Eleven reasons to reject Libertarian Free Will

seekingpurity047 · Aug 12, 2006

(1) According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer no. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sins bondage. Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), mans will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, Christians all affirm that one must first hear the gospel in order to believe since general revelation is not enough to engender saving faith (Romans 10:13-15). But if it is always within the libertarian ability of the human will to believe, as they claim, then again, what purpose is there for the Holy Spirit while hearing? Doesnt this reveal that they actually do believe we normally exercise choice according to the corruption of nature? [We must note, as an aside, that the Epistle to the Romans testifies that even those who have not heard the gospel know enough from general revelation to condemn them because what is known about God is evident within them and they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-20).] By all accounts, then, no true Christian believes that a person has libertarian free will to believe the gospel apart to any work of the Holy Spirit.

But, having deduced that libertarian free will must still be true, libertarians believe they resolve this problem by inventing a logical scheme (nowhere found in the gospels) where God grants something to all who hear the gospel called prevenient grace, which temporarily removes the sin nature by allegedly placing sinners in a pre-fall-like state where they have libertarian freedom to either chose or reject Christ, a choice undetermined by any desires or nature. Because the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. To grace we must add choice. While we heartily agree with libertarians in the necessity of preaching for salvation so that the Holy Spirit can germinate the seed of the gospel, yet to dogmatize the belief that once having heard that one is forevermore wandering the earth in a semi-regenerate state with a libertarian free will is wild speculation at best. For a biblical example that pronounces the differences among us, consider when Paul was preaching the gospel to Lydia and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14). A libertarian would argue this passage placed Lydia in a pre-fall-like state where she had libertarian freedom to believe or reject Jesus. But the passage plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond. There is not one instance in Scripture when such language is used (where God acts) when people actually refused (see 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37; 65). Rather, when God calls a person or opens a heart to respond, the matter is always settled biblically. Galatians 1:15 asserts that Paul was set apart and called by grace before birth. Can such a call be thwarted? Jesus call to Paul on the Damascus road was certain, not merely a possibility. When a person hears a preacher call for their repentance they can certainly resist that call. But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) nor does he want to. The biblical evidence for certainty in calling, then, is clearly on the side of the compatibilist in all cases the Bible reveals Gods intent.

If we had libertarian freedom all the time when hearing the gospel then we could theoretically believe the gospel apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. Yet I have not yet found one libertarian willing to admit this, for to do so would fall into the heresy of Pelagianism. In the end, we must note, that Scripture defines freedom, not as libertarians do, but as the freedom from the bondage to sin, since we are slaves of sin until the Son sets us free (John 8; Rom 6). Biblical freedom is the freedom to do what is pleasing to God (John 8:34-36; Rom 6:15-23; 2 Cor 3:17) and this freedom from sin is granted in the redemptive work of Christ. Yet the Scripture nowhere says anything about the freedom to choose contrary or apart from our desires altogether. We either desire Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace giving us a heart of flesh, not a result of nature itself (John 1:13; Rom 9:16). The real difference between the two views, then, is not really the nature of the will for we all can agree that apart from the Holy Spirit, the will acts according to the affections of its fallen nature in a compatibilist sense. The real difference rather is the nature of Gods grace in salvation (what it does for us).

- John Hendryx, http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html

johnny_redeemed · Aug 13, 2006

Nice post!

CCWoody · Aug 13, 2006

Woody checks in and readies a verse from Paul that I didn't see Hendryx use. I happen to think it is the fatal one to libertarian free will.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

nobdysfool · Aug 14, 2006

CCWoody said:
Woody checks in and readies a verse from Paul that I didn't see Hendryx use. I happen to think it is the fatal one to libertarian free will.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

And that verse would be??? (waiting with anticipation....)

seekingpurity047 · Aug 14, 2006

CCWoody said:
Woody checks in and readies a verse from Paul that I didn't see Hendryx use. I happen to think it is the fatal one to libertarian free will.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist

Woody.

Would it happen to be somewhere in Ephesians? Or no.... wait, it's most likely anywhere in the Bible haha...

To the glory of God,

Randy

seekingpurity047 · Aug 14, 2006

(2) Extra-Biblical Intuition: Without providing any biblical evidence whatsoever for the basis of libertarian freedom Walls and Dongell instead make their strongest assertions about why they believe it in statements such as “We believe it is … obviously true that responsibility requires libertarian freedom,” and it is their “judgment” that “the common sense view of freedom is libertarian freedom.” Also “…it seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us.” Right away we see there is an open admission here that the libertarian free will position derives its assumptions solely from a philosophical precommitment of what they call intuitive common knowledge. This means that one of the most the foundational doctrines which hermeneutically controls the way they read the entire Scripture is based purely in speculation and logical deduction with statements like “it seems” rather than from any biblical exegesis. If this were a smaller matter we might be able to overlook it but since this is the controlling factor in how we relate to God in all of Scripture it is a cause for no small alarm. This is baffling since libertarians make bold claims to believe in sola scriptura. You would think that if it were important to God that He would mention it at least once. A system based purely on extra-biblical assumptions makes their case really quite hard to prove. Failure to demonstrate a biblical basis for this belief means that libertarianism should be abandoned, that is, unless they are willing to continue foregoing the authority of the Scriptures in order to uphold their philosophy.

CCWoody · Aug 14, 2006

What is that verse that Woody has in mind....

Well, what is the central premise of Libertarian free will but that man can act independent of his nature. Where does Paul address this idea DIRECTLY by demonstrating that even though the desire to act independent of his nature exists, the ability to do so is not present. (Hope that is not too much of a hint, but it probably is.)

But, there is another verse which does demonstrate that even if we grant the ability to act independent of your nature, man is still completely at the mercy of God to elect him to choose to repent.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

JJB · Aug 14, 2006

I'm thinking I might know one citation Woody is thinking of, thanks to that first hint.

is it?......is it?......is it?.......is it in Romans? Wait! Hendryx used lots of Romans.......

CCWoody · Aug 14, 2006

It is in Romans, but I didn't notice Hendryx using this particular cite.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

cygnusx1 · Aug 14, 2006

CCWoody said:
What is that verse that Woody has in mind....

Well, what is the central premise of Libertarian free will but that man can act independent of his nature. Where does Paul address this idea DIRECTLY by demonstrating that even though the desire to act independent of his nature exists, the ability to do so is not present. (Hope that is not too much of a hint, but it probably is.)

But, there is another verse which does demonstrate that even if we grant the ability to act independent of your nature, man is still completely at the mercy of God to elect him to choose to repent.

Woody.

Romans 7

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.

seekingpurity047 · Aug 15, 2006

3) Causeless Choice: Libertarians, of course, like to claim that we also base our compatiblism in philosophical assumptions but this assertion simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There are an endless number of Scriptures that affirm that our choice to believe or reject the gospel is done so of necessity because of our innermost affections and inclinations. For example, in John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. We all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. Quoting the Old Testment prophet Isaiah, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for the error of choosing without intent by saying, “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” This reveals that it is impossible to honor Jesus with a faith that does not also honor Him from the heart. This is not very different from the kind of faith libertarians are describing. Later to another group of those who refused to believe, Jesus shows us what the cause of our choices are when he replied,
"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)

Jesus continually points to reasons or motives as the determining factor for believing and rejecting the gospel: they are “determined to kill me”, “their heart is far from me”, they “want to carry out their father’s desire” and they reject me because they “do not belong to God.” Libertarian causeless choice is, therefore, an idea foreign to Scripture and basically goes against all sound logic. If our choice to receive Christ is causeless, not arising of necessity from our affections or desire when we see God’s beauty and excellence, then it is made, as it were, out of thin air, for no other reason but that we chose, as if the person wills to choose something he doesn’t want. To give you a real life example of libertarian causeless choice, read the following excerpt from a recent conversation I had with a libertarian where I asked a simple question about why we believe the gospel. I asked,

“If the gospel is preached to two persons and they both receive equal (prevenient) grace, why is it that one man ultimately believes the gospel and not the other? What makes the two people to differ? It wasn’t grace that made the to differ since both had grace, so it was obviously something generated naturally in one of them that the other did not have. What was it?

He answered in classic libertarian fashion, “One heard and understood, one did not. One believed and one did not. That's the nature of free will. Our decisions are not DETERMINED by forces outside of our will. And that's why one man accepts and another rejects Christ.”

Lets take a closer look at his answer. He said that ‘one understood and one did not’ … but where did such understanding come from to begin with? Was this understanding itself derived from nature or from grace? In the libertarian scheme did God grant this understanding so that one believed? We are forced to conclude that He did not, for if He did this for everyone, then both persons would have the same understanding. So we must conclude that, to the libertarian, such spiritual understanding is entirely self-generated, apart from any work of God’s grace in us. Whatever differences there were between the two men, these differences were not derived from grace. Ultimately, it is a reliance on some innate ability in one man, which the other did not have. So we must ask, then, according to libertarianism, was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other? The only two alternatives left to us here are either that one person just happened to understand (‘just because&#8217

by chance, or that one was already better equipped than the other (in his natural self) to respond positively to the gospel command. Neither of these possibilities is aligned with the teaching or intent of the gospel, which is by grace through and through.

Now, in his second answer to why one believed and not the other, He answered, “one believed and the other did not” But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. Our libertarian friend didn’t really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy, since he believes that it was not his desires (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.

But the answer faces the same difficulty as the first --- did one just happen to believe? My gospel says that only the humble, who recognize that they have no hope in themselves, will embrace Christ and, in like manner, the proud will despise and reject Him. Either sin and virtue, of necessity, precede our choice when Christ is put before us. It is the grace of God that makes us humble, not innate ability or chance. But the libertarian is unwilling to say it was only by God’s grace in Christ because he then would admit to God’s sovereign choice. Nor will he provide an answer that reveals a moral virtue in one person (humility) that the other (who was proud), did not naturally have. This would expose his belief in salvation by merit. But these two answers are the only possible conclusions. So if there is not of necessity any moral reason or motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him? To believe the gospel is a moral choice, from the heart. If not then God could not call the rejection of the gospel a sin. If our affections do not cause us to believe then belief and unbelief is ultimately non-affectional, not from the heart and rejection could not be considered a sin. But if it is a moral choice then how did one person get a more moral disposition than the other? One remained proud and the other humble? Was this by nature or by grace? If by grace then why don’t all men have it? If by nature then some people are more virtuous than others apart from grace. This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them have been able to answer these basic questions. The answer ‘just because’ is not enough.

Ben johnson · Aug 16, 2006

1. Denies that every person is called TO salvation. The call is sufficient to overcome depravity. No matter how many times "man saves himself / makes himself righteous / lifts himself up by his own shoestrings" is answered, those statements are still posited.

The "natural man being hostile to God, does not even submit itself TO God, is not even ABLE to submit", ignores the reality that "hostility/unsubmission consequent by setting one's (own!) mind ON God or ON the flesh. This real ability persists also for the saved. See Col3.

2. Verse after verse after verse is asserted in opposition to "sovereign-predestination"; but each verse is re-interpreted by RT proponents. Usually it's an application of "NOT REALLY". When Jesus prayed that Peter's faith not fail, it's taken to be the 100% effective means FOR Peter's faith NOT to fail. IOW, "Jesus did NOT REALLY think Peter's faith COULD fail".

When Jesus blasted Pharisees for REFUSING to enter salvation, for STOPPING those who WERE entering, for "shutting off Heaven from men", it's simply taken as "can NOT REALLY be shut off forever for the elect" (and "of course it WILL be shut off if they are UNelect").

When Jesus condemned Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum for NOT believing, the response is "there's NOT REALLY any evidence that He thought they COULD repent". Leaving Jesus asserting "it will go BETTER for Sidon and Tyre and even Sodom for you, because of God's PREDESTINATION of them" (makes no sense), rather than "harsher-treatment because of WILLFULL DISBELIEF."

3. So when the GREAT COMMANDMENT is "You shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul", it's an empty command because love is PREDESTINED/sovereignly-INSTILLED/monergistically-CAUSED by God?
(No it's not.)

THose who WILL not believe BECAUSE they hate the light, will suffer for their willful choice. Look at Jn5:39-40; "You search the Scriptures thinking in them you will find salvation; but they speak of ME, and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life." WHY are they unwilling? Jesus tells us; BECAUSE they were seeking their own glory rather than God's. That's written as "causal", rather than "consequential" (to God's predestination).

John (1:5:10) clearly says "those who do not believe, are condemned BECAUSE of their unbelief" --- yet many say "belief/faith is monergistically gifted by God", or "those whom God has sovereignly-predestinedly-regenerated WILL believe" (and the others WILL not).

You see, when we stand before God, we answer for our choices; we are accountable. Reformed Theology states that "we are predestined EITHER to Heaven, OR (if only by God ignoring them) to Hell"; therefore it's all HIS choice, we have no accountability.

You say "God's grace makes us humble"; Scripture says "humble YOURSELVES and He will exalt you"; and "unless YOU humble YOURSELVES as these children, you will not inherit Heaven". You say "belief equals merit" --- Scripture says "belief recognizes worthlessness and receives God's unearned grace".

It is anathema to RT to even consider that man is conscious and capable of independant thought. Man CANNOT believe WITHOUT regeneration (that's how Rom8:7-8 is perceived); 1Cor2:14 is thought to mean this also (no matter how many times 1Cor2:12 is shown to refute that idea). Yet in the face of verses like Luke8:13, then it's admitted that "they CAN believe" --- but it's claimed to be a "FALSE belief evidenced by their eventual FALLING AWAY".

So only perseverance 'til death proves which was "predestined-believing", or only "deluded-believing". (No disrespect meant; "deluded-believing" is the interpretation of Lk8:13; they "received Jesus' Gospel with JOY and BELIEVED"; but because they FELL they must not have been really saved in the first place.)
(That was another "not really" in case anyone missed it...)

Cygnus said:
Romans 7

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.

Nope, that can't be the verse he's thinkin' of. Paul presents "born again" in ch6, the war between the OLD and the NEW natures in ch7, and the solution to that war in ch8. Though Paul could not WILL to DO right, it's clear in ch8 that he can will to walk in Christ (and BY the Holy Spirit put to death his flesh ["do right"]), or NOT.

"Under obligation" is how Paul words it; not "under predestination"...

I look forward to #4-11, Seeking; I hope you see how your numbers 1-3 are refutable in the understanding with which you presented them, and the rest will also conflict Scriptural absolutes.

CCWoody · Aug 16, 2006

Ben johnson said:
Nope, that can't be the verse he's thinkin' of. Paul presents "born again" in ch6, the war between the OLD and the NEW natures in ch7, and the solution to that war in ch8. Though Paul could not WILL to DO right, it's clear in ch8 that he can will to walk in Christ (and BY the Holy Spirit put to death his flesh ["do right"]), or NOT.

No, Ben, that is the verse. And, you are wrong about your assertion regarding the will in that verse. It does state that man CAN will to do right. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. See if you can see just how this verse shreds any notion of a "free" will. Here is a hint: what makes this verse even more fun is that ol' Arminus decided it couldn't be describing the regenerate Paul, but the unregenerate, thus making the verse even more powerful against any notion of free will.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Ben johnson · Aug 16, 2006

No, Ben, that is the verse. And, you are wrong about your assertion regarding the will in that verse. It does state that man CAN will to do right. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. See if you can see just how this verse shreds any notion of a "free" will. Here is a hint: what makes this verse even more fun is that ol' Arminus decided it couldn't be describing the regenerate Paul, but the unregenerate, thus making the verse even more powerful against any notion of free will.

Hi, Woody! I confess --- I knew very well that was the verse you meant.

That verse (7:18) connects to verses 8:3-6: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God DID, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin --- He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh SET THEIR MINDS on the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit SET THEIR MINDS on the Spirit. The mind set on flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace."

Our difference, Woody, is that you see "setting-minds on flesh or Spirit", as CONSEQUENTIAL to God's choice"; while I see it as causal. In Paul's words, he cannot WILL to do good; but he can willfully set his mind on the SPIRIT, and by the Spirit's INDWELLING POWER he gains the ability to do good. Does that make sense?

In 2Cor5:17, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old passes away, behold all is become new (or new things have come)."

You see "in Christ" as God's decision; I see it as man's.

"TEST yourselves, to see if you are IN the faith; do you not realize, CHRIST is IN YOU, unless you FAIL THE TEST?!"

Here is the dynamic I see --- Christ is IN us (and we are in Christ), if we PASS the test. It's up to us, it's not predestined. Christ-in-us, is our power; WITH Him, HE defeats sin and causes us to do the right that Paul (of himself) in Rm7 could not do.

What Paul COULD NOT do, God DID, sending JESUS to condemn sin in the flesh. We walk in Christ, we overcome sin. But "in Christ", is optional. "Obligation" in Rom8:12!

"As you have RECEIVED Christ, so walk IN Him, firmly rooted and being built up in Him, established in your faith, just as you were instructed (and overflowing with grattitude). SEE that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to worldly principles and men's traditions RATHER than ACCORDING TO CHRIST." Col2:6-8

Do you see how he contrasts "walking/abiding in Christ", with "deceived away from Jesus by worldly philosophy and empty deception"?

seekingpurity047 · Aug 16, 2006

4) The Belief in Libertarian Free Will Destroys Moral Responsibility – Walls and Dongell make a strong case that our judicial system is based on the commonsense view of libertarian freedom since the lawyers often defend the degree of guilt of clients based on whether they were coerced, their upbringing, emotional state and the like. These kind of conditions indeed often make people less culpable if their inability made them so they could not have done otherwise. If criminals could have made different choices than they did, i.e. if they were coerced into making a bad choice, then we all agree they would not be as legally responsible for their crime. While it is true that coercion often plays a role in the legal degree of punishment, but this only scratches the surface of the matter. Consider the opposite that if criminals just chose to commit a crime but had no intent or motives for it at all then the lawyer would be forced to plead insanity for his client before the court. If the choice to commit a crime were not based and caused ultimately on a reason, desire or motive then he would have to be absolved from guilt because he would not be responsible for it. If one chose to murder someone simply because he chose to it would be a sign of sickness not responsibility. Libertarian free will, therefore, destroys responsibility. Moral responsibility exists, not in spite of, but because our choices have reasons, motives, intent. Only the determinist, therefore, upholds moral responsibility. Can we be held responsible for doing something we do not want to do?
Furthermore, inability usually does not diminish culpability in a moral decision. If a human were asked to fly and they could not due to their physical limitations, we could not justly blame them for their inability, but if someone were to borrow $100 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Vegas, his inability to repay would not alleviate his responsibility. Therefore what we ought to do morally does not always imply that we can, and yet we remain culpable. God commands that we perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Our inability to do so morally does not take away our moral guilt because our inability is moral and intentional. We wanted to disobey. In fact, Paul clearly shows that the intent of the divine legislation is to reveal sin, not to show that we have the moral ability to keep it. In other words, it reveals that we are impotent to obey the law, stripping up of all hope from ourselves, so we can only throw ourselves on God’s mercy. We inherited Adam’s guilt and freely choose to continue in rebellion. Adam has federally represented all of us, and we agree with his choice every time we sin, so our inability to repay the debt to God does not alleviate us of responsibility. Can anyone claim we are not guilty of a crime by saying “sorry judge, Adam made me do it.” No, we ourselves are guilty when we choose to commit a crime.

Calminian · Aug 17, 2006

seekingpurity047 said:
According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.

Unfortunately the post misses the mark from the opening sentence. First, libertarianism and compatibilism are not theological ideas per se, so they, in and of themselves, have noting to do with the gospel. These are philosophical concepts that are argued outside of the church as much as they are inside. Second, there are very few theologians that believe men are always free to believe or reject the gospel. If you look to traditional arminians such as Wesley and Arminius, they completely rejected pelagianism and semipelagianism—the idea that men are always free to believe. Both vigorously supported the doctrine of total depravity and the necessity of prior enabling grace. Third, even some calvinists believe libertarian freedoms can exist at times, and that it has existed in God, Lucifer and Adam. So, unfortunately (and I do mean that sincerely) I think the thread only shows the poor grasp many calvinists have on this subject.

cygnusx1 · Aug 17, 2006

Ben johnson said:
Hi, Woody! I confess --- I knew very well that was the verse you meant.

Ben johnson said:
That verse (7:18) connects to verses 8:3-6: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God DID, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin --- He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh SET THEIR MINDS on the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit SET THEIR MINDS on the Spirit. The mind set on flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace."

Our difference, Woody, is that you see "setting-minds on flesh or Spirit", as CONSEQUENTIAL to God's choice"; while I see it as causal. In Paul's words, he cannot WILL to do good; but he can willfully set his mind on the SPIRIT, and by the Spirit's INDWELLING POWER he gains the ability to do good. Does that make sense?

In 2Cor5:17, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old passes away, behold all is become new (or new things have come)."

You see "in Christ" as God's decision; I see it as man's.

"TEST yourselves, to see if you are IN the faith; do you not realize, CHRIST is IN YOU, unless you FAIL THE TEST?!"

Here is the dynamic I see --- Christ is IN us (and we are in Christ), if we PASS the test. It's up to us, it's not predestined. Christ-in-us, is our power; WITH Him, HE defeats sin and causes us to do the right that Paul (of himself) in Rm7 could not do.

What Paul COULD NOT do, God DID, sending JESUS to condemn sin in the flesh. We walk in Christ, we overcome sin. But "in Christ", is optional. "Obligation" in Rom8:12!

"As you have RECEIVED Christ, so walk IN Him, firmly rooted and being built up in Him, established in your faith, just as you were instructed (and overflowing with grattitude). SEE that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to worldly principles and men's traditions RATHER than ACCORDING TO CHRIST." Col2:6-8

Do you see how he contrasts "walking/abiding in Christ", with "deceived away from Jesus by worldly philosophy and empty deception"?

you are missing Woody's point ben....... Paul spoke about a state where he COULD will a thing but couldn't DO IT ! ....... now how can you account for a will that is ineffectual , ie , IS NOT FREE!

Ben johnson · Aug 17, 2006

Libertarian free will, therefore, destroys responsibility. Moral responsibility exists, not in spite of, but because our choices have reasons, motives, intent.

Exactly that. "Responsibility" is a word that clearly asserts "receiving the consequences that we CAUSED". Under "Predestination", we lack the ability to cause anything BUT immorality/rebellion. Thus we CANNOT choose to be good, we CANNOT avoid reprobation, we are fully and completely NOT RESPONSIBLE.

[quite Only the determinist, therefore, upholds moral responsibility. Can we be held responsible for doing something we do not want to do?

Completely backwards; your view asserts "we are RESPONSIBLE for being the CAUSE of what we CANNOT AVOID". It is as if much of the population are born colored purple; God condemns being purple, but only He has CHOSEN purpleness or not. GOD is therefore "sole cause", we have no choice. Likewise, if we can ONLY choose rebellion and can choose nothing ELSE without God's monergistic choice of us, then GOD has all the responsibility and we have none.

Furthermore, inability usually does not diminish culpability in a moral decision. If a human were asked to fly and they could not due to their physical limitations, we could not justly blame them for their inability

Exactly; if God condemnes us for NOT-FLYING, but only HE causes such flight, then God is ultimately UNJUST.

"God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES." Rm3:26 THEREFORE belief is full choice.

but if someone were to borrow $100 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Vegas, his inability to repay would not alleviate his responsibility.

Apples and oranges. It is not "ability to pay"; it is the free choice to TAKE the money and to SPEND it in the first place.

Therefore what we ought to do morally does not always imply that we can

Of course it does.

and yet we remain culpable.

Nope --- if we can choose nothing else, then we have no responsibility; for it was GOD who was "fully causal" and WE are "zero-causal".

God commands that we perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Our inability to do so morally does not take away our moral guilt because our inability is moral and intentional. We wanted to disobey.

I will never understand this aspect of Reformed Theology.

1. God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent.
2. ...but repentance is something GOD decides...
3. God commands something of ALL, that He only grants to a FEW
4. God sets before us "life and death", and commands us to repent and LIVE
5. ...but we have no ability TO choose, GOD must choose
6. We are "culpable/responsible", even though we CANNOT CHOOSE
7. Sinfulness is said to be "freely willed", even though none can will ELSE if unelected
8. Righteousness is also "freely willed", even though none can will ELSE if ELECTED

How is there any credibility in such a platform, and why is there such stubborn tenacity in its followers? No disrespect intended...

In fact, Paul clearly shows that the intent of the divine legislation is to reveal sin, not to show that we have the moral ability to keep it. In other words, it reveals that we are impotent to obey the law, stripping up of all hope from ourselves, so we can only throw ourselves on God’s mercy.

This is TRUE --- think about what you said: "We can only THROW OURSELVES on God's mercy". Reformed Theology asserts we CANNOT throw ourselves on His mercy UNLESS He first regenerates us (and then we can't do anything ELSE).

Reformed Theology: We can ONLY sin and rebel and disbelieve, unless God CHOOSES us and then we can ONLY throw ourselves on God's mercy

Responsible Grace: We have NO power to change our sinfulness; but we can freely choose to throw ourselves on His mercy and THEN He empowers us to OVERCOME sin.

Which view reflects Scripture, Randy? Responsible grace!

It looks to me as if each of these points is being fully overturned. What do you think of the refutations?

Ben johnson · Aug 17, 2006

Cygnus said:
you are missing Woody's point ben....... Paul spoke about a state where he COULD will a thing but couldn't DO IT ! ....... now how can you account for a will that is ineffectual , ie , IS NOT FREE!

Read my posts. We CANNOT make ourselves sinless, we don't have the power to DO that.

....but we DO have the power to place ourselves in Christ, by FAITH --- and THEREFORE His power indwells us and overcomes our sin.

Thus we are saved not by "sinlessness", but by BELIEF (which CONSEQUENTS in sinlessness).

"God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES". Scripture asserts belief is causal, not consequential...

cygnusx1 · Aug 17, 2006

Ben johnson said:
Read my posts. We CANNOT make ourselves sinless, we don't have the power to DO that.

Ben johnson said:
....but we DO have the power to place ourselves in Christ, by FAITH --- and THEREFORE His power indwells us and overcomes our sin.

Thus we are saved not by "sinlessness", but by BELIEF (which CONSEQUENTS in sinlessness).

"God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES". Scripture asserts belief is causal, not consequential...

for the second time you are missing Woody's point ben....... Paul spoke about a state where he COULD will a thing but couldn't DO IT ! ....... now how can you account for a will that is ineffectual , ie , IS NOT FREE!

Eleven reasons to reject Libertarian Free Will

Why am I not surprised

Soli Deo Gloria!

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Why am I not surprised

Why am I not surprised

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Well-Known Member

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Jacob the twister.....

Why am I not surprised

Legend

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Legend

Why am I not surprised

Senior Veteran

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Similar threads