A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

[slave 4 Christ]

Quote from Skandelon:

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?

Therefore, we are in agreement , an unbeliever does not possess LFW.

Yes, I deny the LFW of Adam/Eve in the Garden.

If they possessed LFW in the Garden; then as soon as they sinned, God no longer was "free" to do as He pleased.

Adam's sin caused an "antecedent condition" to be placed upon God.

If Adam has LFW, then his sin must be first in the chronology of redemption.
Adam's sin would then become an "antecedent condition" that determines God's choice in redemption.

Therefore, if Adam possessed LFW in the Garden.
Then God, according to the definition of LFW, cannot possess LFW.
Because an "antecedent condition" caused the "uncaused" Causer to react.

(Is.46:9,10)
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,....

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.

God is the determiner by both "antecedent condition" and "causal law", in the life of a believer.

Verse 1. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course.

Who has planned man's course?

Verse 2.(Ephs. 1:17-19)
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

The believer's power is given from God, not self-generated.

Verse 3. (Ephs. 2:10)
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This is an "antecedent condition" that determines choice.
Can a "true" believer walk (choose) opposite to God's ordination?

Verse 4. (Philippians 1:6)
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This verse gives both "antecedent condition" and "causal law" as determining a believer's choice.

Verse 5. (Philippians 2:12,13)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This verse needs no explanation, as to our current debate.



The above cited verses more than adequately establish that true believers do not possess LFW.

 

[HankD]

Did Ananias have LFW?

satan was the motivator but Peter puts the blame and power of choice on Ananias.

Acts 5
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.​

HankD​

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Did Ananias have LFW?

satan was the motivator but Peter puts the blame and power of choice on Ananias.

Acts 5
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.​

HankD​

Bro. Hank,

I think Ananias displayed the behaviour of a "false" professor of salvation.

Therefore, his will is still in bondage to the fall.

The "antecedent condition" that determined his choice is found in Romans 8:5-8.

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 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, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Would you agree he had his mind set on the things of the flesh?

Then, he is "not even able" to make any other choice, but the one he made.

 

[HankD]

Bro. Hank,

I think Ananias displayed the behaviour of a "false" professor of salvation.

Therefore, his will is still in bondage to the fall.

The "antecedent condition" that determined his choice is found in Romans 8:5-8.

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 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, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Would you agree he had his mind set on the things of the flesh?

Then, he is "not even able" to make any other choice, but the one he made.

If he is a false professor of salvation or a believer walking according to the flesh this then is a worse scenario because Peter disagrees with you and declares that Ananias did have that power, was therefore accountable to God and was punished with death.

If Peter's statement was actually a rhetorical question with "no" for an answer, then we now have a man who made a choice over which he had no choice for which he was punished by God. This seems out of character for God.

I suppose this situation could extend to every situation where God responds to sin with retribution. Slaying people for just "doing what comes naturally".

This apparent fatalism is what troubles most folks who are not calvinists.

This is a debate. I'm looking for a reasonable response.
Please don't consider this post a "gotcha" on my part.
That wouldn't be in keeping with brotherly love.


Thanks
HankD

 

[slave 4 Christ]

If he is a false professor of salvation or a believer walking according to the flesh this then is a worse scenario because Peter disagrees with you and declares that Ananias did have that power, was therefore accountable to God and was punished with death.

If Peter's statement was actually a rhetorical question with "no" for an answer, then we now have a man who made a choice over which he had no choice for which he was punished by God. This seems out of character for God.

I suppose this situation could extend to every situation where God responds to sin with retribution. Slaying people for just "doing what comes naturally".

This apparent fatalism is what troubles most folks who are not calvinists.

This is a debate. I'm looking for a reasonable response.
Please don't consider this post a "gotcha" on my part.
That wouldn't be in keeping with brotherly love.


Thanks
HankD

Hank,
We do not deny "moral" agency.
Annanias chose based upon his "nature".
He is 100% responsible for his sin.

The choice was real.
He could have done any thing he "wanted" with the land.
Annanias did exactly what he wanted. He lied about it.

Moral agency is the ability to choose. It tells us what is chosen.

But the Bible tells us why we choose.
And what the Bible says about "why" we choose, denies LFW.

16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
(Rms. 7:16-18)

Paul tells us the true meaning of the "law".
The Law of God caused him to truly understand "good and evil", from God's perspective.
But, even so, Paul has absolutely no ability to carry it out.

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 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, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:5-8)

 

[webdog]

I think Ananias displayed the behaviour of a "false" professor of salvation.

Therefore, his will is still in bondage to the fall.

I think you have to arrive at this with a presupposition already in place, as the context of Ananias and his wife would show them to be part of the group of believers.

 

[quantumfaith]

If he is a false professor of salvation or a believer walking according to the flesh this then is a worse scenario because Peter disagrees with you and declares that Ananias did have that power, was therefore accountable to God and was punished with death.

If Peter's statement was actually a rhetorical question with "no" for an answer, then we now have a man who made a choice over which he had no choice for which he was punished by God. This seems out of character for God.

I suppose this situation could extend to every situation where God responds to sin with retribution. Slaying people for just "doing what comes naturally".

This apparent fatalism is what troubles most folks who are not calvinists.

This is a debate. I'm looking for a reasonable response.
Please don't consider this post a "gotcha" on my part.
That wouldn't be in keeping with brotherly love.


Thanks
HankD

Excellent and articulate point Hank. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

Excellent and articulate point Hank. :thumbs::thumbs:

With one caveat... Hand did not accurately describe the Calvinist position when he said that God slays those who sin. We are sinners already at birth. It takes no further action to insure damnation. Hank's response makes God a responder once again.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

I think you have to arrive at this with a presupposition already in place, as the context of Ananias and his wife would show them to be part of the group of believers.

So then everyone that is "part" of the group of believers is a "true" believer?

Consider these verses from I John.

1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth...

2:9Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.

2:19 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 it might become plain that they all are not of us.

Consider the Apostle Peter's words.

20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

We cannot accept that these described are true believer's. Too many verses state our (ie. true believers) have "Eternal Life".
Therefore, these described must be "false professors".

Could Peter have been thinking of Ananias when he wrote II Peter 2:20-22?

 

[glfredrick]

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?

I believe that the Bible shows believers as having two natures that war within us. We are "already, but not yet" saved while we work out our sanctification and await glorification -- both part of the set called "salvation."

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?

I believe I was addressing 1 Cor 10, not 13, but in any case, you did not exegete that passage, nor have you built a Biblical case for LFW in any sense. Not to be facetious, but you do understand the difference between "proof-texting" a certain issue and actually exegeting the Scriptures in their original languages to derive at the one interpretation that matches what is actually stated in any given pericope, right?

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.

Jesus indicated that we could resist sin, until we finally die in the effort. I would suggest that we do not exercise our resistance to that level... Resisting sin does not automatically lead to LFW, however. In that, I believe you have overstepped the grounding for LFW. LFW would indicate that I never have to deal with sin, not just resist what comes my way whether or not I wish for it to happen. We are, as others have already noted, constrained by the choices we are forced to make (and there are consequences for our choice or lack thereof) all of which indicate no or at best a VERY limited free will that is not even truly categorized as libertine in nature.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

So, what happened when the believer falls into temptation and sins? Is that because God didn't influence them in that circumstance? Did he not provide all that was needed for them to resist the temptation?

That is contrary to your definition, which denies a determining influence beyond the person's will.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:

Actually, its typically Compatiblists who argue that a choice is free if it is according to what one desires. Clearly Paul speaks here of not doing the things he desires, which if anything would seem to contradict the concept that a man always follows his greatest inclinations.

This war Paul speaks of in the heart of a believer from a libertarian perspective is a prime example of self-determiniation as the new nature battles with the old. That is the very heart of LFW.

 

[Skandelon]

Therefore, we are in agreement , an unbeliever does not possess LFW.

No, we are not. But as I explained, this thread was not written with the intent to cover the subject of LFW in the unbeliever. It was written in response to some other posts where Calvinists insisted that LFW was impossible in any instance. By looking at men in the garden prefall, men following salvation and even the nature of God this issue is more easily addressed. Once LFW's possibility is established then one can speak of the effect the fall has on an agent with LFW.

Yes, I deny the LFW of Adam/Eve in the Garden.

If they possessed LFW in the Garden; then as soon as they sinned, God no longer was "free" to do as He pleased.

Adam's sin caused an "antecedent condition" to be placed upon God.

If Adam has LFW, then his sin must be first in the chronology of redemption.
Adam's sin would then become an "antecedent condition" that determines God's choice in redemption.

Therefore, if Adam possessed LFW in the Garden.
Then God, according to the definition of LFW, cannot possess LFW.
Because an "antecedent condition" caused the "uncaused" Causer to react.

So, what is the other option? God determined them to sin?

Can you answer the question of the OP in the Thread "A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin"

 

[slave 4 Christ]

No, we are not. But as I explained, this thread was not written with the intent to cover the subject of LFW in the unbeliever. It was written in response to some other posts where Calvinists insisted that LFW was impossible in any instance. By looking at men in the garden prefall, men following salvation and even the nature of God this issue is more easily addressed. Once LFW's possibility is established then one can speak of the effect the fall has on an agent with LFW.

So, what is the other option? God determined them to sin?

Can you answer the question of the OP in the Thread "A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin"

Your actions are very queer to me.
You make an argument, then I answered.

Then you run off to another OP.
Deal with the verses and my arguments.

 

[Skandelon]

Hank,
We do not deny "moral" agency.
Annanias chose based upon his "nature".
He is 100% responsible for his sin.

The choice was real.
He could have done any thing he "wanted"

Slave4Christ you are defending a position called compatiblism. I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom or LFW)."

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." (as you have argued here) It is my contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts (and nature) of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

 

[glfredrick]

So, what happened when the believer falls into temptation and sins? Is that because God didn't influence them in that circumstance? Did he not provide all that was needed for them to resist the temptation?

Did you miss the point in Scripture where it says that we have an enemy who tempts?

You are making presenting a false dichotomy here. There is another choice.

Actually, its typically Compatiblists who argue that a choice is free if it is according to what one desires. Clearly Paul speaks here of not doing the things he desires, which if anything would seem to contradict the concept that a man always follows his greatest inclinations.

When I suspect someone in a debate of holding a biased opinion about the subject upon which they debate, and they I also see that individual asking the respondents to accept their view on any given point in the debate, I get rather suspicious that something may be taken out of context. Take this for what it is (and I know you will, we've already discussed how you enjoy defeating Calvinism more than you enjoy examining the Scriptures for God's revealed truth).

With the above thought in mind, do you not see that Paul is virtually the opposite of one with LFW? He is in a war to decide and to do the things that he knows he should, but he is not always winning that battle. That reinforces several points that work in opposition to your own position: God does not have total LFW apart from His initial creative effort; God is not deterministic (as He would necessarily have to be if He truly exercised LFW in the way you are using the term); and, man does not have LFW at all being tossed back and forth by outside forces.

This war Paul speaks of in the heart of a believer from a libertarian perspective is a prime example of self-determiniation as the new nature battles with the old. That is the very heart of LFW.

What libertarian perspective. You have yet to prove that an ACTUAL LFW exists. If it does not exist, there is no "perspective" from which to see something and any point argued along those lines is argued from false premises, a flawed proposition, if you like.

 

[Skandelon]

Jesus indicated that we could resist sin, until we finally die in the effort. I would suggest that we do not exercise our resistance to that level... Resisting sin does not automatically lead to LFW, however. In that, I believe you have overstepped the grounding for LFW. LFW would indicate that I never have to deal with sin, not just resist what comes my way whether or not I wish for it to happen. We are, as others have already noted, constrained by the choices we are forced to make (and there are consequences for our choice or lack thereof) all of which indicate no or at best a VERY limited free will that is not even truly categorized as libertine in nature.

You are dodging the question. Again, consider the last time you sinned. Could you have done otherwise? Could you have willingly resisted that temptation?

Yes or no.

If yes, you have affirmed LFW whether you accept it or not.

If no, then you have violated the clear intent of 1 Cor. 10:13 in that God obviously allowed you to be tempted beyond what you were able to resist.

It's really that simple.

 

[glfredrick]

Your actions are very queer to me.
You make an argument, then I answered.

Then you run off to another OP.
Deal with the verses and my arguments.

You noticed as well... :saint:

 

[glfredrick]

You are dodging the question. Again, consider the last time you sinned. Could you have done otherwise? Could you have willingly resisted that temptation?

Yes or no.

If yes, you have affirmed LFW whether you accept it or not.

If no, then you have violated the clear intent of 1 Cor. 10:13 in that God obviously allowed you to be tempted beyond what you were able to resist.

It's really that simple.

IF (and that is a qualified IF) I were the sole agent, I would agree with your logic here, but I am not the sole agent, and as such, I cannot agree. I am dodging nothing. I am resisting your efforts, however, to box me in by terms that you are defining. As I stated above, as long as there are other agents involved in the decision, we can (and will) be at war and that war in and of itself indicates that we do not have LFW.

Again, and I'll make it really simple in return, if I truly had LFW, I would simply dismiss the war and walk the other way. That I cannot is evidence enough that your premise is flawed and your proposition is not true in its origin.

 

[Skandelon]

Did you miss the point in Scripture where it says that we have an enemy who tempts?

You are making presenting a false dichotomy here. There is another choice.

So, when a believer sin he can honestly say, "The devil made me do it?" Is that your position? And how does that position remove the clear teaching of 1 Cor 10:13 where it says that God won't allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bare? Why wouldn't that include the temptations from the enemy?

Take this for what it is (and I know you will, we've already discussed how you enjoy defeating Calvinism more than you enjoy examining the Scriptures for God's revealed truth).

And you honestly don't think I could bring the same charge against you or many other Calvinistic participants on this board? Let's refrain from attempting to guess the intent of each other's heart and simply deal with the content of discussion. Okay?

With the above thought in mind, do you not see that Paul is virtually the opposite of one with LFW? He is in a war to decide and to do the things that he knows he should

Please see my response to canadyjd on this point.

What libertarian perspective. You have yet to prove that an ACTUAL LFW exists. If it does not exist, there is no "perspective" from which to see something and any point argued along those lines is argued from false premises, a flawed proposition, if you like.

I've provided a logical proof construct which has yet to be addressed. Which of the points in the construct have you debunked or even attempted to address? If I've made a flawed proposition then prove it. Make a case for my "flawed proposition." What proposition is flawed?

Is it my definition? If so, why?
Is it point A? If so, why?
Is it point A1 or A2? If so, why?
Is it point B1 or B2? If so, why?

Engage the content or start a new thread.

 

[HankD]

Hmm, the longer this C/A debate concerning salvation (i.e. God's Sovereignty vs. Man's responsibity thereof) goes on the more salvation becomes an intricate maze of convoluted logic explained with copious terminology foreign to the Scripture (e.g. Libertarian Free Will, antecedant condition, moral agency, compatibilists, flawed proposition, etc...), with folks telling us what God can and cannot do, what He must do, what He won't do, - while tiptoeing around the doctinal eggshells, straining at the gnats and wordsmithing so as to not offend those of their own feather (or so it seems)...

and this is from both sides and inbetween as well.

Honestly and sincerely brethren, my head is spinning.
That is not to say I haven't enjoyed some of this unusual form of fellowship.

At least the worst of the ad hominems (or is it hominae?) has diminished.

I really hope our Father in heaven has decreed Himself a sense of humor (oh wait, should we debate the origin of humor?).

All the while the Scripture is absolutely sublime in its simplicity.

whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I've taken this water, now I'm taking a rest.

HankD

P.S. I'm just getting old, have your fun, it's harmless (unless you start verbally beating each other - see below).

Judges 12

5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.​