, or clothed in a body. That’s incarnate.
A spirit/soul is NEITHER mortal, nor immortal. It’s ETERNAL.
Now, the remaining verses:
2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
What is absent from the body? YOU ARE; YOUR SPIRIT. You still exist after you die…you are not just a body. And if that spirit departs your body…YOU ARE DEAD, and that is what James 2:26 is stating.
Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man
Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
When do you supposed YOU (spirit) first got in your body to begin with? Which brings me to another question. But you must ponder the last question first. When you come up with your answer (HINT: CONCEPTION), answer the following: WHEN WERE “YOU” CREATED.
But you have to remember that God rested on the 7th day, and he hasn’t CREATED anything since, according to Hebrews 4:4
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
If you read Hebrews 4 in context, we ENTER GOD’s perpetual rest, we ENTER God’s perpetual Sabbath, because we are NOT WORKING (works of righteousness of the Law).
Therefore, God is an UNEMPLOYED creater since he took his rest, therefore, WHEN were YOU created????????????
1 Thessalonians 5:23
…spirit AND soul AND body…
James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING
***1 Corinthians 2:11
***For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?
YOUR SPIRIT IS AN INTELLECT!
1 Corinthians 14:14
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth
YOUR SPIRIT PRAYS (IT’S THE REAL YOU)
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
If God’s spirit is in your body, then YOUR SPIRIT bears witness WITH the Holy Spirit!
And regarding our BODY, Paul tells us that it is a TENT. I go further than that. We can call it a TEMPLE, TENT, HOUSE, HOME, DOMICILE, ADDRESS, RESIDENCE, TABERNACLE, etc. KJV calls it a TABERNACLE.
2 Corinthians 5:1
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
That BUILDING is a RESURRECTED body.
2 Peter 1:13
Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
2 Peter 1:14
Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,
The above shows you that you are a SPIRIT dressed in a TABERNACLE, aka INCARNATE.
Chapter 1 of Genesis still stands. Creation of spirits of man. Chapter 2 of Genesis still stands. Formation of bodies of man.
When we die, our bodies goes back to the dust…WHEN WAS THE DUST CREATED? Wasn’t it on the FIRST DAY?
Genesis chapter 1 is CREATION OF SPIRITS, and Genesis chapter 2 (AFTER GOD RESTED) BEGAN the FORMATION of bodies for the spirits to RESIDE in, and you were FORMED in the womb…and LIFE begins at conception, which means that your spirit was PLANTED in your DIRT body at conception, PROVING that you existed BEFORE being inserted into DIRT (body).
And you are implying that NO ONE in Christianity teaches this stuff? I get told that none of what I say is biblical. Even from professors, and other DR.’s without a stethoscope, who attended SEMINARY. And that really boggles my mind that those Dr.’s and prophessors are really that stupid.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That’s not what James was saying. He was EQUATING a DEAD BODY with someone who STATES that he has faith, but DOES NOTHING to show it.”
James makes the comparison: the body without the spirit is like faith without works. If James meant that the spirit gives life to the body, then he meant that works give life to faith. If works are necessary to give life to faith, then salvation is not by faith but by works. That is the main argument.
Faith gives life to works making works acceptable to God (a dead faith produces dead works). In the same way, spirit gives life to the body making it acceptable to God. I think this is the Holy Spirit which gives a new birth to the body dead in sin. The Greek work used by James appears many times in the NT and is always associated with the Holy Spirit except in a couple instances. When James asked, ‘Was not Abraham our father justified by works…” he did not mean to negate what Paul said, “We are justified by faith, ” A living faith produces good works. So, Paul says, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,” where to be “created” means created by faith for good works.
No rhutchin. Faith, without showing it, is DEAD, aka meaningless. Likewise, without you in your body, your body is dead. I have no idea where you come up with life giving here. You must live what you believe, just like abraham did. Just saying that you have faith doesn’t prove a thing. You gotta prove it by what you do, and James states that specifically. He states, I’ll show you my faith by what I do. Do is works. Where do you come up with your explanations from?
chapmaned24 writes, “Just saying that you have faith doesn’t prove a thing. You gotta prove it by what you do,”
I say that faith proves itself by the works it produces in the believer. If the person must “prove’ that he has faith, then he is not really justified by faith until he proves that faith. That goes counter to Paul in Romans 5.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“I say that faith proves itself by the works it produces in the believer. If the person must “prove’ that he has faith, then he is not really justified by faith until he proves that faith. That goes counter to Paul in Romans 5.”
My response to that:
That’s NOT what the bible states. WORKS proves your faith. How much of the bible do you really know?
James 2:24
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
WORKS…
Your argument about WORKS is exactly the argument that LUTHER had, and therefore, Luther HATED the book of James, all due to the word WORKS.
But…you don’t know your bible if you think that those two USES of the word WORKS is the same.
Works, as far as James is concerned, is that you MUST show your faith BY WHAT YOU DO.
Keep in mind that the word DO is the SAME as WORKS. The word DO is related to the word DEED.
ROMANS 4 (YOU SAID ROMANS 5, BUT IT’S REALLY 4), is discussing the DO’s/deeds/WORKS of THE LAW OF MOSES in order to OBTAIN righteousness, to wit:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
RIGHTEOUSNESS being the KEY WORD here.
Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
But now get back to James about WORKS!! Works is LIVING what you BELIEVE.
And Works in Romans 4:2-3
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Again, RIGHTEOUSNESS is the KEY WORD.
Works in Romans 4 is NOT discussing works in James 2. How you treat PEOPLE is a form of WORKS in James. Being OBEDIENT to the 613 Laws of Moses is WORKS of the law of Moses, aka DEEDS of the law.
Do you now see the difference?
And one last thing from James:
James 2:14
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. Or, to put it another way, FAITH IS DEAD WITHOUT WORKS.
You MUST do something to PROVE your faith.
Oh, and getting back to Abraham…his faith was TESTED by God. If faith is GIVEN, then why would God need to TEST someone’s faith?
Or, what do YOU interpret God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son, KNOWING full and well the following:
Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Genesis 17:21
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
But now God states:
Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
It was a TEST of Abraham’s FAITH, was it not?
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
NOTE:
The word “TRIED” is the same thing as “tested”. Abraham beleived God’s promise (17), believing that God would raise Isaac up from the dead in order to fulfill HIS (God’s) promise. WORKS.
Keep in mind that Abraham did NOT have the Law of Moses, therefore, there was NO SUCH THING as WORKS/DEEDS/DO OF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Just FAITH ALONE. But again, faith without WORKS is dead, aka FAITH IS DEAD WITHOUT WORKS.
Ed Chapman
I think the model RH has in mind – I would call – Synergism re-labeled Monergism
The recipe goes like this:
1) Take an empty water bottle and remove its label
2) Fill it full of Synergism.
3) In gigantic words – write “Monergism” on it
4) Then you tell everyone the salvation you’re drinking is Monergistic
Anyone who isn’t savvy enough to examine whats inside the bottle won’t know its all double-talk. :-]
br.d
Yep. When I first heard the Calvinist use of the word “Faith”, it really boggled my mind. They have no idea what the word faith means. They have redefined it, putting a spin to it that God must GIVE you faith SO THAT you can believe. But the bible states the exact opposit.
Hebrews 11:1 states what faith is…
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NOTE the words “HOPE”, and “substance”.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25 (HOPE)
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
————————————————————
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
————————————————————
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
I do understand that the following is discussing “gifts” of the spirit, and THIS might be where they come up with their convoluted arguments, I don’t know for sure.
1 Corinthians 12:9
To another faith by the same Spirit
But this is not discussing salvation, this is discussing AFTER salvation, putting a different meaning and tone to it. It’s like the apostles asking Jesus to INCREASE their faith. Peter had faith that he could walk on water, but eventually he sank. This is not about salvation. It’s about the WALK (with Christ) in difficult situations, aka LEAP of faith.
It’s one thing to study the bible, it’s another to study denominational doctrines.
Ed Chapman
Just listen to their thinking though.
“YOU” are given an attribute – so that “YOU” can do something with that attribute
How does that makes sense in a world where absolutely ZERO % of anything is ever up to “YOU”?
Think about these two statements – and tell me which one is misleading?
1) The man’s hand reached out to scratch an itch on his face
2) The man used his hand to scratch an itch on his face
For most people – statement (2) makes sense because statement (1) infers the hand has the attribute of intentionality.
And a hand has no such attribute.
It does not “intend” to do anything.
And in Calvinism – human’s are designed the same way.
The only being in Calvin’s universe that has “intentions” is Calvin’s god.
So a Calvinist is not a hand that reaches out to scratch Calvin’s god’s itch
A Calvinist is a hand which Calvin’s god uses to scratch his itch. :-]
br.d,
And this is why they rely so heavily on Romans 9, the Pharoah. And they use that as the doctrine of all mankind in the same position, rather than looking at the whole picture of the pharaoh being used by God for one specific purpose, and that was to show God’s power in the spiritual story of Moses as a shadow and type of Jesus as the redeemer saving people from the BONDAGE, or slavery of sin, where the Pharoah plays the spiritual role of satan not wanting to let the people go. This is why the Jews are used by God, with other figures involved. The potter/clay story has a purpose, and it’s not indicutive of the rest of humanity. But calvinists are stuck on the potter/clay. But I also have to say that not many others see the spiritual story in the Moses/Pharoah story either, which is sad. It is my contention that Romans 9 indicates that because USED the Pharoah, that the Pharoah was given mercy. But most think he’s burning in hell.
Two questions to ask God:
1. Did OJ do it?
2. Is the Pharoah here? Lol
Ed Chapman
Thanks Chapman
I certain see Pharaoh as a type-and-shadow.
We see many of these in the OT
But I don’t get your two questions.
br.d
Lol. The first question was if OJ Simpson murdered his ex wife.
Everyone wants to know!! Don’t they?
The second question is about if the Pharoah got mercy and is in heaven or hell.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
The example about abraham is that he was gonna sacrifice isaac. He had no problem about it cuz he had faith in God’s promise that abraham’s seed would be thru isaac, so he believed that since God promised that, that God would resurrect isaac from the dead. That is living what you believe, and that justified abraham’s faith. Works.
rhutchin,
I’m going to add once more reference to my last long comment:
Luke 24
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
NOTE: Verse 37 is the “ELEVEN” (Apostles) who had yet to see Jesus yet. He had been on the road to Emmaus with two people, but the ELEVEN had not seen Jesus yet, and STILL thought that Jesus was DEAD.
So when they saw Jesus, they thought he was a GHOST (spirit), verse 37. That proves that people CAN AND HAVE seen ghosts…just not this time, verse 39.
Jesus was in a BODY, therefore, they were NOT seeing a ghost (spirit).
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
I just had to bring up one more thing that you said:
You had said:
“Once a person receives faith, he believes the gospel and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit”
My response:
That’s NOT what my bible teaches at all. My bible teaches that you must first be PERSUADED to believe the gospel, and once PERSUADED, you HAVE faith by VIRTUE of the PERSUATION…it’s not GIVEN to you. THEN you get the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the PERSUATION.
Like I told Mike a couple weeks back, KNOWLEDGE is a prerequisite to choice, in anything in life, which is why we have FREE WILL…to choose what to believe (persuaded), OR NOT TO BELEIVE (not persuaded).
#5 ALIVE…input!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, ‘That’s NOT what my bible teaches at all. My bible teaches that you must first be PERSUADED to believe the gospel, and once PERSUADED, you HAVE faith by VIRTUE of the PERSUATION”
OK. In John 3, Jesus said that a person cannot see the kingdom of God without being born by the Spirit. It is in seeing the kingdom of God that one can then be persuaded – receive assurance and conviction – of the kingdom of God. If one cannot see the kingdom of God, how can he be persuaded of it. People who cannot see the kingdom of God are as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,” Not much persuasion there. Even given the power of the gospel to persuade, Paul also writes, “…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded,…”
rhutchin,
I don’t think many really knows what born again means… especially calvinists. I’ll talk later about this, but it is related to spirit in a body. God’s spirit in your body. Aka ETERNAL LIFE.
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, ‘That’s NOT what my bible teaches at all. My bible teaches that you must first be PERSUADED to believe the gospel, and once PERSUADED, you HAVE faith by VIRTUE of the PERSUATION”
OK. In John 3, Jesus said that a person cannot see the kingdom of God without being born by the Spirit. It is in seeing the kingdom of God that one can then be persuaded – receive assurance and conviction – of the kingdom of God. If one cannot see the kingdom of God, how can he be persuaded of it. People who cannot see the kingdom of God are as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,” Not much persuasion there. Even given the power of the gospel to persuade, Paul also writes, “…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded,…
My response:
OK, so let’s break this one down, shall we?
Who has the “god of this age” blinded?
PHILOSOPHERS, athiests whose god is science, etc., those who proclaim to be “wise”, not your average Joe.
As I, and a few others have been saying, GOD BLINDED THE JEWS, to wit:
Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
But the “god of this world” blinds those who claim to be “wise”. So since you brought up 1 Corinthians 1:18, YOU LEFT OUT THE FOLLOWING NEXT VERSE…on purpose?
1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
1 Corinthians 3:18
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 3:20
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
So, as you can see, the common word here is “wise”. The god of this world blinds those who think that they are wise.
But for the average Gentile Joe…
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
My NEXT comment will be in regards to your “born by the Spirit” statement.
But just a preview…BORN AGAIN is the same as saying “spiritual ‘re’-birth”, where “RE” IN “RE-BIRTH” is extremely important, because “RE” represents the word “again”, NOT A SEPARATE birth from “IN THE FLESH”. Nicodemus was discussing the FLESH. Jesus was NOT. Jesus isn’t about the earthly. He’s about the spiritual. Calvinists believe that everyone is BORN SPIRITUALLY DEAD. That is NOT TRUE at all.
Romans 5 has NOTHING to do with spiritual death AT ALL. Genesis 2 and 3 has NOTHING to do with NATURAL death AT ALL.
Romans 5 is about natural death, and Genesis 2 and 3 is about spiritual death.
Therefore, we did NOT inherit spiritual death as a result of Adam’s sin. We did, however, inherit NATURAL death as a result of Adam’s sin. For some reason, Calvinists get these two deaths mixed up.
We die a spiritual death, BUT NOT EVERYONE DIES A SPIRITUAL DEATH. Everyone dies a natural death, tho, except for the following:
1 Corinthians 15:51
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
Those are the people still alive at the rapture. They won’t see death.
HOWEVER, I’ve been stressing the word KNOWLEDGE for a LONG TIME on this blog, and that word seems to go over a lot of people’s heads for some reason.
The tree in the garden was SO NAMED with that word in mind for a REASON. The KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
Unless you have that KNOWLEDGE, you do not die a spiritual death. You are not separated from God UNTIL you first die a spiritual death. You are NOT born spiritually dead.
Not everyone has knowledge of good and evil.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
If you know how to spiritually interpret scripture (and you don’t), then you would KNOW that this verse is indicating that people who have NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL gets to go to heaven when they die.
But I know your denomination, whether Calvinist or not, refuses to spiritually interpret scripture, because ya’ll are EXPOSITORY only, just like the Jews are.
What else goes with that? In other words, who gets to go to heaven besides “THOSE” people?
Have you ever read the story about Joshua and Caleb? They were the ONLY TWO who were not killed off with their generation who were allowed to go to the promised land, besides those listed in Deuteronomy 1:39, and why? Because Joshua and Caleb had faith that they could kick some butt in the land of Canaan…the others were afraid.
So, who gets to go to heaven?
1. Those who have faith (with works), aka Joshua and Caleb…and…
2. Those who have NO KNOWLEDGE of good and evil (EVEN IF THEY DO EVIL, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE NO KNOWELDGE OF THAT EVIL).
Proof texts of #2
7 …I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
VERSE 9 indicates when one spiritually dies.
Romans 3:20
…for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (AKA KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL)
CONCLUSION:
We are all born of God when we were CREATED, because we are WITH GOD, up and to the point of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, just as the NAME of the tree so states, and Romans 7:7-9 and Deuteronomy 1:39 confirms.
ONCE a person has that KNOWLEDGE, it indicates what they have ALREADY DONE, giving them a guilt conscience before God.
From the NIV regarding the word GUILT
Hebrews 9:9
That’s an example for the present time. It shows us that the gifts and sacrifices people offered were not enough. They were not able to remove the worshiper’s feelings of guilt.
Hebrews 9:14
But Christ offered himself to God without any flaw. He did this through the power of the eternal Holy Spirit. So how much cleaner will the blood of Christ make us! It washes away our feelings of guilt for committing sin. Sin always leads to death. But now we can serve the living God.
Hebrews 10:2
If the law could, wouldn’t the sacrifices have stopped being offered? The worshipers would have been made “clean” once and for all time. They would not have felt guilty for their sins anymore.
Hebrews 10:22
So let us come near to God with a sincere heart. Let us come near boldly because of our faith. Our hearts have been sprinkled. Our minds have been cleansed from a sense of guilt. Our bodies have been washed with pure water.
So, sin SEPARATED us from God, after we got KNOWLEDGE of our sin, which made us feel GUILTY, not that we were already guilty of sin.
Born AGAIN is when GOD RETURNS BACK TO YOU (HOLY SPIRIT IN YOUR BODY). When you are conceived in the womb, GOD IS WITH YOU…until you get KNOWLEDGE OF SIN…THEN comes the need to be born…AGAIN (SPIRITUAL RE-BIRTH).
Again, Jesus was NOT discussing anything about a flesh birth, followed by a spiritual birth. Nicodemus was concentrating on the flesh ONLY, but Jesus was focused on the spiritual only, not the flesh at all.
But you Calvinists think that everyone is born spiritually dead. That is a problem. Life comes before death, in all aspects, whether natural or spiritual.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
I dissect the bible, while you guys dissect philosophers.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
The only thing that I will concede regarding your comment is COMMON SENSE and LOGIC, in that before ANYONE does something, he/she THINKS ABOUT IT first, and makes a plan.
But to say that Jeremiah didn’t also know God back, just because God knew Jeremiah…no, I believe that Jeremiah also knew God before he was in the womb. Why? Because Jeremiah was already EXISTING as a spirit before he was in the womb.
And that is my argument.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
Do you know that God IMMEDIATELY dealt with the sin of Adam? He killed an animal and COVERED THE NAKEDNESS of Adam and Eve.
Did you know that NAKEDNESS is another way of saying SHAME? The blood covered their shame, and the skins covered their naked skin.
And THAT is what continued the relationship of Adam with God…unti the NEXT SIN, for which Adam then KNEW what to do in order to maintain a relationship with God. God showed him how to do it, just by killing an animal, shedding the blood. Adam’s sin severed the relationship (spiritual death), but the sacrifice temporarily restored it.
Now, if you don’t think it’s a sin to be naked, since God said it was GOOD…GO STREAKING, I dare you.
Ed Chapman
Mike
Some how WLC is right and I’m wrong even though our explanations are exactly the same.
br.d
Give me the quote from Dr. Craig where he states that this argument is valid – and as a valid argument it can therefore be used as a means to derive a valid logical conclusion.
Mike
Once again you employ a double-standard. You make claims but I can’t.
br.d
Mike – re-read my posts
When I make a claim – it is always followed with a sequential (modeling syllogism) argument.
The rules of logic which apply to the syllogism apply here.
Lets say I am totally unable to provide evidence for a claim – and I’m silly enough to make that claim – perhaps crossing my fingers behind my back – gambling that you won’t require that evidence. I’ve revealed my claim as baseless. In most cases a claim made this way is made straight out of emotions which are attempting to fool people by masquerading itself as logic.
Not a very good process for me to be involved in!
You don’t follow that process very often
You dismiss a valid logical argument I present – by making a claim out of the air – with no evidence behind it
And I’m supposed to just believe every word?
Mike
You give evidence but my evidence is void.
br.d
What evidence?
Is that evidence simply another claim without evidence?
Perhaps a baseless claim defined as “evidence” within your social structure?
Mike
There is a debating exercise you should try. Try to take your opponent’s side and argue for it as best you can. I think this would be helpful as you really struggle to see other peoples’ points of view.
br.d
I’ve seen Dr. Craig do this – especially on controversial issues.
But I think what you are asking me – is to do your homework for you.
You did provide evidence on a statement that Peter Van Inwagen made concerning free-will being incoherent.
I then asked you – why you didn’t provide the rest of the evidence – that Van Inwagen follows that by concluding LFW as the only livable position.
At that point you dropped it – because that evidence didn’t work for you.
Perhaps you want to ignore that evidence – and simply accept whatever works?
Mike
Molinism obfuscates free will for people like yourself who think that the term Middle Knowledge maintains LFW.
br.d
I wound’t use the word “maintains” in that statement.
I think its more precise to say Middle Knowledge provides a means of divine knowledge while allowing a limited degree of LFW.
Mike
Frankfurt cases demonstrated that free will can exist without the PAP.
br.d
This is HALF true.
The Frankfurt scenario entails a person’s choice being limited to only one outcome by external factors outside one’s control.
For example – the module planted in a person’s brain that will fire *ONLY IF* the module detects the person *WOULD* choose [A]
In such case – the module over-rides the person’s brain functions and FORCES the person’s brain to choose [NOT A]
So this is predicated on what is called a “Subjunctive Conditional”
And in this case – the person is *NOT FREE* to choose [A]
However – *IF* the person *WOULD* choose [NOT A] then the module will not fire and the person will *FREELY* choose [NOT A]
So lets not attempt to use the Frankfurt scenario wrongly.
What the Frankfurt scenario shows is that PAP is *NOT NECESSARY* in all cases for there to be “FREE* will.
But now Mike!
Please understand where this scenario falls short in Calvinism!
In Calvinism – the divine module appears in the form of a divine decree
And that module/decree does not wait to see what your brain *WOULD* choose.
It does not wait to see what impulse *WOULD* come to pass – because that *WOULD* would entail the existence of an LFW impulse.
As a Calvinist – the divine module that is in your brain – is the *ORIGIN* and *SOURCE* of every impulse that comes to pass within your brain. Those impulses occur infallibly
And Nature does not have the attribute of infallibility
It does not have the power to make something come to pass infallibly
Therefore as a Calvinist – the impulses that come to pass in your brain are NOT naturally occurring impulses.
And John Calvin affirms this (see quote below)
And because they occur infallibly – they occur IRRESISTIBLY.
And thus we have Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” once again affirmed:
No impulse that comes to pass within your brain is ever UP TO you
Your brain is TOTALLY controlled by an external mind.
And a percentage of the perceptions which exist in your brain are divinely decreed to be FALSE perceptions.
And since those FALSE perceptions are there by infallible decree – your brain is powerless to escape them
And your brain is powerless to discern a FALSE perception from a TRUE perception.
And that is why in Calvinism – you have no Epistemic ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Now that is LOGICAL evidence!
Mike
Van Inwagen admits that indeterminism is incompatible with free will.
br.d
And why don’t you follow that by acknowledging that he also concludes LFW is the only livable option?
Mike
Libertarians are against coercion or situations in which individuals are forced to make decisions with no alternate options.
br.d
This is true of both Libertarians and Compatibilists within current philosophy.
But this is another area in which current Philosophy and Calvinism depart.
John Calvin – asserts divine FORCE concerning demonic entities
-quote
They are even FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11.)
John Calvin – asserts complete divine CONTROL over every impulse within the human brain
-quote
men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
So when it comes to the “NO FORCE” argument – held within contemporary philosophy – “core” Calvinism deviates from this position.
Secondly – as a Calvinist – you have no way of proving that Calvin’s god does not use force.
You always end up with a “Force that forces without forcing”
Which of course is double-speak.
Mike
You are unable to see the determinism in your own description: “he can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do – GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES HE WOULD PUT THEM IN.” A mouse in a maze or a tunnel with only one exit is NOT an example of LFW.
br.d
FALSE
Determinism is quite evident there
What is ruled out in that statement is EXHAUSTIVE determinism.
Mike
The ability to do otherwise is essential to LFW but in Molinsim this is only hypothetical or theoretical.
br.d
FALSE
As the Frankfurt scenario shows
Mike
God uses His “Middle Knowledge” to determine which scenarios will ensure free will choices that will bring about His desired plan for the optimal world. He then actualizes that world and the real world now plays out as scripted. Somehow this is kind of determinism is acceptable to you, or at least you give it a pass—but you can’t accept Calvinism? That’s a blatant double standard!
br.d
Isn’t that what I’ve been telling you?
But why can’t you see – it as a rejection of EXHAUSTIVE determinism – which is the core proposition underlying Calvinism?
At issue here between us Mike – has never been the existence of determinism.
The issue has always been EXHAUSTIVE determinism.
And as I’ve demonstrated with LOGICAL evidence above – EXHAUSTIVE determinism leaves your brain with no epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
So your dilemma is a very interesting one.
At the same time that you struggle to retain a grip on it – you also struggle to escape its grip on you.
Mike
Molinism obfuscates determinism in the language of libertarian free will. Molinists are compatibilists in denial. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid man!
br.d
There you go making a claim again.
And in your mind a claim like that is all you need to provide as evidence?
Mike
Middle knowledge was established before current day Molinists” If you are saying that Luis de Molina and Pedro da Fonseca did not coin the term “Middle Knowledge” can you substantiate that or are you just making another claim without evidence?
br.d
I was simply referring to an appeal to baggage as some kind of evidence.
Do you have evidence of baggage with Molina that you can sight?
If you did – then why haven’t you presented that in an official publication – so that all Molinists can be corrected?
Mike
“I didn’t have to read everything there is to know about Molinism to understand Middle knowledge.” First you get on my case for not being familiar with Molinism and then when I say that I am it is now irrelevant! The double-standards just keep on coming!
br.d
Boy – I don’t get your reasoning!
Mike
The foundation of the cosmological argument is that something can’t come from nothing.
br.d
Are you sure that is what the argument seeks to do?
Isn’t it more accurate to say – the argument seeks to remain “coincident” with the scientific cosmological data – which includes the premise that the world had a beginning.
Mike
This is applied to the physical but it has a direct relation to the non-physical in the form of the PSR.
br.d
I don’t know what PSR is???
Mike
This idea goes on to state that LFW is unintelligible. But as you don’t know anything about this I will refrain from any further explanation.
br.d
Ok – so lets cut to the chase once again – and say that LFW is unintelligible
You are right back to where you started.
You have a god who doesn’t have LFW because LFW is unintelligible
Therefore what you are left with is EXHAUSTIVE determinism – in which his every function is determined by factors outside of his control
And (as is the case with your mind) he also doesn’t have the Epistemic function of knowing TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because – (like your mind is) his mind contains a percentage of FALSE perceptions determined by factors outside of his control – and his mind is unable to discern a FALSE perception from a TRUE one. And since all discernment is predicated on perception – he has no ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Congratulations – once again you’ve come full circle! :-]
br.d writes, “And with that knowledge [God] can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do – given circumstances he would put them in.”
They phrase is “…given circumstances [Gpd] would put them in.” If people are reacting to the circumstances God puts them in and God knows how they will react in those circumstances, is that really LFW? After all, the outcome is known by God and there is only one outcome that is possible.
rhutchin
They phrase is “…given circumstances [Gpd] would put them in.
br.d
Which is what I stated – thank you :-]
rhutchin
” If people are reacting to the circumstances God puts them in and God knows how they will react in those circumstances, is that really LFW? After all, the outcome is known by God and there is only one outcome that is possible.
br.d
Here we have the fallacy of “begging the question”
Begging the question is an informal fallacy which occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of providing evidence to support the conclusion.
In this case “only one outcome is possible” is assumed as a premise which assumes determinism
And determinism is what the statement is SUPPOSED to be proving.
And to show how this fails – we can once again take Calvin’s god as the example
When he makes a choice – is his choice already determined *FOR* him so there is only one outcome possible?
In such case – he goes about his office *AS-IF* it is TRUE that he has multiple options from which to choose
When that is in fact FALSE
Oh wait!
That would make him a Calvinist dutifully obeying John Calvin’s instructions.
What a coincidence!! ;-]
br.d writes, “In this case “only one outcome is possible” is assumed as a premise which assumes determinism”
You stated, “And with that knowledge he can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do – given circumstances he would put
1. God places people in circumstances
2. God has middle howledge of what people would do in those circumstances.
Therefore, God can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do in those circumstances.
The conclusion drawn from the above is that only one outcome is possible – that which God knows LFW creatures would do. Determinism is the product of the above premises, not a premise itself.
rhutchin
You stated, “And with that knowledge he can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do – given circumstances he would put
1. God places people in circumstances
2. God has middle howledge of what people would do in those circumstances.
Therefore, God can accurately foreknow what Libertarian free creatures WOULD do in those circumstances.
br.d
Correct so far
rhutchin
The conclusion drawn from the above is that only one outcome is possible
br.d
FALSE
This fails to follow the syllogistic rules of logic
The only thing it proves is exactly what it states – that god has perfect knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.
In contradistinction – on EXHAUSTIVE determinism there is divine knowledge of what the person *WILL* do
That divine knowledge is acquired by virtue of determining what the person *WILL* do *FOR* the person
And thus absolutely ZERO% of anything is ever UP TO the person.
So knowing what the person *WOULD* do is actually antithetical to the premise of EXHAUSTIVE determinism.
As Paul Helm’s states it
(paraphrased)
On EXHAUSTIVE Determinism – Middle knowledge is superfluous
Because god has already meticulously determined what the person *WILL* do
And knowing what the person *WOULD* do implies the opposite – that LFW exists – when in fact LFW is ruled out.
And EXHAUSTIVE Determinism and LFW mutually exclude each other
Therefore LFW is ruled out – which makes Middle Knowledge superfluous
rhutchin
– that which God knows LFW creatures would do.
br.d
Which – as Paul Helm’s would agree – LOGICALLY rules out EXHAUSTIVE determinism! :-]
rhutchin
Determinism is the product of the above premises, not a premise itself.
br.d
Your error is in step 2
But I congratulate you for attempting a sequential logical argument!
I will give you a paraphrased statement from Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s response to this:
If the person chooses [A] then god will have perfect foreknowledge without determining that person’s choice for them.
If the person chooses [NOT A] then god will have perfect foreknowledge without determining that person’s choice for them.
This allows for multiple options and thus LFW to exist
And at the same time – divine perfect foreknowledge of what the person WOULD do is present via Middle knowledge.
br.d writes, “The only thing it proves is exactly what it states – that god has perfect knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.
In contradistinction – on EXHAUSTIVE determinism there is divine knowledge of what the person *WILL* do”
As God has placed the person in particular circumstances, would and will are synonymous – that which a person would do under those circumstances is that which he will do under those circumstances. Thus, God has a middle knowledge of that which a person would and will do under those circumstances. There is no room for another outcome under those circumstances. If God were to change those circumstances, then another outcome is possible and that outcome is not known until God specifies the new circumstances. The term, “would,” applies where some part of the person’s circumstances is unknown. So long as the circumstances are known, there is no difference between “would” and “will.”
You need to define the terms, “would,” and “will,” because in the example given, you presuppose by step 1, “God places people in circumstances,” that would and will are synonymous. With human thinking, one speculates about what a person might do under certain circumstances. With God, middle knowledge says that God already knows what a person with do under specific circumstances – there is no “would” in that case that is distinguished from “will.”
Then, “If the person chooses [A] then god will have perfect foreknowledge without determining that person’s choice for them.”
That a person chooses [A} is determined by the circumstances into which he is placed. It is only where those circumstances are indeterminate that the choice is indeterminate. It is God’s perfect understanding of a person’s choices before a person actually chooses that gives Him foreknowledge of the person’s choices. Your statement says that God learns by observing that which a person chooses so that God cannot know without first observing the outcome.
rhutchin
As God has placed the person in particular circumstances, would and will are synonymous
br.d
Leave it to the Calvinist – who lives out an existence – where absolutely NOTHING UP TO him
Has a psychological need for a COMPUTER SIMULATION (i.e. DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION) of Libertarian choice
Where he can have at least a SIMULATION of of a world in which some things at least APPEAR to be UP TO him. :-]
Again as the WMC states:
-quote
He hath not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which ****WOULD**** come to pass upon such conditions.
Lets put it another way.
Calvin’s god – NOT THE PERSON – determines 100% of whatsoever a person *WOULD* do in any circumstance.
Calvin’s god does not leave any part of what a person *WOULD* do UP TO the person.
So the closest thing you – as a Calvinist – can get to experiencing the world the Molinist’s lives in
A world in which his God *DOES* leave some things are UP TO him
And in such case uses Middle Knowledge to know what the he *WOULD* do in certain situations
Is to create your own personal COMPUTER SIMULATION of a Molinistic world
So you can at least have the FALSE PERCEPTION of something being UP TO you.
In other words – the only way you have the perception of Calvin’s god leaving anything UP TO YOU and thereby utilize Middle Knowledge to know what you *WOULD* do in a circumstance – is to create a SIMULATION of it.
Bottom Line – in Calvinism there is never any point (even in Calvin’s god’s hypothetical imaginations) in which there is a *YOU* determining anything about what you *WOULD* do. :-]
And that is why “PURE” Calvinists reject Molinism – and reject Middle knowledge – as a compromise of EXHAUSTIVE Determinism
Sorry rhutchin
All you get in your little world – in which your every impulse follow meticulously determined ALGORITHMS
Is a DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION of some things being UP TO you.
Unfortunately for you – SIMULATIONS are not real. :-]
rhutchin: “As God has placed the person in particular circumstances, would and will are synonymous”
br.d: “Again as the WMC states:-quote-
He hath not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which ****WOULD**** come to pass upon such conditions.”
That is why “would” and “will” are synonymous. It is the same under Molinism where God knows all possible worlds each consisting of what will happen under circumstances specified by God.
Then, “And that is why “PURE” Calvinists reject Molinism – and reject Middle knowledge – as a compromise of EXHAUSTIVE Determinism”
I don’t see any reason to reject Molinism on this point. God knows all possible worlds and each of those worlds is distinguished from all others by circumstances specified by God. Each is determined fully so that the one world God chooses to create.is determined fully
rhutchin
That is why “would” and “will” are synonymous
br.d
Yes – for the Calvinist
No – for the Molnist
Yes – for the Calvinist – because in Calvinism NOTHING about anything is ever UP TO the creature.
So its REALLY not the creature who is determining what the creature *WOULD* do anyway.
In such case its as John Calvin asserts – “that knowledge is the consequence of the decree”
Thus in Calvinism it LOGICALLY follows – as Calvinist Paul Helm’s concludes – Middle Knowledge is superfluous.
But that is not the case for the Molinist – because for Molina there are things that are left UP TO the creature during the course of his life.
And this is where Middle Knowledge is used – as a means to know what the creature *WOULD* do.
For the Molinist – Middle knowledge facilitates what the creature *WOULD* do with events which are UP TO the creature to determine. Rather than those things being determined *FOR* the creature – and where knowledge is derived from the decree.
That is why
The “PURE” Calvinists rejects Molinism – and rejects Middle knowledge – as a compromise of EXHAUSTIVE Determinism
rhutchin
I don’t see any reason to reject Molinism on this point.
br.d
That is because you have a psychological need to have a world where some things are UP TO you.
But just as a computer (which exists as a 100% determined entity) – cannot produce IN-deterministic events.
It can only produce SIMULATIONS of those events.
Just as that is the case with the computer – it is the case with you.
In Calvinism – you can’t have anything that is UP TO you.
You are limited to a DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION of it.
rhutchin
God knows all possible worlds and each of those worlds is distinguished from all others by circumstances specified by God. Each is determined fully so that the one world God chooses to create.is determined fully.
br.d
Yes – and he uses his decree (which is not theoretical) as his means to know what you *WILL* do.
But your not totally comfortable with that!
Because it leaves you lacking something which other people have.
The Molinist lives in a world in which some things are UP TO him.
And as a Calvinist – you don’t have that.
And that makes you want it.
You want a world in which there are some things which are UP TO you.
You don’t want to perceive yourself as lacking something which another person (especially a non-Calvinist) has.
You have a psychological need to have what he has in his belief system – as part of your belief system.
So you have a need to have at least the PERCEPTION that Calvin’s god at some point before creation – looks at *YOU* in order to know what you *WOULD* do *AS-IF* what you *WOULD* do were UP TO you.
Having that PERCEPTION gives you a type of person-hood which you are otherwise lacking.
You are not the hand that reaches out to scratch his itch.
You are the hand *HE MOVES* to scratch his itch. :-]
So just like the computer is a 100% determined entity which lives in a 100% determined world – so do you.
A computer (i.e. determinism) can only produce SIMULATIONS of IN-determined events.
And since you – like the computer – are a 100% determined entity
The only form of UP TO YOU-NESS that is available to you is a DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION of it.
And that’s why you want to somehow morph Middle Knowledge into your belief system.
br.d: 4) That (LFW) choice is compatible (i.e. agreeable) with one’s nature.
Mike: FALSE
“In modern terminology, Molina strongly advocated the doctrine of libertarian freedom… Hence Molina opposed the doctrine that may be styled the theological version of compatibilist human freedom, or the freedom to choose between the options compatible with one’s nature.” – Luis de Molina by Kirk MacGregor, page 49, location 929
br.d: If what you say is true – then Molinism is simply another strain of Calvinism and every Molinist in history past and present is simply not smart enough to know it.
Mike: This is another example your double-standard or one-way logic. Yes, we are disagreeing with Molinism. We are saying that it is deterministic. And yes, Molinist don’t see it. And this has been one of the disagreements past and present. And can’t you see that you do the same thing! You imply that Calvinists are not smart enough to understand that their view is exhaustive determinism even though no Calvinists uses that term. There is lots of logical evidence to show that Molinism is deterministic if you are willing to see it (see WLC quote below)—this is exactly why Open Theist philosophers reject Molinism, because it is too deterministic!
rhutchin: Any Molinist knows that God’s decision to create one world is based on His middle knowledge of all possible worlds. Even Calvinists acknowledge as much concerning God’s knowledge.
br.d: FALSE
Mike: TRUE. Calvinists acknowledge God’s hypothetical or theoretical knowledge.
br.d: Middle Knowledge is divine knowledge of what a person using Libertarian Freedom *WOULD* do in any circumstance.
Mike: Middle Knowledge posits what the creature would do in all possible worlds, then actualizes that world in which the creature chooses according to the determined plan of God. Therefore, in the real world only one choice is possible—the creature’s “free” choice that is chosen by God.
br.d: No such premise exists in Calvinism.
Mike: FALSE (see Paul Helm quote below)
rhutchin: The conclusion drawn from the above is that only one outcome is possible
br.d: FALSE
This fails to follow the syllogistic rules of logic
The only thing it proves is exactly what it states – that god has perfect knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.
Mike: FALSE
That may be true as far as the syllogism goes but Molinism doesn’t just stay in the theoretical world. According to Molinism once God determines what action the creature WOULD do, He then actualizes the world in which the creature WILL do that action. And therefore, in the real actualized world only one outcome is possible.
As Paul Helm’s states it
(paraphrased)
On EXHAUSTIVE Determinism – Middle knowledge is superfluous
Because god has already meticulously determined what the person *WILL* do…
Mike: Once again, no reference, so there’s no way to check it. So playing by your rules this is just a claim with no evidence that you even understand what Paul Helm is saying. I can tell you that Helm never uses the term EXHAUSTIVE Determinism! You do realize that Helm is arguing against Middle Knowledge! So it seems you are arguing against yourself.
br.d: I will give you a paraphrased statement from Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s response to this:
If the person chooses [A] then god will have perfect foreknowledge without determining that person’s choice for them.
If the person chooses [NOT A] then god will have perfect foreknowledge without determining that person’s choice for them.
Mike: Yeah it’s quite amazing when a respected philosopher like Plantinga uses this kind of loaded, rhetorical response. When did you stop beating your wife?
br.d: And that is why “PURE” Calvinists reject Molinism and reject Middle Knowledge – and see it as a compromise of EXHAUSTIVE Determinism.
Mike: FALSE
“PURE” meaning HYPER Calvinists maybe, but Calvinists reject it because it is more deterministic than divine compatibilism!
br.d: If as you say- he (God) is the determiner of his determinations – then you no longer have determinism.
Mike: If you define strict determinism as anything outside of the agent then yes. But then the logical opposite would apply. That would mean that God is indeterminate!
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG: But what the Molinist does say that I think the Calvinist finds objectionable is that God is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true. He doesnʼt determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals; thatʼs outside his control and the Calvinist finds that objectionable.
Mike: Man is the determiner of his determinations. But man is not God. Man is a contingent being. God is a necessary—the only necessary—being. There is nothing outside of the one necessary being. But this is not true of a contingent being. Man’s internal determinations are ruled by his nature, like God, but unlike God man’s nature is formed by a plethora of outside contingent factors which all have their origin in God and His creation. I advise you to look into Classical Theism and the works of Aquinas.
And what William Lane Craig think about determinism?
JUSTIN BRIERLEY: …God is in some sense limited by the fact that he has chosen a world in which human freedoms will…
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG: No, not quite just yet. Actually, itʼs consistent with middle knowledge that this world is totally determined. Itʼs possible that God looked at all of the indeterministic worlds that have freedom in them and said, “Oh, those are lousy worlds! I donʼt want any of them! Iʼm going to choose one in which I determine everything!” So, middle knowledge is actually consistent with causal determinism but…
PAUL HELM: Molina would turn in his grave if he heard that!
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG: But where it does presuppose libertarian freedom is, again, that these subjunctive conditionals are not within Godʼs control. – Calvinism vs Molinism, Unbelievable Podcast 2013
br.d: You are not the hand that reaches out to scratch his itch. You are the hand *HE MOVES* to scratch his itch. :-] So just like the computer is a 100% determined entity which lives in a 100% determined world – so do you. A computer (i.e. determinism) can only produce SIMULATIONS of IN-determined events.
Paul Helm: I personally reject any kind of human analogy between the divine relationship to his creation, and that of a puppeteer or a programmer. These are all, as it were, creature to creature relationships. But I presume that the infinite God has resources at his disposal that are, as it were, beyond the resources that human beings have at their disposal at this particular point. And, of course, Calvinists have always made a distinction between Godʼs relationship to evil and his relationship to good. He permits evil. It’s under his control but he permits it.
JUSTIN BRIERLEY: In what sense is it just permitting if God is the one who has caused it?
PAUL HELM: Because heʼs nonetheless respecting the wills of people who act their agency so that when I tie my shoelace it isnʼt God whoʼs tying my shoelace, itʼs me tying my shoelace. I have sets of beliefs and situations in life which is not that of God but is my own set of circumstances. No doubt given to me by God but not his—mine nonetheless. – Calvinism vs Molinism, Unbelievable Podcast 2013
br.d AH! But you are following John Calvin’s instructions here…*AS-IF* your mind has been granted the LIBERTARIAN function of choosing TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Mike: If what you say is true—then every Calvinist in history past and present is simply not smart enough to know it.
br.d
That (LFW) choice is compatible (i.e. agreeable) with one’s nature.
Mike: FALSE
“In modern terminology, Molina strongly advocated the doctrine of libertarian freedom…
br.d
So far so good.
Mike
Hence Molina opposed the doctrine that may be styled the theological version of compatibilist human freedom, or the freedom to choose between the options compatible with one’s nature.” – Luis de Molina by Kirk MacGregor, page 49, location 929
br.d
You have a few problems here which you simply didn’t take the time to think through.
1) Defining compatibilism as freedom that is compatible with one’s nature – is like defining freedom to go into a men’s bathroom as compatible with MIKE. Why is freedom to go into a men’s bathroom compatible with MIKE? Because MIKE is a man.
If MIKE were not a MAN – then freedom to go into the men’s bathroom would not be compatible with Mike.
So that is a CRITICAL part of the equation that you missed with your argument concerning Molina.
You simply took a statement out of MacGregor’s book and didn’t think it through.
You need to understand that Compatibilism hinges on Determinism.
Just like Mike hinges on being male
If you take away determinism – you no longer have Compatiblism.
Just like – if you take away Male – you no longer have Mike.
Therefore – the *COMPLETE* definition of Compatibilism is freedom that is COMPATIBLE with EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM
What Luis de Molina objects to is EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM
Do you think Luis de Molina is argue that god’s freedom is not compatible with his nature?
Comon Mike – think about it – that would be silly!
2) And on that regard – you’ve already acknowledged that Calvin’s god’s freedom *IS* compatible with his nature
And yet you’ve also acknowledged – his nature is not determined by factors outside of his control.
Therefore you no longer have determinism.
So if you remove #4 from my list of definitions of LFW – then you reject it as an attribute which Calvin’s god has.
And you end up holding to the position that god’s freedom is not compatible with his nature.
Do you really want to go there?
br.d – to rhutchin
If what you say is true – then Molinism is simply another strain of Calvinism and every Molinist in history past and present is simply not smart enough to know it.
Mike:
This is another example your double-standard or one-way logic. Yes, we are disagreeing with Molinism. We are saying that it is deterministic.
br.d
Yes – many people have sighted it as some kind of “Middle Ground” because it entails a degree of determinism.
But it also entails limited forms of Libertarian Freedom.
But rhutchin is trying to have his cake and eat it at the same time.
He’s trying to have Molinism – which is something so many staunch determinst Calvinists – (Paul Helms for example) would totally reject.
And they would say rhutchin – by trying to adopt Molinism – is compromising with the EXHAUSTIVE nature of divine sovereignty.
What rhutchin wants is the same thing you want.
He wants to fill up an empty water bottle with LFW and sip on it all day long while claiming LFW doesn’t exist.
He wants the *ATTRIBUTES* of LFW without those ATTRIBUTE being called LFW.
And its totally understandable.
Like I said – one of the consequences of Theological Determinism – is you have no epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Its totally understandable why Calvinists don’t want to accept the EXHAUSTIVE nature of the doctrine.
So on Molinism – the reason a “PURIST” Calvinist would disagree with it – is because it compromises divine sovereignty – which simply equates to EXHAUSTIVE determinism
Mike
You imply that Calvinists are not smart enough to understand that their view is exhaustive determinism even though no Calvinists uses that term.
br.d
Please provide a quote from me where I assert that Calvinists are “not smart enough to to understand” the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Determinism within Calvinism. Then I will agree with your statement. Otherwise – your making a false claim about me.
And let me ask you a question concerning the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Determinism in Calvinism.
The doctrine stipulates -quote “WHATSOEVER” comes to pass – is determined by infallible decree – at the foundation of the world.
What do you think that term “WHATSOEVER” means?
Does it mean “SOME” things are determined?
Or Does it mean *ALL* things are determined?
I think if you were in Geneva standing in front of John Calvin and you said *SOME* things are determined – he would count you as one of his detractors – and have some very harsh words to say about you.
What I’ve clearly sighted over and over a thousand times – is the the pattern of *AS-IF* thinking that is manifested in Calvinist psychology
Going about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part – when your belief system dictates the opposite is DOUBLE-THINK.
The reason Calvinists don’t embrace the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Calvin’s determinism is very understandable.
The logical implications – as William Lane Craig has often said – are very radical.
Too radical for most Calvinists to want to consider.
So they end up with all sorts of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Ex Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book “A closer look at Calvinism” calls this “Calvinism’s rocking horse”
MIke
There is lots of logical evidence to show that Molinism is deterministic if you are willing to see it (see WLC quote below)—this is exactly why Open Theist philosophers reject Molinism, because it is too deterministic!
br.d
Mike – a year ago you and I had this conversation about that point concerning Molinism – and we both agreed on this.
I’m going to have to split this one into separate pieces – – its way to huge to post as one thread.
br.d writes, “1) Defining compatibilism as freedom that is compatible with one’s nature – is like defining freedom to go into a men’s bathroom as compatible with MIKE. Why is freedom to go into a men’s bathroom compatible with MIKE? Because MIKE is a man.
If MIKE were not a MAN – then freedom to go into the men’s bathroom would not be compatible with Mike.”
This is confused. Compatibilism is freedom to choose where the choices made are compatible with one’s nature. The freedom Mike has to enter the men’s bathroom is because he is a male, and his choice to enter the men’s bathroom is compatible with his nature as a male.
Then, “You need to understand that Compatibilism hinges on Determinism. Just like Mike hinges on being male”
Compatibilism hinges on a person’s nature so that the nature determines the choice made (but, a person’s nature is determined by factors outside himself, so determinism). Mike’s choice to enter the men’s bathroom hinges on his nature – being a male, a condition over which he had no control – so his choice to enter the men’s bathroom. is compatible with his nature
Mike’s claim, I think, is that Molina opposed the notion that the person’s nature determines his choices. So, LFW is freedom from the restraints of one’s nature. You ignore this point and jump into exhaustive determinism that has nothing to do with Mike’s point. The issue is whether Molina actually argued that when a person has LFW he is able to choose contrary to his nature – which seems to be the essence of LFW (given that it is proposed as an alternative to compatibilism).
Then, “What Luis de Molina objects to is EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM”
It seems to me that Molina readily accepted that God is sovereign so that His choice of the one world He chooses to create is determined, exhaustively so. Molina did not argue against this as the outcome of God being sovereign. Molina took one step back and inserted Middle knowledge – the knowledge of all possible worlds that God could create and here Molina said LFW existed. It was only in the world that God choose to create where a person’s nature came into play as a limiting force on the person’s freedom to choose. Molina just presumed that LFW was inherent to God’s Middle Knowledge – he never proved it to be the case; nor has anyone else from what I have read.
Then, “And they would say rhutchin – by trying to adopt Molinism – is compromising with the EXHAUSTIVE nature of divine sovereignty.”
I doubt it. Molinism adds nothing to any argument against Calvinism. Calvinism rests on Molina’s idea of God’s free knowledge that is knowledge of the one world God chose to create. Middle knowledge is essentially a useless concept as it is a pre-creation concept and has nothing to do with the actual world God created.
Today’s Molinists apply Middle Knowledge to decisions being made today and is just imagination as all, for the most part agree that God has perfect foreknowledge of all future events.
br.d
1) Defining compatibilism as freedom that is compatible with one’s nature – is like defining freedom to go into a men’s bathroom as compatible with MIKE. Why is freedom to go into a men’s bathroom compatible with MIKE? Because MIKE is a man.
If MIKE were not a MAN – then freedom to go into the men’s bathroom would not be compatible with Mike.”
rhutchin
This is confused.
br.d
Actually its perfectly logical :-]
rhutchin
Compatibilism is freedom to choose where the choices made are compatible with one’s nature.
br.d
As long as you don’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH
.
See my post where I provided quotes – which Mike demanded as “reputable” on the definition of compatibilism.
rhutchin
The freedom Mike has to enter the men’s bathroom is because he is a male, and his choice to enter the men’s bathroom is compatible with his nature as a male.
br.d
Yes – and male in this case is used as the metaphor for DETERMINISM
So the *COMPLETE* definition of compatibilism – is freedom that is compatible with DETERMINISM
rhutchin
Compatibilism hinges on a person’s nature so that the nature determines the choice made (but, a person’s nature is determined by factors outside himself, so determinism).
br.d
Correct! – Just as Mike’s freedom is compatible with Mike being MALE
And again MALE in this case serves as the metaphor for DETERMINISM
rhutchin
Mike’s choice to enter the men’s bathroom hinges on his nature – being a male, a condition over which he had no control – so his choice to enter the men’s bathroom. is compatible with his nature
br.d
And as a Calvinist – who do you say is the determiner of what Mike’s Nature will be at any instance in time?
Nature??? :-]
What Luis de Molina objects to is EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM”
rhutchin
It seems to me that Molina readily accepted that God is sovereign so that His choice of the one world He chooses to create is determined, exhaustively
br.d
Yes – but you are not using the term “Exhaustive” with the full implications that I meant.
When I say Exhaustive – I mean Calvin’s god does not PERMIT anything to be UP TO the creature.
All things are Determined EXHAUSTIVELY.
That leaves no room for LFW.
And Molina seeks to retain a degree of LFW in one’s life and decisions.
rhutchin
Molina did not argue against this as the outcome of God being sovereign. Molina took one step back and inserted Middle knowledge – the knowledge of all possible worlds that God could create and here Molina said LFW existed.
br.d
Not quite.
For the Molinist LFW exists throughout a person’s life – in limited ways.
Look at it this way – lets use two theoreticals
1) A THEOS is standing with you today – knowing with Middle Knowledge – that at Time “T” you will choose [A]
But the THEOS does not determine what your choice will be.
The THEOS “MERELY” permits that choice to be UP TO YOU
Never the less – he still knows what choice you will make.
And he has determined 100% of the circumstances in which you will make that choice.
So in this case – he his determinations are limited to determining circumstances only
He does not determine you choice.
2) A THEOS at the foundation of the world uses his Middle Knowledge to know what we’ve just described in (1).
And he uses his determinations to determine the circumstances that will take place at time “T”.
But at no time does he ever determine the person’s choices.
You have determinism – in that circumstances are determined.
You have determinism – in that the THEOS has determined what the outcome will be.
But the Molinist holds that the choice is UP TO the human.
And the THEOS holds the human accountable for what is UP TO him.
rhutchin
Molina just presumed that LFW was inherent to God’s Middle Knowledge – he never proved it to be the case; nor has anyone else from what I have read.
br.d
We’ve been over this before – Dr. Craig answers it:
-quote
The Molinist theory of providence must be judged as a whole in terms of its philosophical coherence, explanatory power, theological fecundity, and so forth. It is a non-starter for its detractors to point out that Molinists have not proven the postulates of the theory to be true. Thus, even though there are in this case very good reasons to think that its key postulate is true, the Molinist bears no initial burden to prove this postulate in order to commend his theory as the best account of divine providence available. (Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection)
rhutchin
Middle knowledge is essentially a useless concept as it is a pre-creation concept and has nothing to do with the actual world God created.
br.d
Well – there you have it!
You are in good company with Paul Helm’s on the usefulness of Middle Knowledge
rhutchin
Today’s Molinists apply Middle Knowledge to decisions being made today and is just imagination as all, for the most part agree that God has perfect foreknowledge of all future events.
br.d
And you don’t go about your office *AS-IF*
1) The choice that is currently appearing within your brain was not determined by an external mind
2) Your choice is not determined by factors outside of your control
3) Multiple options exist as REAL for you from which to choose.
Even though on Calvinism – it LOGICALLY follows – those are FALSE
The Molinist on the other hand – goes about his office *AS-IF* his belief system is TRUE. :-]
br.d writes, “And as a Calvinist – who do you say is the determiner of what Mike’s Nature will be at any instance in time?”
God is by withholding faith from the person or by giving the person faith. Thus, faith determines the person’s nature at any time – without faith the person has an unregenerate nature; with faith the person has a regenerate nature.
rhutchin
God is by withholding faith from the person or by giving the person faith. Thus, faith determines the person’s nature at any time – without faith the person has an unregenerate nature; with faith the person has a regenerate nature.
br.d
1) Calvin’s god determines [X]
2) [X] determines [Y]
Question:
In Calvinism who is the determiner of [Y]?
Calvinist answer
[X] is the determiner of [Y]
What does this show us?
The Calvinist brain – is like an elevator – that can’t reach the top floor! :-]
PART 2
rhutchin
Any Molinist knows that God’s decision to create one world is based on His middle knowledge of all possible worlds. Even Calvinists acknowledge as much concerning God’s knowledge.
br.d:
FALSE
Mike
TRUE. Calvinists acknowledge God’s hypothetical or theoretical knowledge.
br.d
Sure – they agree that Calvin’s god has hypothetical knowledge.
What they don’t agree on is what I detailed in my response to this statement.
rhutchin is trying to make knowledge of what the creature *WILL* do exactly the same as knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.
For the staunch Calvinist – (Dr. Neal Anderson, Paul Helms, James White etc) this would be totally rejected.
And for the reasons I explained.
Mike:
Middle Knowledge posits what the creature would do in all possible worlds, then actualizes that world in which the creature chooses according to the determined plan of God.
br.d
So far so good
Mike
Therefore, in the real world only one choice is possible—
br.d
Not if LFW exists.
Where LFW exists – multiple choices are logically possible.
When you get up in the morning and start making decisions – do your mind have the perception that you have multiple choices?
You know that is not possible with EXHAUSTIVE determinism – as Peter Van Inwagen notes.
Because EXHAUSTIVE determinism can only logically resolve to one ALREADY PRE-DETERMINED choice that was determine *FOR* you before you existed.
Mike
the creature’s “free” choice that is chosen by God.
br.d
When you say “chosen by God” in this statement – you are using language the average Molinist would have to question.
What exactly do you mean by “chosen by God”
If you mean – that God’ is the one who determines every neurological impulse within the person’s brain – thus determining what choice the person*WILL* make – then you no long have THEORETICAL knowledge of what the person *WOULD* do.
You have knowledge of what the person *WILL* do by virtue of determining what the person *WILL* do *FOR* the person rather than letting the person be the determiner of their determinations.
In such case – I don’t think very many Molinsts would agree with your statement – because it eradicates the very LFW which Molina seeks to retain.
And Calvin does not have any tolerance for what he calls “MERE” permission – which simply equates to LFW
Calvin’s formula for divine permission can be summed up as:
1) What Calvin’s god decrees – Calvin’s god permits
2) What Calvin’s god does not decree – Calvin’s god does not permit.
Calvin’s god’s permission is “COMPATIBLE” with what he decrees.
You are therefore FREE to be/do what is determined
But you are therefore NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than what is determined – because that freedom is not COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
So the concept of a god who “Permits’ the creature to determine something for himself – is anathema to Calvin.
And that is why Middle knowledge (As the Molinist understands it) is superfluous for the Calvinist.
In Calvinism absolutely NOTHING is UP TO you – because everything has already been determined for you at the foundation of the world.
NOW!
Having knowledge about what you *WOULD* do implies – that what you *WOULD* do is UP TO you.
And that is not logically possible in Calvinism.
And once again – I give you a Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” as it pertains to Calvinism
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those thoughts, choices, desires, and actions, are framed within the boundaries of nature, which exist at the time in which they are actualized in our lives.
3) But then it is not UP TO US what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we were born.
4) And neither is it UP TO US what attributes of nature – including our own – exist at any instance in time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US
PART 3
rhutchin: The conclusion drawn from the above is that only one outcome is possible
br.d:
FALSE
This fails to follow the syllogistic rules of logic
The only thing it proves is exactly what it states – that god has perfect knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.
Mike: FALSE
That may be true as far as the syllogism goes
br.d
Well – then I’m correct!
The statement does not reach the conclusion rhutchin wants it to reach
A conclusion – BTW – he’s going to reject sometime in a future post – if history repeats itself! :-]
Because rhutchin will argue for [X] only if he thinks he’ll win by doing so.
He’ll then later argue for [NOT X] without blinking.
What you don’t seem to capture here is the business of what is UP TO you.
Middle knowledge is knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do given the premise that what the creature *WOULD* do is UP TO the creature.
That premise does not exist in Theological Determinism ( aka Calvinism) – as Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” shows.
If you remove EXHAUSTIVE determinism from the equation – which Molina certainly has does in order to have LFW – then you no longer have the eradication of multiple options.
Therefore I was correct – the correct answer to rhutchin’s statement is FALSE
Mike
but Molinism doesn’t just stay in the theoretical world. According to Molinism once God determines what action the creature WOULD do
br.d
AH!
You just explained the problem!!
It is logically impossible for Molinism to hold that god determines what action the creature *WOULD* do.
Because that premise totally eradicates LFW – which is what Molina seeks to retain.
Your doing the same thing to Molinism that rhutchin is trying to do.
Your trying to turn it into EXHAUSTIVE determinism – perhaps so that you can claim LFW within it is incoherent.
At some point we’re not going to be able to continue on this – because I’m not an authority on Molina.
What you need to prove is that Molina was essentially confused.
That he wants LFW in a fully deterministic world – and what he really has is Calvinism – but he won’t admit it.
I think you should address that line of reasoning to someone who is more of an expert on Molina than I.
Mike
, He then actualizes the world in which the creature WILL do that action. And therefore, in the real actualized world only one outcome is possible.
br.d
Just remember – if it is an LFW action – which you know every Molinist is going to insist – that when the person is faced with the choice – he is the determiner of his choice – not god.
Yes – god “concurs” with his choice. And god creates the world in which that choice will be the only choice that *WILL* come to pass.
But the person retains the position of being the determiner of that choice. The choice is NOT made *FOR* the person. So to that degree you have determinism. And that is how Molinism is in fact deterministic. And in that degree of determinism you have only one possible outcome. But during the time of choice-making there still exists multiple options from which to choose. And that choice is UP TO the person. Calvin would call that “MERE” permission and would never allow it.
Mike:
On your paraphrased Paul Helms – Once again, no reference, so there’s no way to check it. So playing by your rules this is just a claim with no evidence that you even understand what Paul Helm is saying. I can tell you that Helm never uses the term EXHAUSTIVE Determinism!
br.d
Well – I’ll just have to go dig up that reference won’t I :-]
Mike
You do realize that Helm is arguing against Middle Knowledge! So it seems you are arguing against yourself.
br.d
This makes no sense!
Yes – Paul Helm’s is arguing against Middle Knowledge – that is why I posted it as a response to rhutchin who is trying to morph Middle knowledge into Calvinism.
Mike:
Yeah it’s quite amazing when a respected philosopher like Plantinga uses this kind of loaded, rhetorical response. When did you stop beating your wife?
br.d
WHAT????
How in the world do you equate that to someone asking that question??
br.d to rhutchin
And that is why “PURE” Calvinists reject Molinism and reject Middle Knowledge – and see it as a compromise of EXHAUSTIVE Determinism.
Mike: FALSE
“PURE” meaning HYPER Calvinists maybe, but Calvinists reject it because it is more deterministic than divine compatibilism!
br.d
Mike – you have your own customized definitions for these things.
First you want Compatibilism without determinism – which is logically impossible
Then you call “Universal Divine Causal Determinism” “Hard Determinism” which it isn’t because “Hard Determinism is the believe in ZERO free will. And very few Calvinists I know will ever say there is no such thing as free will. So obviously Calvinist are not HARD determinists in my mind.
br.d to rhutchin
If as you say- he (God) is the determiner of his determinations – then you no longer have determinism.
Mike:
If you define strict determinism as anything outside of the agent then yes.
br.d
You need to be more clear on your language here – what do you mean by “anything outside of the agent”
On this use of the term “agent” William Lane Craig notes that on Calvinism – calling man an “Agent” is questionable.
John Calvin calls man an “INSTRUMENT
-quote
The will of man is an INSTRUMENTS in his hand – he turns it at his pleasure. (institutes)
-quote
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and
turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Sorry I don’t have the exact chapter and verses for you!!
I know that some Calvinist do use the term “Agent” to refer to humans.
But I agree with Dr. Craig – it is questionable that man has any agency in Calvinism – because agency implies the person is in control of themselves – which they are not. And who would say that *YOU* are the one who has control of yourself when every thought that comes into your brain is determined by an external mind?
Mike
But then the logical opposite would apply. That would mean that God is indeterminate!
br.d
I have no idea what you mean by “indeterminate”
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG: But what the Molinist does say that I think the Calvinist finds objectionable is that God is not in control of which sub
junctive conditionals are true. He doesnʼt determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals; thatʼs outside his control and the Calvinist finds that objectionable.
Mike:
Man is the determiner of his determinations.
br.d
That might be your view of Calvinism – but it certainly is not mine.
How is man the determiner of [X] when [X] is determined before man exists?
How is man the determiner of anything – when every impulse that appears in his brain occurs infallibly and therefore Irresistibly?
You might want to call man the determiner in that situation – but I certainly can’t
Mike
Man’s internal determinations are ruled by his nature, like God, but unlike God man’s nature is formed by a plethora of outside contingent factors which all have their origin in God and His creation. I advise you to look into Classical Theism and the works of Aquinas.
br.d
What you call “a plethora of outside contingent factors” are typically called “Antecedent causal factors’
Now lets follow those “Antecedent causal factors” back to their ORIGIN in Calvinism
Where do you end up as the source?
Nature?
I don’t think so!
That would make you a Natural Determinist rather than a Theological Determinist
No – in Calvinism Calvin’s god is the “Antecedent causal factor” for “Whatsoever comes to pass”.
Calvin’s god causes A – which causes B which causes C which causes D etc.
Not only that –
A occurs infallibly – which is impossible for nature to do.
B occurs infallibly – which is impossible for nature to do
C occurs infallibly – which is impossible for nature to do
So in Calvinism NO event which comes to pass can be classifieds as Naturally Occurring event – because Nature does not have the power to move cause anything to occur infallibly.
And I personally can’t see how in the world anyone can not clearly see that as Exhaustive Determinism.
I think the Calvinist who denies Calvinism is Exhaustive determinism is trying to deny his own belief system
PART 4
Paul Helms
Because he [god] is nonetheless respecting the wills of people who act their agency so that when I tie my shoelace it isnʼt God whoʼs tying my shoelace.
br.d
I have heard Helm’s say this before – but I think Helm’s in this statement is denying his own belief system
Calvin very forcibly asserts a very different story
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires. – (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
-quote
There is no random power,or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God,that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes pg 138 pdf version)
-quote
[The] wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.(Institutes pdf version pg 176)
-quote
“The internal affections of men are no less ruled by the hand of god then their external actions are preceded by his eternal
decree. He does this by first working in their hearts the very WILL which precedes the ACTS THEY ARE TO PERFORM.”
(Secret providence pg 243)
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes chapter 16)
When Helm’s says Calvin’s god is “respecting the will of the person” what Calvin’s god is actually respecting is that will which he himself decreed come to pass – at the foundation of the world – before the person ever existed.
Hes not really respecting the PERSON’S will – he’s respecting his own will.
Whatsoever comes to pass – within the person – was fixed at the foundation of the world – by antecedent factors outside of the person’s control . That person couldn’t “WILL” anything else – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
IN THE LANGUAGE OF COMPATIBILISM:
The only WILL the person is FREE to have is a WILL that is COMPATIBLE with what Calvin’s god determined that WILL to be.
Any WILL which Calvin’s god did not determine is not permitted – because it is not COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
br.d: You have a few problems here which you simply didn’t take the time to think through.
This is quite amazing. I give you a direct quote from an author that you respect and who is in the LFW camp who clearly states that “choice being compatible with one’s nature” is Compatibilism and not LFW and you go on to argue with ME about it! Email Kirk MacGregor, he said it! All this next stream of argumentation, no matter how logical you think your being, doesn’t change the fact that one of your definitions of LFW is incorrect and that it is not supported by other libertarians! That is the simple point.
br.d: So that is a CRITICAL part of the equation that you missed with your argument concerning Molina. You simply took a statement out of MacGregor’s book and didn’t think it through.
No. MacGregor, according to you, didn’t think it through. And MacGregor was simply stating what the literature defines is a part of Compatibilism. You may not like it. You may disagree with it. But it’s a fact!
br.d: You need to understand that Compatibilism hinges on Determinism.
No, you need to understand that arguing this point is going against standard Compatibilist theory. So get a copy of “The Oxford Handbook of Free Will” and study it.
br.d: Therefore – the *COMPLETE* definition of Compatibilism is freedom that is COMPATIBLE with EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM
If you can’t send me this definitional quote from a reputable source than it is no more than an empty claim (which you are familiar with).
br.d: What Luis de Molina objects to is EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM. Do you think Luis de Molina is argue that god’s freedom is not compatible with his nature? Comon Mike – think about it – that would be silly!
Here again, you are making a claim with no evidence. You think it is silly so it must be. But prove it from the text. Perhaps Molina thinks that God picks and chooses His nature so that His nature will conform to some greater good. I don’t know and neither do you.
br.d: So if you remove #4 from my list of definitions of LFW – then you reject it as an attribute which Calvin’s god has.
Again, you seem to be unfamiliar with the bulk of the LFW literature. If you want to pit MacGregor against Stratton that’s up to you—though I think MacGregor is the more legitimate scholar—but don’t drag me into it.
br.d: Yes – many people have sighted it as some kind of “Middle Ground” because it entails a degree of determinism. But it also entails limited forms of Libertarian Freedom.
More inconsistency—incredible! Molinism can have limited determinism and limited libertarian freedom and it is a middle ground that makes sense to you. But when arguing the same for Compatibilism—which is what the scholarly literature does—this doesn’t make sense. Double-standard!
br.d: Please provide a quote from me where I assert that Calvinists are “not smart enough to to understand” the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Determinism within Calvinism. Then I will agree with your statement. Otherwise – your making a false claim about me.
(See my comment on Helm below.) Incredible, you can’t even see when someone is repeating your own words back to you. You made the exact same claim to rhutchin about Molinism and you didn’t see it as a problem. But it is a problem when it is pointed back at you. Double-standard!
br.d: And let me ask you a question concerning the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Determinism in Calvinism. The doctrine stipulates -quote “WHATSOEVER” comes to pass – is determined by infallible decree – at the foundation of the world.What do you think that term “WHATSOEVER” means?
The issue is not what WHATSOEVER means it is with what DECREE means. Even Flowers agrees that God has an infallible decree.
br.d: What I’ve clearly sighted over and over a thousand times – is the the pattern of *AS-IF* thinking that is manifested in Calvinist psychology
Which I’m still waiting for the exact reference where this appears—I haven’t found it yet.
br.d: The reason Calvinists don’t embrace the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Calvin’s determinism is very understandable. The logical implications – as William Lane Craig has often said – are very radical. Too radical for most Calvinists to want to consider. So they end up with all sorts of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Is this another empty claim or do you have a quote with a reference to back it up?
br.d: For the staunch Calvinist – (Dr. Neal Anderson, Paul Helms, James White etc)…
The guy’s name is “Paul Helm”—there’s no “s”
br.d: Not if LFW exists. Where LFW exists – multiple choices are logically possible.
This is why Molinism is deterministic. Get it?!
br.d: What exactly do you mean by “chosen by God”
Middle Knowledge posits possible worlds where all LFW choices are possible. God chooses the possible world that contains the choices that conform to His plan.
br.d: And Calvin does not have any tolerance for what he calls “MERE” permission – which simply equates to LFW
Take that up with Paul Helm (no “s”).
br.d: And once again – I give you a Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” as it pertains to Calvinism
“But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.” – Peter van Inwagen
br.d: AH! You just explained the problem!! It is logically impossible for Molinism to hold that god determines what action the creature *WOULD* do. Because that premise totally eradicates LFW – which is what Molina seeks to retain.
You have point here. The way I stated this was not very precise. In Molinism God kind of takes a true and false multiple choice test before He creates the world. Both options, true and false, are on the test. He chooses the options He likes and then he creates the world that conforms to those options. So in one possible world I will choose to accept God. In another possible world I will choose to reject God. Whether I indeed accept or reject God in the actual world depends on the choice of which world God chooses to actualize. That’s Molinism 101.
br.d: What you need to prove is that Molina was essentially confused. That he wants LFW in a fully deterministic world – and what he really has is Calvinism – but he won’t admit it.
WLC: “Actually, itʼs consistent with middle knowledge that this world is totally determined.”
br.d: First you want Compatibilism without determinism – which is logically impossible
No—when did I say that? I do say that Compatibilism is not Determinism, which is semantically true as they are different words and have different definitions. But what I should say—and I have said before— Compatibilism is not “Hard” Determinism.
br.d: Then you call “Universal Divine Causal Determinism” “Hard Determinism” which it isn’t…
I agree that Calvinists are not hard determinists. If, as WLC states, that: 1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture, 2. cannot be rationally affirmed, 3. makes God the author of sin, 4. nullifies human agency, 5. makes reality into a farce, which is pretty much what hard determinism does than I think I can be forgiven for equating the two. (Arminian Theology Blog, William Lane Craig on Universal, Divine, Causal Determinism)
br.d: On this use of the term “agent” William Lane Craig notes that on Calvinism – calling man an “Agent” is questionable.
Reference please!
br.d: John Calvin calls man an “INSTRUMENT
Yes, because he didn’t live in the 20th century and couldn’t read the modern philosophical literature on Free Will.
br.d: -quote The will of man is an INSTRUMENTS in his hand – he turns it at his pleasure. (institutes)
Calvin is slavishly loyal to scripture. He is referencing Isaiah 10:15
br.d: I know that some Calvinist do use the term “Agent” to refer to humans. But I agree with Dr. Craig…
Using the term “agent” is all through the modern philosophical literature on Free Will—including Comptibilist literature.
br.d: What you call “a plethora of outside contingent factors” are typically called “Antecedent causal factors’
Are you denying “Antecedent causal factors”? How do these square with Exhaustive Indeterminism?
br.d: I have heard Helm’s say this before – but I think Helm’s in this statement is denying his own belief system
So are you implying that Helm (no “s”) doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you think he’s never read Calvin? Is he lying? Is it double-speak?
br.d: When Helm’s says Calvin’s god is “respecting the will of the person” what Calvin’s god is actually respecting is that will which he himself decreed come to pass – at the foundation of the world – before the person ever existed.
If what you say is true, then Helm is simply not smart enough to know it.
AS long as Libertarians rely on double-standards and inconsistencies there’s no moving forward.
Mike firstly I am required to break your posts down into parts because they are so long at this point – they become a book.
On your first statement – you actually come to the conclusion that Molina rejects the notion that god’s choices are compatible with his nature. And I can’t even imagine how you can bring yourself to come to such a conclusion!!
NO! Read my post carefully. Kirk MacGregor says that the definition of Compatibilism is that choice is compatible with one’s nature, and that this is not part of the standard definition of LFW. I believe that God’s choices are compatible with His nature. If I didn’t I would have no defeater for Euthyphro. Therefore the implication is that God’s choices are Compatibilist choices. If you don’t like this, that’s fine, but take it up with MacGregor!
Mike
NO! Read my post carefully. Kirk MacGregor says that the definition of Compatibilism is that choice is compatible with one’s nature,
br.d
Yes – I know that – and I can’t possibly see how that could be the case – because the clear implications lead any rational Christian to teh conclusion that Molina has no credibility.
And for you that is what it leads to
And for you then – MacGregor – from what we can tell – doesn’t appear to connect those dots – or doesn’t care
Yes, but not just MacGregor, many Libertarians as well. Many Libertarians feel that if the ability to do otherwise is compromised in any way it is not true LFW. Also, as Compatibilist also hold to choice being compatible with one’s nature then this can not be part of LFW doctrine.
Mike
Many Libertarians feel that if the ability to do otherwise is compromised in any way it is not true LFW.
br.d
I have never heard this – can you point to an example?
Mike
Also, as Compatibilist also hold to choice being compatible with one’s nature then this can not be part of LFW doctrine.
br.d
So:
1) You’ve acknowledged that Calvin’s god’s choices are not determined by factors outside of his control
So that rules out determinism.
2)
You’ve also acknowledged that Calvin’s god’s choices are compatible with his nature.
But for some reason you are not willing to call his choices Libertarian Free choices
Mike: Many Libertarians feel that if the ability to do otherwise is compromised in any way it is not true LFW.
br.d: I have never heard this – can you point to an example?
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise. (Theopedia.com)
…Libertarian freewill thus implies indeterminism. This is in opposition to compatibilism, which defines freewill as the ability to act according to ones own motivations. (philosophy.stackexchange.com, How do defenders of libertarian freewill reconcile it with constraints imposed by the laws of physics?)
Recall, however, that Dan’s being the state of actually willing the end is not his doing. Dan’s inclination towards happiness or goodness in its universality is a function of his nature, a nature which is God’s gift to Dan in creating him. For Aquinas, the very fact of Dan’s tending to goodness in its universality is sufficient evidence for claiming that God is the immediate cause of this impetus. He argues: “nothing else can be the cause of the will except God Himself, Who is the universal good, while every other good is good by participation, and is some particular good; and a particular cause does not give a universal inclination.” (Aquinas: Compatibilist or Libertarian? by Kevin M. Staley, The Saint Anselm Journal 2.2, Spring 2005)
According to the libertarian view of free will, people sometimes act freely, but this freedom is incompatible with causal determinism. Goetz (1997, 1998, 2008) has developed an important and unusual libertarian view of free will. Rather than simply arguing that a person’s free actions cannot be causally determined, Goetz argues that they cannot be caused at all. According to Goetz, in order for a person to act freely, her actions must be uncaused. (Goetz on the Noncausal Libertarian View of Free Will by David Palmer)
Mike:
Many Libertarians feel that if the ability to do otherwise is compromised in any way it is not true LFW.
br.d:
I have never heard this – can you point to an example?
Mike
Libertarian free will means…..
Recall, however, that Dan’s being the state of actually willing the end is not his doing. Dan’s inclination towards happiness or goodness in its universality is a function of his nature, a nature which is God’s gift to Dan in creating him.
br.d
And if we say “Whatsoever” comes to pass (in this case concerning the state of your nature at any instance in time) is 100% determined to infallibly and thus irresistibly come to pass – then how is that not Exhaustive Determinism?
Mike
For Aquinas, the very fact of Dan’s tending to goodness in its universality is sufficient evidence for claiming that God is the immediate cause of this impetus. He argues: “nothing else can be the cause of the will except God Himself, Who is the universal good, while every other good is good by participation, and is some particular good; and a particular cause does not give a universal inclination.” (Aquinas: Compatibilist or Libertarian? by Kevin M. Staley, The Saint Anselm Journal 2.2, Spring 2005)
br.d
I think you’ll agree – the first part of this can be worded such as to remove the moral aspects of it.
– God is the immediate cause of every human impetus. Nothing else can be the cause of any human impulse except God himself.
But I’m confused by the word “participation” in this text.
If every human impulse is CAUSED by god – then how do you define “participation”?
Calvinism rejects the notion of “Collaboration” between God and man – because that entails what Calvin calls “Passive Permission”
Calvin rejects this calling it a repulsive – and if I recall – he calls it a “frigid imagination”.
Where every neurological impulse is CAUSED by a divine external mind – the kind of “participation” we would have – would fit the model of a robot participating with its programming. And that is really a strained use of the word “participation”.
Mike
Goetz (1997, 1998, 2008) has developed an important and unusual libertarian view of free will. Rather than simply arguing that a person’s free actions cannot be causally determined, Goetz argues that they cannot be caused at all. According to Goetz, in order for a person to act freely, her actions must be uncaused. (Goetz on the Noncausal Libertarian View of Free Will by David Palmer)
br.d
So it is your understanding that Goetz does not believe in what I would call Semi-Determinism – which occasionally allows for what Robert Kane describes as “Self-Forming-Actions” which are occasional instances in which LFW does exist?
Y’know, I debated with myself as to whether I should just post the very clear statement from Theopedia.com and not post the others. I thought, if I post these others statements that are not as clear and can be picked apart he’s just going to ignore the clear statement and nit-pick on the others. But I really wanted to be fair. I only did a cursory search, so I guess I will have to look for others.
But let me ask you this: If your nature (let say, for the most part) is not a conscious choice and is formed (or determined) by external factors and determines your decisions and choices then how does this not violate FLW?
Kane’s SFA (self-forming actions) have been challenged, as you may be aware—but then what hasn’t—and his theory has also been accused of being Compatibilist (see Wikipedia on Robert Kane). So, are you an Agent-causal libertarian? You will have to contended with Derk Pereboom’s powerful “disappearing agent” objection.
My point was to simply demonstrate that 1. That choice being compatible with one’s nature is a problem that libertarians recognize and so it it not part of the standard doctrine, and 2. The standard doctrine is “fuzzy,” complex and debated among libertarians.
Mike
’know, I debated with myself as to whether I should just post the very clear statement from Theopedia.com and not post the others. I thought, if I post these others statements that are not as clear and can be picked apart he’s just going to ignore the clear statement and nit-pick on the others. But I really wanted to be fair. I only did a cursory search, so I guess I will have to look for others.
br.d
Which statement?
Mike
But let me ask you this: If your nature (let say, for the most part) is not a conscious choice and is formed (or determined) by external factors and determines your decisions and choices then how does this not violate FLW?
br.d
I noticed you included “for the most part” – which I interpret as a reference to the scope or degree – of the exhaustiveness of said determinism
So how is it not logical to say:
The degree to which LFW is violated is directly proportionate to the degree of the exhaustiveness of determinism
So where determinism is exhaustive (i.e. UNIVERSAL) – then to that degree LFW is not only violated – it is logically excluded.
Mike
Kane’s SFA (self-forming actions) have been challenged, as you may be aware—but then what hasn’t—and his theory has also been accused of being Compatibilist (see Wikipedia on Robert Kane). So, are you an Agent-causal libertarian? You will have to contended with Derk Pereboom’s powerful “disappearing agent” objection.
My point was to simply demonstrate that 1. That choice being compatible with one’s nature is a problem that libertarians recognize and so it it not part of the standard doctrine, and 2. The standard doctrine is “fuzzy,” complex and debated among libertarians.
br.d
Is that the case within the Theological arena?
From what I’ve read so far about Pereboom’s arguments (which is little) they appear to be predicated on the rejection of the existence of a THEOS. Is Pereboom an Atheist?
The reason I ask this is because – if we run with his argument – then how do we have a god who is not determined by factors outside of his control?
And in that regard – you’ve already acknowledged you believe in a god whose choices are compatible with his nature outside of the arena of determinism – where his choices are not determined by factors outside of his control.
Mike – we keep circling back to this starting point.
And your arguments – keep leading you to a position which leads towards denying your own conceptions of divine attributes.
You have a god whose choices are compatible with his nature – but you argue that such an attribute is logically incoherent.
You have a god who has attributes which for all intents and purposes are attributes I cannot call anything other than LFW.
And I’m wondering if we are looking at a duck – and simply refusing to call it a duck?
br.d: Which statement?
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise. (Theopedia.com)
br.d: From what I’ve read so far about Pereboom’s arguments (which is little) they appear to be predicated on the rejection of the existence of a THEOS. Is Pereboom an Atheist?
Kane’s an Atheist too but you quote him. Double-standard!
br.d: The reason I ask this is because – if we run with his argument – then how do we have a god who is not determined by factors outside of his control?
The differences between the theological and the atheistic free will debate are minor but significant. For the atheist the originator is nature—the physical universe, for the theist it is God. For the theists God is the originator, the unmoved mover, the only necessary being—nothing is outside of Him.
br.d: You have a god whose choices are compatible with his nature – but you argue that such an attribute is logically incoherent.
Logically incoherent for humans—contingent beings!
br.d: You have a god who has attributes which for all intents and purposes are attributes I cannot call anything other than LFW.
And I’m wondering if we are looking at a duck – and simply refusing to call it a duck?
You have your own special definition of LFW which you think dots all the “i” but I don’t think you are that familiar with the larger literature.
Mike
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise. (Theopedia.com)
br.d
Did you notice how this is worded
“The freedom to act contrary to one’s nature”
I think you are making the same mistake on this statement as you did with the Molina statement – which resolves to the conclusion that Molina posits the divine will is NEVER compatible with the divine nature.
It is one thing to say – a person can at some time or other act in a way that is in conflict with one’s nature
It is a whole different thing to say – a person CAN NEVER act in concert with one’s nature.
Mike
Kane’s an Atheist too but you quote him. Double-standard!
br.d
Kane’s position does not posit the non-existence of a god
How is that a double-standard on my part?
Mike – I’m starting to see these “double-standard” claims as what is sometimes called “Gorilla dust”.
You know – gorillas will throw dust at one another – as a show of force.
But there’s nothing really behind it.
Mike
The differences between the theological and the atheistic free will debate are minor but significant. For the atheist the originator is nature—the physical universe, for the theist it is God. For the theists God is the originator, the unmoved mover, the only necessary being—nothing is outside of Him.
br.d
yes – but that totally evades the real question.
Perebooms arguments include the non-existence of a god with attribute you believe exist.
If we’re going to follow Perebooms arguments – we’re going to have to accept either there is no god – or at least that he doesn’t have free will.
Kane’s arguments – do not logically rule out the attributes of god as you believe them to be.
However we should be able to take some principles from Perebooms arguments.
But those how do you accept arguments that eradicate your concept of god?
br.d
You have a god whose choices are compatible with his nature – but you argue that such an attribute is logically incoherent.
Mike
Logically incoherent for humans—contingent beings!
br.d
So at least we knowledge that choices compatible with one’s nature – outside of determinism do exist!
So we can no longer call that incoherent.
So we now can both acknowledge – that is part of the “Imago Dei ” (image of god)
Which brings me back (almost) to where I started.
Why doesn’t the god who creates man in his “Imago Dei ” – not grant to mankind that part of his”Imago Dei “?
Is he unable to do that?
Mike
You have your own special definition of LFW which you think dots all the “i” but I don’t think you are that familiar with the larger literature.
br.d
I certain am far from dotting ALL of the “i”s.
Perhaps very tiny little “i”s :-]
But taking those “i”s which I have dotted
So far – I don’t see any logical problem with them – and with recognizing them as attributes of LFW.
And so far – I don’t see anything within the literature which logically precludes those attributes as being attributes of LFW
So I don’t think I can take any credit – or see them as “my own special definition”
Mike – in one of my exchanges with rhutchin – him discussing his conception of Middle Knowledge – and how he conceives of it as effective only Pre-creation – I posted a paraphrased quote of how Alvin Plantinga – as a Molinist – would answer that.
I went looking for that so that I could have the exact words and reference. It was an interview he made with “Closer to Truth”. I went searching through their videos – and in the process came upon a different interview with Thomas Flint – which pretty much states the same position that Plantinga stated.
I figured I might just as well post Flint’s statement – as it parallels Plantinga’s
The question has to do with the future being already “SETTLED” in the past – and how do you deal with things like prayer. Do you see prayer as a script that your brain has been programmed to act out? And also how do you maintain your prayer as making any difference in the outcome of events?
Flints answer:
-quote
I believe in what is called divine Middle Knowledge. This is knowledge of what a creature would do within any given circumstance.
With Middle Knowledge, my prayer does make a difference. Because if I were not to freely choose to pray this prayer, then God’s Middle Knowledge would have been different.
Middle Knowledge is knowledge of truths which God has no control over. Because he grants to me the control over some counterfactuals concerning what I would do. So by my free choice to not pray, I would be bringing it about, that God’s Middle Knowledge would have been different. So in that indirect round about way, I think we can see how our prayers make a difference.
Flints answer: -quote-
“I believe in what is called divine Middle Knowledge. This is knowledge of what a creature would do within any given circumstance.
With Middle Knowledge, my prayer does make a difference. Because if I were not to freely choose to pray this prayer, then God’s Middle Knowledge would have been different.”
LOL!!! It is not God’s Middle Knowledge that would be different as Middle Knowledge already consists of all possible worlds (and all possible situations). Flint should have said that God’s Free Knowledge would have been different and that says nothing more than that God knows the future perfectly and knew that future when He created the world, but we, humans, only know the future (and what God already knew) as it happens. So what?
Then, “Middle Knowledge is knowledge of truths which God has no control over.”
LOL!!! Gee, a sovereign God who is not really sovereign.
rhutchin
LOL!!! It is not God’s Middle Knowledge that would be different as Middle Knowledge already consists of all possible worlds (and all possible situations).
br.d
The factor you missed in that statement is that it is knowledge based on the premise that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature. Rather than what the creature would do being determined *FOR* the creature.
So here we see that critical place where Molinism departs from Calvinism
What John Calvin called “MERE” permission – and which he totally rejects.
rhutchin
Flint should have said that God’s Free Knowledge would have been different
br.d
Here is the exact quote
Because if I were not to freely choose to pray this prayer, then God’s Middle Knowledge would have been different.”
There is no reference to “Free” Knowledge in that quote
rhutchin
and that says nothing more than that God knows the future perfectly and knew that future when He created the world, but we, humans, only know the future (and what God already knew) as it happens. So what?
Then, “Middle Knowledge is knowledge of truths which God has no control over.”
LOL!!! Gee, a sovereign God who is not really sovereign.
br.d
AH!
There is the rub isn’t it!!!
Its all about Sovereignty!!
And Sovereignty must be EXHAUSTIVE
Therefore determinism must be EXHAUSTIVE
Tell that to Mike please!! :-]
br.d: “The factor you missed in that statement is that it is knowledge based on the premise that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature. Rather than what the creature would do being determined *FOR* the creature.”
No. The Middle Knowledge crowd says that a person would choose [X] under certain circumstances but if those circumstances were to change, he would choose [Y]. So, in one world, the person chooses [X] and in another world, the person chooses [Y]. The choice is not left up to the creature; the choice derives from the world in which the creature finds himself. What do you think “all possible worlds” means in Molinism?
Then, “So here we see that critical place where Molinism departs from Calvinism
What John Calvin called “MERE” permission – and which he totally rejects.”
Calvin, and Calvinists, recognize that God knows all possible outcomes and then knows the one unique outcome that will prevail – His decree – based on His choice of the world He creates. Calvinism agrees with Molinism on this point. This has nothing to do with permission, mere or otherwise.
Then, “There is no reference to “Free” Knowledge in that quote”
LOL!!! That’s the problem. Flint doesn’t appear to know what he is talking about.
Then, “And Sovereignty must be EXHAUSTIVE”
God exercises His sovereignty exhaustively or He is not sovereign. Calvin explains all this in the sections of his Institutes dealing with providence.
rhutchin
The Middle Knowledge crowd says that a person would choose [X] under certain circumstances
br.d
With the premise that that choice is left UP TO the person n- and not determined *FOR* the person
rhutchin
but if those circumstances were to change, he would choose [Y].
br.d
With the premise that that choice is left UP TO the person n- and not determined *FOR* the person
rhutchin
The choice is not left up to the creature; the choice derives from the world in which the creature finds himself. What do you think “all possible worlds” means in Molinism?
br.d
The model you have here is called EXHAUSTIVE determinism
On this model the choice is determined solely by the circumstance
And that circumstance does not permit multiple the creature options from which to choose
Therefore the choice is not UP TO the creature
Of course you think that way – because you can’t fathom how Calvin’s god – who determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – and does not leave anything undetermined – could leave anything over ZERO% UP TO the creature.
However, the Molinist does not conclude the circumstance eradicates multiple options from which to choose
He assumes a THEOS who – grants what John Calvin calls “MERE” Permission – which Calvin of course rejects.
rhutchin
Calvin, and Calvinists, recognize that God knows all possible outcomes and then knows the one unique outcome that will prevail – His decree – based on His choice of the world He creates. Calvinism agrees with Molinism on this point. This has nothing to do with permission, mere or otherwise.
br.d
Nice try to evade the obvious!
But oh yes it does – and for the LOGICAL explanation – I provided :-]
This is why you reject Thomas Flint’s statement that Middle Knowledge is knowledge which is outside of god’s control.
“There is no reference to “Free” Knowledge in that quote”
rhutchin
LOL!!! That’s the problem. Flint doesn’t appear to know what he is talking about.
br.d
And of course you always do! wink wink ;-D
And in Calvinism it all boils down to Sovereignty which must be EXHAUSTIVE”
rhutchin
God exercises His sovereignty exhaustively or He is not sovereign.
br.d
Well Mike there you go!
rhutchin is what you identify as a HYPER Calvinist and HARD determinist. :-]
br.d writes, “However, the Molinist does not conclude the circumstance eradicates multiple options from which to choose
He assumes a THEOS who – grants what John Calvin calls “MERE” Permission – which Calvin of course rejects.”
What you describe sounds like Open Theism to me. Molinism posits all possible worlds with each world identified with a unique set of outcomes from beginning to end and those events are known to God. That way, God can consider how each possible world achieves His purpose and choose the world that best meets His purpose. If multiple options were available in any one world, then it could not be one of the possible worlds under Molinism. The notion of multiple options can only exist in God’s mind because once God has all possible worlds in view (i.e., Middle Knowledge), there can only be outcome changes between one world and another – no outcome can change in any one possible world or else, it is not yet a possible world. The unique circumstances of each possible world are tied to a unique set of outcomes for that world thereby negating the existence of multiple options remaining in any one world. If multiple options are available, they must be known by God before Middle Knowledge. Maybe multiple options exist in God’s Natural Knowledge.
Then, “This is why you reject Thomas Flint’s statement that Middle Knowledge is knowledge which is outside of god’s control.”
Or maybe, because it doesn’t make sense within the Molinist scheme. Middle Knowledge encompasses the universe of all possible worlds that are known to God from which God chooses a world to create. There is nothing that is changing in Middle Knowledge (there can’t be) – the only unknown is the choice God makes. The choice God makes is then His Free Knowledge.
br.d
However, the Molinist does not conclude the circumstance eradicates multiple options from which to choose
He assumes a THEOS who – grants what John Calvin calls “MERE” Permission – which Calvin of course rejects.”
rhutchin
What you describe sounds like Open Theism to me.
br.d
Well – I can see how you would see it that way – at least partially.
However – you do know that with Middle-Knowledge – there would be no ABSENCE of the knowledge of Libertarian free choices.
rhutchin
Molinism posits all possible worlds with each world identified with a unique set of outcomes from beginning to end and those events are known to God.
br.d
In your statement – “a unique set of outcomes” – is equivocal language
And could be seen as a less than honest strategy for question begging.
And given the fact that you agree with Paul Helm’s that Middle Knowledge – as far as you are concerned – is useless – then one would be right to be suspicious – that question begging is the case.
Given the fact that on Molinism – what a person would do – is left UP TO the person – and not determined *FOR* the person – that would constitute a unique set of outcomes. But a portion of that set of outcomes would be divinely granted as solely UP TO the person.
rhutchin
That way, God can consider how each possible world achieves His purpose and choose the world that best meets His purpose.
br.d
Well – this could simply be more exhaustive determinism language – that is semi-cloaked.
So possibly more question begging.
rhutchin
If multiple options were available in any one world, then it could not be one of the possible worlds under Molinism.
br.d
Not the way you see Molinism – because you (against the historical Reformed position) want to see the content of Middle Knowledge as content which the divine mind uses to make determinations. So you are simply trying to morph Middle-Knowledge into exhaustive determinism. Something the historical Reformed position rejects – because it entails Calvin’s god looking at the condition of the creature and using that as information from which to determine decrees. And the Westminster confession – for example – rejects that position.
rhutchin
The notion of multiple options can only exist in God’s mind because once God has all possible worlds in view (i.e., Middle Knowledge),
br.d
Well – again – that thinking is consistent with Calvin’s god having Libertarian Freedom.
Where there is multiple options to choose from – you don’t have Determinism – so you have Libertarian Freedom.
And since Calvin’s god has multiple options from which to choose – it logically follows – he has Libertarian Freedom.
But you follow that with the idea that Calvin’s god exhaustively determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass for all creatures.
And you conclude there is no such thing as multiple options in that case – because that follows from exhaustive determinism.
rhutchin
there can only be outcome changes between one world and another – no outcome can change in any one possible world or else, it is not yet a possible world.
br.d
You are forgetting what both Plantinga and Flint have stated.
The subjunctive conditional is flipped in Molinism.
In other words the difference is this:
1) In Calvinism – IF Calvin’s god determines [X] then Calvin’s god knows what [X] will be
2) In Molinism – IF the person determines [X] then Molina’s god knows what [X] will be
Now that is the case on a limited basis – because Molina’s god grants “MERE” permission on a limited basis.
Molina’s god does not allow people to determine circumstances which he will put them in.
He only allows people to determine their own choices within those circumstances.
And that on a limited basis.
rhutchin
The unique circumstances of each possible world are tied to a unique set of outcomes for that world thereby negating the existence of multiple options remaining in any one world. If multiple options are available, they must be known by God before Middle Knowledge. Maybe multiple options exist in God’s Natural Knowledge.
br.d
Again – as Plantinga and Flint will state the subjunctive conditional (IF-THEN statement)
IF I choose to pray – THEN god will know that
IF I choose to not pray – THEN god will know that.
Now to your point – yes – the *OUTCOME* can be determined by Molina’s god.
But even if that is the case – it is still the case that Molina’s god determined the outcome in which a person made a choice – that Molina’s god “MERELY” permitted the person to make. So you have a determined *OUTCOME* with Libertarian choice built in as one of its parameters.
rhutchin
Then, “This is why you reject Thomas Flint’s statement that Middle Knowledge is knowledge which is outside of god’s control.”
Or maybe, because it doesn’t make sense within the Molinist scheme. Middle Knowledge encompasses the universe of all possible worlds that are known to God from which God chooses a world to create. There is nothing that is changing in Middle Knowledge (there can’t be) – the only unknown is the choice God makes. The choice God makes is then His Free Knowledge.
br.d
Well – if you have the choice Calvin’s god makes as an “Unknown” then you have a conception that parallels the Open Theist.
If the future is OPEN to Calvin’s god – who has multiple options from which to choose – then prior to that point of choice – the future is as you say “unknown”. But if he has Middle Knowledge of what the creature would do where he leaves choices UP TO the creature – then he would surely have Middle Knowledge of what he would choose in any given circumstance.
So with Middle Knowledge there is no absence of knowledge of what [X] will be – prior to his decision to decree what [X] will be.
br.d writes, “However – you do know that with Middle-Knowledge – there would be no ABSENCE of the knowledge of Libertarian free choices. ”
That’s the claim. As Craig says, Let’s just assume ti and that is sufficient without having to prove it. So, let’s play along with the Molinist make-believe.
Then, “In your statement – “a unique set of outcomes” – is equivocal language”
Don’t blame me; blame the Molinist. The Molimist says that Middle Knowledge encompasses all possible worlds that God could create and each possible world is unique from all other possible worlds. I understand what the Molinist means and see nothing misleading in what they say even given their make-believe premises.
Then, ‘Given the fact that on Molinism – what a person would do – is left UP TO the person – and not determined *FOR* the person – that would constitute a unique set of outcomes. But a portion of that set of outcomes would be divinely granted as solely UP TO the person.”
LOL!!! Yes, that is their make-believe thinking. Still, each possible world consists of one unique set of outcomes that is different than those outcomes in all other possible worlds. How the outcomes from one possible world to another possible world become different is not explained by the Molinist and according to Craig, does not have to be explained. One need only make believe it could be and that is sufficient.
Then, “you…want to see the content of Middle Knowledge as content which the divine mind uses to make determinations.”
That is basic Molinism.- God uses His knowledge of all possible worlds to choose the one world that accomplishes His purpose and that is the world He creates. Calvinism ignores Molinist make-believe as being superfluous and just deals with the world God created. Calvinism starts at Genesis 1; Molinism imagines what happened for God to get to Genesis 1.
Then, ‘Well – again – that thinking is consistent with Calvin’s god having Libertarian Freedom. Where there is multiple options to choose from – you don’t have Determinism – so you have Libertarian Freedom”
God has Libertarian Freedom to choose among those outcomes that are available to Him – those lying, etc, are not included since their are not available to Him. Once God chooses an outcome, that outcome is determined. So,when God chooses a world to create, all the outcomes in that world are set in concrete – determined – and nothing can, ow will change as time passes by.
Then, “And you conclude there is no such thing as multiple options in that case – because that follows from exhaustive determinism.”
It also follows from Molinism. There are no options possible in the possible worlds envisioned under Molinism. As Craig explains it, if Joe chooses X, then we know that God created the world in which Joe chooses X, but if Joe chooses Y, then we know that God created the world in which Joe chooses Y. However, as God chose one world to create, He knew what Joe would choose and Joe’s choice was rendered certain the moment God created that world.
Then, “Molina’s god does not allow people to determine circumstances which he will put them in. He only allows people to determine their own choices within those circumstances.”
That is how the Molinist explains the different possible worlds. If a person were to choose X, then we would have possible world X, and if a person were to choose Y, then we would have possible world Y. This means that people do not know what world God chose to create and can only know as outcomes play out. However, God knows what world He created and He knows every outcome in that world as certain. The Molinist understands this – that is why he thinks in terms of the possible worlds God could have created and not in terms of the world God did create as the Calvinist does.
Then, ‘But even if that is the case – it is still the case that Molina’s god determined the outcome in which a person made a choice – that Molina’s god “MERELY” permitted the person to make. So you have a determined *OUTCOME* with Libertarian choice built in as one of the parameters.”
Yes, that is the make-believe that the Molinist entertains.
Then, “So with Middle Knowledge there is no absence of knowledge of what [X] will be – prior to his decision to decree what [X] will be.”
Yep. That’s what I have been saying.
br.d
“However – you do know that with Middle-Knowledge – there would be no ABSENCE of the knowledge of Libertarian free choices. ”
rhutchin
That’s the claim. As Craig says, Let’s just assume ti and that is sufficient without having to prove it. So, let’s play along with the Molinist make-believe.
br.d
Well – but of course – you are already in FULL TIME – MAKE-BELIEVE mode anyway.
Going about your office *AS-IF* your brain isn’t 100% controlled by an external mind.
Making-believe Calvin’s god grants your brain the Libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE.
Making-believe your brain is not full of INFALLIBLY decreed FALSE perceptions which you are permitted to discern from TRUE ones.
And thus making-believe your brain is permitted the epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE
You’re already in MAKE-BELIEVE mode anyway – so why not continue! :-]
rhutchin
Don’t blame me; blame the Molinist
br.d
Your language is Calvinist language
And Calvinist language is characteristically equivocal.
And for strategic reasons
rhutchin
the Molimist says that Middle Knowledge encompasses all possible worlds that God could create and each possible world is unique from all other possible worlds. I understand what the Molinist means and see nothing misleading in what they say even given their make-believe premises.
br.d
See answer above
So — – Given the fact that on Molinism – what a person would do – is left UP TO the person – and not determined *FOR* the person – that would constitute a unique set of outcomes. But a portion of that set of outcomes would be divinely granted as solely UP TO the person.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Yes, that is their make-believe thinking.
br.d
The pot calls the kettle black! :-]
rhuthcin
Still, each possible world consists of one unique set of outcomes that is different than those outcomes in all other possible worlds. How the outcomes from one possible world to another possible world become different is not explained by the Molinist and according to Craig, does not have to be explained. One need only make believe it could be and that is sufficient.
br.d
You’re going around in circles now.
I’ve given you Dr. Craig’s answer.
But I can understand – you think you can get around it somehow.
Good luck!
And we already know you…want to see the content of Middle Knowledge as content which the divine mind uses to make determinations.”
br.d
That is basic Molinism.-
br.d
And rejected by Historlical Calvinism
So your attempt at morphing Molinism in Calvinism continues to fail
rhutchin
Calvinism ignores Molinist make-believe as being superfluous and just deals with the world God created. Calvinism starts at Genesis 1; Molinism imagines what happened for God to get to Genesis 1.
br.d
And I can certainly see why Calvinism’s *AS-IF* “MAKE-BELIEVE” world – is so necessary for them to cling to some sense of normalcy.
Its not an easy task going about your office *AS-IF* your doctrine is FALSE
The Molinist at least has the benefit of going about his office *AS-IF* his doctrine is TRUE
Sorry – Calvin’s god doesn’t do that for you! :-]
rhutchin
God has Libertarian Freedom to choose among those outcomes that are available to Him
br.d
Correct
And having the ability to make a Libertarian determination between TRUE and FALSE – is part of the divine “Imago Dei” that he does not grant to Calvinists.
And that’s why your brain is not permitted the epistemic ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
rhutchin
Once God chooses an outcome, that outcome is determined. So,when God chooses a world to create, all the outcomes in that world are set in concrete – determined – and nothing can, ow will change as time passes by.
br.d
Sure – but for the Molinist – those outcomes can contain LFW choices which humans are “MERELY” permitted to make.
But we’ve already gone over this territory.
Your just repeating yourself
rhutchin
It [exhaustive determinism] also follows from Molinism.
br.d
For you it must – because you are wedded to exhaustive determinism.
And why you must go about your office *AS-IF* your brain is permitted to make Libertarian determinations between TRUE and FALSE
You call it MAKE BELIEVE.
rhutchin
There are no options possible in the possible worlds envisioned under Molinism.
br.d
For the Molinist – the options are logically consistent with the LFW choices – which are part of the parameters of each possible world.
rhutchin
As Craig explains it, if Joe chooses X, then we know that God created the world in which Joe chooses X, but if Joe chooses Y, then we know that God created the world in which Joe chooses Y. However, as God chose one world to create, He knew what Joe would choose and Joe’s choice was rendered certain the moment God created that world.
br.d
Already answered this.
Again – your just going in circles at this point.
rhutchin
If a person were to choose X, then we would have possible world X, and if a person were to choose Y, then we would have possible world Y.
br.d
Not quite
If Molina’s god puts a person in world X where that person chooses Y then we have world X and choice Y
The world is determined by Molina’s god
The choice is determined by the person
rhutchin
This means that people do not know what world God chose to create and can only know as outcomes play out.
br.d
Which doesn’t matter at all.
rhutchin
However, God knows what world He created and He knows every outcome in that world as certain.
br.d
But the world you are envisioning is a world which Calvin’s god exhaustively determines.
And that’s why you go about your office *AS-IF* your doctrine is FALSE
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god grants your brain the epistemic ability to make a Libertarian determination between TRUE from FALSE
And that’s how you go about making believe you have the ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
rhutchin
The Molinist understands this – that is why he thinks in terms of the possible worlds God could have created and not in terms of the world God did create as the Calvinist does.
br.d
Makes no difference to me because – for the Molinist it is still the case that Molina’s god determined the outcome in which a person made a choice – that Molina’s god “MERELY” permitted the person to make. So you have a determined *OUTCOME* with Libertarian choice built in as one of the parameters.”
rhutchin
Yes, that is the make-believe that the Molinist entertains.
br.d
Well given the choice between a Molinist’s Make-Believe world – and the Calvinists Make-Believe world – where the Calvinist brain is not permitted the epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE – I’d say the Molinist gets the better deal! :-]
Additionally with Middle Knowledge there is no absence of knowledge of what [X] will be – prior to his decision to decree what [X] will be.”
rhutchin
Yep. That’s what I have been saying.
br.d
I mention that – because on Calvinism there is a point in which the knowledge of what [X] will be is absent. i.e. prior to the decree
So on Molinism – divine omniscience is not lacking – as it is in Calvinism.
But I think that’s one of the reasons you like Molinism – and would like to morph it into Calvinism!
Even though you MAKE-BELIEVE you don’t :-]
Well first, is Molinism not a system of pre-creation? Isn’t middle knowledge about what you would do before you do it, before the circumstances, before you existed, before the world existed? Is not middle knowledge in the mind of God before creation?
Second, prayer is a trick subject for everyone. If God knows the future and He knows what you will pray for then why pray? If He knows the future can anything you pray for change the future? Now I don’t think that Flint (or Plantinga) is lying or using double-speak but he is not being perfectly clear with respect to the Molinist system. According to Molinism, when you pray in the real world you are following a “script” created by God. God used His middle knowledge to see you pray in one possible world and in another possible world you did not pray. God actualized the world in which you prayed. I know Molinists may not say it this way but is this not correct? Have I missed something?
Mike
Well first, is Molinism not a system of pre-creation? Isn’t middle knowledge about what you would do before you do it, before the circumstances, before you existed, before the world existed? Is not middle knowledge in the mind of God before creation?
br.d
Yes – it is hypothetical knowledge which occurs Pre-creation – but it is hypothetical knowledge of Post-creation events.
But also remember – for the Molinist – it is knowledge predicated on the premise that what the person would do is UP TO the person – and not determined *FOR* the person.
Mike
If He knows the future can anything you pray for change the future? Now I don’t think that Flint (or Plantinga) is lying or using double-speak but he is not being perfectly clear with respect to the Molinist system.
br.d
I guess one would have to go beyond the scope of that one statement by Flint.
And they both make essentially the same statement and it seems to make perfect sense to them.
Craig says something similar – where he likens divine knowledge to an infallible thermometer.
It indicates certain things concerning the future without determining them.
Craig also appears to have refuted any/all official objections so far.
To my knowledge the most significant one is called the “grounding objection”
Mike
According to Molinism, when you pray in the real world you are following a “script” created by God.
br.d
No – that is not what Flint stated.
He stated – IF he had prayed something else – or not prayed at all – then god’s Middle knowledge would be different.
If there is a “script” there – it is a “script” that is UP TO the person – and not determined *FOR* the person.
Mike
God used His middle knowledge to see you pray in one possible world and in another possible world you did not pray. God actualized the world in which you prayed.
br.d
But as Flint stated – Middle Knowledge is knowledge that god is not in control of.
I suppose the Molinist resolves that by seeing it in the same way he sees the rock that is too big for god to lift.
Just as god knows that he cannot make himself both exist and not exist at the same time.
And he cannot control that fact – such as to make it false.
Mike
I know Molinists may not say it this way but is this not correct? Have I missed something?
br.d
I’m not sure.
br.d: I guess one would have to go beyond the scope of that one statement by Flint. And they both make essentially the same statement and it seems to make perfect sense to them
Yes they make perfect sense because they agree with you. But if I said the same about Calvinist philosophers then you would respond with incoherence and double-speak.
br.d:Craig also appears to have refuted any/all official objections so far. To my knowledge the most significant one is called the “grounding objection”
And, of course, Craig is the uber-scholar that puts everyone to shame!
br.d: Flint stated – IF he had prayed something else – or not prayed at all – then god’s Middle knowledge would be different.
In the theoretical possible world that was chosen and actualized by God.
br.d: But as Flint stated – Middle Knowledge is knowledge that god is not in control of.
So instead of God being omniscient and the source of His knowledge, Middle Knowledge is outside of God. Is that what you believe? That sounds like more of a paradox than the too big rock. And it certainly is not scriptural.
br.d: And he cannot control that fact – such as to make it false.
Sounds more like Open Theism to me.
br.d: But Aquinas had a leaning towards Aristotle which Luther decried as filth that needed to be washed from theology.
Yeah well, Luther was a character.
br.d: I think Calvin all by himself is savvy enough – such that i don’t need to go outside of him in order to understand “CORE” Calvinism.
Of course not, it easier to debate a straw-man. Except for free will Calvinism is mostly straight forward. But predestination and free will is an age-old issue.
br.d: And they concluded both LFW and determinism exist – and that understanding how is a mystery.
Yup. And the ancient Israel as well.
br.d: Similarly John Calvin holds as unquestionable truth – that all things without exception are determined in every part.
And when his mind looks at the ink-blot that is what he sees.
Once again, that swings both ways. And if we travel too far down that road then you end up with relativism. The ancient and medieval Jews, Augustine, Aquinas and the Reformers accepted the conflicting free will passages. Libertarians decide philosophicaly that LFW is the only logical option and then reinterpret the verses that don’t agree with the philosophy.
br.d: It is a whole different thing to say – a person CAN NEVER act in concert with one’s nature.
FLW dies of a 1000 qualifications.
br.d: Kane’s position does not posit the non-existence of a god
So he’s a Christian?
br.d: I’m starting to see these “double-standard” claims as what is sometimes called “Gorilla dust”. But there’s nothing really behind it.
Whatever. Maybe your endless “AS-IF” is Gorilla dust.
br.d: But those how do you accept arguments that eradicate your concept of god?
I’ve explained that but you obviously don’t accept it.
br.d: You have a god whose choices are compatible with his nature – but you argue that such an attribute is logically incoherent. Logically incoherent for humans—contingent beings!
Yeah, that doesn’t make sense. Sorry, I must be getting tired. Compatibility with one’s nature is perfectly coherent for humans and God. But that’s compatiblism not LFW.
br.d: Why doesn’t the god who creates man in his “Imago Dei ” – not grant to mankind that part of his”Imago Dei “?
Is he unable to do that?
That really is a bad argument. Using that kind of reasoning one could claim any of God’s omni attributes. One could ask why God didn’t make man a god. There has always been debate over what is meant by the image of God imparted to man. There is a mystery, though, that God gave man the ability to sin, an ability that he does not have.
br.d: I guess one would have to go beyond the scope of that one statement by Flint. And they both make essentially the same statement and it seems to make perfect sense to them
Mike
Yes they make perfect sense because they agree with you. But if I said the same about Calvinist philosophers then you would respond with incoherence and double-speak.
br.d
The next time I speak double-speak – which is defined as claiming something exists and doesn’t exist at the same time – please let me know.
br.d:Craig also appears to have refuted any/all official objections so far. To my knowledge the most significant one is called the “grounding objection”
Mike
And, of course, Craig is the uber-scholar that puts everyone to shame!
br.d
Ok – I can see your still in the aggressive Tu-quoque mode.
I’ll hang up on this one then.
Best for now!
This is my last post for a while. I encourage you to really expand your view point and try to see the other side. You don’t have to agree with it but you should to at least try to understand it. And not in a negative way—as if people are lying or double-speaking or doing some mental AS-IF gymnastics. Please take some time—it’s over 2 hours long—to listen to a podcast that will demonstrate the complexity and diversity of this subject matter. Go to classicaltheism.com/officehours/ and listen to BONUS|Slogans, PSR, Evil, & Predestination (Office hours) w/ Pat Flynn. God bless.
Thank you Mike for your kind thoughts!
Yes I heartily agree with that pursuit!
And I would ask the same of you.
Warm and sincere Blessings!
br.d
BR.D, sorry, but I just remember a podcast that I listened to a while back with an interview with a Dominican (Thomist) who I think you would find fascinating. And it might help to see where I’m coming from. This is a Catholic podcast, so I don’t agree with everything but I encourage you to check it out. You can get it on YouTube by searching 105: How should we understand morality? With Fr. Dominic Legge or going to PintsWithAquinas.com and searching it there. Take care and thanks for the iron sharpening iron discussion. – Mike
Thanks I see it.
I’ll give it a listen.
Thanks for providing the title – you made it real easy to find! :-]
I have a full day of commitments tomorrow – but should be able to get to it some time after that.
Thanks again
Mike – on the youtube – interview – 105: How should we understand morality? With Fr. Dominic Legge
My commitment for today got canceled and I did have time to listen to this.
I’m afraid your going to be disappointed with my thoughts on it.
The first part is pretty much chit-chat – up until about minute 14.
I was surprised to hear Fr. Legge’s language to predominate the language of LFW for quite a bit of the interview – until about minute 50
It starts out with him enunciating explanations of freedom in which *YOU* do things based on the premise that those things are UP TO you. *YOU* are on a journey ….etc
This language excludes determinism – because where everything is predetermined at the foundation of the world before you exist – then everything has already been determined. And as Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” clearly shows – nothing is UP TO.
This BTW was posited Aristotle – whom Aquinas was said to have drawn a lot from.
So – so far in this representation of Aquinas – we don’t have determinism/compatibilism.
We in fact have LFW
At around minute 15 the question of the very first instance of choice comes up – i.e. Adam’s choice to sin comes up.
-quote
“what about that initial choice? Adam and Eve when they chose to eat the fruit – did so freely right?”
Fr. Legge’s Answer:
“The possibility of freedom or the power of freedom always includes the possibility that you can choose against it”.
Now there is a clear representation of PAP
And you already know that PAP does not exist in Determinism.
So once again – Fr. Legge’s presentation of Aquinas is predicated on in-determinism rather than determinism.
And where we don’t have determinism – we don’t have compatibilism
Because compatibilism is a species of determinism
At minute 47:31 he describes Aquinas as supposing that within the person there are conflicting inclinations and god amplifies the strength of one of these within you – in order to bend you in the direction he wants you to go. And by doing that he’s giving a kind of new life to you.
That description is not a description of determinism – but rather divine influence.
So we don’t find determinism/compatiblism in this statement either.
At minute 35:54 Fr. Legge states
-quote
“we can’t give an explanation of why free creatures like the angels for example would rebel against god.”
Well I happen to know that John Calvin certainly would call Fr. Legge by a few harsh names – if he were to hear that!
Calvin’s god is a divine potter who at the foundation of the world specifically conceives of each individual – and determines what “LOT” in life each person will assume. The “FEW” he specifically designs as “Vessels of honor”. And the “MANY” he specifically designs as “vessels of wrath”.
John Calvin
-quote
They are not found, but ***MADE*** worthy of destruction. (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly…..can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how
they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far……He COMMANDS….they are even FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11.)
So Fr. Legge’s statement here concerning Aquinas – is a denial of CORE Calvinism
Fr. Legge continues in this vein and states
-quote
“Why does god permit that?”
This statement assumes a form of divine permission which John Calvin adamantly rejects.
Typically called “MERE” permission.
John Calvin
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely *PERMITS* them, when scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 176)
-quote
“It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but MERELY by His permission.”
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
So here is another place where Aquinas is represented as in opposition to Calvin – and thus in opposition to CORE Calvinism
Somewhere near this area – Fr. Legge – uses the example of a heroin addict – and his explanation here – flows quite easily in line with Robert Kane’s “Self-Forming-Actions” theory. So here again – we don’t have determinism represented – but the language leans towards attributes found within LFW
At minute 42 the host brings Alvin Plantinga’s “free will defense” which assumes LFW
And here Fr. Legge objects:
-quote
The view that you are proposing (i.e. Plantinga’s free will defense) is a will that has a power that god does not enter into.
What in the world does he mean by “enter into”?
This is the langauge of cooperation.
Two parties “enter into” a contract with each other.
So if by that language – he is asserting that Plantinga’s free will defense – excludes “cooperation – then he is fabricating a strawman.
Nowhere does Platinga postulate that LFW logically excludes cooperation.
What it does obviously excluded is causation.
I am saddened to find his language so equivocal in that statement.
I get the impression he is trying to have both [A] and [NOT A] at the same time – and cloaking it within equivocal language.
Later he does use the word cause.
-quote
“If god is the CAUSE of all that is – that a creature would have some power that in a way doesn’t have god as the principle of actuality the exercise of that power”.
Again, I am saddened by what appears to be evasive language.
What he really means is “if god is the CAUSE of every movement in the universe then how is it logically coherent for the human will to have a movement that is not itself moved by god himself.
He then makes a statement that appears to be an utter contradiction
-quote
God causes the whole system – and therefore the interaction of all of the contingent causes within the system.
God is causing events to *IMMUTABLY* come about through contingent events in the world.
WHAT???
God brings about events that are both [NOT CHANGEABLE] and [CHANGEABLE]?
A contingent event is an event that can happen OR not happen.
That logically excludes that event being IMMUTABLE
So how does Fr. Legge get an event that is both *IMMUTABLE* and *MUTABLE* at the same time?
Fr. Legge explains:
At 51:38 He says
-quote
From the creaturely *PERSPECTIVE* – there is contingency that is real.
OH!
So the contingency that we are talking about is an ILLUSION.
Its not real after all.
We don’t have IMMUTABLE and MUTABLE at the same time.
br.d writes, “But also remember – for the Molinist – it is knowledge predicated on the premise that what the person would do is UP TO the person – and not determined *FOR* the person.”
As Craig explains it [ “for all we know this is true,” Of course, Middle Knowledge exists prior to creation and essentially has God running through all the permutations of circumstances the He could create until He settles on the one, specific world to create that satisfies His purpose. It probably takes God all of one second to do this. If that makes LFW types feel good, so be it.
Just as it is ok with me – if you feel good about Calvin’s god leaving you with no epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
What percentage of the infallibly decreed perceptions which exist in your brain – are infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions? :-]
br.d
So that is a CRITICAL part of the equation that you missed with your argument concerning Molina. You simply took a statement out of MacGregor’s book and didn’t think it through.
Mike
No. MacGregor, according to you, didn’t think it through. And MacGregor was simply stating what the literature defines is a part of Compatibilism. You may not like it. You may disagree with it. But it’s a fact!
br.d
Well – if we are to reach the conclusions that you reach from this – then we must reject Molina’s credibility
Because Molina’s doctrine (on what we derive from this) stipulates that god’s choices are not compatible with his nature
And I don’t know any Christian in his right mind who would postulate such a thing.
So if we derive what we are deriving from this – then we must conclude Molina is way off the mark.
I grant you that if MacGregor is actually saying what you are deriving from this – then I can certainly see how it is incorrect.
And so if that is the case – then yes – I totally disagree with MacGregor
But something tells me that MacGregor is not going to postulate the notion that Molina rejects god’s choices being compatible with his nature. What I think MacGregor is indicating here – is Molina’s rejection of “freedom” that must be compatible with Exhaustive Determinism. Everything I personally know about Molina affirms that.
But if Molina truly holds that god’s choices are not compatible with his nature – who in the world can agree with that?
br.d: And I don’t know any Christian in his right mind who would postulate such a thing.
Well you would be wrong. Because the ability to choose against one’s nature, and that God even chooses his nature, is held by many Libertarians.
br.d: So if we derive what we are deriving from this – then we must conclude Molina is way off the mark.
Yeah, you said it!
br.d: I grant you that if MacGregor is actually saying what you are deriving from this – then I can certainly see how it is incorrect.
And so if that is the case – then yes – I totally disagree with MacGregor. Are you allowed to do that?
Are you saying that you are smarter than MacGregor? Will you publish a philosophical paper concerning this? Hey, contact Stratton, I believe he’s working on one.
br.d: But something tells me that MacGregor is not going to postulate the notion that Molina rejects god’s choices being compatible with his nature. What I think MacGregor is indicating here – is Molina’s rejection of “freedom” that must be compatible with Exhaustive Determinism. Everything I personally know about Molina affirms that.
Well, you can spin it whichever way you want to make you feel comfortable—that’s a common activity with Libertarians. But that’s not the plain reading.
But if Molina truly holds that god’s choices are not compatible with his nature – who in the world can agree with that?
LIBERTARIANS! : )
br.d
And I don’t know any Christian in his right mind who would postulate such a thing.
Mike
Well you would be wrong. Because the ability to choose against one’s nature, and that God even chooses his nature, is held by many Libertarians.
br.d
OH!
But you are now changing the proposition to something else!
We are not talking about the proposition that god has the ability to choose against his nature
We are talking about the proposition that god’s choices IN TOTAL are not compatible with his nature
So if we derive what we are deriving from this – then we must conclude Molina is way off the mark.
Mike
Yeah, you said it!
br.d
And if that is the case – then Molina’s notions of Middle knowledge must be discarded as having no credibility.
Mike
Are you saying that you are smarter than MacGregor? Will you publish a philosophical paper concerning this? Hey, contact Stratton, I believe he’s working on one.
br.d
Please see another post I made to you -where Tim Stratton provides a quote from Magregor.
I think you see that I am in fact correct.
The quote you provided does not tell the whole story.
You took it and ran with it.
But it just didn’t make sense to me
So many LOGICAL thinkers (which I find Molinsts to generally be) could find such a position in any way acceptable.
br.d:
John Calvin calls man an “INSTRUMENT
Mike
Yes, because he didn’t live in the 20th century and couldn’t read the modern philosophical literature on Free Will.
br.d
I think John Calvin was extremely savvy on this regard
Sure – he doesn’t have today’s terminology
So we are simply going to say that Calvin statements – because they are not framed in today’s current language – don’t mean what they say?
What I suspect – is the social structure in Calvin’s day is different from today.
Calvin lived in a time in which a large percentage of the population are uneducated.
They certainly don’t have his college education.
He also lives in a time in which Protestantism is separating itself from Catholicism
And Calvin is seen as one of the reformers.
Consequently – very few people in Calvin’s day would find his statements distasteful the way they would today in our modern society.
That is why we don’t see Calvinists here at SOT101 quoting statements from Calvin.
They are way to BLACK AND WHITE for most Calvinists to stomach.
If Calvinists today spoke as frankly and boldly as Calvin did – I think Calvinism would go the way of the dinosaur
And Calvinist leaders know it.
Take Calvin’s statements concerning the wheat and the chaff for example
He clearly states that Calvin’s god deceives a large percentage of the church with a false salvation – and then “strikes them with greater blindness”
How many Calvinist pastors do you know who preach that message on Sunday?
I agree that if many of todays Calvinists read Calvin there would be more problems and disagreements. But it’s just not that simple. Calvinist philosophers are more aware of this than many pastors. This is why all Calvinist philosophers and many theologians, that I know of, are Classical Theists and are readers of Aquinas’ theology. There is development in Calvinism. And this was evident with Calvinism almost from the beginning.
The advantage Libertarians have—and you’ve used this advance a number of times—is that you can quote Calvin and past and present Reformers—and sometimes pit them against each other—but when Calvinists do the same the Libertarians counter with: I’m not an Arminian, I’m not an Molinist, I’m not an Open Theist, I’m not not this and I’m not that. And with all the modern strains, like Traditionalist and Provisionilist and Non-Denominationilist there’s no history to pin them to. But they have no problem quoting these systems that they hold no allegiance to when it suits their arguments. Double-standard!
Mike
The advantage Libertarians have—and you’ve used this advance a number of times—is that you can quote Calvin and past and present Reformers—and sometimes pit them against each other—but when Calvinists do the same the Libertarians counter with: I’m not an Arminian, I’m not an Molinist, I’m not an Open Theist, I’m not not this and I’m not that. And with all the modern strains, like Traditionalist and Provisionilist and Non-Denominationilist there’s no history to pin them to. But they have no problem quoting these systems that they hold no allegiance to when it suits their arguments.
br.d
Yes – I would agree with this – it is one thing that puts the Calvinist at a disadvantage.
I have often noted that Calvinists are like snow flakes – they are all different in slight variations.
And we do know that Calvinists manifest a love-hate relationship with determinism.
But there is another problem here that the Calvinist introduces himself.
He frequently resents his own customized version of Calvinism AS-IF it is the golden standard.
And other Calvinists appear to have some kind of gentleman’s agreement when they disagree.
When they disagree on things – they don’t acknowledge it publicly.
Because that serves to weaken their position.
But the problem then becomes inconsistency.
One Calvinist makes authoritative declarations – presenting Calvinism as [A]
And then along comes another Calvinist who makes authoritative declarations – presenting Calvinism as [NOT A]
And Dr. Flowers has said a number of times – “Will the real Calvinist please stand up” :-]
Mike
Double-standard!
br.d
Really?
Well – Calvinists have evolved their own strategies – which IMHO compromise the individual into becoming adept in double-speak designed to strategically mislead people.
Paul Helm’s statement about Calvin’s god “respecting” a person’s will – for me is a case in point.
What Helm’s is not telling you – is that what Calvin’s god is REALLY “respecting” is what he in fact decreed the person’s will to be.
So in my mind – Calvinism’s use of misleading language – gives them a significant advantage over anyone who doesn’t know how Calvinist language works.
br.d
Therefore – the *COMPLETE* definition of Compatibilism is freedom that is COMPATIBLE with EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM
Mike
If you can’t send me this definitional quote from a reputable source than it is no more than an empty claim (which you are familiar with).
br.d
You asked for something from the Oxford Handbook – and what I find there is a historical review.
Perhaps you will accept a quote from William Lane Craig – assuming his definition is reputable in your mind.
-quote
So I take it – that the compatibilist thinks that free will is compatible with my choice’s being CAUSALLY DETERMINED by factors outside me. That’s why it’s called COMPATIBILISM! My choice is CAUSALLY DETERMINED. But it is nonetheless free. (#563 I, a Compatibilist?)
And here is an article from Dr. Tim Stratton – on his understanding of what Kirk Magregor means by Compatibilism
-quote
MacGregor, as usual, continues to clearly explain terms: …….“Compatibilism means that there is a compatibility between DETERMINISM (and if you’re a theist, that would be DIVINE DETERMINISM) and free will. ” (Calvinism vs Molinism: Costa vs MacGregor)
So as far as I’m concerned – my understanding of the *COMPLETE* definition of compatiblism – is that it is freedom said to be COMPATIBLE with DETERMINISM.
To claim compatibilism is freedom that is compatible with one’s nature – does not tell the whole story – because it leaves out who determines what your nature will be.
So as a Calvinist – who determined every microsecond of what your nature would be before you ever existed?
Are you going to say Nature did?????
br.d: Perhaps you will accept a quote from William Lane Craig…
Okay, so WLC understands how Comptibilists define their theory. No mention of exhaustive determinism.
br.d: And here is an article from Dr. Tim Stratton – on his understanding of what Kirk Magregor means by Compatibilism…
So MacGregor also understands how Comptibilists define their theory.
br.d: …my understanding of the *COMPLETE* definition of compatiblism – is that it is freedom said to be COMPATIBLE with DETERMINISM.
Yes, that is the very base definition. But, as with a basic definition LFW, that doesn’t get you too far.
br.d: To claim compatibilism is freedom that is compatible with one’s nature – does not tell the whole story – because it leaves out who determines what your nature will be.
True. But then who determines God’s nature? You see, there’s a big difference between God and man. Man’s nature and his free will work differently than the transcendent, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient God. This is why God’s can not be fully comprehend by the human mind. This is why God’s Decree is a mystery. And these ideas are all part of Classical Theism, which Paul Helm, most Calvinists and myself accept.
“I personally reject any kind of human analogy between the divine relationship to his creation, and that of a puppeteer or a programmer. These are all, as it were, creature to creature relationships. But I presume that the infinite God has resources at his disposal that are, as it were, beyond the resources that human beings have at their disposal at this particular point.” – Paul Helm
br.d: So as a Calvinist – who determined every microsecond of what your nature would be before you ever existed?
As a Libertarian who “created” every microsecond of what your nature would be before you ever existed?
br.d: Are you going to say Nature did?????
Are you going to say a random chance meeting by your parents?????
br.d: So if we derive what we are deriving from this – then we must conclude Molina is way off the mark.
I was not commenting on how Molina defined LFW. I was stating how MacGregor and modern Libertarians define LFW. I’d have to go back to MacGregor’s book and see if he defines Molina’s understanding. As you know, because you read the book, Molina had agreements and disagreements with both Arminian and Calvinist doctrines.
br.d: Yes – I would agree with this – it is one thing that puts the Calvinist at a disadvantage. I have often noted that Calvinists are like snow flakes – they are all different in slight variations.
Well so are Libertarians but it is harder to hold their feet to the flame.
br.d: And we do know that Calvinists manifest a love-hate relationship with determinism.
As do Libertarians with indeterminism.
br.d: And other Calvinists appear to have some kind of gentleman’s agreement when they disagree.
Libertarians too! As I have stated earlier.
When they disagree on things – they don’t acknowledge it publicly. Because that serves to weaken their position.
br.d: Maybe in the circles you travel, but I have heard many Calvinists talk about disagreeing with hyper-Calvinists, Amyraldians, Jansenists, reformed baptists disagree with presbyterians, etc. James White has had programs on all these view points.
br.d: But the problem then becomes inconsistency.
Yeah, it sucks but there’s no consistency with Libertarians either. So what are you going to do?
br.d: And Dr. Flowers has said a number of times – “Will the real Calvinist please stand up” :-]
Ditto with Libertarians and LFW.
br.d: What Helm’s is not telling you – is that what Calvin’s god is REALLY “respecting” is what he in fact decreed the person’s will to be.
See my comment on Helm above.
br.d: So in my mind – Calvinism’s use of misleading language – gives them a significant advantage over anyone who doesn’t know how Calvinist language works.
It goes both ways, man!
br.d: 2) You’ve also acknowledged that Calvin’s god’s choices are compatible with his nature. But for some reason you are not willing to call his choices Libertarian Free choices
I’ve explained this many times. LFW demands the freedom/ability to sin or not to sin, because this is not possible for God or the redeemed in heaven it can not be called LFW.
I”l have to split this one in to parts
Mike
Okay, so WLC understands how Comptibilists define their theory. No mention of exhaustive determinism.
br.d
Mike you already know Dr. Craig everywhere describes Calvinism as Universal Divine Causal Determinism (i.e. Exhaustive Divine Determinism) in which freedom is defined as Compatibilism.
So we don’t have to have him including the words “Exhaustive Determinism” in every statement in order to know his position on it.
Mike
So MacGregor also understands how Comptibilists define their theory.
br.d
Yes – the same way Dr. Craig does.
The same way I define it – by calling my definition the *Complete* definition.
At least more complete than simply saying it is compatible with one’s nature.
Especially for a Theist who does not hold Nature as the determiner of whatsoever comes to pass
MIke
True. But then who determines God’s nature? You see, there’s a big difference between God and man. Man’s nature and his free will work differently than the transcendent, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient God. This is why God’s can not be fully comprehend by the human mind. This is why God’s Decree is a mystery. And these ideas are all part of Classical Theism, which Paul Helm, most Calvinists and myself accept.
br.d
So you asked the question – who (and perhaps what) determines god’s nature.
If we say his nature is the ultimate determiner – then we follow that causal chain of antecedents back to its origin – we end up with nature as the determiner of the universe and god as simply a creation of nature.
Mike
“I personally reject any kind of human analogy between the divine relationship to his creation, and that of a puppeteer or a programmer.
br.d
Whatsoever comes to pass (in this case an impulse within Mike’s brain to reject a certain notion) was infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world – and thus designed to be part of Mikes nature (i.e. neurological functionality). And it was decreed that Mike – at time “T” – would write a post – at SOT101 – to indicate that neurological impulse.
Mike
These are all, as it were, creature to creature relationships. But I presume that the infinite God has resources at his disposal that are, as it were, beyond the resources that human beings have at their disposal at this particular point.” – Paul Helm
br.d
Perhaps John Calvin stated the same sentiment this way:
-quote
But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 179)
br.d:
So as a Calvinist – who determined every microsecond of what your nature would be before you ever existed?
Mike
As a Libertarian who “created” every microsecond of what your nature would be before you ever existed?
br.d
Well – as a Semi-Libertarian and Semi-Determinist – I would have to say – God determined most of it
And using the term “MERE” permission – which John Calvin rejects – I would say God “MERELY” permits – or should I say requires – some things to be UP TO.me. And those things which he requires to be UP TO me – he holds me responsible for.
So answered that question
Can you answer it also?
br.d:
And we do know that Calvinists manifest a love-hate relationship with determinism.
Mike
As do Libertarians with indeterminism.
br.d
I can see how that would be true for a person who wants to hold to Exhaustive IN-determinism.
But I personally can’t see how that would be a rational position to take.
Mike
Maybe in the circles you travel, (- you don’t see Calvinists disagreeing with each other)
but I have heard many Calvinists talk about disagreeing with hyper-Calvinists, Amyraldians, Jansenists, reformed baptists disagree with presbyterians, etc. James White has had programs on all these view points.
br.d
Yes – I was watching a snippet from two Calvinists last night – on youtube.
I’ll have to see if I can recall who these two guys were.
But one of them defined HYPER Calvinism as what I would call HARD Determnism.
He said the HYPER Calvinist will assert there is no such thing as free will in any form.
Mike
I’ve explained this many times. LFW demands the freedom/ability to sin or not to sin, because this is not possible for God or the redeemed in heaven it can not be called LFW.
br.d
So now – assuming we agree on the definition of compatibilism – we can say you have freedom to sin that is compatible with whatsoever sins come to pass. Assuming the premise that whatsoever comes to pass is divinely determined.
So as such – assuming sin [X] is infallibly determined – we can conclude:
1) You are free to commit sin [X] because sin [X] is compatible with what is determined
2) You are NOT free to NOT commit sin [X] because not committing sin [X] is not compatible with what is determined
I would like to add one more parameter to that – which I call AVAILABILITY
3) Since you committing sin [X] is an infallibly determined event – then the event of you committing sin [X] must be made available to you.
4) Any alternative event would falsify that which is determined. Thus the event of you NOT committing sin [X] is not logically possible. And that which is not logically possible is not available to you.
br.d writes, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism (i.e. Exhaustive Divine Determinism) in which freedom is defined as Compatibilism.”
Actually, compatibilism says that a person’s freedom to choose is freedom to choose according to his desires (or nature) (a person cannot choose against his desires) and then that this freedom is compatible with God being sovereign. Universal Divine Causal Determinism says that God is sovereign over His creation and exercises His sovereignty absolutely. Universal Divine Causal Determinism in addressing God’s sovereignty may have implications for man’s freedom to choose, but its focus is on God’s sovereignty. Craig knows this and thinks Middle Knowledge resolves the conflict he sees between a person’s freedom to choose and God’s sovereignty.
Then, “Well – as a Semi-Libertarian and Semi-Determinist – I would have to say – God determined most of it”
LOL!!!. A sovereign God who is only sovereign over most, but not all, things.
Then, “assuming sin [X] is infallibly determined – we can conclude:
1) You are free to commit sin [X] because sin [X] is compatible with what is determined
2) You are NOT free to NOT commit sin [X] because not committing sin [X] is not compatible with what is determined ”
So, a person who has no faith in Christ, and is totally depraved, is free to sin because that outcome is determined by the depravity determined by a lack of faith. A person with faith is not free to not sin because of the continuing effects of the residual depravity determined by the earlier lack of faith.
br.d
Universal Divine Causal Determinism (i.e. Exhaustive Divine Determinism) in which freedom is defined as Compatibilism.”
rhutchin
Actually, compatibilism says that a person’s freedom to choose is freedom to choose according to his desires (or nature)
br.d
But only by those – who for some strange reason – can’t bring themselves to tell the WHOLE truth. :-]
William Lane Craig
-quote
So I take it that the compatibilist thinks that free will is compatible with my choice’s being causally determined by factors outside me. That’s why it’s called “compatibilism”!
My choice is causally determined but nonetheless free. I deny that, holding that a free choice cannot be causally determined by external factors.”
rhutchin
this freedom is compatible with God being sovereign.
br.d
AH!
There it is!
It always boils down to sovereignty!
And sovereignty for the Calvinist equate to determinism.
rhutchin
Universal Divine Causal Determinism says that God is sovereign over His creation and exercises His sovereignty absolutely
br.d
And in this statement the term absolutely equate to EXHAUSTIVE.
rhutchin
Universal Divine Causal Determinism in addressing God’s sovereignty may have implications for man’s freedom to choose,
br.d
Yes – its called NON-FREE freedom :-]
1) Adam is “free” to eat the fruit because eating the fruit is COMPATIBLE with what Calvin’s god determined Adam do
2) Adam is NOT FREE to NOT eat the fruit because NOT eating the fruit is NOT COMPATIBLE with what Calvin’s god determined Adam do.
Thus we have Calvin’s formula for divine permission
1) What is determined is permitted
2) What is not determined is NOT permitted
rhutchin
but its focus is on God’s sovereignty. Craig knows this and thinks Middle Knowledge resolves the conflict he sees between a person’s freedom to choose and God’s sovereignty.
br.d
For Cr. Craig – there is no conflict – because he doesn’t start with a premise from which it LOGICALLY follows – man is designed to function as a robot.
Well – as a Semi-Libertarian and Semi-Determinist – I would have to say – God determined most of it”
rhutchin
LOL!!!. A sovereign God who is only sovereign over most, but not all, things.
br.d
So here is where Mike is going to call you a HYPER Calvinist. :-]
So on Calvinism – assuming sin [X] is infallibly determined – we can conclude:
1) You are free to commit sin [X] because sin [X] is compatible with what is determined
2) You are NOT free to NOT commit sin [X] because not committing sin [X] is not compatible with what is determined ”
rhutchin
So, a person who has no faith in Christ, and is totally depraved,
br.d
Only if that is infallibly determined
rhutchin
That person is free to sin because that outcome is determined by the depravity determined by a lack of faith.
br.d
Let the SOT101 reader observe how rhutchin is unable or unwilling to tell the WHOLE TRUTH.
Here we have
Outcome determined by depravity – which is determined by lack of faith – which is determined by Calvin’s god.
Because in Calvinism ZERO% of anything is ever UP TO any person :-]
rhutchin
A person with faith is not free to not sin because of the continuing effects of the residual depravity determined by the earlier lack of faith.
br.d
The big question here is – what is keeping the Calvinist from telling the WHOLE TRUTH?
1) A person is free to have faith (only as Calvin’s god meticulously determined) – is not free to not sin – because
2) the continuing effects (only as Calvin’s god meticulously determined) of residual depravity (only as Calvin’s god meticulously determined)
3) which is determined by the earlier lack of faith (only as Calvin’s god meticulously determined)
And thus we have the TRUE “T” in the TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever UP TO any man.
welcome to Hotel Calvi-fornia
You can check out any time you like
But you can never be the determiner of what you like! :-]
br.d: So answered that question. Can you answer it also?
Semi-Libertarian and Semi-Determinist? Sounds like compatibilism to me. Maybe we’re getting somewhere. God determined “most” of it. Well I guess that’s the issue. You need something that is beyond God or separate from God to maintain LFW. I understand. My answer would be God also but as God is the originator of all existence there can be nothing beyond or separate from God. So I would explain it differently. Untimely, we will both have to appeal to mystery.
br.d: I can see how that would be true for a person who wants to hold to Exhaustive IN-determinism. But I personally can’t see how that would be a rational position to take.
But that is the implications of LFW. Perhaps you shouldn’t call it LFW if you are going to reject indeterminism.
br.d: But one of them defined HYPER Calvinism as what I would call HARD Determnism. He said the HYPER Calvinist will assert there is no such thing as free will in any form.
Yeah, so there you go, Calvinists disagreeing with other Calvinists. Hey, there were many Calvinists that vocally and visibly denounced Hernandez and Zachariades in their Free-Will Debate with Flowers and Pritchett.
br.d: So now – assuming we agree on the definition of compatibilism…
You should not assume this because your definition of compatibilism is hard determinism.
“As a view about the nature of free will, libertarianism is committed to both the existence of free will, and the incompatibility of free will with causal determinism. Consequently, it is to be contrasted with compatibilism—which holds that free will exists and is compatible with causal determinism, and hard incompatibilism—which shares with libertarianism the belief that free will is not compatible with determinism, but adds to this the belief that free will does not actually exist.” (Philosophical Disquisitions, The Disappearing Agent Objection to Free Will Libertarianism) [You see here the distinction between causal determinism and determinism.]
“Incompatibilism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free will dichotomy.” “Hard incompatibilism, like hard determinism, is a type of skepticism about free will. ‘Hard incompatibilism’ is a term coined by Derk Pereboom to designate the view that both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with having free will and moral responsibility.” (Wikipedia: Incompatibilism)
“Incompatibilists hold that we act freely in this sense only if determinism is false. Some say little more about what, besides indeterminism, free will requires. And, indeed, the task of providing an incompatibilist account is not an easy one. If the truth of determinism would preclude free will, it is far from obvious how indeterminism would help. … All theorists who accept a causal construal of agents’ control over what they do—and this includes most compatibilists as well as many incompatibilists—can accept that agents cause their free actions (or events internal to these actions).” (Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
“Other philosophers, compatibilists, deny that determinism has any such effect on freedom and moral responsibility. Freedom and determinism are compatible. They are sometimes called soft determinists, but this description has the unfortunate effect of officially conflating the problems of the truth of determinism (the first problem) and our appropriate response to it (the second problem). In fact some of these philosophers do not believe in determinism, and maybe not in the denial of determinism, but only believe that if it is true, this does not have the upshot that we are not free and responsible. …
“Compatibilists rest their argument on the claim that the sense of ‘free’ in which actions must be free in order to be morally responsible is not the sense that involves origination and is opposed to ‘caused’ or ‘determined’. We only need to be free in the sense in which ‘free’ is opposed to ‘compelled’ or ‘coerced’. We only need to be voluntary in this sense. All we need is voluntariness. (Think of what men in prison lack, or anyone who is subject to a serious addiction.) In G. E. Moore’s famous analysis, I am free in performing an action if I could have done otherwise, but this latter proposition is be understood as I would have done otherwise if I had chosen. So I could have done otherwise even if determinism is true. ….
“It has been argued, in this vein, that *libertarianism does not give us an explanation of human action. It gives us a blank where an explanation should be. And, one might add, it would take a very odd something to fill in the blank. The desired entity—whether called mind, soul, self, agent, or originator—must be sufficiently connected to the past to constitute a continuing locus of personal responsibility, but sufficiently disconnected so that its past does not determine its present. It must be sufficiently connected to the causal chain to be able to interrupt it, but sufficiently disconnected not to get trapped. It must be susceptible to being shaped and maybe governed by motives, threats, punishments, and desire, but not totally controlled by them.”” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy edited by Ted Honderich, Freedom and determinism page 292-293)
br.d
So I answered that question. Can you answer it also?
Mike
Semi-Libertarian and Semi-Determinist? Sounds like compatibilism to me. Maybe we’re getting somewhere.
br.d
Mike – how many times have I repeated this for you – and you are not getting somewhere?
Mike
God determined “most” of it. Well I guess that’s the issue. You need something that is beyond God or separate from God to maintain LFW.
Untimely, we will both have to appeal to mystery.
br.d
Yes!
And I would love it – if you and I didn’t have to go around the mountain 1000 more times – spending 1000 words – only to arrive back at this point one more time.
MIke – on br.d’s observations of other Calvinist statements
Yeah, so there you go, Calvinists disagreeing with other Calvinists. Hey, there were many Calvinists that vocally and visibly denounced Hernandez and Zachariades in their Free-Will Debate with Flowers and Pritchett.
br.d
Mike – I don’t see how we can’t observe a certain consistency within the general population of Calvinists.
Otherwise – any push back on Calvinism – simply resolves to push back on HYPER Calvinism or HARD Determinist Calvinism.
And certainly predominant Calvinists would let people like Dr. Craig know – he’s arguing against a straw-man.
THEN
br.d: So now – assuming we agree on the definition of compatibilism…
Mike
You should not assume this because your definition of compatibilism is hard determinism.
br.d
I think perhaps that is a straw you are trying to cling to.
Were it true – you would have to claim of of rhutchin also
And the Calvinist we were just talking about on youtube
And by the time we got done identifying all of the Calvinists, their population would represent the preponderance of Calvinists!
So far I only know one person who claims to be a Thomistic Calvinist :-]
Mike
-quote
“As a view about the nature of free will, libertarianism is committed to both the existence of free will, and the incompatibility of free will with causal determinism.
br.d
Correct – because they both can’t exist (at the exact same time).
And where the scope of Causal Determinism is Exhaustive – in such case – LFW is logically eradicated
Mike
Consequently, it is to be contrasted with compatibilism—which holds that free will exists and is compatible with causal determinism,
br.d
BINGO!!!
Now will you finally acknowledge my definition of “compatibilism” as freedom said to be compatible with Causal Determinism?
Mike
and HARD incompatibilism—which shares with libertarianism the belief that free will is not compatible with determinism, but adds to this the belief that free will does not actually exist.” (Philosophical Disquisitions, The Disappearing Agent Objection to Free Will Libertarianism) [You see here the distinction between causal determinism and determinism.]
br.d
No – I don’t see that in those statements at all.
What I see is a statement of 2 facts
1) Compatiblism is defined as free will that is compatible with Causal Determinism
2) “HARD Incompatibilism” is the position that free will does not actually exist.
How you derive from that a distinction between causal determinism and determinism – is a mystery to me.
Mike
“Incompatibilism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free will dichotomy.” “Hard incompatibilism, like hard determinism, is a type of skepticism about free will.
br.d
BINGO!!!!
Because in both cases free will is seen as non-existent.
And that is perhaps why Derk Pereboom writes a book titled “Living without Free will”
So how you can claim Dr. Craigs, Dr. Flowers, mine etc – observations of Calvinism are simply HARD determinism is also a mystery to me.
Mike
‘Hard incompatibilism’ is a term coined by Derk Pereboom to designate the view that both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with having free will and moral responsibility.” (Wikipedia: Incompatibilism)
br.d
Correct!
Mike
“Incompatibilists hold that we act freely in this sense only if determinism is false. Some say little more about what, besides indeterminism, free will requires. And, indeed, the task of providing an incompatibilist account is not an easy one.
br.d
VERY TRUE!
Mike
If the truth of determinism would preclude free will, it is far from obvious how indeterminism would help. … All theorists who accept a causal construal of agents’ control over what they do—and this includes most compatibilists as well as many incompatibilists—can accept that agents cause their free actions (or events internal to these actions).” (Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
br.d
So lets examine that under the light of logic
1) Theorists who accept a “causal construal of an agent having control over what he does”
2) And the acceptance that said agent caused his own free actions
And yet at the same time – they also acknowledge that those actions are themselves caused by factors outside of the person’s control.
Because actions caused outside of a person’s control is an inherent attribute of Causal Determinism.
And in Calvinism – you have a human brain in which impulses appear originating from an external mind.
And yet those impulses are construed as caused by the person?
How do you square that circle?
Mike
Other philosophers, compatibilists, deny that determinism has any such effect on freedom and moral responsibility. Freedom and determinism are compatible. They are sometimes called soft determinists,
br.d
And from my observations – I think that describes a lot of Calvinists.
And since they hold that free will exists – my view of them cannot possibly be that of HARD determinism
Mike
but this description has the unfortunate effect of officially conflating the problems of the truth of determinism (the first problem) and our appropriate response to it (the second problem).
br.d
Which as I have stated – is not a reflection of one’s Theology – but a reflection of one’s Psychology.
How does the human mind respond to a dilemma!
One common response is denial.
Mike
In fact some of these philosophers do not believe in determinism, and maybe not in the denial of determinism, but only believe that if it is true, this does not have the upshot that we are not free and responsible. …
br.d
1) do not believe in determinism
AND
2) maybe not in the denial of determinism
And isn’t this called *AS-IF* thinking?
Mike
“Compatibilists rest their argument on the claim that the SENSE of ‘free’ in which actions must be free in order to be morally responsible is not the sense that involves ORIGINATION and is opposed to ‘caused’ or ‘determined’. We only need to be free in the sense in which ‘free’ is opposed to ‘compelled’ or ‘coerced’.
br.d
Yes – that is called the “NO FORCE” argument.
But difficult for the Calvinist – because he has to argue that supernatural decrees have no force.
And end up with a “Force that forces without forcing”
Which is again – a form of double-speak
Mike
We only need to be voluntary in this sense. All we need is voluntariness.
br.d
AH!
But is that “voluntary” something that is real?
Or as Sam Harris would say – do you have the ILLUSION of “voluntary”?
How do you “volunteer” something that is not UP TO you to volunteer?
Can you “volunteer” the universe to anyone?
No – because Calvin’s god is the sole determiner of the universe.
Can you “volunteer” your will to anyone?
No – because Calvin’s god has already determined everything there is to determine about your will
Simple Math:
[X] minus 100% of [X] = ZERO% [X]
Calvin’s god determines 100% of [X]
You determine ZERO%
So what does that leave you to volunteer?
Mike
(Think of what men in prison lack, or anyone who is subject to a serious addiction.) In G. E. Moore’s famous analysis, I am free in performing an action if I could have done otherwise, but this latter proposition is be understood as I would have done otherwise if I had chosen. So I could have done otherwise even if determinism is true. ….
br.d
And Peter Van Inwagen points out that “Do Otherwise” on Determinism is predicated on a “Subjunctive Conditional”
IF it was determined that you would do otherwise – THEN you would do otherwise.
But in such case – is it really *YOU* that is doing otherwise?
Or is it the DETERMINER who determining you to doing otherwise?
How does this not resolve to a lot of *AS-IF* thinking?
Mike
“It has been argued, in this vein, that *libertarianism does not give us an explanation of human action. It gives us a blank where an explanation should be.
br.d
Correct – as we see with Robert Kanes “Self Forming Acts” theory
Mike
And, one might add, it would take a very odd something to fill in the blank.
br.d
Why would one call it “odd” if that is in fact what every human mind perceives as NORMATIVE?
Mike
The desired entity—whether called mind, soul, self, agent, or originator—must be sufficiently connected to the past to constitute a continuing locus of personal responsibility, but sufficiently disconnected so that its past does not determine its present. It must be sufficiently connected to the causal chain to be able to interrupt it, but sufficiently disconnected not to get trapped. It must be susceptible to being shaped and maybe governed by motives, threats, punishments, and desire, but not totally controlled by them.”” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy edited by Ted Honderich, Freedom and determinism page 292-293)
br.d
Nice quotes! :-]
br.d: Mike – I don’t see how we can’t observe a certain consistency within the general population of Calvinists.
We can but libertarians like to go for the low hanging fruit.
br.d: And certainly predominant Calvinists would let people like Dr. Craig know – he’s arguing against a straw-man.
Yes he is and so are most libertarians.
br.d: I think perhaps that is a straw you are trying to cling to.
So you are now telling me that you don’t say that compatibilism is hard determinism?
br.d: And by the time we got done identifying all of the Calvinists, their population would represent the preponderance of Calvinists!
You claim all the different libertarians as your own. Many Calvinists will admit to being Classical Theists—Classical theism is associated with the Augustine, Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.
br.d: How you derive from that a distinction between causal determinism and determinism – is a mystery to me.
It’s a waist of time for me to send you these quotes because you don’t read them carefully and you only see what you want to see. These are all from philosophical writings by experts and scholars in the field. But you feel free to disagree with these definitions.
br.d: So how you can claim Dr. Craigs, Dr. Flowers, mine etc – observations of Calvinism are simply HARD determinism is also a mystery to me.
Because all the philosophical text books say so! But if Craig and Flowers say different then the majority of philosophers and scholars, well they must be right!
br.d: So lets examine that under the light of logic
So you are implying majority of philosophers and scholars don’t use logic? That a big claim!
br.d: And from my observations – I think that describes a lot of Calvinists.And since they hold that free will exists – my view of them cannot possibly be that of HARD determinism
Right, so now are you backtracking?
br.d: And end up with a “Force that forces without forcing.” Which is again – a form of double-speak.
You mean like the Plantinga quote you sent me? “A” God knows, “Not A” God know? Actually—When did you stop beating your wife?—was not a very good analogy. I used it because it is an example of a silly a question (or question begging). A better analogy would be to ask why something is the way it is and receive the response: it just is because it is! This is a non-response with no meaning. Maybe you would call this double-speak but I call it philosopher-speak for “it’s a mystery”—which I’m fine with. Though you could compare this to “I am, who I am,” which because both refer to God there may be a connection. But then you are just admitting, like the “I am,” that God is a mystery and there really is no explanation for the apparent free will contradictory statements in scripture. And this explanation has a long and respected history in the life of the church.
br.d: Mike – I don’t see how we can’t observe a certain consistency within the general population of Calvinists.
Mike
We can but libertarians like to go for the low hanging fruit.
br.d
Good joke!
But that wouldn’t be me would it?
Remember how I called my view a kind of Semi-Libertarian-Determinist?
And certainly predominant Calvinists would let people like Dr. Craig know – he’s arguing against a straw-man.
Mike
Yes he is and so are most libertarians.
br.d
I am getting a kick out of these answer! :-]
Mike
So you are now telling me that you don’t say that compatibilism is hard determinism?
br.d
Cmmmon Mike – where do you come up with these things? :-]
Mike
You claim all the different libertarians as your own.
br.d
I’m supposed to respond to that with a logical response?
Mike
Many Calvinists will admit to being Classical Theists—Classical theism is associated with the Augustine, Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.
br.d
I’m not familiar enough with what would be called “classical theism”
So I’ll take your word for it.
And how you derive from that statement – a distinction between causal determinism and determinism – is a mystery to me.
MIke
It’s a waist of time for me to send you these quotes because you don’t read them carefully and you only see what you want to see. These are all from philosophical writings by experts and scholars in the field. But you feel free to disagree with these definitions.
br.d
Really?
I detailed it out for you.
I detailed the two points those two statements actually made
And neither of them drew a distinction between causal Determinism and determinism.
I’m not even sure anyone does?
And I was surprised to see you do it because from my recollection you’ve never done so.
Hard Determinism – as your quotes affirmed – is in fact the belief that free will does not exit.
Nowhere will you hear Dr. Craig, Dr. Flower, me etc – attributing that to Calvinists.
But I did hear that Calvinist on youtube the other day define a HYPER Calvinists as one who rejects free will.
But of course that would logically entail a rejection of compatibilism as well.
So how you can claim Dr. Craigs, Dr. Flowers, mine etc – observations of Calvinism are simply HARD determinism is also a mystery to me.
Mike
Because all the philosophical text books say so!
br.d
I think you’re just playing with me now.
Mike
But if Craig and Flowers say different then the majority of philosophers and scholars, well they must be right!
br.d
Now I know your just playing with me!
Mike
So you are implying majority of philosophers and scholars don’t use logic? That a big claim!
br.d
Ok this is getting childish and going nowhere.
Its time for me to pull the plug.
br.d
So you’ve acknowledged Calvin’s god’s nature is not determined
And somehow you don’t want to call what he has LFW
Mike
I’ve explained this many times. LFW demands the freedom/ability to sin or not to sin, because this is not possible for God or the redeemed in heaven it can not be called LFW.
br.d
You are saying you don’t believe it is possible for god to be free to not sin?
You’ve already acknowledged that during choice making – multiple options exist for god – available for him to choose from.
How do you square those two positions?
Mike – you had asked for a reference to Dr. Craig’s comment about how the concept of “agency” is questionable in Calvinism.
I’m re-reading “Four Views On Divine Providence” because I believe I read those comments from Dr. Craig there.
However, here is a quote from his web-site on this
-quote
4. Universal, Divine, Determinism nullifies human agency.
Since our choices are NOT UP TO US but are caused by God, human beings cannot be said to be REAL agents.
They are mere INSTRUMENTS by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone.
Of course, secondary causes retain all their properties and powers as intermediate causes, as the Reformed divines remind us, just as a stick retains its properties and powers which make it suitable for the purposes of the one who uses it. Reformed thinkers need not be occasionalists like Nicholas Malebranche, who held that God is the only cause there is.
But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action. Hence, it’s dubious that on divine determinism there really is more than one agent in the world, namely, God. This conclusion not only flies in the face of our knowledge of ourselves as agents but makes it inexplicable why God then treats us as agents, holding us responsible for what He caused us and used us to do.
Calvinist Thomas Chalmers
-quote
The will of god gives impulse to every desire. The will of man is an instrument in his hand. He turns it at his pleasure. (On Predestination)
John Calvin
-quote
we infer that God was the AUTHOR of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments
Calvinist A.A. Hodge
-quote
“Men and nations are the mere instruments (the axe, saw, rod) in the hand of God to do his will”
(Predestination)
br.d: I’m re-reading “Four Views On Divine Providence” because I believe I read those comments from Dr. Craig there.
Yeah, that’s a good book. Read it sometime ago. I should check it out again.
br.d: They are mere INSTRUMENTS by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone.
Isaiah 10:15
br.d:Dr. Craig’s comment about how the concept of “agency” is questionable in Calvinism…
His view requires one take equate compatibilisim with hard determinism.
Calvinist Thomas Chalmers…
Isaiah 10:15, Proverbs 21:1
John Calvin…
Acts 4:28
Calvinist A.A. Hodge…
Isaiah 10:15, Proverbs 21:1, Romans 13:1
Mike
Dr. Craig’s comment about how the concept of “agency” is questionable in Calvinism…
His view requires one equate compatibilisim with hard determinism.
br.d
Its a mystery to me how you get “freedom does not exist in any form” out Dr. Craig’s understanding of Calvinism
When Dr. Craig clearly states the Calvinist position as “Freedom” that is compatible with determinism.
In one case Freedom exists – and in the other case it doesn’t
br.d
And let me ask you a question concerning the EXHAUSTIVE nature of Determinism in Calvinism. The doctrine stipulates -quote “WHATSOEVER” comes to pass – is determined by infallible decree – at the foundation of the world.
What do you think that term “WHATSOEVER” means?
Mike
The issue is not what WHATSOEVER means it is with what DECREE means. Even Flowers agrees that God has an infallible decree.
br.d
The term WHATSOEVER functions as a qualifier.
As a qualifier – it represents the difference between the terms “SOME” and “ALL”
SOME people are elect for salvation
vs
ALL people are elect for salvation
SOME in this case functions as a qualifier – which asserts a doctrine of PARTICULAR election
ALL in this case functions as a qualifier – which asserts a doctrine of UNIVERSAL (i.e. Exhaustive) election.
The term WHATSOEVER specifically functions as a qualifier for Divine Determinism in Reformed theology.
It makes the scope of the decree Exhaustive.
Therefore I don’t see how it is logically possible to avoid Reformed Theology as Exhaustive Divine Determinism
And I don’t believe John Calvin would ever allow for any compromise.
As R.C. Sproul might like to state it: There is no such thing as a maverick molecule in Reformed Theology.
br.d writes, “Therefore I don’t see how it is logically possible to avoid Reformed Theology as Exhaustive Divine Determinism”
Given that God has a perfect foreknowledge of all future events, God’s decree is exhaustive and the future divinely determined. That is why people are promoting Open Theism or Open Future – to avoid the obvious.
br.d to Mike
Therefore I don’t see how it is logically possible to avoid Reformed Theology as Exhaustive Divine Determinism”
rhutchin
Given that God has a perfect foreknowledge of all future events, God’s decree is exhaustive and the future divinely determined. That is why people are promoting Open Theism or Open Future – to avoid the obvious.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – for conforming that it is you are persuaded – that determinism is in fact Exhaustive in Reformed theology
Your’s is a conclusion which Mike cannot bring himself to agree with.
And that is because Mike does acknowledge the logical implications.
And that is where you and Mike differ.
Mike acknowledges the logical implications and therefore rejects the premise
while you accept the premise but reject the logical implications
I can certainly sympathize with your argument. (I could take you down a rabbit hole and ask you how you define the word “elect” but let’s not go there.)
I know you won’t like this answer but… This is where you need to leave Calvin and look for philosophical answers in other church writings. Knowing that Calvin was versed in Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm and jewish philosophers like Philo you can apply certain philosophical theories that can be compatible with Calvin. The reason you can do this is because Calvin is “chained” to the scriptures. All his doctrine come from scripture. Like the ancient jews (and the medieval jews), he did not try to harmonize conflicting biblical passages on freedom of the will. Like the jews, his primary focus was on God’s all encompassing freedom and origination. You need to go to Aquinas and maybe Edwards and some modern Reformed philosophers who go beyond scripture to fill in the gaps. I mean, LFW’s main defenders are mostly modern philosophers—most are Molinists, some are Open Theists, only a few are true Arminians who confess foreseen faith—Roger Olson is the only Arminian scholar I aware of.
Ultimately the free will question is a philosophical one that can not be fully answered. Many ancient and modern scholars and philosophers admit this. Think about it. If God is timeless then His acts can not be conceived of, let alone measured by time-bound beings. God, as the only necessary being, can be the originator and determiner of all existence and at the same time humans, as contingent beings, can have limited freedom of the will.
Yes – I do agree – ultimately the free will question is a philosophical one that can not be fully answered.
Well said!
But there also going to be the same difficulty in trying to adopt Calvin with Aquinas for example.
From what I understand – Aquinas is a student of Augustine – just as Luther and Calvin are.
But Aquinas had a leaning towards Aristotle which Luther decried as filth that needed to be washed from theology.
As I say concerning Calvin – I see him as very savvy on the subject.
But I also find it interesting that he and Stephen Hawking – as determinists come to the same conclusion.
That they must go about their office *AS-IF* determinism is false.
I take note of Hawking’s mental prowess and observe how Calvin comes to the same conclusion.
I think Calvin all by himself is savvy enough – such that i don’t need to go outside of him in order to understand “CORE” Calvinism.
But then – as you know from the comments of Dr. Oliver Crisp – who states that in his research on the history of reformed theology – Jonathon Edwards brought about a -quote “Sea Change” . He believes there were Reformed thinkers who adopted a form of Semi-Determinism which incorporated Libertarian Freedom. He calls them “Deviant Calvinists”.
(see youtube Dr. Oliver Crisp on libertarian Calvinism and universalism – trinities 082) How he states
I think that is what Dr. Craig was referring too in the book “Four Views on Divine Providence” where he states that Reformed divines saw two streams of thought within the text of scripture. And they concluded both LFW and determinism exist – and that understanding how is a mystery.
But on Calvin’s handling of scripture – we must be careful to not be over confident in any person’s reading of scripture.
All human beings are subject to bias.
The reason Copernicus did not have his research on the solar system published until after his death is because the “Holy Fathers” and the infallible interpretation of scripture – would have seen him as a heritic and burned him to the stake.
Think about the Rorschach ink blot for a minute.
Why does one person see a rabbit and another person see their father in an ink blot?
Neither of them are really there – never the less the mind sees it.
The human mind interprets data based on internal neurological associations.
So there was a day in which it was unquestionable truth that the sun orbits around the earth.
And taking that as unquestionably true – and since scripture affirms what is true – then scriptural texts must be interpreted to affirm the sun orbits around the earth.
Similarly John Calvin holds as unquestionable truth – that all things without exception are determined in every part.
And when his mind looks at the ink-blot that is what he sees.
br.d writes, “John Calvin holds as unquestionable truth – that all things without exception are determined in every part.”
Of course, Calvin believed that God is omniscient and was omniscient regarding His creation before He created. Given that God is omniscient – thereby having a perfect knowledge of all future events, the world He created was determined down to the minutest detail (as you continually point out). Even Molina could not override the conclusion from omniscience, causing him to go back before God created and justify LFW on the basis of Middle Knowledge. Others, like the Open Theists and Brian, say that God does not know everything that will happen in the future and God’s ignorance of the future opens the door for people to make decisions that can be described with LFW.
Since God is omniscient, all things (from the creation on) without exception are determined in every part. Because God is sovereign, He determines all things regardless how He does it.
br.d
John Calvin holds as unquestionable truth – that all things without exception are determined in every part.”
rhutchin
Of course,……
br.d
And he also goes about his office *AS-IF* what he holds as unquestionable truth is FALSE
Calvinists are so blessed to have that! :-]
rhutchin
Calvin believed that God is omniscient and was omniscient regarding His creation before He created. Given that God is omniscient – thereby having a perfect knowledge of all future events, the world He created was determined down to the minutest detail (as you continually point out).
br.d
Well – there you go Mike – rhutchin is once again is clearly enunciating what is for you – HARD determinism – i.e. HYPER Calvinism.
rhutchin
Even Molina could not override the conclusion from omniscience, causing him to go back before God created and justify LFW on the basis of Middle Knowledge.
br.d
Which is knowledge of Post-Creation events – incorporating LFW attributes to the creature
Once again – Middle Knowledge is knowledge of what the creature would do – predicated on the premise that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature.
In contrast to that – divine knowledge for Calvin – is knowledge of what is decreed – and thus knowledge of what is solely and exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god – with ZERO% left undetermined.
rhutchin
Others, like the Open Theists and Brian, say that God does not know everything that will happen in the future and God’s ignorance of the future opens the door for people to make decisions that can be described with LFW.
br.d
I think perhaps Brian would correct you for using the term “ignorance” as a strawman.
It is not any compromise for a divine being to not be able to create a rock that is too heavy to lift – because that is a logical impossible.
I suspect Brian might say – there are some future events that God has made contingent – such that they are logically impossible to know.
If that is the case to call that “ignorance” is to fall into the same fallacious argument of the rock too heavy to lift.
rhutchin
Since God is omniscient, all things (from the creation on) without exception are determined in every part. Because God is sovereign, He determines all things regardless how He does it.
br.d
Well Mike where are you????
How come you don’t tell rhutchin – what he is enunciating is HYPER Calvinism – and HARD determinism?
How is it – I can simply repeat the concepts rhutchin clearly states – and I’m asserting HARD determinism – but he isn’t?
br.d writes, “And he also goes about his office *AS-IF* what he holds as unquestionable truth is FALSE”
Given that most Calvinists go by Calvin’s Institutes, and in those Institutes, Calvin takes the opposite position than whatever document contains the *AS-IF* language, I guess this is a false perception ordained for you.
Then, “Well – there you go Mike – rhutchin is once again is clearly enunciating what is for you – HARD determinism – i.e. HYPER Calvinism.”
LOL!!! The Doctrine of God’s omniscience is now bad.
Then, “Once again – Middle Knowledge is knowledge of what the creature would do – predicated on the premise that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature.”
And all this takes place in the mind of God before anyone was even born. If that makes LFW types happy, go for it.
Then, “In contrast to that – divine knowledge for Calvin – is knowledge of what is decreed – and thus knowledge of what is solely and exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god – with ZERO% left undetermined.”
This is God’s free knowledge of the one unique world He chooses to create so the act of creation is by God’s decree and 0% is left undetermined – God only created one world.
Then, “I suspect Brian might say – there are some future events that God has made contingent – such that they are logically impossible to know.”
“…logically impossible to know…” is another way to say “ignorant.”
br.d
“And he [John Calvin] also goes about his office *AS-IF* what he holds as unquestionable truth is FALSE”
rhutchin
Given that most Calvinists go by Calvin’s Institutes, and in those Institutes, Calvin takes the opposite position than whatever document contains the *AS-IF* language, I guess this is a false perception ordained for you.
br.d
Whatever document??
Oh that is funny!!
So now the Calvinist is pitting one of John Calvin’s “documents” against another in order to make TRUE = FALSE
In one document – Calvin’s *AS-IF* instructions are TRUE – and in another document they are FALSE
Well – there you go Mike – rhutchin is once again is clearly enunciating what is for you – HARD determinism – i.e. HYPER Calvinism.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! The Doctrine of God’s omniscience is now bad.
br.d
According to Mike – your declarations of Calvinism – are what he calls HYPER Calvinism – or HARD determinism.
rhutchin
And all this [Middle Knowledge] takes place in the mind of God before anyone was even born.
br.d
But again – it is Knowledge of Post Creation events
rhutchin
If that makes LFW types happy, go for it.
br.d
And if you are happy with the fact that – Calvin’s god doesn’t permit your brain any Epistiemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter – go for it. :-]
But then again – it wouldn’t be *YOU* that would be going for it – it would be Calvin’s god using you to “go for it” :-]
Then, “In contrast to that – divine knowledge for Calvin – is knowledge of what is decreed – and thus knowledge of what is solely and exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god – with ZERO% left undetermined.”
rhutchin
…logically impossible to know…” is another way to say “ignorant.”
br.d
And on that reasoning – logically impossible to lift – (i.e. a rock that is too large) is another way of saying NOT omnipotent
Repeating a fallacy – doesn’t make that fallacy magically go away! :-]
br.d writes, “rhutchin is trying to make knowledge of what the creature *WILL* do exactly the same as knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.”
Because God is omniscient, “will” and “would” are the same because people react to the talents and circumstances into which God places them regardless whether the circumstances are hypothetical (as with Middle Knowledge) or reality (as in the creation) – in each case, God has complete knowledge and nothing new happens.. Will and would are different for people because people don’t see the whole picture and unforeseen factors – new knowledge – can change future outcomes so that what would have happened under one set of circumstances because different under a different set of circumstances. Omniscience avoids that problem for God.
Then, ‘Where LFW exists – multiple choices are logically possible.”
The key term here is “logically.” Omniscience ignores the choices that are logically possible and identifies the actual choice made – and does so in every instance. The will cannot overrule omniscience because omniscience knows what the will chooses and why. There is no new information with omniscience, so no basis for different outcomes – outcomes are certain under omniscience and because their is no new information, factors that make outcomes necessary are also known so outcomes are also necessary.
Then, “And Calvin does not have any tolerance for what he calls “MERE” permission – which simply equates to LFW”
“Mere” permission identifies with God’s interest in outcomes, not His knowledge of those outcomes. It is God’s knowledge of outcomes that is said to void LFW – thus, the rise of Open Theism that denies God knowledge of all future outcomes. Molina sought to avoid this situation, but did not.
Then, “You are therefore FREE to be/do what is determined
But you are therefore NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than what is determined – because that freedom is not COMPATIBLE with what is determined.”
A person is not free to do otherwise than what is determined – even where multiple options are logically available – because the events God determines dictate the circumstances under which choices are made. As God has an omniscient knowledge of the circumstances under which choices would be made, God knows the choices that will be made (there is no difference between would and will to God).
Then, “And that is why Middle knowledge (As the Molinist understands it) is superfluous for the Calvinist.”
That’s because Calvinism concerns itself with the one, unique world that God creates and this is the same world that Molinism says exists in God’s Free Knowledge.
br.d
rhutchin is trying to make knowledge of what the creature *WILL* do exactly the same as knowledge of what the creature *WOULD* do.”
rhutchin
Because God is omniscient, “will” and “would” are the same because people react to the talents and circumstances into which God places them regardless whether the circumstances are hypothetical (as with Middle Knowledge) or reality (as in the creation) – in each case, God has complete knowledge and nothing new happens..
br.d
Your chasing your tail again – repeating yourself over and over *AS-IF* repeating something enough times will magically make it come true. :-]
As has been noted – a critical aspect of Middle Knowledge is – that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature – and therefore determined by the creature.
Where in Calvinism – what the creature WILL do is determined solely by Calvin’s god’s
In Calvinism ZER0% of anything is ever UP TO the creature.
Thus – the Calvinist brain can’t have even one single impulse that he can call his own :-]
So then as Calvin’s god has LFW – he has multiple options (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) which are logically possible from which to choose. Therefore where LFW exists – multiple choices are logically possible.
rhutchin
Omniscience ignores the choices that are logically possible and identifies the actual choice made – and does so in every instance.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin!
That is an excellent example of Calvinist thinking!!
Calvin’s god ignores choices that are logically possible – and identifies the actual choice made
Making it the case that some of his choices are not logically possible to make!
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
The will cannot overrule omniscience because omniscience knows what the will chooses and why.
br.d
Silly!
It doesn’t have to.
Middle knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience which “MERELY” permits the creature’s choice to be UP TO the creature
And Calvin does not have any tolerance for “MERE” permission – which for him – simply equates to LFW”
rhutchin
“Mere” permission identifies with God’s interest in outcomes, not His knowledge of those outcomes. It is God’s knowledge of outcomes that is said to void LFW – thus, the rise of Open Theism that denies God knowledge of all future outcomes. Molina sought to avoid this situation, but did not.
br.d
You’re doing a wonderful job of beating at the air! :-]
“MERE” permission is divine permission in which what the creature chooses is left UP TO the creature.
And Middle Knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience which logically entails no lack of omniscience.
Its just that simple
As an alternative to that – Calvinism’s freedom is defined as freedom that is COMPATIBLE with NOTHING UP TO the creature.
Thus on Compatibilism:
You are FREE to be/do what Calvin’s god determines
But you are NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than what Calvin’s god determines
Because that freedom is not COMPATIBLE with what is determined.”
rhutchin
A person is not free to do otherwise than what is determined – even where multiple options are logically available – because the events God determines dictate the circumstances under which choices are made.
br.d
Its fun to watch Calvinists recite their mantras over and over *AS-IF* reciting a mantras makes it come true :-]
rhutchin
As God has an omniscient knowledge of the circumstances under which choices would be made, God knows the choices that will be made (there is no difference between would and will to God).
br.d
Puppy dogs do love chasing their own tail don’t they! :-]
br.d writes, “As has been noted – a critical aspect of Middle Knowledge is – that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature – and therefore determined by the creature.”
A critical assumption by Molinism. Molinism creates the make-believe system where God gains knowledge only by learning what people do in circumstances that somehow escape His understanding. But like Craig says – Molinists don’t have to prove their assumptions; only put them out there.
Then, ‘Where in Calvinism – what the creature WILL do is determined solely by Calvin’s god’s”
This true in Molinism also. God creates the one world that Molinism says He does. It is a fully determined world derived from Middle Knowledge.
Then,”So then as Calvin’s god has LFW – he has multiple options (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) which are logically possible from which to choose. Therefore where LFW exists – multiple choices are logically possible.”
For God, all options are available; for people limited, but multiple options are logically possible with the final decision in line with their desires.
Then, “Calvin’s god ignores choices that are logically possible – and identifies the actual choice made Making it the case that some of his choices are not logically possible to make! ”
God’s omniscience ignores the logical options available to people and identifies the actual choice made – that is the nature of omniscience.
Then, “Middle knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience which “MERELY” permits the creature’s choice to be UP TO the creature”
LOL!!!. Nothing is ever left up to the person. The possible worlds that are said to exist are each conceived by God who puts people into different circumstances. The person’s choice is up to the creature because he reacts to the circumstances into which he is placed. Just because the decision is up to the person does not mean that God does not know the decision before the person makes it.
Then, ““MERE” permission is divine permission in which what the creature chooses is left UP TO the creature.”
No, Mere permission is where God is not involved in the decision process – the person is autonomous and not subject to God’s rule. If God must give divine permission for a decision to be made, then that divine permission is His decree that the person choose. The person then makes his decision in line with his desires and the decision is that which God knew before He created the world.
Then, “Middle Knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience which logically entails no lack of omniscience.”
LOL!!! God’s knowledge of the possible world’s He conceives in His mind under Middle Knowledge is certainly an omniscient knowledge.
Then, “As an alternative to that – Calvinism’s freedom is defined as freedom that is COMPATIBLE with NOTHING UP TO the creature.”
That is explained by Molinism as being derived from God’s Free Knowledge. Molina understood that Calvinism correctly understood the world God created so he developed a make-believe system that would explain how God attained His Free Knowledge.
Then, “Thus on Compatibilism:…”
To which Molinism agrees. br.d, obviously, never argues against the agreement between compatibilism and Molinsim.
br.r
As has been noted – a critical aspect of Middle Knowledge is – that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature – and therefore determined by the creature.”
rhutchin
A critical assumption by Molinism. Molinism creates the make-believe system where God gains knowledge only by learning what people do in circumstances that somehow escape His understanding. But like Craig says – Molinists don’t have to prove their assumptions; only put them out there.
br.d
Now you’re back to the “make-believe” business again
*AS-IF* Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern – is not “make-believe” :-]
You go about your office *AS-IF* your brain is “MERELY” permitted to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
And then – you tell yourself that is not what you are doing!
What a hoot! :-]
And as we’ve noted:
in Calvinism – what the creature WILL do is determined solely by Calvin’s god’s
rhutchin
This true in Molinism also. God creates the one world that Molinism says He does. It is a fully determined world derived from Middle Knowledge.
br.d
Puppy dogs do love to chase their tails.
*AS-IF* reciting a mantra is going to make it come true.
As already noted:
Molina’s god “MERELY” permits the creature’s choice to be UP TO the creature – while the circumstance surrounding that choice is solely UP TO Molina’s god.
That is why Molinism is classified as deterministic – and NOT classified as EXHAUSTIVE determinism.
Thus – it is considered a middle ground.
Now on Calvin’s god’s choice-making
Since Calvin’s god has LFW – he has multiple options (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) which are logically possible from which to choose. Therefore where LFW exists – multiple choices are logically possible.
rhutchin
For God, all options are available
br.d
In Calvinism – yes – because in Calvinist thinking – many things are both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Calvinism’s library of square-circles and married-bachelors.
That is how a Calvinist can say he doesn’t have LFW – while going about his office *AS-IF* his brain can make LFW choices between TRUE and FALSE
Its what you call MAKE-BELIEVE :-]
rhutchin
God’s omniscience ignores the logical options available to people and identifies the actual choice made – that is the nature of omniscience.
br.d
And thus you provide one more example of Calvinist thinking
Where Calvin’s god ignores choices that are logically possible – and identifies the actual choice made
Making it the case that some of his choices are not logically possible to make!
Its what you call MAKE-BELIEVE :-]
So on Molinism
Middle knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience which “MERELY” permits the creature’s choice to be UP TO the creature
rhutchin
LOL!!!. Nothing is ever left up to the person.
br.d
And while you assert that – you go about your office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitted your brain to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter. *AS-IF* Calvin’s god granted that epistemic functionality to be UP TO you.
Good luck with that! :-]
MERE” permission is divine permission in which what the creature chooses is left UP TO the creature.
That is why Calvin goes about his office *AS-IF* he rejects it – while going about his office *AS-IF* he doesn’t
Calvinist’s are so blessed to have a library of DOUBLE-THINK! :-]
rhutchin
No, Mere permission is where God is not involved in the decision process
br.d
Thank you for a good example of Calvinism’s less than honest language.
Here “not involved” – is cloaked language for “Did not determine”.
rhutchin
In “MERE” permission the person is autonomous and not subject to God’s rule.
br.d
Another good example of Calvinism’s less than honest language
Here “god’s rule” is cloaked language for – Calvin’s god determining every impulse that will come to pas within your brain
rhutchin
If God must give divine permission for a decision to be made, then that divine permission is His decree that the person choose.
br.d
And that’s why each Calvinist goes about his office *AS-IF* his brain has been given divine permission to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
The person then makes his decision in line with his desires and the decision is that which God knew before He created the world.
br.d
Another good example of Calvinism’s less than honest language.
Here “created the world” is cloaked language for Calvin’s god determining every impulse that will come to pas within your brain.
So in Molinism
Middle Knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience which logically entails no lack of omniscience.
rhutchin
LOL!!! God’s knowledge of the possible world’s He conceives in His mind under Middle Knowledge is certainly an omniscient knowledge.
br.d
Well – this is just another way for you to assert that Middle Knowledge is superfluous.
Nothing new here – move along – move along :-]
As an alternative to that – Calvinism’s freedom is defined as freedom that is COMPATIBLE with NOTHING UP TO the creature.
rhutchin
That is explained by Molinism as being derived from God’s Free Knowledge. Molina understood that Calvinism correctly understood the world God created so he developed a make-believe system that would explain how God attained His Free Knowledge.
br.d
And Molinism also has Middle Knowledge – as previously described
Then, “Thus on Compatibilism:…”
1) You are FREE to be/do what is determined – because that is compatible with what is determined
2) You are NOT free to be/do what is NOT determined – because that is NOT compatible with what is determined
3) What is NOT determined is NOT available to you.
Thus with Adam:
1) Adam was FREE to eat the fruit – because Adam eating the fruit was compatible with what was determined
2) Adam was NOT free to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit was NOT compatible with what was determined
3) NOT eating the fruit was NOT available to Adam – because NOT eating the fruit was NOT compatible with what was determined
rhutchin
To which Molinism agrees. br.d, obviously, never argues against the agreement between compatibilism and Molinsim.
br.d
My job is to clarify what is logically TRUE from what is logically FALSE
Your job – as a Calvinist – is to make [X] TRUE when you need it to be TRUE – and FALSE when you need it to be FALSE.
Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking
Its what you call MAKE-BELIEVE :-]
br.d writes, ‘And as we’ve noted: in Calvinism – what the creature WILL do is determined solely by Calvin’s god’s”
That’s the take away from God being omniscient.
Then, “That is why Molinism is classified as deterministic – and NOT classified as EXHAUSTIVE determinism. Thus – it is considered a middle ground.”
Only with regard to Middle Knowledge. The world that Molinism identifies with creation is exhaustively deterministic – the the result of Middle Knowledge. The possible of worlds conceived by God in His Middle Knowledge are exhaustive is leaving no events unaccounted for. When God selects one world to create, we can be certain that God’s knowledge pf that world is exhaustive (i.e., God has an omniscient knowledge of that world) so all events are exhautively determined 0 no event can exist in that world that is not determined.
Then, “Where Calvin’s god ignores choices that are logically possible – and identifies the actual choice made”
With respect to the choices made by people, Options are logically possible even with a zero chance of being chosen – given that the world is necessarily exhaustively determined consistent with God’s omniscience.
Then, ‘Thank you for a good example of Calvinism’s less than honest language. Here “not involved” – is cloaked language for “Did not determine”.
“Not involved” refers to the presumption made by LFW/ The Calvinist says that God is involved in every decision – every decision must be ordained by God before it can occur. In Molinism, the world God chooses to create is one in which He necessarily ordains (or determines) every outcome. Molina understood this and that is why he conceived of Middle Knowledge as a means to avoid God’s involvement in people’s decision making. Whether it does has not been demonstrated, but, as Craig says, it doesn’t have to be demonstrated only posited.
Then, ‘Here “created the world” is cloaked language for Calvin’s god determining every impulse that will come to pas within your brain.”
Nothing cloaked about it. The Calvinist says that God is omniscient, so necessarily, God determines “every impulse that will come to pas within your brain” the minute He creates the world.
br.d
‘And as we’ve noted: in Calvinism – what the creature WILL do is determined solely by Calvin’s god’s”
rhutchin
That’s the take away from God being omniscient.
br.d
For the Calvinist mind – in which Middle Knowledge is superfluous – yes!
That would be his take-away
But not for the Molinist.
And that is why Molinism is classified as deterministic – and NOT classified as EXHAUSTIVE determinism. Thus – it is considered a middle ground.
rhutchin
Only with regard to Middle Knowledge.
br.d
Which entails knowledge of what the creature would do – on the premise that what the creature would do is left UP TO the creature.
rhutchin
The world that Molinism identifies with creation is exhaustively deterministic
br.d
For the Calvinist mind – in which Middle Knowledge is superfluous – yes!
That would be his take-away
rhutchin
– the the result of Middle Knowledge.
br.d
Well – Middle knowledge does not have a “result” in the way you are thinking
It is no causal.
br.d
Which really doesn’t matter anyway – because those known events include parameters in which some choices are left UP TO the creature.
rhutchin
When God selects one world to create, we can be certain that God’s knowledge pf that world is exhaustive
br.d
Yes – as has been stated – Middle knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience – which facilitates exhaustive knowledge – but without having to determine human choices EXHAUSTIVELY.
rhutchin
(i.e., God has an omniscient knowledge of that world) so all events are exhautively determined 0 no event can exist in that world that is not determined.
br.d
Puppies do love to chase their tails don’t they!
You’ve gone around this mountain how many times now?
rhutchin
With respect to the choices made by people, Options are logically possible even with a zero chance of being chosen – given that the world is necessarily exhaustively determined consistent with God’s omniscience.
br.d
Now that statement will go down in the annuls of SOT101 as one of the most overt forms of DOUBLE-SPEAK!! :-]
Another example of how many things in Calvinism – are both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
That is how the Calvinist brain gets logically possible options in a world in which all PAP (Alternative Possibilities) is eradicated.
Then we have Calvinism’s less than honest language tactics
For example where Calvin’s god is said to be “not involved” – which serves as cloaked language for “Did not determine”.
rhutchin
“Not involved” refers to the presumption made by LFW
br.d
Now there is a wonderful example of psychological projection! :-]
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that God is involved in every decision
br.d
Correct
Where the term “involved” serves as cloaked language for “Determines 100% of every impulse that appears in the Calvinist’s brain.”
That’s why its less than honest language.
rhutchin
– every decision must be ordained by God before it can occur.
br.d
Here the term “ordained” serves as a cloaked language for “AUTHORS by infallible decree – every impulse which will appear in your brain”
And that is why the Calvinist has no epistemic function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
In order for the Calvinist brain to discern TRUE from FALSE – would require Calvin’s god “MERELY” permit it
Which means Calvin’s god is not “involved” (i.e.not exhaustively determining every impulse)
rhutchin
In Molinism, the world God chooses to create is one in which He necessarily ordains (or determines) every outcome. Molina understood this and that is why he conceived of Middle Knowledge as a means to avoid God’s involvement in people’s decision making. Whether it does has not been demonstrated, but, as Craig says, it doesn’t have to be demonstrated only posited.
br.d
Puppies do love to chase their tails don’t they!
You’ve gone around this mountain how many times now?
And then there is Calvinism’s cloaked language where Calvin’s god’s determinations are said to MERELY encompass “created the world”
Here “created the world” is cloaked language for Calvin’s god determining every impulse that will come to pass within your brain.
rhutchin
Nothing cloaked about it.
br.d
Well then you can just simply come right out and say it now can’t you!
Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will appear in your brain.
An external mind determines your brain’s every perception of TRUE and FALSE
He decrees you to have FALSE perceptions which are your brain is infallibly decreed to perceive as TRUE
No ability to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE one – since doing so would falsify an infallible decree.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that!! 😀
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that God is omniscient, so necessarily, God determines “every impulse that will come to pas within your brain” the minute He creates the world.
br.d
And you can also easily declare what logically follows from that.
That since not one impulse which appears in your brain is UP TO you (which you’ve already affirmed).
Then Calvin’s god does not “MERELY” permit your brain to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Your brains every perception is determined by an external mind – who decrees you to have FALSE perceptions.
And everyone knows human discernment is totally reliant upon perception.
Having brains that are not permitted the epistemic function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter!
Makes a person just want to run right out and get that Calvinist blessing! :-]
br.d writes, ‘Middle knowledge does not have a “result” in the way you are thinking It is no causal.”
Under Middle Knowledge, God conceives of all possible worlds that He could create. In each of those worlds, every event is determined by the circumstances that make that world unique from all other possible worlds. It is not LFW that changes the world, but the changed circumstances to which the person reacts that result in the change in choice by the person. Molinists like to think that they expressed LFW in the mind of God before creation and that the world God created is the accumulation of all LFW choices. Nonetheless, the world God chose to create is exhaustively determined as Calvinists note.
Then, “Yes – as has been stated – Middle knowledge serves as a part of divine omniscience – which facilitates exhaustive knowledge – but without having to determine human choices EXHAUSTIVELY.”
Yet, each of the possible worlds God conceives in His mind is each exhaustively determined in every respect. If not, then the world God chose to create would not be exhaustively determined and God would not be omniscient. If each of those possible worlds were not exhaustively determined, then God could not compare one to another to choose one world that meets His purpose.
Then, “For example where Calvin’s god is said to be “not involved” – which serves as cloaked language for “Did not determine”. ”
It is the LFW who requires that God not be involved so that a person can be autonomous and able to choose without God knowing what he will choose so that God could not determine the outcome. Of course, this situation does not exist in the world God created but is claimed to exist by Molinists in the possible worlds God conceived in His mind under Middle Knowledge.
Then, “Here the term “ordained” serves as a cloaked language for “AUTHORS by infallible decree – every impulse which will appear in your brain””
The Molinist says the same of God’s Free Knowledge of the world He chooses to create.
br.d writes, “But that is not the case for the Molinist – because for Molina there are things that are left UP TO the creature during the course of his life.”
In other words, God’s Middle Knowledge is fuzzy and God really doesn’t know all possible worlds in the true sense of knowing with perfect understanding. So, Mplinists have to ratchet down what God can know about possible worlds to make their system work. Thus, God chooses a world to create based on His best guess at what that will entail.
br.d
But that is not the case for the Molinist – because for Molina there are things that are left UP TO the creature during the course of his life.”
rhuchin
In other words, God’s Middle Knowledge is fuzzy and God really doesn’t know all possible worlds in the true sense of knowing with perfect understanding.
br.d
Remember – Middle knowledge is THEORETICAL knowledge
rhutchin
So, Mplinists have to ratchet down what God can know about possible worlds to make their system work. Thus, God chooses a world to create based on His best guess at what that will entail.
br.d
And you take that position – because – as as a Calvinist divine knowledge is the consequence of a decree.
Knowledge therefore equates to EXHAUSTIVE Determinism
And anything that seeks to compromise EXHAUSTIVE determinism is quite naturally going to be viewed by a Calvinist as a “ratcheted down” position.
But this is also where the Calvinist Rocking horse comes into play.
The Calvinist’s love-hate relationship with EXHAUSTIVE determinism
He can be observed making one or two occasional explicit claims affirming it – like we see here.
Then he can be observed spending the other 99% of his time trying to manufacture subtle word games to implicitly deny it.
Like calling man “self-determining”
What a hoot! :-]
br.d writes, “One does not have to be a Molinist to recognize the genius of Middle knowledge.”
Genius? What genius? Molina posited God’s comprehensive knowledge of all possible outcomes prior to His choice of the world that He would create. Everyone agrees that God had such knowledge. The issue has always been the one world that God created and attested by Molina. That world is determined fully, as Molina agreed, and that world is the expression of God’s decree and allows for only one particular outcome – thus, there can be no LFW in the world God created.
Molinists claim that Middle Knowledge is where LFW is expressed. Too bad, no one has demonstrated that to be the case. But so what? The world that God created under the Molinist scheme is a world in which every event is determined and this is the world that Calvinism describes and everyone, even Molinists, get so exercised over.
br.d
“One does not have to be a Molinist to recognize the genius of Middle knowledge.”
rhutchin
Genius? What genius?
br.d
Oh that’s right – I forgot – you’ve always postured as the smartest person in the world.
Your just waiting for Dr. Craig to notice you – so you can correct all of his many errors! 😀
How could I forget that!!
rhutchin
Molina posited God’s comprehensive knowledge of all possible outcomes prior to His choice of the world that He would create. Everyone agrees that God had such knowledge. The issue has always been the one world that God created and attested by Molina. That world is determined fully, as Molina agreed,
br.d
Your simply showing here that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If Molina’s understanding was what you say it is – then Molinism is simply another strain of Calvinism- and there is no Molinist in history or who exists today who is smart enough to know it..
Another sign of your divine knowledge of everyone and every thing?
rhutchin
and that world is the expression of God’s decree and allows for only one particular outcome – thus, there can be no LFW in the world God created.
br.d
Well – you just lost Molina – because as far as he is concerned – there is LFW in the world.
rhutchin
Molinists claim that Middle Knowledge is where LFW is expressed.
br.d
Please provide a quote to that effect.
I doubt you’ve ever read such a thing from a Molinist author
Just one more MAGICAL piece of knowledge? :-]
rhutchin
the world that God created under the Molinist scheme is a world in which every event is determined
br.d
Another piece of MAGICAL knowledge? :-]
Now you have something you can correct every Molinist about.
I think you should get right out there – right now – and do it right away
Show them all how right you always are – and how that makes them ALWAYS wrong.
In the mean time – I won’t hold my breath :-]
br.d: “One does not have to be a Molinist to recognize the genius of Middle knowledge.”
rhutchin “Genius? What genius?”
br.d: “Oh that’s right – I forgot ”
LOL!!!
br.d: “Then Molinism is simply another strain of Calvinism- ”
Any Molinist knows that God’s decision to create one world is based on His middle knowledge of all possible worlds. Even Calvinists acknowledge as much concerning God’s knowledge. Molinism assumes much about God’s middle knowledge that it has not shown to be true – but middle knowledge is still the basis for God to decide the world He chooses to create. Molinism is a pre-creation theology that tells us how God decides what world to create; Calvinism is a post-creation theology that explains the world God chose to create.
br.d: “Well – you just lost Molina – because as far as he is concerned – there is LFW in the world.”
In the pre-creation possible worlds. Once God creates a world, there is no LFW because all has been determined as all other possible worlds become moot.
rhutchin: “Molinists claim that Middle Knowledge is where LFW is expressed.”
br.d: “Just one more MAGICAL piece of knowledge? :-]”
rhutchin: “the world that God created under the Molinist scheme is a world in which every event is determined”
br.d: “Another piece of MAGICAL knowledge? :-]”
LOL!!!!
br.d
“One does not have to be a Molinist to recognize the genius of Middle knowledge.”
rhutchin
“Genius? What genius?”
br.d:
“Oh that’s right – I forgot
Your always so superior to everyone else
How could I forget! :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!!
br.d:
If what you say is true – then Molinism is simply another strain of Calvinism and every Molinist in history past and present is simply not smart enough to know it.
rhutchin
Any Molinist knows that God’s decision to create one world is based on His middle knowledge of all possible worlds. Even Calvinists acknowledge as much concerning God’s knowledge.
br.d
FALSE
Middle Knowledge is divine knowledge of what a person using Libertarian Freedom *WOULD* do in any circumstance.
Based on the premise that what the creature *WOULD* do – is UP TO the creature to determine.
No such premise exists in Calvinism.
Calvin’s god determines 100% of what the creature *WILL* be/do – as part of his conception of the creature.
Therefore in Calvinism – there is no such thing as knowing what the creature *WOULD* do – because Calvin’s god at no point ever leaves ANYTHING UP TO the creature.
In Calvinism there is no no such thing as a creature doing what “IT” would do.
As the WMC states:
-quote
God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which *WOULD* come to pass upon such conditions.
And that is why “PURE” Calvinists reject Molinism and reject Middle Knowledge – and see it as a compromise of EXHAUSTIVE Determinism.
Calvin’s god leaves absolutely ZERO% of anything UP TO any man.
So the notion of Calvin’s god entertaining what a Libertarian Free creature *WOULD* do is antithetical to EXHAUSTIVE Determinism.
rhutchin
Molinism assumes much about God’s middle knowledge that it has not shown to be true
br.d
This coming from a brain in which every perception which comes to pass is determined by an external mind – who does not permit that brain the LIBERTY of choosing TRUE from FALSE on any matter. And thus permits no Epistemic function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter. :-]
AH!
But you are following John Calvin’s instructions here
Going about your office *AS-IF* your every perception of TRUE/FALSE are not determined in every part by an external mind.
*AS-IF* your mind has been granted the LIBERTARIAN function of choosing TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
– but middle knowledge is still the basis for God to decide the world He chooses to create.
br.d
Not in Calvinism – see LOGICAL explanation above
rhutchin
Molinism is a pre-creation theology that tells us how God decides what world to create; Calvinism is a post-creation theology that explains the world God chose to create.
br.d
More precisely – in Calvinism – we have a world in which the slightest vibration of every atomic particle is MOVED by an infallible hand.
And since nature cannot make any movement occur infallibly – it LOGICALLY follows – there is no such thing as a Naturally Occurring event in Calvinism.
rhutchin
Once God creates a world, there is no LFW because all has been determined as all other possible worlds become moot.
br.d
Yes – for Calvin
No – for Molina
In Calvinism there is no such thing as “MERE” permission – because “MERE” permission LOGICALLY entails LFW.
In Molinism “MERE” permission exists.
Kirk R. MacGregor – (expert on Luis de Molina)
-quote
Molina affirms that humans possess LIBERTARIAN freedom after the Fall.
-quote
Molina asserted that a God who can infallibly bring about the salvation or condemnation of every individual without compromising their LIBERTARIAN freedom was more sovereign than a God who can only bring about their eternal destinies if they lack
LIBERTARIAN freedom…..
Sorry rhutchin
Trying to make Molinism APPEAR after your image – isn’t going to work
I suggest you stick with trying to make Calvinism APPEAR after your image :-]
br.d writes, “Kirk R. MacGregor – (expert on Luis de Molina)
-quote- Molina affirms that humans possess LIBERTARIAN freedom after the Fall.
-quote-Molina asserted that a God who can infallibly bring about the salvation or condemnation of every individual without compromising their LIBERTARIAN freedom was more sovereign than a God who can only bring about their eternal destinies if they lack
LIBERTARIAN freedom…..”
Molinism places Middle Knowledge between God’s Natural Knowledge and Free Knowledge where God’s free knowledge encompasses Hid decision on the one world He decides to create and God chooses a world to create from His Middle Knowledge. Whatever “Libertarian Freedom” Molina, and Molinists, supposed to exist could only occur in His Middle Knowledge – whether this is really Libertarian Freedom is always by assumption and never demonstrated by Molinists.
WLC pretends that Middle Knowledge still rules – that God does not yet have complete Free Knowledge – so he views man’s actions AS IF God only has Middles Knowledge and had no, or limited, Free Knowledge. However, Molina was clear that God created the world on the basis of His Middle Knowledge and the world He created was an unique world distinct from all other possible worlds. Some waffle on this point supposing that God really did not understand all the possible worlds that He could create and had a fuzzy understanding of those worlds – so God only had a partial understanding of all possible worlds. That goes counter to Molina’s claim about Middle Knowledge and reduces God’s decision to create a world to a guess about what that world would entail necessitating constant tinkering by God to get the results He wanted.
Molinism is still a confused theological system that needs a lot of work to explain how it might work – how it preserves Libertarian Freedom in the midst of God’s sovereignty.
rhutchin
Molinism places Middle Knowledge between God’s Natural Knowledge and Free Knowledge where God’s free knowledge encompasses Hid decision on the one world He decides to create and God chooses a world to create from His Middle Knowledge.
br.d
Which is one of the places where Molinism is rejected by “PURE” Calvinism
I refer you to the quote I provided from the WMC – where it rejects the proposition that knowledge of what *WOULD* be the case with said conditions – is used for decision making of the creative decrees.
rhutchin
Whatever “Libertarian Freedom” Molina, and Molinists, supposed to exist could only occur in His Middle Knowledge – whether this is really Libertarian Freedom is always by assumption and never demonstrated by Molinists.
br.d
Well – you’ve made a claim here
But where is the LOGICAL evidence to show it must be true?
Otherwise – your just SUPERIMPOSING your own thinking onto everyone else.
That is called psychological projection. :-]
rhutchin
WLC PRETENDS that Middle Knowledge still rules – that God does not yet have complete Free Knowledge –
br.d
Another claim!
You and Mike are on the same page for sure!
All sorts of claims which the mind is conditioned to AUTO-MAGICALLY believe
The good news is – SOT101 readers get to observe that as a psychological requirement for the belief system
rhutchin
he views man’s actions AS IF God only has Middles Knowledge and had no, or limited, Free Knowledge.
br.d
Hardly!
Since he affirms that Molinism is heavily deterministic!
Where do you come up with these things?
rhutchin
However, Molina was clear that God created the world on the basis of His Middle Knowledge and the world He created was an unique world distinct from all other possible worlds.
br.d
And he also includes the function of Libertarian Freedom – for man – during the course of man’s lifetime.
And in order to have that – along with determinism – LOGICALLY requires both.
And in such case – what you end up with is SEMI-determinism
Rather than EXHAUSTIVE determinism – as found in Calvin
So what Molina is rejecting is Calvin’s doctrine of EXHAUSTIVE determinism
Molinism in the process – becomes more deterministic than other positions.
But that determinism is not EXHAUSTIVE
Ironically enough – EXHAUSTIVE determinism is in fact what every Calvinist is secretly attempting to escape :-]
Your posts – and Mike’s posts – show that very clearly.
rhutchin
Some waffle on this point supposing that God really did not understand all the possible worlds that He could create and had a fuzzy understanding of those worlds – so God only had a partial understanding of all possible worlds.
br.d
Who knows who the “some” are that you are referring too??
Is this another example of MAGICAL knowledge that only you have? :-]
rhutchin
That goes counter to Molina’s claim about Middle Knowledge and reduces God’s decision to create a world to a guess about what that world would entail necessitating constant tinkering by God to get the results He wanted.
br.d
Means nothing to me
Anyone can believe any crazy thing they want
But – I must say – Molnists have a tendency to be above average when it comes to thinking LOGICALLY.
So I suspect – if they could speak for themselves – rather than you speaking for them – we may find this claim collapses.
rhutchin
Molinism is still a confused theological system that needs a lot of work to explain how it might work – how it preserves Libertarian Freedom in the midst of God’s sovereignty.
br.d
Well – let us take a look in the mirror.
Calvinist’s hold to a belief system – the core SACRED DIVINE proposition of which – is that a THEOS determines all things without exception in every part.
And John Calvin instructs his disciples to “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
And this is in fact what every Calvinist I’ve ever met does – while trying to convince me that he doesn’t.
Thus he goes about his day speaking and thinking *AS-IF* the most SACRED DIVINE truth in the universe is FALSE
And then that Calvinist looks at a Molinist and calls him confused???
What a hoot!! :-]
rhutchin: “Whatever “Libertarian Freedom” Molina, and Molinists, supposed to exist could only occur in His Middle Knowledge – whether this is really Libertarian Freedom is always by assumption and never demonstrated by Molinists.”
br.d{ “But where is the LOGICAL evidence to show it must be true?”
It’s the Molinist claim for which there is no evidence that it must be true – even you cannot cite such evidence. So, maybe a Molinist will flesh this out in the future.
Then, “Otherwise – your just SUPERIMPOSING your own thinking onto everyone else.”
LOL!!! I say that Molinists have not proven their claims about Middle Knowledge and br.d, rather than offering a reference to show that they actually have done so, accuses me of imposing my thinking on them. All I did was note what they have not done.
rhutchin
It’s the Molinist claim for which there is no evidence that it must be true – even you cannot cite such evidence. So, maybe a Molinist will flesh this out in the future.
br.d
Once again around the mulberry bush! :-]
William Lane Craig
-quote
Molinists have merely to provide a Biblically faithful theory or model exhibiting the compatibility of God’s providence with libertarian free will……According to the model, God actually does have such knowledge; but the model itself is put forward as an undercutting defeater [of the determinist view], as a theory which is epistemically possible.
The Molinist will be dialectically successful vis à vis incompatibility claims if he shows that for all we know, God’s sovereign decrees are guided by counterfactuals concerning human free decisions which are true and known by God prior to His creative decree. Therefore, the burden rests on the detractor of Molinism to show why this theory is not epistemically an option.
The Molinist theory of providence must be judged as a whole in terms of its philosophical coherence, explanatory power, theological fecundity, and so forth. It is a non-starter for its detractors to point out that Molinists have not proven the postulates of the theory to be true. Thus, even though there are in this case very good reasons to think that its key postulate is true, the Molinist bears no initial burden to prove this postulate in order to commend his theory as the best account of divine providence available.
So yes
The way your mind goes about waving off Dr. Craig’s answer – is by simply by replacing Dr. Craig’s understanding of the subject with your own. And what is consistently observed…..is the process of SUPERIMPOSING your own thinking onto everyone else.
quoting Craig, “The Molinist will be dialectically successful vis à vis incompatibility claims if he shows that for all we know, God’s sovereign decrees are guided by counterfactuals concerning human free decisions which are true and known by God prior to His creative decree. Therefore, the burden rests on the detractor of Molinism to show why this theory is not epistemically an option.”
I had written, “Whatever “Libertarian Freedom” Molina, and Molinists, supposed to exist could only occur in His Middle Knowledge – whether this is really Libertarian Freedom is always by assumption and never demonstrated by Molinists.” In the above, we read, “…for all we know, God’s sovereign decrees are guided by counterfactuals concerning human free decisions…” If that is not an unproven assumption, I don’t know what is. So, Craig says that Maolinists can make all the assumptions they want but do not have to prove them, so long as this theory is epistemically an option.” Molinists assume “Libertarian Freedom” is the basis for God’s Middle Knowledge but do not have to prove it because Molinism is just an option. My point was that the Molinists have to go beyond the “just an option” stage.
Rather than, “The Molinist theory…”, Craig should refer to “The Molinist hypothesis…” because it rests on a “for all we know” argument whose assumptions are unproven – as Craig concedes.
rhutchin
Rather than, “The Molinist theory…”, Craig should refer to “The Molinist hypothesis…” because it rests on a “for all we know” argument whose assumptions are unproven – as Craig concedes.
br.d
And what logic concedes for you is:
1) An external mind decrees your brain to have a subset of INFALLIBLY decreed FALSE perceptions
2) Which if you were to discern as FALSE – would falsify the INFALLIBLE decree which made them RENDERED-CERTAIN in your brain.
3) Consequently – your brain is not permitted to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE one at pain of falsifying an INFALLIBLE decree.
4) And since the human epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter is totally predicated on perception it LOGICALLY follows
5) No Calvinist brain has the epistemic ability to know whether their belief system is TRUE or FALSE.
And that’s one of the reasons Calvinists follow John Calvin’s instructions – going about their office *AS-IF* their doctrine is FALSE.
I’ll bet Dr. Craig feels blessed to know he doesn’t have to concede that! ;-D
BR.D, are you saying, as RHUTCHIN implies, that God chooses His nature? Not only does this invalidate the Euthyphro Dilemma Response but it is completely nonsensical. If you believe that God’s will is compatible with His nature then you end up arguing with yourself!
So once again – you end up with a god whose will and mind are determined by factors outside of his control
In your case – antecedent causal factors which determine his nature
Which in turn determines his will and mind
And thus you end up with a god who has no epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Because every perception of what TRUE is – and what FALSE is – are determined by his nature – which is determined by factors outside of his control.
And Calvin’s god does not have multiple options from which to choose during choice making
Because Determinism only allows for ONE SINGLE ALREADY DETERMINED outcome.
Interesting how that looks like a god made after the image of a human determinist. :-]
There are no factors outside of his control that are being posited—just the opposite. Just as God is the unmoved mover He is the unwilled willer : )
The question is not an issue of Calvinism, it’s an issue of logic and your logic is flawed. The will and the nature do not work at odds with each other—they are compatible as you have agreed. God’s will and nature are synonymous—this is why the Euthyphro Response works.
You can criticize the logic of Calvinism all day but if your own view is equally illogical then you are no farther ahead!
MIke
There are no factors outside of his control that are being posited—just the opposite.
br.d
Well then – that rules out determinism.
There was a time in which would tell a Calvinist he must at some point make up his mind.
He can’t have [A] and [NOT A] at the same time.
But then I discovered that holding [A] = [NOT A] is part of his belief system.
And it is futile to expect him to thinking rationally.
MIke
Just as God is the unmoved mover He is the unwilled willer : )
br.d
So once again – do you end up with an [X] that is a [NON-X] ?
Mike
The question is not an issue of Calvinism, it’s an issue of logic and your logic is flawed.
br.d
Actually it is a question in regard to the self-refuting nature of determinism.
And since Calvinism is predicated on determinism – then it is an issue of Calvinism.
And BTW – a claim (that my logic is flawed) remains a claim – until it is shown how it is actually the case
Mike
The will and the nature do not work at odds with each other—they are compatible as you have agreed.
God’s will and nature are synonymous—
br.d
So you agree with my logic.
So far so good
Mike
this is why the Euthyphro Response works.
br.d
Now you are back to appealing to an argument which you at one point affirmed (with Dr. Craig) a false dilemma – and therefore a false argument. But once again you have flipped and are calling it a TRUE argument
So appealing to a FALSE argument is a strategy for showing how my logic is flawed
How is that not a case of reverse attribution? :-]
Mike
You can criticize the logic of Calvinism all day but if your own view is equally illogical then you are no farther ahead!
br.d
Well any logical person would want to show the futility of thinking that is self-refuting.
But what makes Calvinism dangerous is the degree of intellectual disohnesty built into its language
And the scripture says – “In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird”
My job – is to alert the bird – so that it can see the net! :-]
It is impossible to argue logic with someone who can only see the flaws in others and not in themselves. See Matthew 7:5. You’re the one who is obsessed with determinism and its implications, and is blind to the implications and self-refuting nature of indeterminism. I’ve stated your flawed logic but you refuse to see it. Saying that God chooses His nature but also “is” His nature is A = Not A. And I guess you disagree with Kalam as in your view that gives you X = Non-X.
Your reasoning concerning the Euthyphro Response is unintelligible. Somehow when Craig says it is a false dilemma and explains why it makes sense, but when I do it using the same words it doesn’t make sense.
And from now on, when you quote van Inwagen I’m just going to counter with: “But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.” – Peter van Inwagen, The Journal of Ethics, How to Think about the Problem of Free Will
And, I see a lot of quotes from Calvin but I don’t see any references. I like to check on the context of quotes. What is the reference for the AS-IS quote?
Mike
It is impossible to argue logic with someone who can only see the flaws in others and not in themselves.
br.d
That is in fact why logic doesn’t work for Calvinists :-]
Mike
See Matthew 7:5. You’re the one who is obsessed with determinism and its implications, and is blind to the implications and self-refuting nature of indeterminism.
br.d
Here once again you make a claim that is bound to fail.
1) “Core” Calvinism is predicated on EXHAUSTIVE Determinism – where 100% of whatsoever comes to pass within creation – is determined before creation.
2)
You will not find any statements from me asserting EXHAUSTIVE IN-determinism.
Thus your claim – which was bound to fail – does so.
But we know the Calvinist holds [X] = TRUE *AS-IF* [X] = FALSE
So the Calvinist is going to hold the EXHAUSTIVE nature of determinism as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Mike
I’ve stated your flawed logic but you refuse to see it.
br.d
What you’ve stated is a claim
A claim remains as nothing more than a claim – until it can be shown to be true.
You attempted to use a FALSE argument to show my logic as flawed.
What does logic tell you about that strategy?
Mike
Saying that God chooses His nature but also “is” His nature is A = Not A. And I guess you disagree with Kalam as in your view that gives you X = Non-X.
br.d
Is this another case of reverse attribution?
It is the Calvinist thinking – in which he treats [A] *AS-IF* [NOT A]
Why attribute that to me?
Mike
Your reasoning concerning the Euthyphro Response is unintelligible. Somehow when Craig says it is a false dilemma and explains why it makes sense, but when I do it using the same words it doesn’t make sense.
br.d
What you appear to be double-minded on – is your attempted usage of a FALSE argument.
You want to claim it as a FALSE argument – and then later treat it *AS-IF* it is a TRUE argument – in order to show that someone else’s logic is flawed. And you don’t see that strategy as self refuting.
Mike
And from now on, when you quote van Inwagen I’m just going to counter with: “But if free will is incompatible both with determinism and indeterminism, the concept ‘free will’ is incoherent, and the thing free will does not exist.” – Peter van Inwagen, The Journal of Ethics, How to Think about the Problem of Free Will
br.d
But then why do you neglect to tell the rest of Van Inwagen’s conclusion – that Libertarian Freedom is the only livable position?
Mike
And, I see a lot of quotes from Calvin but I don’t see any references. I like to check on the context of quotes. What is the reference for the AS-IS quote?
br.d
You mean Calvin’s *AS-IF* thinking instructions.
The exact words he uses are *AS THOUGH* – which equates to the same thing as *AS-IF”
You will find his *AS-IF* quote – where he instructs his disciples to go about their office *AS THOUGH* nothing is determined in any part – in “Institutes”.
In this case – he is treating what is for him – the most sacred divine proposition in the universe *AS-IF* it is FALSE
You will find his *AS-IF* quote – where he instructs his disciples to treat future events *AS THOUGH* they can happen one way or another in “Concerning the eternal predestination of God”
In this case – he tastily acknowledges – what he is saying must be FALSE – but instructs himself and others to treat it *AS-IF* TRUE
And why wouldn’t he?
This is exactly what all determinists must do.
Atheist Determinist Stephen Hawking,
-paraphrase
Since determinism entails that I can’t know whether determinism is true or false – I might as well go about my life *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE – even while believing it is TRUE
Calvinist Gregory Koukl – on the self-refuting nature of determinism.
-quote:
“The problem with determinism…….rationality would have no room to operate. One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know if it – if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.” (Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions)
Here once again you make a claim that is bound to fail.
1) “Core” LFW is predicated on EXHAUSTIVE Indeterminism – where 100% of whatsoever comes to pass within creation – is indetermined before creation.
2) You will not find any statements from me asserting EXHAUSTIVE Determinism.
Thus your claim – which was bound to fail – does so.
But we know the LFW holds [X] = TRUE *AS-IF* [X] = FALSE
So LFW is going to hold the EXHAUSTIVE nature of indeterminism as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
What you’ve stated is a claim. A claim remains as nothing more than a claim – until it can be shown to be true.
So you disagree with the Kalam? And you are calling WLC double-minded?
If I ask you for a reference to a quote in the Bible and you tell me it’s in the Bible, that’s not helpful. Exactly where is the AS-IF quote (which has now become AS THOUGH) in the Institutes? Book No., Chapter No., Paragraph No.
I agree with Koukl. So I guess you are implying that Koukl is double-minded and deceptive?
Mike,
You had said:
” Exactly where is the AS-IF quote (which has now become AS THOUGH) in the Institutes? Book No., Chapter No., Paragraph No.”
My response:
Forgive me for interjection, but your quoted comment is the exact reason that I am non-denomination. I don’t base my beliefs on “institutes”, or “conferences”, or whatever anyone wishes to call it. In short, someone else decided FOR YOU what you are to believe, and so the debates are always about what “so and so” wrote in a best selling book available on Amazon. I can’t let anyone decide FOR ME what to believe.
I’ve heard the term “Orthodox” before. But if I disagree with anything in that orthodox, then I could get murdered.
I have a saying:
In a denomination, someone else already decided for you what you are to believe. How do they believe? They search the commentaries daily, to see if the Bible is right.
Personally, I’d much rather everyone debate the words of THE WORD of God, instead of the words of an institute or conference or a meeting, because I was never invited to the meeting. I never got the memo. I missed out on the Per Diem.
We now return to our normally scheduled program…forget that I was even here…
Ed
Mike
But we know the LFW holds [X] = TRUE *AS-IF* [X] = FALSE
So LFW is going to hold the EXHAUSTIVE nature of indeterminism as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
br.d
Nope!
It is a LOGICAL impossibility for LFW and EXHAUSTIVE determinism to both be TRUE at the same time.
As Paul Helm’s states it – one mutually excludes the other.
Cmon Mike – this is not that difficult!
Mike
So you disagree with the Kalam? And you are calling WLC double-minded?
br.d
Why so many claims without evidence?
Why not make a sequence of logical statements to show claims to be true?
Mike
If I ask you for a reference to a quote in the Bible and you tell me it’s in the Bible, that’s not helpful. Exactly where is the AS-IF quote (which has now become AS THOUGH) in the Institutes? Book No., Chapter No., Paragraph No.
br.d
The easiest way to find these is with google:
On the first quote – a search containing “John Calvin” and the quote yields this page:
https://www.litres.ru/calvin-jean/institutes-of-the-christian-religion-vol-1-of-2/chitat-onlayn/page-17/
On the second quote – a search containing “John Calvin” and the quote yields this page:
https://books.google.com/books?id=F1BtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT143&lpg=PT143&dq=john+calvin,+%22Hence+as+to+future+time,+because+the+issue+of+all+things+is+hidden+from+us%22&source=bl&ots=tmM-T1Obto&sig=ACfU3U26VnKHylHIEL5UnlOgCAWYo0x4aQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx5vSCv6buAhViiOAKHfVuBH8Q6AEwB3oECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=john%20calvin%2C%20%22Hence%20as%20to%20future%20time%2C%20because%20the%20issue%20of%20all%20things%20is%20hidden%20from%20us%22&f=false
Mike
I agree with Koukl.
br.d
Well that is wonderful to hear!
Then you know that on Exhaustive Determinism – you have no Epistemic function of knowing TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because all perception of TRUE/FALSE is determined by an external mind.
BTW: This is the way a LOGICAL Calvinist would construe the perceptions of a Jehovah’s witness.
The JW’s mind being infallibly decreed to have FALSE perceptions of scripture.
Which his mind has no power to escape – because all perception is determined by infallible decrees.
And from there a LOGICAL Calvinist should be able to see how his mind is no less in the same condition.
Unless for some strange reason – his mind is more divine than human :-]
Mike
So I guess you are implying that Koukl is double-minded and deceptive?
br.d
Mike – are emotions getting the better of you?
Mike
LFW believes that there is something beyond God. LFW believes in luck and chance and random indeterminism.
br.d
So again if you reject LFW as an attribute of god
And once again you are left with determinism -where god’s choices are determined by factors outside of his control.
And somehow I don’t think you really adopt that position.
Mike
God is all in all. Nothing happens without a purpose. God didn’t just predict that you might exist. God created you and he has a definite plan for your life!
br.d
And the crucial difference between the Reformed position on that – is Calvin’s absolute rejection of MERE permission.
Grant rejects the Reformed position which rejects the existence of MERE permission.
He therefore rejects Exhaustive determinism – and opts for a form of Semi-Determinism
And you’ve seen my post where I told you I adopt the same.
And you can adopt that position also
But IMHO you can’t do that while claiming to be making an honest representation of Calvinism.
You can have any theology you like.
But why call it Calvinism when it isn’t?
br.d: “A THEOS at the foundation of the world determines ever impulse which comes to pass within his brain.”
When God creates the world, He has an perfect understanding (therefore omniscient knowledge) of all that is to happen consequent to the creation taking into accoint God’s continuing involvement in His creation and the reaction of people to His involvement. In particular, the people – Adam/Eve – will react to the things God.does – creating the garden, planting the tree of knowledge, giving Satan access to the garden, etc, Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists (with some exceptions) agree that God is omniscient and that “at the foundation of the world [God] determine[d] ever impulse which comes to pass within [a person’s] brain.”
Then, “This THEOS thus designed man to live a life of cognitive distortions in the form of hundreds of false perceptions.”
This by virtue of man being imperfect and having limited understanding and knowledge of himself and his environment both of which distort his ability to perceive truth and burden him with constant and daily false perceptions of his environment. Only God, or one with perfect understanding who is omniscient, is free from false perceptions. This is true whether one is Calvinist or not.
br.d
In Calvinism you have a THEOS who at the foundation of the world determines every impulse which comes to pass within the Calvinist’s brain.
rhutchin
When God creates the world, He has an perfect understanding (therefore omniscient knowledge) of all that is to happen consequent to the creation
br.d
Ah! But Calvin’s god’s knowledge of [X] is simply knowledge of what he decreed concerning [X]
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees (i.e. omniscience of) future events only in consequence of his decree (Institutes)
Sorry rhutchin – your consistent attempts to MASQUERADE Calvinism as NON-Calvinism always fail. :-]
rhutchin
taking into accoint God’s continuing involvement in His creation and the reaction of people to His involvement.
br.d
Now here we have what is called Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern
The Calvinist goes about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god have left some tiny percentage of anything UP TO man to determine.
And Calvin’s god can thus be said to “react” to what man determines.
Which is a big fat lie! :-]
Because Calvin’s god leaves ZERO% left over UP TO any man to determine.
rhutchin
In particular, the people – Adam/Eve – will react to the things God.does – creating the garden,
br.d.
And here we have another lie.
The only “Acts” Calvin’s god ever permits – are the “Acts” which Calvin’s god decrees infallibly come to pass.
Nothing more – and nothing less is ever permitted – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
So in Calvinism there is no such thing as creatures having their own “Reactions”.
What “Actions” the creature is permitted to have – are limited to ONLY those “Actions” which Calvin’s god decrees infallibly come to pass.
rhutchin
giving Satan access to the garden
br.d
And here we have another MISREPRESENTATION of Calvinism – called “MERE” Permission
John Calvin
-quote
“It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but MERELY by His permission.”
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how
they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate…..unless in so far as He COMMANDS
They are…… FORCED to do him service.” Institutes
So Calvin’s determines the Calvinist mind to go throughout his day having hundreds of false perceptions
– False perceptions of himself as the “Determiner” of his choices
– False perceptions of PAP “Alternative Possibilities” available to him from which to choose.
rhutchin
This by virtue of man being imperfect…..
br.d
NAH!
This by virtue of Calvin’s god determining whatsoever comes to pass within the Calvinist brain
And what we see Calvin’s god determines – are hundreds of FALSE perceptions coming to pass daily within the Calvinist brain.
And without any epistemic ability to discern those FALSE perceptions as FALSE.
Just ask a Calvinist what percentage of his perceptions are infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions and you get the picture.
rhutchin
Only God, or one with perfect understanding who is omniscient, is free from false perceptions. This is true whether one is Calvinist or not.
br.d
See previous answer!
Sorry rhutchin – your attempts to paint a COSMETIC mask over Calvinism – always fail. :-]
Mike
Explain infinity from a non Open Theist view.
br.d
I’m afraid that is out of my expertise.
You’ll want to ask someone who is familiar with that territory
Mike: I asked Brain Wagner for a definition of LFW.
BW: 1. A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
Mike: This is circular and meaningless.
BW: 2. If a libertarian free will decision is defined as made “having no necessity” by one who “has power over his own will” and the Scripture gives one example of such a decision existing, then a libertarian free will exists to make that libertarian free will decision.
Mike: This is badly phrased but what is being said is:
1. A free will decision or choice can not be “necessary,” that is, it must be “contingent.”
2a. The decision or choice “maker” must be sole contributor to decisions/choices made. And decisions/choices can not be the result of external control or coercion or force in any way.
2b. This is the main point of contention because it is open to interpretation. What constitutes external control? Is it physical or mental restraint or both? Is our free will effected by our environment, heredity, ethnicity, gender, education, social influence, etc.? What percentage of environmental influence allows for genuine free will? Are we blank-slates at brith? What determines our individual natures? Are our natures random or determined? Can we freely choose our natures? Do our individual natures determine our free will choices?
BW: 3. The Scripture gives such an example in 1 Cor 7:37.
Mike: This verse does demonstrate a form of free will but when compared to other verses, such as, Isaiah 10:5-7 and 46:9-10, Proverbs 16:9 and 21:1, it certainly does not prove LFW. At best it supports non-coercion (which compatibilists agree).
BW: 4. Therefore libertarian free will exists.
Mike: False conclusion. Begging the question.
Mike: Your definition, BR.D, is much better!
BR.D: 1. The ability to choose from multiple options–or from a range of options.
Mike: This is the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP).
BR.D: 2. Those options all being logically and physically available from which to choose.
Mike: A qualification that rules out impossibility, e.g. (physical) for a human to choose to fly like a bird. This also rules out illogical options like, God creating a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift. But, with regard to God, there are two important distinctions. 1. The available options for God (logical, physical and metaphysical) are considerably greater and mysterious. 2. All God’s omni-atrubutes present logical problems, i.e. apparent paradox.
BR.D: 3. That choice not being made by an external mind–or by factors outside of one’s control.
Mike: This is basic non-coercion (agreed by compatibilists). But the problem here is what is defined by “factors outside of one’s control”? We now have to ask the same questions as in 2b above. The fact is that for most of our lives we are not in control of our circumstances. How much of this lack of control is responsible for forming our natures and choices is debatable.
BR.D: 4. That choice being compatible with one’s nature.
Mike: I agree with this but it certainly rules out, if not completely, at least good part of the PAP?
Can you provide a quote from any libertarian scholar or philosopher who defines LFW as “choice being compatible with one’s nature?” Here is a quote from Theopedia: “All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.”
I believe that human nature, created and guided by God, is partly a product of our genes (heredity) and external circumstances resulting in internal conditioning—which determine our free will choices. Or do you think that we are born with simple animal instincts and then at around 5 years old the LFW kicks in—and then we make a conscious choice to love our parents?
If you take a hardline on compatibilsm, equating it with hard determinism—being that there is only one external determiner—either nature or God—for all choices and actions, then I am perfectly justified to do the same. Therefore LFW is equated with hard indeterminism, meaning that there is no determiner for choices and actions—all choices must be completely random! Any objection to seeing LFW in this way is to admit to a double standard.
Oliver Crisp: “However, hard determinism is a species of “incompatibilism,” because hard determinist claims that determinism is incompatible with human free will. This is clearly inconsistent with theological compatibilism: if one is a theological determinist, one must choose whether or not one thinks this is consistent with human free will, and must opt for compatibilist or incompatibilist versions of determinism accordingly.”
“Since free will is a fact, but indeterminism in a choice is incompatible with free will, it follows that determinism about a choice is compatible with free will.”
Doesn’t deliberation between multiple options require at least a moment of indecision? Can an omniscient being deliberate?
Even though, as Christians, we acknowledge that we have been given the gift of eternity, we still live our lives “AS-IF” we are finite beings.
Now for most LFW advocates these questions are rarely ask if considered at all. They pose little problems because their confidence is it not in the truth of LFW but in the certainly that Calvinism is false!
Mike
That choice not being made by an external mind–or by factors outside of one’s control.
This is basic non-coercion (agreed by compatibilists).
br.d
No Mike – logic tells us the opposite is the case.
On Theological Determinism your choices are all in fact made by an external mind.
And your choices are 100% determined by factors outside of your control.
That is a reality within Determinism/Compatiblism.
Remember – it is self-defeating to try to separate Determinism and Compatibilism
Compatibilism gets its existence from Determinism
Because Compatibilism is freedom that is COMPATIBLE with Determinism
So when you take away Determinism – you no longer have Compatibilism.
For example:
If you are married – and you are COMPATIBLE with your wife – you have a form of compatibilism.
But if you remove your wife from the picture – you no longer have that compatibilism
Tell this to the majority of philosophical compatibilitst scholars! Are they all ignorant buffoons who can’t do the math? Instead of whipping off a reply quickly take some time to read and consider what I have written. I provided a number of quotes relating to the “math” problem of LFW. It took me a few days to get back to you. And I watched the YouTube links you mentioned and searched articles and scholars on the subjects you talked about.
Can you provide a quote from a prominent authority on the subject – that compatibilism exists apart from Determinism?
Personally – I can’t currently see any logic to that.
Oliver Crisp:
“However, hard determinism is a species of “incompatibilism,” because hard determinist claims that determinism is incompatible with human free will. This is clearly inconsistent with theological compatibilism: if one is a theological determinist, one must choose whether or not one thinks this is consistent with human free will, and must opt for compatibilist or incompatibilist versions of determinism accordingly.”
“Nor is it the case (contrary to popular belief) that the Reform confessions requires belief in some version of divine determinism.”
Can you provide a quote from any libertarian scholar or philosopher who defines LFW as “choice being compatible with one’s nature?”
Here is a quote from Theopedia: “All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.”
Mike
“Nor is it the case (contrary to popular belief) that the Reform confessions requires belief in some version of divine determinism.”
br.d
If that were true – it would logically follow – you don’t have anything for compatibilism to be compatible with. :-]
Its understandable – with the logical consequences that come with determinism – that Calvinists are going to manifest a love-hate relationship with it.
We have a core and foundational proposition. That whatsoever comes to pass – was infallibly decree to come to pass – by infallible decrees – established at the foundation of the world – as over arching rule that would govern all created things.
In Reformed vernacular – the term “Whatsoever” equates with the term “Universal” or “Exhaustive” in philosophical vernacular.
The terms “Universal” and “Particular” were developed within the ancient system called the “Square of Opposition”.
Universal means – without exception – without limitations.
That is why Calvinism is classified as Exhaustive Determinism. Or as William Lane Craig calls it “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”
Mike
Can you provide a quote from any libertarian scholar or philosopher who defines LFW as “choice being compatible with one’s nature?”
br.d
Yes – I found it within Dr. Tim Stratton’s dissertation. Tim Stratton is a Molinist. And I find a certain appreciation for Molinists because of the discipline towards logic they embrace. His web-site is “Free Thinking Ministries”. You might find an article at his website interesting titled which argues: Divine Ordination Does Not Entail Determinism. But of course this opens the door to the LFW.
Mike
Here is a quote from Theopedia: “All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.”
br.d
You will notice – it states LFW is the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature. But it does not does not state that LFW logically entails acting contrary to one’s nature.
And this makes sense – in regard to a divine choice-maker.
If you believe there is a divine choice-maker who said for example: “Let us make man in our image and likeness”
Then you see that as a choice.
If that divine choice maker has LFW – then you have a being whose choices are determined within himself.
His choices are not determined for him by an external mind – or by factors outside of his control.
His choices are in concert with his nature.
But his impulses and his will is not determined by his nature.
Because if he is determined by his nature – then we have to ask – does something outside of himself determine his nature.
Thus his choices are determined by factors outside of his control
That’s why LFW makes sense to me.
br.d writes, “[God’s] choices are in concert with his nature.
But his impulses and his will is not determined by his nature.
Because if he is determined by his nature – then we have to ask – does something outside of himself determine his nature.”
God’s impulses and will are compatible with His nature and are not contrary to His nature. God’s nature encompasses all that He is, and all that He is precedes the expression of His nature through His will, It is God’s nature to glorify Himself and anything He wills is done to glorify Himself. Seems to me that God’s nature determines His will.
There is nothing outside God except that which God creates, so nothing outside Himself determines His nature – or causes Him to act in such a manner not to glorify Himself.
Aren’t we blessed to have Calvinists!!
Otherwise we wouldn’t have access to an endless stream of divine secrets!
Funny how that works – when a critical logical consequence of Theological Determinism is – the brain has no epistemic ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because all human discernment is totally predicated on the function of perception.
And Calvin’s god doesn’t permit the human brain to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE one.
To compensate for this – the Calvinist goes about his office *AS-IF* Exhaustive Divine Theological Determinism is FALSE.
This allows him to at least MAKE-BELIEVE his brain can discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE one.
Calvinists are so blessed! :-]
“Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:22
It becomes an interesting theology leads to the logical conclusion – that at from the foundation of the world – by design – the human brain would never be permitted to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter. :-]
Mike
Oliver Crisp: …..clearly “Hard Determinism” is inconsistent with theological compatibilism:
br.d
Agreed!
And this is why the “refined” Calvinist will not claim to embrace “Hard” Determinism.
The Westminster Confession states that people -quote “Come most freely”
This statement clearly rules out “Hard” Determinism.
Mike
Can an omniscient being deliberate?
This reminds me of Dr. Tomis Kapitan
-quote:
“To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a deliberating determinist now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined. But as a determinist, he assumes the very opposite – that his future is already determined and fixed in the past, such that everything he does was previously determined by factors beyond his control. Thus the ascription of rational-inconsistency within the mental state of the deliberating determinist is secured.
C’est La Vie! What will be – is what will be.
The practically-minded deliberating determinist, haunted by the specter of his own rational-inconsistency, can be encouraged by this account of the matter. (The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 14 1986), -end quote
Mike
Even though, as Christians, we acknowledge that we have been given the gift of eternity, we still live our lives “AS-IF” we are finite beings.
br.d
Isn’t it truer to say – we live *AS-IF* our existence “in the body” is finite – but we also live *AS-IF* our soul will go on for eternity?
Mike
Now for most LFW advocates these questions are rarely ask if considered at all. They pose little problems because their confidence is it not in the truth of LFW but in the certainly that Calvinism is false!
br.d
Mike – I think you might be inclined to agree – that what we classify as normative perceptions which all humans have – plays a role in why the LFW advocate doesn’t see the logical problems inherent with Determinism.
You know – I would be that someone like a Sam Harris or a Daniel Dennett would have writings on that!
But then you can also see how my post on Cognitive Distortion is true – by noting that the Natural Determinist is much more inclined to lay out details of why LFW is a Cognitive Distortion.
This fact shows that the Calvinist actually does take attributes of LFW and claim them as attributes of Determinism/Compatibilism.
Doing that – is something a Natural Determinist would not be so inclined to do.
You really have a hard time answering any question without turning it back on your opponent. It’s a good tactic and I use it myself. But if you can’t answer it from your own perspective then you’re just fooling yourself. Do you really not see the double standard? When I ask you to explain eternity from a LFW persecutive it is because I’ve thought about it myself and I’ve asked myself the same question. I may think that the Open Theist view is wrong but if I don’t have a sufficient answer on my view than I can hardly criticize their view with any confidence.
I can see how someone would consider the things I post – a form of criticism.
But I guess that hinges on how one interprets the meaning of “criticism”.
If its simply a way to knock someone else down – then I would not consider that a legitimate activity for myself.
And Dr. Flowers would not appreciate me doing that at SOT101
But there is another side to the coin.
I observe Calvinist language – not as a truth-telling language – but as a cosmetic language.
It is a form or marketing language
And consistently seeks to paint the face of Calvinism with a cosmetic mask.
The fact that Calvinist language is so consistently manifested as a cosmetic marketing language – I think does not speak well on the question of intellectual honesty.
In that regard – you are a breath of fresh air Mike – because you are very much the exception to the rule!
The other consistent Calvinist who posts here – has a well earned reputation among everyone here – in regard to less than honest tactics.
So my personal sense about my activities here – is that SOT101 gives me the opportunity to shine a flashlight on aspects of Calvinism – which Calvinists themselves are typically very careful to cover over with cosmetic language. And I think SOT101 readers appreciate being able to see those things – because as theological consumers – it gives them the ability to make informed decisions and have an informed understanding they would not otherwise have.
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG: THE BUILT-IN DEFEATER OF RATIONALITY
Following the same model of argumentation found in Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument”, Dr. William Lane Craig presents the logical consequence of a belief in Naturalism. What is interesting in Dr. Craig’s analysis, however, is how it can also be applied to a belief in Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
Dr. Craig:
-quote
“If you believe that Naturalism and Evolution are true, then you have a defeater. Something that undermines any of your beliefs. Because, if Naturalism and Evolution are true, then our beliefs have been selected – not for truth – but for their survival value. And its perfectly possible for our beliefs to be false. But nevertheless, to be conducive to the survival of our species. And so, on Naturalism and Evolution, you have this built-in defeater of the reliability of your cognitive faculties, including any of your beliefs. The paradox there is, that the Naturalist will have a defeater for his belief in Naturalism. Because his belief is itself formed by those very cognitive faculties. And so, Naturalism is self-defeating”.
And in Exhaustive Divine Determinism:
1) All perceptions and beliefs which come to pass within the brain are causally determined by an external mind.
2) All perceptions and beliefs are the consequence of infallible decree, and the human mind powerless to alter anything established by infallible decree.
3) If one’s mind were to discern a false perception as false; it would no longer be a false perception for one’s mind. Thus, making it logically impossible for the mind to discern it, at pain of falsifying an infallible decree. And falsifying an infallible decree is logically impossible.
4) As Dr. Craig points out above – all human discernment is totally predicated and reliant upon one’s cognitive faculties. On the examination of whether a certain proposition is true or false, there exists at least three perceptions. (i) The mind’s perceptions of what “TRUE” is in the context of the proposition under examination. (ii) The mind’s perception of what “FALSE” is in the context of the proposition under examination. (iii) The mind’s perception of the proposition under examination. If any one of those three perceptions were false, then the conclusion is guaranteed to be false.
5) So, we have a divine external mind, who decrees the human mind to hold a subset of true perceptions, and a subset of false perceptions. And we have an infallible decree which logically eradicates the human mind’s cognitive faculty of discerning all infallibly decreed false perceptions. Thus, ruling out the faculty of discerning a true perception from a false one.
6) Now since the faculty of discerning a true perception from a false perception is ruled out, and since all discernment of true vs false on any matter, is totally predicated and reliant upon perceptions, then it logically follows, the epistemic faculty of knowing true from false on any matter is also ruled out.
We can also see one of Dr. Craig’s points above. Where it is the case in Naturalism that one’s cognitive faculties are not established for truth, but rather established for the utility of survival. Similarly, on Theological Determinism perceptions and beliefs are not infallibly established for truth, but rather for the utility (i.e., the good pleasure) of the divine external mind.
The model of absolute divine determination of every human cognitive function as affirmed by John Calvin:
-quote
“Whatever CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they were directed by the secret inspiration of God.” (Institutes Vol ii. p.213.)
-quote
“If anyone thinks it absurd thus to condemn all the desires by which man is naturally affected, seeing they have been
IMPLANTED by god, the author of nature……… (Institutes)
Thus, we have, within Exhaustive Divine Determinism – the same cognitive vulnerability that we have within Naturalism.
As Dr. Craig states above, it is not only perfectly possible for our perceptions and beliefs to be false. But by virtue of the fact that no human being has reached perfection, we take it as an unquestionable fact, that our minds must contain some subset of false perceptions and false beliefs. Which on Divine Determinism must exist by infallible decree. Leaving the mind with no cognitive faculty with which to differentiate false perceptions and beliefs from true ones.
This condition could be likened to a kind of infallibly decreed “color blindness”. The faculty of differentiating a true perception from a false one is not permitted. And since, as we’ve stated above, any discernment of true from false on any matter, is totally reliant upon perception, we can therefore see, we have the same consequence on Exhaustive Divine Determinism that we have with Naturalism.
br.d writes, “What is interesting in Dr. Craig’s analysis, however, is how it can also be applied to a belief in Exhaustive Divine Determinism.”
But even Craig believes that God has a perfect foreknowledge of all future events.
br.d
What is interesting in Dr. Craig’s analysis, however, is how it can also be applied to a belief in Exhaustive Divine Determinism.”
rhutchin
But even Craig believes that God has a perfect foreknowledge of all future events.
br.d
I think you already know the rest of what Dr. Craig believes.
rhutchin: “But even Craig believes that God has a perfect foreknowledge of all future events.”
br.d: “I think you already know the rest of what Dr. Craig believes.”
Actually, I don’t think anyone knows what Craig believes.
rhtuchin
Actually, I don’t think anyone knows what Craig believes.
br.d
well of course you don’t ! :-]
test
rhutchin
A person is not free to do otherwise than what is determined – even where multiple options are logically available
br.d
Just to make sure everyone knows what is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE here.
On Determinism – there is no such thing as multiple options.
Because any a RENDERED-CERTAIN event – can only LOGICALLY resolve to one single RENDERED-CERTAIN future.
And thus – for the one thousandths time – we have Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly ONE physically possible future.
Consequently – the following FALSE PERCEPTIONS are infallibly decreed to be appear within the Calvinist brain:
1) Himself being “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of any choice
2) The existence of multiple options from which to choose
3) The perception that he is the author of the impulses which come to pass within his brain.
br.d writes, “Just to make sure everyone knows what is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE here….Thus – for the one thousandths time – we have Peter Van Inwagen -quote- “Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly ONE physically possible future. ”
This is confused. br.d needs to tie Van Inwagen’s “one physically possible future” to his “LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.”
Then, “On Determinism – there is no such thing as multiple options. Because any a RENDERED-CERTAIN event – can only LOGICALLY resolve to one single RENDERED-CERTAIN future.”
To be logically possible, an option need only be within the power of a person to choose even where the possibility of the person choosing the option be 0%. Even the LFW people seem to understand that the ability to choose otherwise does not entail a 50-50 chance of choosing otherwise.
br.d
Just to make sure everyone knows what is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE here….Thus – for the one thousandths time – we have Peter Van Inwagen -quote- “Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly ONE physically possible future. ”
rhutchin
This is confused. br.d needs to tie Van Inwagen’s “one physically possible future” to his “LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.”
br.d
Not confusing for a rational thinker.
When Calvin’s god decrees a coin to land heads-up at time-T – (PAP Principle of Alternative Possibility) is ruled out
Thus – no alternative is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.
And On Determinism
There is no such thing as multiple options. Because any a RENDERED-CERTAIN event – can only LOGICALLY resolve to one single RENDERED-CERTAIN future.”
rhutchin
To be logically possible, an option need only be within the power of a person to choose even where the possibility of the person choosing the option be 0%.
br.d
Lets see you choose option [A] when Calvin’s god had decreed you infallibly choose option [NOT A]
It would have to be within your power to falsify an infallible decree
Good luck with that. :-]
rhutchin
Even the LFW people seem to understand that the ability to choose otherwise does not entail a 50-50 chance of choosing otherwise.
br.d
And you tell yourself that – every time you go about your office *AS-IF* your brain has the epistemic function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter. Which entails a 50-50 chance of choosing otherwise.
Isn’t the Calvinist brain is blessed to not have the epistemic function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter. :-]