A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

[slave 4 Christ]

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 libertarian 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."

The problem with your defense lies in the fact that you skipped an important "step" headed to your logic.
The man's initial salvation.

Your defense contends that one choice is as easily made as the opposite.
That no previous conditions or causal laws can prevent this LFW choice.

Consider, however, God's declaration of man's previous condition.

10 as it is written:"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.(Rms.3:10-11)

7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.(Rms. 8:7,8)

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.(Eph. 2:1-3)

These verses present a "previous condition" that preclude an either or choice.
A choice your defense must have to be possible.

At this point it matters not if this "previous condition" is through original sin or this person made a choice to sin.

Even his choice to sin causes his present and future choices to be affected.

Man is a product of his yesterdays as much as his todays and tomorrows.

Now let us consider some verses dealing with "causal laws".

44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44)

64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."(John 6:64,65)

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(Rms. 8:29,30)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It does not take more than a casual reading of the above passages to realize the "Causal law", ie. Almighty God at work.

God must draw, grant, predestine, call, save, give grace and faith, create in Christ, and prepare.
These are causal laws at work, outside of your "chooser".


Now let us return to your "scenario": A true believer tempted to sin.

The problem is we cannot return to your "scenario".
Your believer cannot logically exist in Plantinga's LFW.

Why? His "choice"(I use this word loosely) was determined by previous conditions and causal laws.

Therefore, your biblical defense is immaterial, because you have no believer in the LFW definition you presented.

The cognitive process is unable, in man, to choose God.
Therefore LFW cannot be true. At least in the sense of salvation and relationship with God.

Consider this quote from Alvin Plantinga's "Warranted Christian Belief":

VII. Cognitive Renewal
According to Jesus Christ himself, “unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
And according to the apostle Paul, not as high an authority but still no slouch, a Christian believer becomes a new creature in Christ.
The believer enters a process whereby she is regenerated, transformed, made into a new and better person.
We might say she acquires a new and better nature.
This new and better nature is also a renewal, a restoration of the nature with which humankind was originally created.
Sin damaged our nature; regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit, is (among other things) a matter of setting right and repairing that damage.
The ravages of sin were of two sorts.
First, affective effects: sin induces a sort of madness of the will whereby we fail to love God above all; instead, we love ourselves above all. But the damage was also cognitive.
Sin induces a blindness, dullness, stupidity, imperceptiveness, whereby we are blinded to God, cannot hear his voice, do not recognize his beauty and glory, may even go so far as to deny that he exists.

 

[canadyjd]

Canadyjd,

Please allow me to refer to back to the original post of this thread and you will see a logical proof using this type of example. If you are tempted to sin in such a way that you could not resist how does that not violate what Paul clearly taught in 1 Cor 10:13?

I would rather you have answered my question directly. However, I will answer yours first.

I Cor 10:13 is speaking of believers, indwelt by Holy Spirit, not unbelievers. Indwelt believers have the ability to resist the influence of sin (temptations) because Holy Spirit indwells and God is intervening in their lives (which is what the passage says)"....: and God is fatihful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able...."

Now let me ask you a question. You have stated in your defintion that antecedent conditions have no determining influence on decisions made by a person. Is sin and/or the sin nature such an antecedent condition? It must be. Therefore, your view of LFW must deny that sin has a determining influence on a person's decisions.

How can the LFW view be consistent with Romans 7:20

"But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."

Clearly, the Apostle Paul is discribing a determining influence which sin has on a person's decisions in this verse. Therefore, the LFW view is clearly contrary to this passage of scripture and cannot be correct, or the LFW view must not identify sin and/or the sin nature as an antecedent condition...and if not... what is it?

peace to youraying:

 

[Cypress]

Here is one mans view on man and sin nature that is contrary to the idea of inherited sin or sin nature. Many of these objections are not easily overcome. http://www.gospeltruth.net/if_sin_were.htm

 

[Skandelon]

slave4christ,

As I explained in my second post of this thread...
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]

I would rather you have answered my question directly. However, I will answer yours first.

I Cor 10:13 is speaking of believers, indwelt by Holy Spirit, not unbelievers. Indwelt believers have the ability to resist the influence of sin (temptations) because Holy Spirit indwells and God is intervening in their lives (which is what the passage says)"....: and God is fatihful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able...."

So, by this I presume you are affirming Libertarian Freedom does exist within believers, but just not with unbelievers?

Because that is the only point I'm attempting to prove in this particular thread.

Now let me ask you a question. You have stated in your defintion that antecedent conditions have no determining influence on decisions made by a person.

I would say that conditions don't determine the decision, that is the job of the decider. The conditions influence the decider as do countless other factors, but the determination itself is only the act of the person given the ability to make determinations.

We can discuss the affect of the sin nature on LFW in another thread once we establish its possibility in this one.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

slave4christ,

As I explained in my second post of this thread...
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.

My post proves LFW, as you presented, is not possible.

The point of my post is choices are not made in a vacuum.
Your "scenario" is a vacuum, because many "antecedent conditions" and "causal laws" were established before your "scenario" became effective.

LFW can only be possible in a "sterile" situation.
That is to say a situation removed from any unbalanced conditions.

For one choice to be as easily made as the other, both must have equal influence upon the chooser.

If the influence is greater to option A rather than option B, then option B becomes irrelevant.

Therefore option A is determined by the greater influence.

The apostle Peter had two options as he warmed by the "worlds" fire.
He chose self-preservation, because that was the greater influence.
The greater influence determined his choice.

The apostle Peter had two options as he was filled by the "Spirit's" fire.
He chose Saviour-proclamation, because that was the Greater influence.
The Greater influence determined his choice.

 

[glfredrick]

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.

I see no problem with the definition you posted. Plantinga is a good thinker and his definition is acceptable.

What I find myself at odds with is your proposition for application of the definition. That we can define libertarian free will is one thing, that we can ground it in the creative order, when it is fairly clear that we are limited is another all together.

Can you make a case biblically for true libertarian free will as defined by Plantinga?

 

[kyredneck]

....LFW can only be possible in a "sterile" situation.
That is to say a situation removed from any unbalanced conditions.....

Would I be correct in saying that Eden was a 'sterile' situation, Eve did indeed have LFW, and the Serpent's deception presented the unbalancing factor?


[edit] I may be showing my ignorance here, but that's exactly what I am; ignorant of the factors involved concerning the LFW debate (but I'm learning).

 

[glfredrick]

Would I be correct in saying that Eden was a 'sterile' situation, Eve did indeed have LFW, and the Serpent's deception presented the unbalancing factor?


[edit] I may be showing my ignorance here, but that's exactly what I am; ignorant of the factors involved concerning the LFW debate (but I'm learning).

I hold that those in Eden, pre-fall, did indeed have some form of libertarian free will, for they were free creatures, not slaves to sin, nor (yet) slaves to righteousness. They were unique among humans.

The Serpent (or its agent, Lucifer/Satan) was the unbalancing factor. His own rebellion started the process.

But, to suggest that all humans have LFW based on the choice made in the Garden would be misappropriation of the truth of God's revelation, which says very succinctly and very often that we, post-fall, are sinners, born in that condition.

 

[kyredneck]

I hold that those in Eden, pre-fall, did indeed have some form of libertarian free will, for they were free creatures, not slaves to sin, nor (yet) slaves to righteousness. They were unique among humans.

The Serpent (or its agent, Lucifer/Satan) was the unbalancing factor. His own rebellion started the process.

But, to suggest that all humans have LFW based on the choice made in the Garden would be misappropriation of the truth of God's revelation, which says very succinctly and very often that we, post-fall, are sinners, born in that condition.

Thank you glf.

 

[Skandelon]

My post proves LFW, as you presented, is not possible.

Actually, you seem to address LFW as it relates to unbelievers (those not yet redeemed) and as some of your fellow Calvinists argue, LFW is possible in the garden prior to the fall and I suppose after redemption. Do you deny this? If so, why?

The apostle Peter had two options as he warmed by the "worlds" fire.
He chose self-preservation, because that was the greater influence.
The greater influence determined his choice.

Then that would make the influence the determiner, but Peter is the determiner, not the influence. The agent make determinations. The circumstance influences the agent. You make it seem as if the circumstance makes the determination which is unfounded.

 

[Skandelon]

I see no problem with the definition you posted. Plantinga is a good thinker and his definition is acceptable.

What I find myself at odds with is your proposition for application of the definition. That we can define libertarian free will is one thing, that we can ground it in the creative order, when it is fairly clear that we are limited is another all together.

Can you make a case biblically for true libertarian free will as defined by Plantinga?

Can you explain how the proposition for application is inconsistent with Plantinga's definition? I find this unlikely considering that Plantinga also affirms LFW in the I Cor 10 scenario I presented and thus wouldn't present a definition that would be inconsistent with such a scenario, would he, considering he is (according to you) "a good thinker?"

 

[Skandelon]

I hold that those in Eden, pre-fall, did indeed have some form of libertarian free will, for they were free creatures, not slaves to sin, nor (yet) slaves to righteousness. They were unique among humans.

The Serpent (or its agent, Lucifer/Satan) was the unbalancing factor. His own rebellion started the process.

But, to suggest that all humans have LFW based on the choice made in the Garden would be misappropriation of the truth of God's revelation, which says very succinctly and very often that we, post-fall, are sinners, born in that condition.

Yes, thank you glf. My goal in this thread was simply to prove the possibility of LFW, something many Calvinists claim is a logical impossibility. Thanks for this affirmation. Now if you would like to discuss LFW in those with a fallen sinful nature we can do that in another thread.

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, thank you glf. My goal in this thread was simply to prove the possibility of LFW, something many Calvinists claim is a logical impossibility. Thanks for this affirmation. Now if you would like to discuss LFW in those with a fallen sinful nature we can do that in another thread.

I think that you are working to establish the cause of LFW for purposes other than what you posted here in this debate, but that aside, you have so far failed to truly establish that LFW exists post fall, even for believers, who are categorized scripturally as "slaves to Christ" and not at all capable of true LFW. God may or may not have total LFW, in that He can have it once, but once spoken, there is no longer LFW, for God cannot un-do what He has spoken into existence without also becoming a liar, and I believe we do not wish to even intimate that God is un-truthful in any means.

So, like an infinity, the potential exists, but also like an infinity, I have serious doubts as to whether an actual LFW does exist.

In essence, you have taken a couple of potentials and ran with those as if there is philosophical grounding for their actual existence. That is not a good way to argue a point that obviously is central to your entire theological position (and your expressed intent to defeat the propositions of Reformed or Calvinistic theology).

 

[Skandelon]

Glf,

Can you answer my question? I'll repost it:

Can you explain how the proposition for application is inconsistent with Plantinga's definition? I find this unlikely considering that Plantinga also affirms LFW in the I Cor 10 scenario I presented and thus wouldn't present a definition that would be inconsistent with such a scenario, would he, considering he is (according to you) "a good thinker?"

 

[glfredrick]

I reject Plantinga's take on this issue if he indeed said what you suggest concerning LFW. That would seem a bit out of character for Plantinga, who has argued rather successfully over the years for a sovereign view of God. Do you have a citation that would help me see your reference in context?

About 1 Cor 10, as has already been explained to you, and a point on which I agree, there is no LFW expressed. The one who sins is captive to the desire to sin, and the one who resists is captive to the power of the Holy Spirit who assists in our resistance.

I still await your scriptural exegesis that demonstrates actual (versus potential) LFW. I'll even help... I did a considerable search through the Scriptures OT and NT about 6 months ago and I could find NO direct teachings that were not mere descriptors of what was (versus God's prescription of what He desires) that led me to hold a position of LFW. Yes, that is correct... None.

Perhaps my study was not exhaustive, but with electronic study aids, I imagine that I did the work that might take an earlier scholar a lifetime, and I came up blank. In every case, the subject of sentences seemingly pointing toward LFW, was God, and there was no true LFW involved at all. In fact, in the majority of verses, the choice seemed VERY limited, and at times forced by God and by the enemy of God.

I did, however, find a plethora of passages that point to God's sovereignty, and to the people who wrestled with that sovereignty, even as you do.

 

[Skandelon]

I

About 1 Cor 10, as has already been explained to you, and a point on which I agree, there is no LFW expressed. The one who sins is captive to the desire to sin, and the one who resists is captive to the power of the Holy Spirit who assists in our resistance.

First, can you point to the post that this was "explained to me?" I may have missed it.

Second, when you sin, as a believer, are you saying that you were "captive to the desire to sin?" If so, how is that consistent with the fact that scripture teaches that you are no longer slaves to sin and that you would not be tempted beyond what you could bare?

I still await your scriptural exegesis that demonstrates actual (versus potential) LFW. I'll even help... I did a considerable search through the Scriptures OT and NT about 6 months ago and I could find NO direct teachings that were not mere descriptors of what was (versus God's prescription of what He desires) that led me to hold a position of LFW. Yes, that is correct... None.

Funny. I did the same search for CFW in regard to the soteriology of mankind and came up empty as well...

How about we stick to the proof of the OP for this thread and if you would like to expand the discussion feel free to start a new thread, okay? Thanks

 

[glfredrick]

What, am I pressing you? :laugh:

Slave 4 Christ wrote the following rebuttal to your 1 Cor 10 issue:

The problem with your defense lies in the fact that you skipped an important "step" headed to your logic.
The man's initial salvation.

Your defense contends that one choice is as easily made as the opposite.
That no previous conditions or causal laws can prevent this LFW choice.

Consider, however, God's declaration of man's previous condition.


Quote:
10 as it is written:"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.(Rms.3:10-11)

7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.(Rms. 8:7,8)

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.(Eph. 2:1-3)

These verses present a "previous condition" that preclude an either or choice.
A choice your defense must have to be possible.

At this point it matters not if this "previous condition" is through original sin or this person made a choice to sin.

Even his choice to sin causes his present and future choices to be affected.

Man is a product of his yesterdays as much as his todays and tomorrows.

As regards further debate on this issue, I'll have to insist that you bring Scriptural exegesis to the table, as we cannot solve this dilemma via philosophical expression or logic. God's revelation is still key and king. No matter what it is that WE resolve on any particular point of soteriology, it is God who is ultimately right (and that seems to be one of the major issues, overall, in any debate of this nature -- too much logic and not enough God).

 

[Skandelon]

Slave 4 Christ wrote the following rebuttal to your 1 Cor 10 issue:

His rebuttal didn't address the current condition of the believer, it only pointed back to the previous nature of one who once was fallen. How does one's previous condition change the clearly revealed facts presented in 1 Cor 10:13? That is never addressed.

So, let me ask you again...when you sin, as a believer, are you saying that you were "captive to the desire to sin?" If so, how is that consistent with the fact that scripture teaches that you are no longer slaves to sin and that you would not be tempted beyond what you could bare?

As regards further debate on this issue, I'll have to insist that you bring Scriptural exegesis to the table, as we cannot solve this dilemma via philosophical expression or logic.

I don't know how the exegesis of 1 Cor. 10:13 can be any more clear. What do you think it means for God not to allow a believer to be tempted beyond what he can stand?

Consider the last time you sinned. Could you have willingly resisted that temptation? If so, you have affirmed LFW. If not, then clearly God allowed you to be tempted beyond what you could resist thus violating the clear intent of this passage.

 

[canadyjd]

So, by this I presume you are affirming Libertarian Freedom does exist within believers, but just not with unbelievers? Because that is the only point I'm attempting to prove in this particular thread.

No, I am not affirming LFW. The I Cor. passage, as I stated, clearly states that God's influence in the believer's life is the determining condition that allows them to overcome the influence of sin. That is contrary to your definition, which denies a determining influence beyond the person's will.

I would say that conditions don't determine the decision, that is the job of the decider. The conditions influence the decider as do countless other factors, but the determination itself is only the act of the person given the ability to make determinations.

But you are side-stepping Romans 7, which clearly states that sin is a determining influence on decision making. In fact, Romans 7 clearly says the person does what he doesn't want to do, and doesn't do what he wants to do.... all because of the influence of sin... and even says that it is "sin" that is working in him and producing these decisions.

How can that possibly be consistent with your view of LFW?

peace to youraying: