Dominion vs determinism 3

[JonC]

I like Picirilli in that he seems aware that you can come to the end of theology pretty easily. And I don't think that should be a problem if one is using their theological system as a framework, and a help in fencing you from going off too far in a wrong direction. For example, in a discussion of whether all events are determined by God (which he acknowledges as true) doesn't that make history and all of life "some sort of predetermined rehearsal after the fact, merely playing out in motion what has already been settled. To do that is to miss the whole message of the Bible, which is that God deals with us in time an space. He speaks and we obey or disobey, and he responds accordingly when we do. He sets before us life and death now and we choose now. Is there a sense in which he 'decided' to do all these things in eternity? Yes. But he did not do them then ; he does them now. And he does them now in response to what we do."

That is excellent practical advice. Whether it really works as a way to philosophically reconcile sovereignty and real human free will I sincerely doubt.

I enjoy reading people who can present their positions without arguing against other positions. It is fairly uncommon these days. Picirilli did a very good job. Jonathan Edwards did as well (in Fredom of the Will).

 

[JonC]

One reason I believe free-will cannot be assumed to be libertarian free-will is the forum in which this thread is posted (Calvinism vs Arminianism).

Arminianism obviously does not advocate libertarian free-will. Instead it maintains human free agency exists throughout salvation (man is influenced by the flesh and by the Spirit).

@DaveXR650 brings up like pertaining free-will, and it is certainly true that some within free-will theology (not Arminianism) believe that man can, of his own uninfluenced nature, choose God.

Among this minority sect some still leave room for divine influence in terms of man retaining an element of God's image in their nature (that natural man innately struggles between right and wrong, between two opposing desires).

Søren Kierkegaard famously discussed this in Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?
John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.'

What is needed is a change in men and women so radical that is can only be described as a new birth - a birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them' (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

 

[JonC]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?
John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.'

What is needed is a change in men and women so radical that is can only be described as a new birth - a birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them' (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

They do not have libertarian free will. Even among atheists there is a dichotomy between desires and a choice must be made.

A choice between tea and coffee? I would probably choose coffee as I like coffee better than tea. But on occasions I do choose tea. Obviously out desires affect the choices we make.

That is why I say that Arminianism does not even come close to suggesting libertarian free will.


Generally we are talking about salvation (not coffee or tea). So let's look at it.

Arminianism (and most free-will theologies) hold that natural man will only choose to reject God because they are "flesh". But the Spirit works within man in such a way as to influence their desires (by the Spirit men can choose God).

That said, man has these two competing influences (the flesh and the Spirit). Man freely chooses one of these two paths.

That is not libertarian free will as both choices are influenced choices freely chosen. Free-will is the ability to choose between two opposing options.

 

[DaveXR650]

Arminianism (and most free-will theologies) hold that natural man will only choose to reject God because they are "flesh". But the Spirit works within man in such a way as to influence their desires (by the Spirit men can choose God).

I don't really have much against true Arminian free will but let me raise one question. If you really believe that natural man will only choose to reject God then you do believe in total inability and are an almost Calvinist, at the least. In other words, if the "Spirit works within man" in an essential manner, even if it is influence or conviction, if you admit that it is true that without it coming to Christ was not going to happen - then in practice there is not much difference between that and the Calvinist idea that one is born again and that results in a person coming to Christ. For in both cases you have a natural man lost, with no ability to respond on his own.

And then the hedging begins. What the Arminian objects to is God being sovereign in this to the extent that the only real difference between the one saved and the other lost is God's own choice in bestowing grace no matter the type of grace, whether conviction and enlightenment or being born again. They get around this by saying a certain amount of grace is bestowed universally as "prevenient grace" and it is of an enabling and persuasive nature - with man being able to reject it. But if that is the case, to me once you say it is universally bestowed you are back to all men then being given "enough" grace and the choice is then up to them, which to me is no different than a modern free willer who recognizes this as being a needless concession to Calvinism (from a time when it meant something to be called a heretic by Calvinists) and thus they go ahead and say what all free willers really believe - it is truly up to you, and you have all you need to properly decide for Christ and are responsible if you don't.

And please don't think I am being dismissive of Arminianism. I admit that I think there indeed does have to be at some level, whether God supplies convicting and enabling grace or if it's a regenerating grace - if there is not at some level, an ability to thwart this to the extent of losing the opportunity to be saved, then I cannot satisfy myself that this does not lead to a real possibility of God being blamed - as he is the only cause.
I know that a good Calvinist will say "who are you to reply against God", which is true enough if that was all we had. But from scripture, and from Puritan Calvinist preaching even, I don't think we have much evidence that God is doing it like that. There just is too much evidence that men are consciously and with full understanding either choosing unbelief, or preferring the advantages of the world and pleasures of sin more than Christ- and are truly making a free will decision to do so. I would welcome discussion on this because I do not have a settled position myself.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?

And so you are right, and here is where the precise definition of free will is important or discussion is meaningless. I say, as did Edwards, that men indeed have real free will but that as creatures, our choices are results of actual motivations. So, the fact that they prefer sin does indeed mean that they infallibly will not choose Christ - but the choice is because of their own willful inclinations and therefore they can be blamed in spite of the fact that they could have made no other choice.

And that is where the free willer flips his lid because they insist that they "could have" made the other choice. And here's where it gets a little difficult. Yes, technically they could have made another choice - but not without their will being different. Therefore it is meaningless to insist upon a power to choose the other when the simple fact is one cannot willfully choose the other because they don't want to. People say "well, you're just tongue tying everyone and talking in circles". Maybe. But what I say is that libertarian free will can only be true in some cases, like when something is really random and if the choice has no meaning, for instance. Otherwise it is a fantasy and what is really being defended is our conscience, which is real and which we all have, and which is also tainted and affected by our natures.

At any rate, classic Arminianism is common as to getting saved at least. But it tends to drift into libertarian free will, as their own literature exposes when read extensively. And honestly, Calvinism tended to drift more toward the deterministic extreme as well.