A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

[Skandelon]

What!!! Your definition of LFW denies a determining influence outside of the person's will.

Romans 7:20 very clearly states that sin is a determining influence concerning a person's decisions.

Therefore, the definition of LFW that you gave is clearly contrary to scripture.

And yet, you have forgotten the former argument and now state that there is a battle on-going between the new nature and the old (both the new and old are antecedent conditions... which... according to your definition, have no determining influence). This battle of influences, you now say, is the very heart of LFW.

How can there be a war of natures when those natures (the new and the old) never had a determining influence on a person's decisions in the first place?

Your definition has been proven false by your own arguments made for it.

peace to youraying:

You keep attaching the word determining to the word influence which is confusing the matter because it presumes your position....(that influences are determinative) Remove that word and you'll have the sin nature influencing you when you sin rather than determining you to sin. See the difference?

 

[Andy T.]

Skand, quick question. One of your arguments against C is that God is essentially the author of sin because God is the one who 'sets the rules' and allows/ordains/determines that man is born with a sin nature. However, I'm not sure your position escapes the same charge - because you also believe we are born with a sin nature, right (albeit to a different degree)? Before we are able to do or know anything right or wrong, we all have this sin nature that "influences" us to sin? And God is the one who set those rules in place, right? If not, is our sin nature just a cosmic accident? So the question for you is - who is responsible for little innocent babies being born with a sin nature?

 

[psalms109:31]

Responsible

We are responsible for our sin nature. Sin came from our self and God gives us over to our own evil desire.

God created us perfect, just like He did with King Tyre, and Satan until wickedness was found in them.

Where we disagree with is just as He gives us over to our own evil desire. He will give us over to Jesus whoever turns to Him our only hope for salvation.

If God wanted us to only go down one road and we only can go that way then He would of only provided one road from the beginning instead He gave us two through His word.

It is His will to give us these two direction, so man can only blame themselves where they end up.

Like I tell everyone, if man does nothing with His word, God does nothing. God has made the first move by His word, what are you going to do with it?

 

[Benjamin]

If I may give my 2 cents:

Before we are able to do or know anything right or wrong,…

How do we know what is right or wrong, good or evil? Knowledge. Knowledge makes us want to be as gods (Gen 3:22) and to judge between good and evil, BUT there is only One that is Good, perfect in judgment. Man falls short and this is by his own doing while in disobedience.

...we all have this sin nature that "influences" us to sin?

In Adam, we all “chose” to sin and this influence is through “our” judgment because of “our” knowledge.

And God is the one who set those rules in place, right?

Yes God did, after man, through Adam, chose to be disobedient. (Not that God didn't know man would make this choice, mind you)

If not, is our sin nature just a cosmic accident?

No, it was a choice that had consequences.

So the question for you is - who is responsible for little innocent babies being born with a sin nature?

Man (and woman), all of us.

 

[glfredrick]

Come on, GL will tell you, we do limits at infinity and infinite limits everyday in calculus. It is true, that some infinities are larger than other infinities. In reality, nothing in mathematics actually "exists". Even on the most rudimentary level, it is ALL simply a construct of the mind of mankind.

Factoring infinity in mathematics and seeing an actual infinity (apart from God, that is) in the cosmos are two different things. Numbers are just that, and like words, semantics can set the stage for things that are impossible in the real world.


Is a triangle always 180*? Depends on which form of mathematics is applied to figuring the area. It can be both less than and more than if factored differently, which you well know.

 

[glfredrick]

So, if we only have "choices" contained within parameters, means we really dont have choices?

Sort of, but not a dichotomy as you've described it. Making it an either/or dichotomy leads to a deterministic God and that is not true. We cannot press logic that far, for we are told otherwise in the Revelation from God.

We can have choices, but the choices are primarily limited to moral issues, and they will tend to go in line with our nature. We cannot use the dichotomy between choice/no choice to eliminate all the Scriptures say about the choice that we do have -- but that choice is not LFW in any sense, for our choices are all bounded by constraints.

Illustrated mathematically, we know that pi is calculated to an (potential) infinity, but we can also say that we will limit our choice of the number of places factored to 100, or 10, or 2, then work within those parameters, which is both typical and normal in virtually every instance pi is used. In 2nd grade terms, we "round up" and settle on an answer that is not completely truthful, but that works in a pragmatic sense.

 

[glfredrick]

We all operate freely within our natures.

My human nature will limit my ability to fly.

My sinful nature as a lost person prevented me pleasing God, or wanting to.

My new nature, given to me as a new believer, freed me from those chains.

But I still can't fly.

I would say that our new nature changes the parameters of our choices. The Bible says that we are either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to Christ." In both, there are circumstances apart from us that dictate limits in choice. We don't have LFW once we become born again any more than we had before. But, yes, we are freed from our former chains, and they are replace with new chains that are oriented godward. Praise God for that!

 

[Andy T.]

Man (and woman), all of us.

How is a newborn baby responsible for the nature they are born with?

 

[glfredrick]

How is a newborn baby responsible for the nature they are born with?

Because God said so...

THAT is why the gospel is truly "good news." Softening the position, theologically, because one feels bad about the "bad news" is not the way to address the issue of our culpability for sin and our position as apart from the kingdom of God by birth.

 

[webdog]

How is a newborn baby responsible for the nature they are born with?

They cannot be...and God does not say so.

 

[psalms109:31]

Repent

We worry about things we can't even comprehend what God would do about infants that only know how to trust in their parents to do what is right before God with them. If you want to see yourself, just look at your children they could be a reflection of you.

The point is what we are going to do with what God gave us repent turn to Jesus (righteousness) or continue on our merry way to destruction.

God is just and He will deal with these infants, mental retarded, senile or whoever and the normal Joe justly.

Are we going to bury the things given to us by God and the message Christ sent out His disciple's to do or to continue to disciple and send other out with the same message and use our God given gifts to extend His Kingdom?

 

[Skandelon]

If I may give my 2 cents:


How do we know what is right or wrong, good or evil? Knowledge. Knowledge makes us want to be as gods (Gen 3:22) and to judge between good and evil, BUT there is only One that is Good, perfect in judgment. Man falls short and this is by his own doing while in disobedience.


In Adam, we all “chose” to sin and this influence is through “our” judgment because of “our” knowledge.


Yes God did, after man, through Adam, chose to be disobedient. (Not that God didn't know man would make this choice, mind you)


No, it was a choice that had consequences.


Man (and woman), all of us.

:applause: Thanks Ben. Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Benjamin]

How is a newborn baby responsible for the nature they are born with?

A new born baby will acquire knowledge (through Adam’s deed) and in this knowledge he/she will make judgments, and in these judgments he/she will fall short. In my view it is not that the baby is born a sinner but born with the nature to sin. This is where accountability comes in, for without creaturely accountability there could be no justice in God’s righteous judgment. Deut 32:4.

 

[Andy T.]

Who gives man his sin nature? What fault did we do to inherit a nature that "influences" us to sin?

You see, there is not much difference between what you and Skand believe and what Skand tries to pin on C's. In Skand's view, C theology makes God into a violent blackmailer - giving man no choice but to sin (because God judged man in Adam's sin to allow the sin nature to affect mankind). But your view is not much better - God is more like a corrupt briber - he judge's Adam's sin by allowing the sin nature to propagate, "influencing" man to sin.

So according to Skand's reasoning, your theology makes God into a corrupt briber. Now I don't believe this, but I'm just showing the consistency with Skand's argument against Calvinism. Since we both have theologies that make God out to be a monster (one a blackmailer, the other a briber), maybe we should just abandon all orthodoxy and embrace full-orbed open theism to absolve God altogether.

 

[Skandelon]

Who gives man his sin nature? What fault did we do to inherit a nature that "influences" us to sin?

It is a result of the fall. That result must have been something determined by God. Adam was our representative so when he sinned we all sinned and fell under the curse of the law.

You see, there is not much difference between what you and Skand believe and what Skand tries to pin on C's.

There is not near as much difference between Arminianism and Calvinism as most people think. Most people just aren't very familiar with true Arminianism. We affirm the doctrine of Original Sin, we just don't believe everyone is born hardened as the dogma of Total Depravity suggests.

 

[quantumfaith]

Who gives man his sin nature? What fault did we do to inherit a nature that "influences" us to sin?

You see, there is not much difference between what you and Skand believe and what Skand tries to pin on C's. In Skand's view, C theology makes God into a violent blackmailer - giving man no choice but to sin (because God judged man in Adam's sin to allow the sin nature to affect mankind). But your view is not much better - God is more like a corrupt briber - he judge's Adam's sin by allowing the sin nature to propagate, "influencing" man to sin.

So according to Skand's reasoning, your theology makes God into a corrupt briber. Now I don't believe this, but I'm just showing the consistency with Skand's argument against C. Since we both have theologies that make God out to be a monster (one a blackmailer, the other a briber), maybe we should just abandon all orthodoxy and embrace full-orbed open theism and absolve God altogether.

Andy T,

No disrespect intended, but that is precisely true, if one holds that God purposefully, willfully and intentionally created mankind for the purpose of sinning, then yes, it does make God out to be something other than what many of us see God to be throughout the pages of scripture. Sovereign--yes, but also loving, kind, merciful, just, righteous, holy and so on. When one feels that God "needed" to create sinners in order to display either His wrath or for His glory, that is a human assumption that God needs something, making Him as deterministic as us. (BTW, this is the same "complaint" that Cals have of us non-cals that we assume things. )

 

[psalms109:31]

Reflection

Actual it is us who worship the creation over the creator. We did it to ourselves when it wasn't created in us but found. He created us perfect in His likeness.

So it came from ourselves, and now through Jesus we can see God, by getting to know His Son through the word about Him and the words from Him.

We can continue to be given over to our own evil desire or we can turn to Jesus and God will also give us over to that also.

I don't believe He inclined us to go no direction, but we through His word was provided two roads not one.

We are saved not by our choice, but the choice of God to save those who trust in His Son, and condemn those who don't. I do not want to see God through man view of God, but through Jesus the only way to see the Father, the Fathers reflection

 

[Skandelon]

Andy T,

No disrespect intended, but that is precisely true, if one holds that God purposefully, willfully and intentionally created mankind for the purpose of sinning, then yes, it does make God out to be something other than what many of us see God to be throughout the pages of scripture. Sovereign--yes, but also loving, kind, merciful, just, righteous, holy and so on. When one feels that God "needed" to create sinners in order to display either His wrath or for His glory, that is a human assumption that God needs something, making Him as deterministic as us. (BTW, this is the same "complaint" that Cals have of us non-cals that we assume things. )

Good point. Allow me to add, we don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. We believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granted a few of them the ability to receive it, all the while expressing a desire for all to come to repentance and a frustration for those who remain unwilling.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers natural abilities. A message of reconciliation sent for every creature certainly implies the ability for every creature to willingly accept it and a doctrine, such a Calvinism, that teaches they can't certainly makes one question if that type of offer can be truly genuine.

 

[Andy T.]

Andy T,

No disrespect intended, but that is precisely true, if one holds that God purposefully, willfully and intentionally created mankind for the purpose of sinning, then yes, it does make God out to be something other than what many of us see God to be throughout the pages of scripture. Sovereign--yes, but also loving, kind, merciful, just, righteous, holy and so on. When one feels that God "needed" to create sinners in order to display either His wrath or for His glory, that is a human assumption that God needs something, making Him as deterministic as us. (BTW, this is the same "complaint" that Cals have of us non-cals that we assume things. )

I never said that God "needed" to create sinners. Maybe some believe that, I do not.

By your reasoning, our choices are between a blackmailer and a briber. Or open theism. Take your pick.

 

[quantumfaith]

I never said that God "needed" to create sinners. Maybe some believe that, I do not.

By your reasoning, our choices are between a blackmailer and a briber. Or open theism. Take your pick.

That is a totally erroneous assertion Andy. I think you are quite wise and intelligent enough to know that.