Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

[Rippon]

Why does a man listen? The answer is interest because no one wants to die.

So there we have it. That is what separates one person from another. In KJV-speak --What makes one differ from another? Well, MB just gave the definitive answer that Calvinists have asked all along. "Interest, because no one wants to die." But just where does this "interest" originate -- in the mind/heart of an individual? Certain people have this interest (because no one wants to die) and the rest of humanity doesn't possess this interest? Intriguing.


After a man has heard the gospel he either becomes willingly convinced of it or he rejects it. If he becomes convinced he then believes and belief is the answer to how to be saved.

 

[Allan]

Allan please reread my post above but first take off your biased glasses.

No bias. I do not believe you think man is forced to sin nor that man does not choose to sin. And since I don't believe those things of your position what I gave was a rhetorical question that is the logical conclusion to your statement, so you could potentially 'restate' it.

Did I say anything about sin?

No, you said nothing 'specifically' about sin but you did say:
"Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise. The loss of free will was a result of the fall. " (emphasis mine)

'After the fall' implies the time when Adam and Eve sinned and plunged all mankind into sin. Therefore the crux of your statement hinges upon 'sin'.

Did I say anything about man choosing to sin?

Again, let us look at what you said because it is here where your implication lies:
Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise. The loss of free will was a result of the fall.

Free-will is a phrase that encompasses choice. You state that man lost his free-will (choice). If He lost his choice, then he can not sin by choice nor can he choose to remain in sin and darkness by choice.

Did I say anything about man being forced to sin?

If man has no choice then someone is cause of his sin, who?

 

[Allan]

Allan was asked if he was committed to LFW.

He replied :"No, at least according to those who hold that position."

Brian said: "All I have done is asserted that LFW is not a doctrine derived from Scripture, but is read into Scripture."

And that prompted Allan to say:"This is an argument without any substance."

So which is it Allan, do you, or do you not, hold to LFW? You can't have it both ways.

Didn't say I was, you just didn't read very well.

 

[Allan]

Allan has the tendency to read anything he wishes into the comments of others.

Thank you Rippon, I think that is the nicest thing you have ever said about me :thumbs:

 

[Darrenss1]

So there we have it. That is what separates one person from another. In KJV-speak --What makes one differ from another? Well, MB just gave the definitive answer that Calvinists have asked all along. "Interest, because no one wants to die." But just where does this "interest" originate -- in the mind/heart of an individual? Certain people have this interest (because no one wants to die) and the rest of humanity doesn't possess this interest? Intriguing.

Mountains from molehills. The fact is MB gave more explanations than what you quoted. I suggest you read the other posts as well.

If he becomes convinced he then believes and belief is the answer to how to be saved.

All you are doing is tripping over your own shoelaces trying to rephrase the non Cal position to make it mean what it doesn't. God reaches out to lost sinners with His word, truth of God/Christ, the gospel and man simply responds to God's intervention. Christ is always the object of that saving faith. Whatever you might be trying to state apart from belief in Christ is completely absurd.

Darren

 

[Rippon]

Didn't say I was, you just didn't read very well.

Do you, or do you not hold to LFW? So far you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. A clear-cut answer would be nice.

 

[Rippon]

Thank you Rippon, I think that is the nicest thing you have ever said about me :thumbs:

You're certainly welcome.

 

[Allan]

Do you, or do you not hold to LFW? So far you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. A clear-cut answer would be nice.

Reread the post. If you would actually read it your lack of understanding on whether I hold to LFW or not will be replaced with the knowledge you seek concerning me.

Why, because in that very post I state what I believe and distinguish where others try to place me with respect to the LFW understanding :thumbs:

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thanks for staying with the discussion.

If anyone can show you any verse or verses in which man is asked to choose (whether by God or for God) then that, in and of itself defies your very hypothosis.

Now, this is interesting. Allan, you seem to be saying that a simple recitation of a verse where man is asked to choose proves LFW. But this does not seem right. We all agree that we can make choices. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the choice is free. Phrases like, “Choose you this day whom you will serve,” say nothing about the state of the will in terms of choosing. Those phrases just tells us to choose. As such, to quote a verse and cry “Q.E.D.!” simply will not do.

You go on to quote Deuteronomy 30:19 where Moses exhorts the people to choose life. Again, Allan, we all agree that mankind can make choices. The question concerns whether or not the choice is free. Deuteronomy 30:19 says nothing about this. If you think it does, then please explain how.

To sum up, when you hear God speaking to you don't harden your heart (negitive choice) but obey Him (positive choice). Both illistration are action done by the people and therefore are not passive (being done to them) but active (they are the doers).

Once again, there is no debate that we make choices (we act – we are the doers). But the issue is not this. The issue is whether or not the choices we make are free. Again, if you think these verses do teach this, then lay out the argument.

What part of "he shall offer it of his own voluntary will" do you not understand? The word "voluntary" proves beyond a shadow of doubt that a man has the ability to make his own choices.

Winman, it is good to hear from you. In this particular translation it seems you think “voluntary will” connotes that man has LFW. John Wesley was committed to LFW. Here is his commentary on this verse:

According to this translation, the place speaks only of free - will offerings, or such as were not prescribed by God to be offered in course, but were offered by the voluntary devotion of any person, either by way of supplication for any mercy, or by way of thanksgiving for any blessing received.

In other words, the use of “voluntary will” was making a distinction between those offerings that were prescribed (not voluntary) and those offerings that were voluntary rather than a commentary on LFW. The offering being described in Lv. 1:3 is not prescribed, but rather is voluntary.

This verse makes no sense unless a man has the ability to turn to God.

The verse you quoted was Deuteronomy 4:30 where it says, “…if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;” Winman, consider the following conditional sentence, “If Brian Bosse runs the 100 meters in under 10 seconds, then he will be a world class sprinter.” This sentence makes perfect sense and is true even though I am unable to fufill the requirement found in the antecedent (the first half of the conditional).

It's really past absurd to argue with those who do not believe men have their own free will, there are literally hundreds of verses that prove otherwise.

You simply read LFW into these verses. You quote the verses and then act as if you have proved LFW. Let me illustrate. You quoted Ezra 7:13 (I think you mistyped the verse – you had 3:13). Now, in the KJV it says “…which are minded of their own freewill…” This comes from a letter written by the Pagan King Artaxerxes. The king is decreeing that those who were taken captive in the captivity, if they wanted to return to Jerusalem with Ezra, may do so (the implication also being that those who want to remain may do so as well). No one was to be forced to leave. So, there are two things here: (1) A metaphysical doctrine derived from the statement of a pagan king does not constitute a Biblical teaching; (2) The statement made by the king had nothing to do with LFW, but was simply stating that those who wanted to go, had permission to go. For you to assume that this all teaches LFW means that you are reading it into the text rather than deriving it from the text.

After a man has heard the gospel he either becomes willingly convinced of it or he rejects it.

The issue is why his will is of the disposition to accept it or reject it - not that man does do these things. We all agree we make choices. We all choose according to our will - we all do things of our will, i.e., willingly. That is not the issue. The question concerns the state of the will. Is it free or not?

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Allan]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thanks for staying with the discussion.

Now, this is interesting. Allan, you seem to be saying that a simple recitation of a verse where man is asked to choose proves LFW. But this does not seem right. We all agree that we can make choices. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the choice is free. Phrases like, “Choose you this day whom you will serve,” say nothing about the state of the will in terms of choosing. Those phrases just tells us to choose. As such, to quote a verse and cry “Q.E.D.!” simply will not do.

You go on to quote Deuteronomy 30:19 where Moses exhorts the people to choose life. Again, Allan, we all agree that mankind can make choices. The question concerns whether or not the choice is free. Deuteronomy 30:19 says nothing about this. If you think it does, then please explain how.

Once again, there is no debate that we make choices (we act – we are the doers). But the issue is not this. The issue is whether or not the choices we make are free. Again, if you think these verses do teach this, then lay out the argument.

How can we make 'choices' if (as your view supposes) we can not make choices. That makes no sense.

If God tells a man to choose between to opposing things, whether directly to them or through another, then the burden of proof is now on you to prove they can not choose so freely. God is not a deciever (which I am quite sure you agree) and thus if God says choose this day life or death, or through Paul to choose not to harden your hearts when you hear God speaking to you as the Children of Israel did, then are we not to take God at His word, the choice is free to be made because God is the one allowing it to be made. And since God does not lie either then a choice between to can be made for 'either' position because God is the one allowing or better affecting the situation.

Therefore choice can be made if two or more options are equally available to a person. You do not believe they are and as such there is no choice.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Allan,

How can we make 'choices' if (as your view supposes) we can not make choices. That makes no sense.

Allan, who said that we cannot make choices? I never said we cannot make choices.

If God tells a man to choose between to opposing things, whether directly to them or through another, then the burden of proof is now on you to prove they can not choose so freely.

There are two positions. One position is that human choices are free, and the other position is that human choices are not free. Why should one position have the burden of proof over the other? Nevertheless, God's simply telling someone to choose says nothing about whether their choosing is free or not.

God is not a deciever (which I am quite sure you agree)…

What do you mean by this? I Kings 22:23 (NASB) seems to indicate that God does deceive in some sense. Are you simply meaning by this that God does not lie?

…and thus if God says choose…then the choice is free to be made because God is the one allowing it to be made.

You are putting forth an argument here, but it is be based on God not being a deceiver. So, before I consider the argument, I am going to let you clarify what you mean by this.

Thanks,

Brian

 

[MB]

The issue is why his will is of the disposition to accept it or reject it - not that man does do these things. We all agree we make choices. We all choose according to our will - we all do things of our will, i.e., willingly. That is not the issue. The question concerns the state of the will. Is it free or not?

Sincerely,

Brian

Hi Brian;
This thing called rebellion is what keeps men from being saved. If a man hears the gospel and understands it. It is the work of God that he did. Yet if that man for what ever reason decides to rebel he has in effect stopped the Salvation process. Even though he may be convinced of the truth he cannot act upon his belief with faith and hope if he isn't willing to give up the things of the world.
Paul knew that the Jews knew the bible at the time. Though they didn't have the new testiment yet. They understood it for the most part yet they were unwilling to submit to the righteousness of God.
Paul wrote;
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

The thing they were lacking was submission to God because in that submission all they had to do was accept Christ as the Son of God.

Many still try to get there by there own efforts just as they did. You see submission requires a decision to do so. It's a decision only the one who is submitting can make.
MB

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello MB,

Thank you for your comments.

You see submission requires a decision to do so. It's a decision only the one who is submitting can make.

Yes, I understand this. We all make decisions as to whether or not we submit. But, this is not the issue. The issue concerns the state of the will making the decision. Does that will have liberty or is it a slave? Those who subscribe to LFW say that the will has liberty. Pointing to passages that speak of our choosing simply does not speak to the liberty of the will in that choosing.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[MB]

Hello MB,

Yes, I understand this. We all make decisions as to whether or not we submit. But, this is not the issue. The issue concerns the state of the will making the decision. Does that will have liberty or is it a slave? Those who subscribe to LFW say that the will has liberty. Pointing to passages that speak of our choosing simply does not speak to the liberty of the will in that choosing.

Sincerely

Brian

Hi Brian;

The Jews in Romans 10 have there liberty. They have rebeled against and chosen not to believe or accept Christ as there Messiah. Even still because of there zeal it's obvious they have been drawn regardless of what they chose to accept. The reason they weren't saved is because they refused to submit. This is a demonstration of there free will to rebel.

The Jailer in Act 16:31 after hearing the gospel preached by Paul certainly had liberty when he came in and asked How he could be saved. If he had already been saved because of his understanding how come he didn't understand that he was already saved?, since according to reformed doctrine regeneration should have brought him understanding? Actually if you'll examine Act 16:31 you'll see that this Jailer was seeking Salvation. A task reformers say we can't do with out faith and there can be no faith with out regeneration. The Jailer didn't have to ask Paul but because he wanted to be saved he had to. His own desire influenced his will. Even though he could have just as easily rejected the whole idea.
Christ invited all to come to Him;
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
I know Salvation has been rest for me. It's been Peace in the middle of storms.
Adam had liberty same as we do and not one scripture says we ever lost our ability to choose our own paths once we have been convinced of the path we should take.

MB

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello MB,

The Jews in Romans 10 have there liberty...The reason they weren't saved is because they refused to submit. This is a demonstration of there free will to rebel.

If you read into the rejection of Jesus a libertarian free will choice you are simply begging the question. You have not proved from Scripture that the choice was done with LFW, you just assert that it is.

The Jailer in Act 16:31 after hearing the gospel preached by Paul certainly had liberty when he came in and asked How he could be saved.

How do you know that this jailer had LFW? This is not stated in the passage. So, either you are reading it into the passage (assuming it without Biblical proof), or there is some argument that leads from the passage to the conclusion "the jailer of Acts 16:31 had LFW." So far, no such argument has been forthcoming.

If he had already been saved because of his understanding how come he didn't understand that he was already saved since according to reformed doctrine regeneration should have brought him understanding?

I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not the Bible teaches LFW. We are *not* talking about Reformed doctrine. We are simply talking about wether or not the Bible teaches LFW.

His own desire influenced his will. Even though he could have just as easily rejected the whole idea.

You seem to be saying that desire (his want to) influences the will (his decision to choose). In other words, it seems you are saying that we choose according to what we want, i.e., our desires. Does our "want to" have liberty?

Adam had liberty same as we do and not one scripture says we ever lost our ability to choose our own paths once we have been convinced of the path we should take.

I have two thoughts regarding this:

(1) We all agree we can make choices. No one is saying that we cannot choose what we want. As such, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not our choosing is a libertarian free will choosing. I have said this numerous times, but it does not seem to be sinking in.

(2) To say something along the lines of "Scripture does not prove that we do not have LFW" (which is what it sounds like you said using different words), even if it were true (which I do not grant), does not constitue a proof that "Scripture does prove the we have LFW."

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[MB]

Hello MB,



If you read into the rejection of Jesus a libertarian free will choice you are simply begging the question. You have not proved from Scripture that the choice was done with LFW, you just assert that it is.

It seems as if you don't want to see freewill in scripture even when it is made plain as day. If you believe the jailer was regenerated first prove it. If regeneration opens one's understanding then how come the Jailer didn't know he was saved already?. Why did he have to ask Paul how he could be saved?.

If the Jews in Roman's 10 had a zeal for God how come they weren't saved already. After all Calvinist claim men cannot seek God on there own. How does one have a zeal for God? with out the promptings of the Holy Spirit?.

How do you know that this jailer had LFW? This is not stated in the passage. So, either you are reading it into the passage (assuming it without Biblical proof), or there is some argument that leads from the passage to the conclusion "the jailer of Acts 16:31 had LFW." So far, no such argument has been forthcoming.

I know he had freewill because He asked Paul how to be saved. If he had been regenerated and regeneration opens a persons mind then he should have already known he was saved. He had to ask because he wasn't saved yet and desired to be saved.

I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not the Bible teaches LFW. We are *not* talking about Reformed doctrine. We are simply talking about wether or not the Bible teaches LFW.

Since Calvinist are famous for believing you are either Arminian or Reformed, and there seems to be no inbetween. What else would you call it since it's obvious there was no prefaith regeneration yet the Jailer was seeking Salvation and the Jews had a zeal for God. Both, with out being regenerated. This isn't possible with out being able to do so on your own freewill.
This was made possible when Christ died for the whole world. In His dying for all of us He chose all of us and granted repentance.
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Salvation use to be of the Jews and after His death the Gentiles were also granted repentance. That's the whole world we are all either Jew or Gentile and now there is no difference.

You seem to be saying that desire (his want to) influences the will (his decision to choose). In other words, it seems you are saying that we choose according to what we want, i.e., our desires. Does our "want to" have liberty?

Yes and it still does.
Man knows there is a God because it has been writen on his heart.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Not even the lack of hearing the gospel is an excuse for the rejection of God. because it is already with in men.

I have two thoughts regarding this:

(1) We all agree we can make choices. No one is saying that we cannot choose what we want. As such, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not our choosing is a libertarian free will choosing. I have said this numerous times, but it does not seem to be sinking in.

The very word choose gives us all the liberty to pick one or the other. Other wise it wouldn't be a choice.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Is there any doubt that Joshua chose who he would serve?

(2) To say something along the lines of "Scripture does not prove that we do not have LFW" (which is what it sounds like you said using different words), even if it were true (which I do not grant), does not constitue a proof that "Scripture does prove the we have LFW."

Sincerely,

Brian

The fact that the Jailer in Act, and the Jews in Romans 10 made there choice shows freewill. It has been demonstrated where as prefaith regeneration has never been demonstrated from scripture. I can only show you the truth, I can't make you accept it. You see, it's a choice to see it or not, it's up to you. Your free to choose.
MB

 

[Winman]

(1) We all agree we can make choices. No one is saying that we cannot choose what we want. As such, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not our choosing is a libertarian free will choosing. I have said this numerous times, but it does not seem to be sinking in.

Yes, you are deceiving yourself. If God imposes what you believe, then that is not your choice, it is God's. Even a child would understand this.

The problem with Calvinists is they see everything from the assumption that God does not give man a choice. Then they are confronted with hundreds of scriptures that clearly show man has a free will and can make a choice. You see God literally begging men to be saved. Why would God do that? If God can simply force the man to believe, then why would this be necessary? But Calvinists cannot let go of this false doctrine, so they must twist the scriptures to try to fit this falsehood.

2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Paul is literally begging men to be saved here. That makes no sense if man cannot make his own free choice.

Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Here God with stretched and open arms calls his people to be saved, but they are disobedient. Disobedient to what? To God's will, for it is God's will that all be saved.

Jer 35:15 I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers: but ye have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me.

The Bible is full of verses where God is calling men to repent and come to him. And the Bible clearly shows that men refuse to listen.

Now Calvinism actually tries to teach that it is God's will that these men do not listen or repent. Calvinism teaches that before time God has decided to leave these men in a lost state without the ability to repent. But then God goes out and calls them over and over anyway. Ridiculous.

And I have showed you verses that say "own voluntary will" and "freewill". I mean, what does it take to convince you? If God's holy scriptures will not convince you, then no argument from someone on this forum will. You need to quit listening to false doctrines of men and hear what the scriptures plainly say.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello MB,

Your post probably is best summed up in the following quote...

The very word choose gives us all the liberty to pick one or the other. Other wise it wouldn't be a choice.

It seems your argument is as follows...

Premise 1: If the word 'choose' does not assert LFW, then the word 'choose' does not denote a choice.
Premise 2: The word 'choose' does denote a choice.
Conclusion: The word 'choose' does assert LFW.

This is a valid argument (modus tollens). As such, if the premises are true, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is established. Are the premises true? Let's grant that premise 2 is true. Since we agree on premise 2, then the truth or falisty of premise 1 is based on whether or not the proposition...

(P) The word 'choose' does assert LFW

...is true or not. If P is true, then premise 1 stands and your argument goes through. However, if P is false, then premise 1 is false and your argument fails. So, to see if P is true let's consider what it means to choose. Here is a quote from Wiki...

Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action.

According to Wiki, when we use the word 'choose' we are speaking of making a selection from multiple options on the basis of what we judge to be the merits of those options. In our debate, the question is whether or not this process of judgment and selection is free or not. Clearly, this is not addressed at all. For example, if someone's process of judging is skewed, then the choice that they make will be skewed. In other words, if their judgement is skewed, then they do not have the freedom to choose accurately between options. Now, if this skewing of judgment is extreme, then it could be that there are some options that they would never choose. Why? Because according to their skewed judgment those options would be completely unacceptable. In other words, they are not able to choose those options because of their skewed judgment. Yet, according to the definition above, all of this is still considered choice. As such, the action of choosing does not in and of itself say anything about whether or not the choice was made with freedom. In other words, P is false and your argument is unsound.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,

Allan, who said that we cannot make choices? I never said we cannot make choices.

You can not make any choice apart from the ability to choose equally between two or more options. You contend that man never has had such an option, not even in the beginning. Therefore it is only logical to conclude that you 'are' saying man can not make choices.

There are two positions. One position is that human choices are free, and the other position is that human choices are not free. Why should one position have the burden of proof over the other? Nevertheless, God's simply telling someone to choose says nothing about whether their choosing is free or not.

The burden rests upon you because you are the contending no such thing exists. To make such a statement and presume no need to validate it would make such an argument nothing more than wishful thinking being presumed as fact. You state that man is not 'free' to make choices, ergo man can not make choices or choose.

Your last sentence makes no sense:
"Nevertheless, God's simply telling someone to choose says nothing about whether their choosing is free or not".

The very fact God declares they are to choose or make a choice declares just the opposite of your contention. To infer anything else but their being 'free' to choose is to disregard clear the meaning of the text.

What do you mean by this? I Kings 22:23 (NASB) seems to indicate that God does deceive in some sense. Are you simply meaning by this that God does not lie?

So you actaully contend that God is and can be a deciever? Wow!

I would suggest you reread the story. It has nothing to do with God determing or purposing to decieve His people but we find that He is allowing a lying spirit who came up with the deception and asked to do this, and God permitted him to do it. God allowed the people to be decieved of their own choice, by their own unbelief and ungodly ways. They could have easily not been decieved by the lying spirit if they were walking as they should before the Lord for the Lord has His true prophet NOT speaking any such deception. However the 'false prophets' were speaking such deception not from God but the lying spirit.

You are putting forth an argument here, but it is be based on God not being a deceiver. So, before I consider the argument, I am going to let you clarify what you mean by this.

Thanks,

Brian

It means just what it says, God is not a deceiver nor is He a liar.
One can not be a liar without being a deceiver and vise versa. To purposefully lie is to deceive and purposefully deceive is to lie.

 

[Allan]

Hello Brian,

I would like to address this statement I made because it sounds much worse than it really should. The statement was:

So you actaully contend that God is and can be a deciever? Wow!

I was being somewhat sarcastic here and nothing more brother.