A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

[Skandelon]

I use Plantinga's definition of libertarian freewill:

If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the 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...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.

Scenario: A true believer is tempted to sin.

Now here is the Logical Construct based upon the scenario and definition above:

(A) If it was within a believers power to choose to resist a temptation to sin, and it was within the believers power to choose sin, then a believer has libertarinan freewill.
1) It was within the believer's power to resist a temptation (1 Cor. 10:13).
2) It was within the believer's power to sin (Mk 14:38).

(B1) Therefore, it was within the believers power to resist temptation and it was within the believer's power to sin.
(B2) Therefore, the believer had libertarian freewill.


1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV:
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it

Mark 14:38 NIV
Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I use Plantinga's definition of libertarian freewill:


Scenario: A true believer is tempted to sin.

Now here is the Logical Construct based upon the scenario and definition above:

(A) If it was within a believers power to choose to resist a temptation to sin, and it was within the believers power to choose sin, then a believer has libertarinan freewill.
1) It was within the believer's power to resist a temptation (1 Cor. 10:13).
2) It was within the believer's power to sin (Mk 14:38).

(B1) Therefore, it was within the believers power to resist temptation and it was within the believer's power to sin.
(B2) Therefore, the believer had libertarian freewill.


1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV:
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it

Mark 14:38 NIV
Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

Do slaves have libertarian free will (cf. John 8:34-36)? In this text, does the slave free himself?
Do dead people have libertarian free will (cf. Eph 2:1-10)? In this passage, do the dead people bring themselves to life?

The 1Cor and Mark passages you quoted are concerning disciples, those who have been brought to life and freed.

Steve

 

[jbh28]

You are free to chose anything you want within the limits your nature places on you. You do not have a free will to choose against your nature.

 

[Skandelon]

Do slaves have libertarian free will (cf. John 8:34-36)? In this text, does the slave free himself?
Do dead people have libertarian free will (cf. Eph 2:1-10)? In this passage, do the dead people bring themselves to life?

The 1Cor and Mark passages you quoted are concerning disciples, those who have been brought to life and freed.

Steve

Not the point. My goal in this thread is to establish a proof for the existence or possibility of Libertarian Freewill, something some hear claim is an impossibility even for God. If you would like to discuss this other point we could start a new thread.

 

[Skandelon]

You are free to chose anything you want within the limits your nature places on you. You do not have a free will to choose against your nature.

Fine. So is it within your nature as a believer to sin or not sin when faced with a temptation? If so, how do you defeat the concept of Libertarian Free Will, or do you accept LFW with those who are saved?

 

[jbh28]

Fine. So is it within your nature as a believer to sin or not sin when faced with a temptation? If so, how do you defeat the concept of Libertarian Free Will, or do you accept LFW with those who are saved?

I would say your will is more "free" when you are saved then before you were saved, though not totally free. We do have a new nature. We have the holy spirit abiding in us, so we will be different.

 

[Luke2427]

Fine. So is it within your nature as a believer to sin or not sin when faced with a temptation? If so, how do you defeat the concept of Libertarian Free Will, or do you accept LFW with those who are saved?

Libertarian free will does not exist anywhere. It never has and never will.

Libertarian free will, as I understand it, means the ability to make choices without any inclinations one way or the other. It is the ability to choose one thing just as easily as you choose the next.

This is a philosophical impossibility.

We live in a universe governed by the law of cause and effect. EVERY effect has a cause.

A choice is an effect. It has a cause.

There is a reason why you choose what you choose. There is a cause behind it. You cannot do one thing as easily as the next because something CAUSES you to choose what you choose.

This is consistent with the Word of God.

Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil and his will you WILL do."

Why do they reject Jesus teachings? Why do they choose not to believe?

There is your cause.

John 8.

Every decision has a cause.

Libertarian free will is a misnomer.

 

[quantumfaith]

You are free to chose anything you want within the limits your nature places on you. You do not have a free will to choose against your nature.

We do once we have become a member of the household of faith! We then do have the choice to do the acceptable moral thing. Prior to that we can do "good" things. (of course that horse has been beaten many times I also submit even prior to being a believer we can do the proper "moral" thing in a given situation, however, it does nothing to change our guilty status before our maker.

 

[quantumfaith]

I use Plantinga's definition of libertarian freewill:


Scenario: A true believer is tempted to sin.

Now here is the Logical Construct based upon the scenario and definition above:

(A) If it was within a believers power to choose to resist a temptation to sin, and it was within the believers power to choose sin, then a believer has libertarinan freewill.
1) It was within the believer's power to resist a temptation (1 Cor. 10:13).
2) It was within the believer's power to sin (Mk 14:38).

(B1) Therefore, it was within the believers power to resist temptation and it was within the believer's power to sin.
(B2) Therefore, the believer had libertarian freewill.


1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV:
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it

Mark 14:38 NIV
Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

Skandelon, I am on the same page with you regarding free will. As my brothers of the reformed persuasion often pejoratively note my being a "free willer".

I do not feel that "true libertarian free will" is the correct position, rather I am convinced that the "soft libertarian" position is the proper one. By that I mean the following:

1. The true libertarian to me means that man has the power to choose anything presented as an intent or volition. That authority, I am not convinced that man possesses.

2. Soft libertarian freedom, much like in the garden, means man must act within the parameters that have been set in creation.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Every decision has a cause.

Libertarian free will is a misnomer

.

If I flip a coin and ask you to choose heads or tails is there a cause for your decision? Are you not as likely to pick one as the other?

 

[jbh28]

.

If I flip a coin and ask you to choose heads or tails is there a cause for your decision?

yes

Are you not as likely to pick one as the other?

not necessarily. You might have chosen heads last time and missed, that would play a big part in your decision this time. Do you choose heads again, or tails?

 

[quantumfaith]

It depends on whether you are viewing through Bayesian statistics or if you use non-parametric methods.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Originally Posted by GBC Pastor
.

If I flip a coin and ask you to choose heads or tails is there a cause for your decision?

yes

Then what is the cause?

Quote:
Are you not as likely to pick one as the other?

not necessarily. You might have chosen heads last time and missed, that would play a big part in your decision this time. Do you choose heads again, or tails?

Let's assume it's the first flip.

 

[jbh28]

Then what is the cause?






Let's assume it's the first flip.

That was a long time ago for me. Are you saying that your decision here is completely random? that nothing, absolutely nothing plays in your decision? You might like the word head better than tail. You might think that it lands on tails more so you choose tails.

 

[GBC Pastor]

That was a long time ago for me. Are you saying that your decision here is completely random? that nothing, absolutely nothing plays in your decision? You might like the word head better than tail. You might think that it lands on tails more so you choose tails.

Those are possibilities...it is also quite possible that I simply choose completely at random... Ecclesiastes 9:11 "...The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all"

 

[jbh28]

Those are possibilities...it is also quite possible that I simply choose completely at random... Ecclesiastes 9:11 "...The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all"

That doesn't mean you choice is totally random. Random would mean that you put absolutely 0 though into it. There was nothing internally or externally that had any factor in your decision. I sure hope you are not implying that things just happen by "chance." Of course this has nothing to do with our choices.

 

[preachinjesus]

Libertarian free will does not exist anywhere. It never has and never will.

Libertarian free will, as I understand it, means the ability to make choices without any inclinations one way or the other. It is the ability to choose one thing just as easily as you choose the next.

That isn't libertarian freewill.

This is a philosophical impossibility.

Every decision has a cause.

Libertarian free will is a misnomer.

Yeah I really think you don't know what you're talking about here. Libertarian freedom doesn't deny causation, it rather has little to do with it. Causation doesn't remove freedom.

 

[Cypress]

The coin toss discussion is missing the mark. Causing is not the same as influencing. At issue is whether or not you are able to choose heads or not.

 

[Skandelon]

Libertarian free will does not exist anywhere. It never has and never will.

Libertarian free will, as I understand it, means the ability to make choices without any inclinations one way or the other. It is the ability to choose one thing just as easily as you choose the next.

This is a philosophical impossibility.

We live in a universe governed by the law of cause and effect. EVERY effect has a cause.

A choice is an effect. It has a cause.

There is a reason why you choose what you choose. There is a cause behind it. You cannot do one thing as easily as the next because something CAUSES you to choose what you choose.

This is consistent with the Word of God.

Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil and his will you WILL do."

Why do they reject Jesus teachings? Why do they choose not to believe?

There is your cause.

John 8.

Every decision has a cause.

Libertarian free will is a misnomer.

Luke, with all due respect, I presented a scholarly (and widely accepted) definition of LFW yet you seem to simply dismiss that, provide your own interpretation based upon your "understanding" and then dismiss it as a "misnomer" based upon the definition you provided.

Now, put yourself in my shoes. Suppose I defined Calvinism as "anti-evangelistic and completely fatalistic in every regard" and then dismissed it as a misnomer based upon that "understanding?" How would that make you feel?

When a sound, reasoned and logically presented argument is presented it would be reasonable for responders to address the actual points presented and address the merits of the post itself. Thank you and God bless.

 

[Skandelon]

The cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of an act is the actor. The cause of a decision is the decider.

The influences are so numerous and complex they are beyond human comprehension and the whole process is mysterious indeed. However, most wouldn't have any problem saying that God has a free will, which proves its existence is indeed possible. No one is attempting to claim man can do more than God or has the level of freedom he has. He has more power therefore much more possibilities with his choices than what we have so there really isn't much comparison. However, we are created in HIS IMAGE, and thus may have been given the ability by God to make first cause choices...choices undetermined by anyone or anything outside the agent making the choice, thus making us free moral agents who are responsible (meaning response-able) for our decisions.