Libertarian Free Will???

[HeirofSalvation]

You are wrong in point #2, as I've already explained. You believe that men make choices that have no cause. You claim "self" as cause, but that is no answer.

I never used the word "self"... and there's no reason for you to use that as short-hand.
I said in the L.F. W. schema the agent (that would be the person or the actor) are themselves the "cause".
They cause it, they "choose" it. They are endowed by God with the power of self-determination and the capacity to distinguish and choose between one or more options.
There's nothing wrong with that.
The agents themselves are the causal factor....thus, there is a cause.

That's an answer and a perfectly valid one whether you like it or not....and it's perfectly sufficient.

What you want is to demand necessity from mere causation....that doesn't happen, we don't assume it, and you can't demonstrate it. There are perfectly decent ways to argue your Philosophy, but this angle simply doesn't work.
You are perfectly free to argue that we aren't endowed with "Libertarian" free wills, or that our wills are "bound" in such a way that our choices are necessitated by our natures..................
(that's what Calvinism argues B.T.W.)
But we are still the "causes".
What you can't do is simply smuggle necessity into causality like you do..............and if Frame does it, than his arguments are as pathetic as they seem.

That's nonsense.

I don't think you understand the crux of Calvinist Philosophy that well.....because "causality" isn't the issue...it's the necessity of choices being "caused" by the agents in accord with nature....

Well....I'm not going to help you out any further here:
Your own crowd should straighten you out on these distinctions.............................

John Frame's argument if he made it.....is preposterously stupid...
Like seriously stupid.
If you disagree, please state in your own words why I'm wrong.

 

[thatbrian]

I suppose we must simply disagree here, then.

Alice did choose without external cause. She may have had motivations and biases influencing her, but she did make a decision. (Unless there’s something in the actual Alice in Wonderland text that states she had no free choice, in which case I point out that it’s a fictional book.)

In any case, my questions remain unanswered, so I assume temporary victory.

The cause does not have to be "external".

 

[thatbrian]

I never used the word "self"... and there's no reason for you to use that as short-hand.

My apologies. Sloppy on my part.

That's an answer and a perfectly valid one whether you like it or not....and it's perfectly sufficient.

When computer hardware begins to function without an OS, your argument for LFW will be valid.

I don't think you understand the crux of Calvinist Philosophy that well.....because "causality" isn't the issue...it's the necessity of choices being "caused" by the agents in accord with nature....

Yes. I understand; however, causality is where you were having difficulty in understanding Frame.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

AHA.....Now, you are actually making an argument from your own thoughts...
I appreciate that.
I really appreciate your willingness to engage here.

My apologies. Sloppy on my part.

Yeah, I thought so....but, forgiven.

When computer hardware begins to function without an OS, your argument for LFW will be valid.

If I said that human beings made in the image of God aren't computers and don't have Operating Systems...
How would you reply?

Yes. I understand; however, causality is where you were having difficulty in understanding Frame.

I don't think I misunderstand Frame.
This argument is trying to smuggle necessity in with causality.
That doesn't work.
There's nothing wrong with appealing to the agent themselves (as I do) as the "CAUSE"..
But that says absolutely nothing about the factors of WHY they chose as they did....
It ONLY states that they are the "cause".

Now, my Philosophy is that those choices aren't necessitated by any preexisting conditions...
Yours is that those "causes" are, in fact, necessitated by internal necessity. (namely your view of the fall, doctrine of sin etc).

Thus, the particulars of the causal agents decisions are always necessitated by certain forces (ones internal to the agent themselves in this case).

But no one says they aren't "caused".
And you can't simply smuggle necessity into causality like you do, or apparently Frame did.

That's the debate.

 

[thatbrian]

Jesus on the subject:

"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin...If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does...You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:34-47)

 

[thatbrian]

Now, my Philosophy is that those choices aren't necessitated by any preexisting conditions...
Yours is that those "causes" are, in fact, necessitated by internal necessity. (namely your view of the fall, doctrine of sin etc).

Fig trees bear figs, not thorns, and man cannot act in a manner contrary to his nature. That seems self-evident, so forgive me for not wanting to spend much time trying to explain it further, as there are preexisting conditions that cause you to not accept my position on free will, and I accept that reality.

 

[delizzle]

This is getting interesting.

 

[Yeshua1]

Fig trees bear figs, not thorns, and man cannot act in a manner contrary to his nature. That seems self-evident, so forgive me for not wanting to spend much time trying to explain it further, as there are preexisting conditions that cause you to not accept my position on free will, and I accept that reality.

Jesus stated that until he frees us up, we are slaves to sin, so how to read full free will into that!

 

[Wesley Briggman]

You still don’t understand what Free Will means.

Please share with me some scripture that will help me understand your position. I am willing to learn.

 

[Ben Labelle]

Please share with me some scripture that will help me understand your position. I am willing to learn.

Leviticus 22:21: “And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under “Free Will”: “‘Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

It does not mean, as you seem to think, that any choice is morally acceptable, or that one ought not to subject his will unto God’s.

If we go back to Saul, he said “what wilt thou have me to do?”

If he had no free will, he wouldn’t have needed to ask that, because whatever he was doing a thing any time was what God would have him do.

 

[Yeshua1]

Leviticus 22:21: “And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under “Free Will”: “‘Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

It does not mean, as you seem to think, that any choice is morally acceptable, or that one ought not to subject his will unto God’s.

If we go back to Saul, he said “what wilt thou have me to do?”

If he had no free will, he wouldn’t have needed to ask that, because whatever he was doing a thing any time was what God would have him do.

We all agree that Man has free will remaining, its just bound/hindered by the state of having a sin nature, and so not really fully free!
Free still to do what we want, but we are not able to want all things anymore!

 

[utilyan]

Fig trees bear figs, not thorns, and man cannot act in a manner contrary to his nature. That seems self-evident, so forgive me for not wanting to spend much time trying to explain it further, as there are preexisting conditions that cause you to not accept my position on free will, and I accept that reality.

Sorry HeirofSalvation,

You are not part of the SPIRITUAL MASTER RACE, so you will never understand due to your preexisting conditions.

I however........ Been touched BY GOD!

He never appeared to me. I never saw him face to face. I just self-proclaimed my self because after all.....how else can one explain this perfect body of mine?


We Calvinist are regenerated and called from your pathetic depraved state, once we hear the gospel. Which explains why millions of people spontaneously become Calvinist through out the whole world every day.

The time will come when we will laugh together with God in his joyous glory at the eternal torture of totally depraved souls.

Now i have better things to do.....then to waste my time with a soul obviously GOD declared forever depraved!


HAIL VICTORY! o/

 

[delizzle]

Leviticus 22:21: “And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under “Free Will”: “‘Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

It does not mean, as you seem to think, that any choice is morally acceptable, or that one ought not to subject his will unto God’s.

If we go back to Saul, he said “what wilt thou have me to do?”

If he had no free will, he wouldn’t have needed to ask that, because whatever he was doing a thing any time was what God would have him do.

And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord , choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord .”
Joshua 24:15 NKJV

 

[thatbrian]

Necessity, not Coercion

When Jesus says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that a thorn bush cannot bear figs, He is saying that the nature of a thing determines, by necessity, not coercion, the direction that thing will take.
​

The above is paraphrased from: Free will vs. Free Agency - The Aquila Report

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Necessity, not Coercion

When Jesus says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and that a thorn bush cannot bear figs, He is saying that the nature of a thing determines, by necessity, not coercion, the direction that thing will take.
​

The above is paraphrased from: Free will vs. Free Agency - The Aquila Report

Agreed.

The same "nature of a thing" applies to mankind.

Rom 5:12 KJV - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The produce of mankind is more sinners. No saints. Only God can produce saint.

 

[thatbrian]

Agreed.

The same "nature of a thing" applies to mankind.

Rom 5:12 KJV - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The produce of mankind is more sinners. No saints. Only God can produce saint.

Amen! No truer words have ever been spoken.