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.