Common Grace and LFW

[Andrew]

Wondering whether any LFW-ers also hold to the idea of common grace, that is God's acting to restrain the extent of evil people would engage in otherwise. If so, how do you harmonise the two?

[seer]

Wondering whether any LFW-ers also hold to the idea of common grace, that is God's acting to restrain the extent of evil people would engage in otherwise. If so, how do you harmonise the two?

I do believe that God in fact does, at times, restrain men from doing evil. That is biblical. But that does not remove choice. A man may choose to do evil, and God may prevent him from carrying out that choice. The man is still responsible making that choice and having that intent.

[geebob]

Wondering whether any LFW-ers also hold to the idea of common grace, that is God's acting to restrain the extent of evil people would engage in otherwise. If so, how do you harmonise the two?

Seer's comment is one viable route which I think God does indeed put into practice.

But there's something else here to note, particularly about libertarian freedom. Libertarian freedom doesn't require that all of our choices be libertarian free. Only some of them need to be free.

And in fact, most philosophers don't believe that all of our choices are libertarian free. Alvin Plantinga for example doesn't think that most of our choices are free. William Hasker would think most of the choices that we generally think are free are free, but he isn't commited to the notion that all choices are free.

So not only could God limit which choices are free, he could also place constraints within free choices themselves. A choice is libertarian free when there is more than one option that is available all of which really can be taken. The most wicked options don't have to be real viable possibilities. They could be percieved as options but perhaps they won't be psycologically possible. Or they don't ever have to occur to the person.

[themuzicman]

We restrain evil all the time without interfering with free will.

Take car security and tracking systems as an example.

Car theives desire to commit evil by stealing our property, but we prevent its theft by locking our doors, putting "the club" on the steering wheel, making an alarm go off whenever the car is distrubed, installing "lo-jack" or "On star" to track our vehicles, if they are taken, so the car can be recovered, etc.

And that's just as puny humans. Imagine what God is able to do, if He chooses.

Michael

[geebob]

Your right in that they are still free to desire to steal the car and free to attempt to steal it, but on lfw's terms, there is a restriction on a free act, and an outright removal of it. You are free with respect to an action that you may take or refrain from taking. A thief is not free to steal a care that he isn't capable of stealing.

[rhutchin]

...Libertarian freedom doesn't require that all of our choices be libertarian free. Only some of them need to be free.

And in fact, most philosophers don't believe that all of our choices are libertarian free. Alvin Plantinga for example doesn't think that most of our choices are free. William Hasker would think most of the choices that we generally think are free are free, but he isn't commited to the notion that all choices are free.

So not only could God limit which choices are free, he could also place constraints within free choices themselves. A choice is libertarian free when there is more than one option that is available all of which really can be taken. The most wicked options don't have to be real viable possibilities. They could be percieved as options but perhaps they won't be psycologically possible. Or they don't ever have to occur to the person.

I do not think that the issue is necessarily whether choices are free but what does the "freedom to choose" entail and do people actually have that freedom.

For example, James talks about being tempted and then defines this relative to our desires. By "freedom to choose" does one mean the freedom to choose that which one desires? If yes, then the issue is not so much freedom to choose as it is freedom to desire. However, both God and Satan are said to be able to influence what people "choose" by playing on a person's desires. Satan can take a person who has good desires and confuse them enough so that they make bad choices. Satan did this to Adam and Eve with success and to Jesus without success.

It is not a simple issue and certainly not as simple as saying that people have the "freedom to choose."

[geebob]

I do not think that the issue is necessarily whether choices are free but what does the "freedom to choose" entail and do people actually have that freedom.

It most certainly is with regard to Andrews question which is a question as to how what he calls common grace can fit within a libertarians paradigm.

If you aren' a libertarian, and you try to answer the question of libertarians without putting yourself in libertarian shoes, your answer won't be as relevent.

By "freedom to choose" does one mean the freedom to choose that which one desires?

It means freedom to choose one option while at the same time having the freedom to refrain from choosing that option. The question presumes libertarian free will. Whether that view is valid or not is irrelevent. You can still try to understand and see how a certain view point deals with issues that it may have. Moving away from that viewpoint won't answer how that viewpoint deals with the problem.

It is not a simple issue and certainly not as simple as saying that people have the "freedom to choose."

to answer a question adequately, you gotta respect the limitations of the question. Your answering a different question, which is okay in some contexts but that doesn't mean the original question was done justice.

[smaller]

I do believe that God in fact does, at times, restrain men from doing evil. That is biblical. But that does not remove choice. A man may choose to do evil, and God may prevent him from carrying out that choice. The man is still responsible making that choice and having that intent.

The only readily apparent fact in your statement is that you count sins against men.

Jesus did no such thing.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I do not think that the issue is necessarily whether choices are free but what does the "freedom to choose" entail and do people actually have that freedom.

geebob
It most certainly is with regard to Andrews question which is a question as to how what he calls common grace can fit within a libertarians paradigm.

If you aren' a libertarian, and you try to answer the question of libertarians without putting yourself in libertarian shoes, your answer won't be as relevent.

I guess it would be nice if someone could explain the libertarian view of common grace. I am not sure that the libertarians have sorted this out. It is hard to put oneself in the shoes of the libertarian when they have not made the shoes yet.


rhutchin
By "freedom to choose" does one mean the freedom to choose that which one desires?

geebob
It means freedom to choose one option while at the same time having the freedom to refrain from choosing that option. The question presumes libertarian free will. Whether that view is valid or not is irrelevent. You can still try to understand and see how a certain view point deals with issues that it may have. Moving away from that viewpoint won't answer how that viewpoint deals with the problem.

The definition of Libertarian Free Will is “freedom to choose one option while at the same time having the freedom to refrain from choosing that option,” and it is a theoretical position. However, a lot of people apply LFW as if it were something more that a theoretical construct. That is where the confusion arises. Andrew’s question seems to ask whether “common grace” is the mechanism that LFW uses to go from a theoretical position to observable practice. LFW needs some mechanism to go from theory to practice (regardless of whether that mechanism is called common grace), so the issue becomes, What is the “freedom to choose” that LFW wants to achieve?


rhutchin
It is not a simple issue and certainly not as simple as saying that people have the "freedom to choose."

geebob
to answer a question adequately, you gotta respect the limitations of the question. Your answering a different question, which is okay in some contexts but that doesn't mean the original question was done justice.

Not wanting to put words in Andrew’s mouth, his question relates to the role of common grace in LFW. He does limit it to the suppression of evil, but if LFW allows God to suppress evil, then it can hardly limit His actions in other areas. My guess is that LFW cannot allow God to intervene at any level in the affairs of men

[geebob]

I guess it would be nice if someone could explain the libertarian view of common grace. I am not sure that the libertarians have sorted this out. It is hard to put oneself in the shoes of the libertarian when they have not made the shoes yet.

I don't know that there is any dogmatic rigid view and if there is, it isn't that important for the purposes of this thread. I was merely answering Andrews question given how he defines it. How can God restrain evil to an extent in a libertarian view?

The definition of Libertarian Free Will is “freedom to choose one option while at the same time having the freedom to refrain from choosing that option,” and it is a theoretical position.

exactly.

However, a lot of people apply LFW as if it were something more that a theoretical construct.

theories are believed. To apply it and interpret relevent parts of the world with it is simply what people do who subscribe to it.

Andrew’s question seems to ask whether “common grace”

he defines common grace. It's God's restraint of a degree of evil. Whether or not he has used that title aptly, I have taken what he has meant by it and answered the question.

LFW needs some mechanism to go from theory to practice (regardless of whether that mechanism is called common grace), so the issue becomes, What is the “freedom to choose” that LFW wants to achieve?

it's not the question. I don't know whether andrew cares if you go off topic or not, but it remains whatever your looking for here, it doesn't matter in terms of answering his question.

He does limit it to the suppression of evil, but if LFW allows God to suppress evil, then it can hardly limit His actions in other areas. My guess is that LFW cannot allow God to intervene at any level in the affairs of men

see my first post in this thread. There is no conflict with the existence of lfw and God restraining evil. God's restraints may often restrict lfw, and that is perfectly coherent with lfw which in no way requires that all choices be libertarian free.

If you have trouble with this, stop making assumptions about lfw and understand what I said about lfw is the way that it is. We define the view. thus we are the authority on it and hence it isn't worthwhile debating us on what it means. libertarians may debate over issues within libertarian freedom and it's implications, but the general meaning of lfw isn't debatable.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
[Andrew] does limit it to the suppression of evil, but if LFW allows God to suppress evil, then it can hardly limit His actions in other areas. My guess is that LFW cannot allow God to intervene at any level in the affairs of men

geebob
see my first post in this thread. There is no conflict with the existence of lfw and God restraining evil. God's restraints may often restrict lfw, and that is perfectly coherent with lfw which in no way requires that all choices be libertarian free.

If you have trouble with this, stop making assumptions about lfw and understand what I said about lfw is the way that it is. We define the view. thus we are the authority on it and hence it isn't worthwhile debating us on what it means. libertarians may debate over issues within libertarian freedom and it's implications, but the general meaning of lfw isn't debatable.

When you say, “There is no conflict with the existence of lfw and God restraining evil,” you are taking LFW (the theory) and transferring it to practice. Because you jump from theory to practice, you can then conclude that God can restrict LFW choices (in practice) if He wants.

The problem is first to determine whether LFW operates at the practical level. At the theoretical level, we can easily deal with LFW. If LFW does not exist other than in theory, then Andrew’s question is easily disposed of. God’s restraint of evil is a mutually exclusive event that does not impede on the theoretical LFW.

What Andrew has assumed (I think) is that most people think that LFW is a law operating in real life. Most people do not think about LFW as a theoretical position. If we assume this position for the sake of argument, then there is a clear conflict possible. This is true even when you (and others) take the position that all choices do not have to be libertarian free. This position is a cop out. The only choice that matters relates to salvation, and LFW wants that choice to be a LFW choice. This is the conflict that Andrew’s question requires that we address.

The question is whether God’s ability to restrain evil impinges on the LFW choice related to salvation. If God can restrain evil, then how much can God restrain evil? Can God restrain it to the extent of changing a person’s heart (saving them without giving them a choice) so that they no longer desire evil? The LFW crowd has not thoroughly examined the issues raised by their “assumption” that LFW is a law governing human choices related to salvation.

[geebob]

When you say, “There is no conflict with the existence of lfw and God restraining evil,” you are taking LFW (the theory) and transferring it to practice. Because you jump from theory to practice, you can then conclude that God can restrict LFW choices (in practice) if He wants.

rhutch, I have no clue about what you are talking about. This is a rule of rationality that sounds rational but in fact has no bearing to anything that actually is rational.

What you say afterword sounds like Ravi Zacharius misapplied.

Where are you getting this from rhutch?

then Andrew’s question is easily disposed of.

dispose of it in another thread. Those who recognize and understand the question can answer it better than those who don't believe in lfw and and refuse to go beyond that disbelief to the perfectly good questions of the coherency of free will with other concepts.

What Andrew has assumed (I think) is that most people think that LFW is a law operating in real life.

exactly. the assumption is basic to the question. If you don't want to answer the question and you want to attack the assumption, do it in another thread. Andrew may not care, but the point is this. We can indeed rationally deal with these different questions on their own terms regardless of how other relevent questions are answered.

Rutch, I know you think you are dealing with the question but if this were may thread, I would've had a mod bounce you by now for the simple reason that this question, relevent as it may be, is something that can nevertheless be dealt with elsewhere. In the meantime, whether or not lfw is true or not, libertarians can presume it when dealing with other issues within libertarian freedom, questions that are perfectly good and deserve to be dealt with on a libertarians terms.

Rutch, please understand, this is how you go about criticism of paradigms. This is how you go about discussion and working within a paradigm. people within their paradigm (not you, your not a libertarian...though you could grant our assumption for the sake of discussion if you wanted to) are well within reason in assuming the basics of their paradigm when they want to deal with other issues within that paradibm.

This is how REAL christian philosophers do it. Christians haven't had the upperhand in philosophy for most of the 20th century. But in the last third, there was an explosion and revival in Christian philosophy with Christian philosophers contributing to all branches of philosophy plus going further and deepening the discussion of philosophy of religion with a richness that hadn't been their for ages.

And one of the things that characterizes much the work in this revival is that Christian philosophers assume certain basics about their faith. So Nicholaus Wolterstorff can wright a book on the idea that God communicates without discussing whether God exists. But an atheist can in similar fashion to what you are doing can come along and say "well, we have to look at God's existence first because if he doesn't exist, then the question is irrelevent". The fact is it is not the christian philosopher who's being foolish here. Christian philosophers do indeed address this question but it doesn't have to preceed every single discussion on God. That is just absurd and redundant and fruitless. When they are writing on the existence of God, of course they can't assume it (well, actually, a reformed epistemologist may argue differently, and I don't mean to detract from that view which has a lot going for it), but if they aren't writing on it, they don't have to deal with it.

We don't have to deal with the question of the validity of free will here. The question is the coherence of freewill and common grace. Even if free will were false, we who are ignorant of that fact can still see how free will coheres with common grace.

What Andrew has assumed (I think) is that most people think that LFW is a law operating in real life.

and he most certainly is entitled to assume that. It is a assumption that very well can be challenged. And we have a feature of this website that allows you to challenge it. It's called the "new thread" button.

surely you can bring it up here as you are doing as long as the thread starter doesn't mind, but it doesn't in any way shape or form detract from the fact that his question itself may be asked and dealt with regardless of the issue you want to bring up. And what if free will is false? does that mean the question is pointless? not necessarily. At least you will know that it isn't false because free will conflicts with common grace (assuming common grace as andrew defined it operates).

Most people do not think about LFW as a theoretical position.

rutch, where ever you are getting this info on the distinction of theory and practice from, might I suggest that you throw the book away. perhaps it is a good book in which case I'd recomend you go down to the nearest university, find a philosophy proffesor, and ask him to explain it to you.

Most people do not think about LFW as a theoretical position. If we assume this position for the sake of argument, then there is a clear conflict possible.

the proof is in the pudding. Without reffering to any highly suspect rules of rationality already discussed, please explain where the conflict is.

The only choice that matters relates to salvation, and LFW wants that choice to be a LFW choice.

then start a new thread on it.

The LFW crowd has not thoroughly examined the issues raised by their “assumption” that LFW is a law governing human choices related to salvation.

we don't just assume it. we assume it when dealing with it's coherence with other issues. But if you want a thread discussing why we believe their is free will, well work has indeed been done here. BUT IT'S NOT THE TOPIC IN THIS THREAD AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!

Are there reasons to believe in free will? yes of course? and whether or not there are, we can still address the issue of free will's coherence with common grace.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The question is whether God’s ability to restrain evil impinges on the LFW choice related to salvation. If God can restrain evil, then how much can God restrain evil? Can God restrain it to the extent of changing a person’s heart (saving them without giving them a choice) so that they no longer desire evil? The LFW crowd has not thoroughly examined the issues raised by their “assumption” that LFW is a law governing human choices related to salvation.

geebob
we don't just assume it. we assume it when dealing with it's coherence with other issues. But if you want a thread discussing why we believe their is free will, well work has indeed been done here. BUT IT'S NOT THE TOPIC IN THIS THREAD AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!

Are there reasons to believe in free will? yes of course? and whether or not there are, we can still address the issue of free will's coherence with common grace.

So, let's address the issue of free will and common grace. Andrew has defined common grace to include God's restraint of evil. I have asked the question concerning the extent to which God can restrain evil. Can you speak for the LFW crowd and state (1) whether LFW agrees that common grace can be defined as Andrew does and (2) whether there is a conflict between common grace, as defined by Andrew, and LFW.

My understanding from LFW is that if LFW allows God to restrain evil, then LFW cannot allow God to restrain evil by saving a person. LFW removes the conflict that arises if it allows God to restrict evil by not allowing God to save people as one means to restrain evil.

[geebob]

(1) whether LFW agrees that common grace can be defined as Andrew does and

the concept of libertarian free will has no bearing on how common grace has to be defined. It does limit the range of what common grace can be while remaining consistent with it and that is pretty much the relevence.

(2) whether there is a conflict between common grace, as defined by Andrew, and LFW.

seer, musicman, and I have already given a range of answers that address this towards the beginning of this thread.

My understanding from LFW is that if LFW allows God to restrain evil, then LFW cannot allow God to restrain evil by saving a person.

But andrews question is not specifically concerned with salvation. It's evil in general. I know you said that salvation is the only significant issue with regard to lfw, but that isn't true at all. God is very much concerned with history and the way events occur in the world.

I don't see why God can't restrain evil by saving a person. Now can God restrain the evil of the libertarian free rejection of him? I don't believe so (not that a libertarian has to commit to that notion). But I think it's within his power to keep that person from running off and committing suicide or murdering, or some other horrid act. The person may not be free then with respect to that act, which is consistent with the notion that he has freedom. You don't need to be able to excersize it all the time in order to have it. But there is a limit to that. God soverignly decided to give us lfw for reasons. As calvinists are fond of telling me, God cannot deny himself (as if that implied meticulous soverignty). Thus in giving man free will, God took that risk for various purposes. God can restrain and limit free will as long as he doesn't violate his purposes in giving us libertarian free will (so when God cannot restrain lfw, it's not because he doesn't have the power to but because he will remain consistent with the choices that he has already made. He has already made a general choice which will have specific applications. To deny that he can do this is to deny his omnipotence).

Now what is one of those purpose for creating free will? It is so that he would have a creature who would love him with a type of love that can only come from creatures (or a creature) who would love him with self determining love. For temporally finite creatures, that requires the possibility not to love, hence you have the explicit definition of lfw directly applied to the issue of love, and that is that his creature has the unimitigated (unmitigated in every way...such as psycological determination) ability to love him and the unmitigated ability to refrain from returning God's love.

Now do we all have to individually love God that way? maybe. God wanted a unified body of persons called the church, and the members of that church are characterized by such a love, a love isn't necessary but freely give. Do all members of the church have to have this same type of love? I don't see that it is necessary. For some, it could very well be psycologically determined. And why would God allow such a thing? So God would have a guaranteed servants who would help him in his mission in bring others to God's grace of their own free will, so the body would generally be populated by such free beings. I don't see that it has to be absolute, but only prevelent.

But I only hold that out as a possibility. I don't think that think that there are such determined individuals. But this is a reasonable position within the libertarian camp.

So it is reasonable for God to restrain evil by saving someone. But I don't think that that's the case. I stick to what I told andrew, God can restrain evil in general.

[Ormly]

the concept of libertarian free will has no bearing on how common grace has to be defined. It does limit the range of what common grace can be while remaining consistent with it and that is pretty much the relevence.



seer, musicman, and I have already given a range of answers that address this towards the beginning of this thread.



But andrews question is not specifically concerned with salvation. It's evil in general. I know you said that salvation is the only significant issue with regard to lfw, but that isn't true at all. God is very much concerned with history and the way events occur in the world.

I don't see why God can't restrain evil by saving a person. Now can God restrain the evil of the libertarian free rejection of him? I don't believe so (not that a libertarian has to commit to that notion). But I think it's within his power to keep that person from running off and committing suicide or murdering, or some other horrid act. The person may not be free then with respect to that act, which is consistent with the notion that he has freedom. You don't need to be able to excersize it all the time in order to have it. But there is a limit to that. God soverignly decided to give us lfw for reasons. As calvinists are fond of telling me, God cannot deny himself (as if that implied meticulous soverignty). Thus in giving man free will, God took that risk for various purposes. God can restrain and limit free will as long as he doesn't violate his purposes in giving us libertarian free will (so when God cannot restrain lfw, it's not because he doesn't have the power to but because he will remain consistent with the choices that he has already made. He has already made a general choice which will have specific applications. To deny that he can do this is to deny his omnipotence).

Now what is one of those purpose for creating free will? It is so that he would have a creature who would love him with a type of love that can only come from creatures (or a creature) who would love him with self determining love. For temporally finite creatures, that requires the possibility not to love, hence you have the explicit definition of lfw directly applied to the issue of love, and that is that his creature has the unimitigated (unmitigated in every way...such as psycological determination) ability to love him and the unmitigated ability to refrain from returning God's love.

Now do we all have to individually love God that way? maybe. God wanted a unified body of persons called the church, and the members of that church are characterized by such a love, a love isn't necessary but freely give. Do all members of the church have to have this same type of love? I don't see that it is necessary. For some, it could very well be psycologically determined. And why would God allow such a thing? So God would have a guaranteed servants who would help him in his mission in bring others to God's grace of their own free will, so the body would generally be populated by such free beings. I don't see that it has to be absolute, but only prevelent.

But I only hold that out as a possibility. I don't think that think that there are such determined individuals. But this is a reasonable position within the libertarian camp.

So it is reasonable for God to restrain evil by saving someone. But I don't think that that's the case. I stick to what I told andrew, God can restrain evil in general.
But chooses not to lest He suppress freewill and of course a genuine response of Love.

[geebob]

But chooses not to lest He suppress freewill and of course a genuine response of Love.

read carefully what I put forward. does every single individual have to have self determining love? Or the church in general? I think most likely the first answer, but I won't rule out the second, and if you understand the corporate unity and identity that is so much a part of a robust libertarian interpretation of scripture nowadays, the second becomes a fairly reasonable possibility. If there are any who love God "compatibilistically", God's purpose still may be served in that they are part of a body of self determining creatures. The question is, what is God's purpose and does everyone have to be libertarian free on that one issue of salvation to serve that purpose. I don't think it is clearly the case that everyone does have to be libertarian free with regard to salvation. I think they are, but I won't rule out this other possibility.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
My understanding from LFW is that if LFW allows God to restrain evil, then LFW cannot allow God to restrain evil by saving a person.

geebob
But andrews question is not specifically concerned with salvation. It's evil in general. I know you said that salvation is the only significant issue with regard to lfw, but that isn't true at all. God is very much concerned with history and the way events occur in the world.

Andrew’s question related to the harmony between common grace (whereby God restrains evil) and LFW. If Andrew meant only to question whether God’s restraining of a person from murdering his neighbor conflicted with LFW, then I see no basis for a conflict between that and LFW. What, then, is the basis for any conflict and Andrew’s question. If anything requires harmonization it would have to be the perceived action of God to infringe on a person’s free will. The alteration of a person’s will by God is a salvation issue (What other purpose is served by God altering a person’s will other than to produce salvation?).


geebob
I don't see why God can't restrain evil by saving a person. Now can God restrain the evil of the libertarian free rejection of him? I don't believe so (not that a libertarian has to commit to that notion). But I think it's within his power to keep that person from running off and committing suicide or murdering, or some other horrid act. The person may not be free then with respect to that act, which is consistent with the notion that he has freedom. You don't need to be able to exercise it all the time in order to have it. But there is a limit to that.

I agree. There is no conflict where there is no infringement on a person’s ability to choose even if that person cannot accomplish that which they chose to do. Consequently, I do not see where this would be the issue that Andrew could have been raising.

geebob
God soverignly decided to give us lfw for reasons. As calvinists are fond of telling me, God cannot deny himself (as if that implied meticulous soverignty). Thus in giving man free will, God took that risk for various purposes. God can restrain and limit free will as long as he doesn't violate his purposes in giving us libertarian free will (so when God cannot restrain lfw, it's not because he doesn't have the power to but because he will remain consistent with the choices that he has already made. He has already made a general choice which will have specific applications. To deny that he can do this is to deny his omnipotence).

Now what is one of those purpose for creating free will? It is so that he would have a creature who would love him with a type of love that can only come from creatures (or a creature) who would love him with self determining love. For temporally finite creatures, that requires the possibility not to love, hence you have the explicit definition of lfw directly applied to the issue of love, and that is that his creature has the unimitigated (unmitigated in every way...such as psychological determination) ability to love him and the unmitigated ability to refrain from returning God's love.

Now do we all have to individually love God that way? maybe. God wanted a unified body of persons called the church, and the members of that church are characterized by such a love, a love isn't necessary but freely give. Do all members of the church have to have this same type of love? I don't see that it is necessary. For some, it could very well be psychologically determined. And why would God allow such a thing? So God would have a guaranteed servants who would help him in his mission in bring others to God's grace of their own free will, so the body would generally be populated by such free beings. I don't see that it has to be absolute, but only prevalent.

But I only hold that out as a possibility. I don't think that there are such determined individuals. But this is a reasonable position within the libertarian camp.

Whether God has given people free will is open to debate but as you said, a debate best carried out in a new thread.

geebob
So it is reasonable for God to restrain evil by saving someone. But I don't think that that's the case. I stick to what I told Andrew, God can restrain evil in general.

If it is reasonable for God to restrain evil by saving someone then you are saying that it is reasonable for God to infringe on a person’s will thereby making the person’s will subject to God’s decree. That means that the person does not have LFW (insofar as it relates to his salvation). I don’t see where a Calvinist would object to that position. I doubt that LFW philosophy can accept it.

[geebob]

What, then, is the basis for any conflict and Andrew’s question.

If I interpret you right, your asking how Andrews question could result in the negative, that is that free will and common grace conflicting, and the answer is that they would conflict if they are defined in ways that the libertarian would not have to subscribe to.

They coulc conflict from a misunderstanding of libertarian free will. And that is what I and the others at the beginning of this thread saught to demonstrate otherwise.

There is one legitimate way in which they could conflict, with a normal view of lfw. And that is what I sought to answer in my last post. They could conflict if God's restraint of evil conflicted with his purposes in making us free. It wouldn't conflict with the technical definition of LFW, but of course the libertarian christian has more on lfw than just the technical def.

The alteration of a person’s will by God is a salvation issue (What other purpose is served by God altering a person’s will other than to produce salvation?).

to the extent that God alters our will, it does not have to be in a way that removes our libertarian freedom. It only changes where that freedom is applied. And I would say that it is a slight change.

I agree. There is no conflict where there is no infringement on a person’s ability to choose even if that person cannot accomplish that which they chose to do. Consequently, I do not see where this would be the issue that Andrew could have been raising.

wonderbar, but what you said is not nuanced in the way that a libertarian would nuance it. Freedom is not defined in lfw in terms of ability to do what we choose or desire to do in the libertarian view. That is how freedom is defined in the compatibilistic view. The mark of freedom is to have absolute umitigated ability (not even mitigated by desire) to choose amongst more than one option. If there is even psycological determinism to where only one choice is possible in every way, then lfw for that specific choice has been comprimised.

So you say that you agree, but I doubt your agreement is significantly sufficient with regard to andrews question unless you hold to the libertarian view. And if you are still a calvinist, you are not a libertarian free will'er, but rather you hold to the comapatibilist view of free will. (there is no middle ground...saying that you believe in determinism AND free will is not a middle ground between these two options...it is the explicit definition of compatibilism itself).

Whether God has given people free will is open to debate but as you said, a debate best carried out in a new thread.

I wasn't dealing directly with whether God had given us free will. I was addressing God's purposes in giving us free will, which is relevent to the question of when he can remove the lfw from a specific choice (and not all other choices that that agent may face). And thus, the relevence to that is to what extent he may remove our libertarian freedom just for specific choices without removing it to the extent of comrpimising his purposes of giving us lfw to begin with.

If it is reasonable for God to restrain evil by saving someone then you are saying that it is reasonable for God to infringe on a person’s will thereby making the person’s will subject to God’s decree. That means that the person does not have LFW (insofar as it relates to his salvation). I don’t see where a Calvinist would object to that position. I doubt that LFW philosophy can accept it.

lfw can accept it when it gives up an absolutistic individualism where the faith of every man has to have all the same characteristics. God wanted a church that was largely self determining with regard to love, meaning he wanted a church populated with individuals who loved him without him having to determin that they would love him. And how could he increase the chances of such individuals joining the church? He could have through psycological determinism have raised up several leaders to help woe these others. And is this unfair? No, it's about variety. Paul already stressed to us that this aspect of the church was good. God gave many different gifts to different people. They both have their advantages, and the advantages that one doesn't have, he can take pride in that he is apart of a body of believers that has this aspect. And that's just basic Christian piety. Many good Christian men have gone to the grave peacefully. That's what we in the west want, but the scriptures tell us that it is better to be martyred for our faith. God expects us to suffer on the cross with him. But what if we don't face the worst of the suffering. We are nevertheless apart of a body that has suffered.

In short, we need to take on more corporate identity and worry less about what we individually lack. That is the way of it. That is a basic part of true christian piety. Paul explained it well. The eye is not to say to the foot "I don't need you".

I would like to stress here that I don't believe that salvation through psycological determinism for some individuals is what I believe. I don't think that this is one feature that some christians have and others don't. But I value flexability. I think that this is a reasonable possibilty and I think that it may in fact be true. Perhaps paul and Jerimaiah couldn't have resisted. Perhaps they were psycologically determined. I don't have a beef with that. My problem is with this wicked idea that God allowed some to be psycologically determined to hell. I have no tolerance of such confused view. But I don't think that these men were psycologically determined. some scriptures can be determined that way, but they need not be. Instead, I hold that they are no different from Balaam and Saul. Balaam was indeed a prophet of God and gave messages from God. Perhaps he like Jeremiah could not have refused to speak the word of God. But in the end, he turned away from God. Saul himself was a prophet. And he was God's choosen. But he too turned away from God. Neither of these men had to, but they did. They could have remained faithful to God, but they didn't. And that is why I don't see a strong need to view that others choosen for a special purpose of God's were also choosen for a guaranteed ticket to heaven. And hence, I don't see that guaranteeing their salvation, though a reasonable interpretation of scripture, is a necessary interpretation. But I'm not dead set against it either and hence I'm not dead set against your suggestion that Salvation of some individuals via determination necessarily conflicts with lfw.

I think you may be confusing something here though that I would like to clear up. There is removal or negation of free will to the extent that a person is not libertarian free, and there is a removal of free will to the extent that a specific choice is libertarian free. You can have the second without the first. For God to remove free will from just a few choices doesn't mean that a person is no longer free. I think somewhere it seems like you understand this, but I just want to spell it out clearly.

[rhutchin]

…I was addressing God's purposes in giving us free will, which is relevant to the question of when he can remove the LFW from a specific choice (and not all other choices that that agent may face). And thus, the relevance to that is to what extent he may remove our libertarian freedom just for specific choices without removing it to the extent of compromising his purposes of giving us LFW to begin with.

God wanted a church that was largely self determining with regard to love, meaning he wanted a church populated with individuals who loved him without him having to determin that they would love him. And how could he increase the chances of such individuals joining the church? He could have through psycological determinism have raised up several leaders to help woe these others. And is this unfair? No, it's about variety. Paul already stressed to us that this aspect of the church was good. God gave many different gifts to different people. They both have their advantages, and the advantages that one doesn't have, he can take pride in that he is apart of a body of believers that has this aspect. And that's just basic Christian piety. Many good Christian men have gone to the grave peacefully. That's what we in the west want, but the scriptures tell us that it is better to be martyred for our faith. God expects us to suffer on the cross with him. But what if we don't face the worst of the suffering. We are nevertheless apart of a body that has suffered.

In short, we need to take on more corporate identity and worry less about what we individually lack. That is the way of it. That is a basic part of true christian piety. Paul explained it well. The eye is not to say to the foot "I don't need you".

…But I value flexability. I think that this is a reasonable possibilty and I think that it may in fact be true.…But I'm not dead set against it either and hence I'm not dead set against your suggestion that Salvation of some individuals via determination necessarily conflicts with LFW.

I think you may be confusing something here though that I would like to clear up. There is removal or negation of free will to the extent that a person is not libertarian free, and there is a removal of free will to the extent that a specific choice is libertarian free. You can have the second without the first. For God to remove free will from just a few choices doesn't mean that a person is no longer free. I think somewhere it seems like you understand this, but I just want to spell it out clearly.

The issue seems to boil down to whether LFW is a practical reality and not just a theoretical construct and how this interacts with common grace. I recognize LFW only as a theoretical position that cannot and does not exist in the real world. There is too much evidence that says that people are influenced by outside factors and that these factors determine the choices that people make.

Your position is that God gave people LFW. If you are correct, then the question Andrew raised is whether God’s restraint of evil conflicts with the idea of LFW operating in real life. It seems that you will allow God to negate LFW in some instances so long as He does not do it in all cases and you seem to see no conflict in this.

However, the conflict that we must address relates to salvation. If God negates LFW as it relates to the salvation decision, then is there a conflict? Again you seem to allow God to negate LFW for some people (e.g., Paul) and effect their salvation. You somehow object if God “gives” people LFW and then “allows” them to choose death. I do not understand your position on this.

Calvinists have no problem with people “freely” choosing to reject Christ. Whether such people exercise LFW in making that choice is the point of debate.

Calvinists claim that no person has true LFW and that the decision that a person makes about salvation is either influenced by God or by Satan and that salvation choices reflect those influences.

[Ormly]

The issue seems to boil down to whether LFW is a practical reality and not just a theoretical construct and how this interacts with common grace. I recognize LFW only as a theoretical position that cannot and does not exist in the real world. There is too much evidence that says that people are influenced by outside factors and that these factors determine the choices that people make.

Your position is that God gave people LFW. If you are correct, then the question Andrew raised is whether God’s restraint of evil conflicts with the idea of LFW operating in real life. It seems that you will allow God to negate LFW in some instances so long as He does not do it in all cases and you seem to see no conflict in this.

However, the conflict that we must address relates to salvation. If God negates LFW as it relates to the salvation decision, then is there a conflict? Again you seem to allow God to negate LFW for some people (e.g., Paul) and effect their salvation. You somehow object if God “gives” people LFW and then “allows” them to choose death. I do not understand your position on this.

Calvinists have no problem with people “freely” choosing to reject Christ. Whether such people exercise LFW in making that choice is the point of debate.

Calvinists claim that no person has true LFW and that the decision that a person makes about salvation is either influenced by God or by Satan and that salvation choices reflect those influences.It's more than an influence, in their thinking. I think you know that the "Puppeteer" does more than influence his puppets.

[rhutchin]

It's more than an influence, in their thinking. I think you know that the "Puppeteer" does more than influence his puppets.

I will grant that Satan is a puppeteer.

[Ormly]

I will grant that Satan is a puppeteer.
By that I can assume you are prepared to explain how, in the mind of the reformed, God isn't?

[geebob]

The issue seems to boil down to whether LFW is a practical reality and not just a theoretical construct and how this interacts with common grace. I recognize LFW only as a theoretical position that cannot and does not exist in the real world.

Rutch, what I've been telling you was not quite accurate. I've been saying that for the question asked by a libertarian, it is reasonable to grant for at least the sake of arguement that libertarian free will is real and that we can approach this question as to how it can or if it can cohere with common grace.

The fact is, it doesn't matter whether libertarian free will is true or not or even one's own position of whether it is true or not. You can still question whether the concept of libertarianism coheres with common grace. Even if you don't believe in libertarian freedom, you can still understand it and how it would, if it were true, function alongside other alleged features of reality such as common grace.


But again I ask, where are you getting this reasoning from on theory and practise? This displays a profound misunderstanding of how theories are used and applied in any school of thought. Book, author, and page please!

Theories are always meant to be applied. And we apply our theory of free will to interpret the data from various sources from ethics, to our experience (if you are going to speak about practical applications, then you are involving experience.) to the scriptures we libertarians believe clearly indicates that God wants everyone to be saved while there is the risk for anyone that they may still be damned.

There simply is no functional meaning in your thinking here. In the theory of evolution scientists apply it to reality, practical reality even (whatever it is you mean by that). Even if it is false, that is the way you use a theory. otherwise, there's no point in anyone's holding to it. If you're not going to apply a theory towards interpreting reality, then it's not a theory at all. it's a fantasy

Your position is that God gave people LFW. If you are correct, then the question Andrew raised is whether God’s restraint of evil conflicts with the idea of LFW operating in real life. It seems that you will allow God to negate LFW in some instances so long as He does not do it in all cases and you seem to see no conflict in this.

yes.

However, the conflict that we must address relates to salvation.

no, we don't have to address salvation. We can. and we have, but the question is just as meanignful even if that ground isn't covered. And answering it without regard to that question is still a fruitful endevor.

Again you seem to allow God to negate LFW for some people (e.g., Paul) and effect their salvation.

yes, I allow that that that may have been God's mode of operation. But I don't believe it was. I allowed that this is the case for a select few (and by no means is this identical with God's predestining as calvinists and some armininians see it with regard to the salvation of everyone...I hold that that was corporate election of God's people of whom anyone can become a member).

You somehow object if God “gives” people LFW and then “allows” them to choose death. I do not understand your position on this.

I don't understand how you interpret me as saying that. I never articulated such a position. I'm wondering if you are taking the opposite of what I said regarding reprobation. I have a problem with the notion that God allows people to be damned without them having a real chance to be saved (a chance that for all of reality and the decrees of God are concerned could have been taken). I have a problem with God allowing people to be damned in part because they didn't have libertarian freedom. compatibilistic freedom in no way shape or form answers this problem (not that I will outliine the problem here. You've already scene one of the major problems to which you suggested that our love for our neighbor really is about loving Jesus and not our reprobate neighbors).

If God negates LFW as it relates to the salvation decision, then is there a conflict?

Is there a conflict in regards to still holding that specific decision as libertarian free? yes there would be, hence I wouldn't call it a libertarian free decision. But why does it have to be libertarian free? If you aren't willing to look at that question, then you can't appreciate free will theism and why and how anyone is free at all. Why does it have to be free? because there is a quality that libertarian free love that love enabled through compatibilistic freedom wouldn't have. So this person wouldn't have that quality of love through and through. But does he have to? only if he has to be like everyone else in the church. But I've already cited the problems with that insistence. God likes variety. And we need to stop being so individualistic and learn to appreciate the qualities that we have not arising from our individual selves but from the body of the church as a whole. If one hasn't entered that relationship with God through libertarian freedom, fine, someone else has and they are both a member of one body. If you do not appreciate this, then you will not appreciate my position (and thus have any hope of valid criticism with that regard). Perhaps God does want this aspect from everyone. Some things do have to be common to all individuals. But there is no reason for me to be so dogmatic here. epistemic flexibility is better than a view that is so insistent and rigid on all details as to become brittle.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The issue seems to boil down to whether LFW is a practical reality and not just a theoretical construct and how this interacts with common grace. I recognize LFW only as a theoretical position that cannot and does not exist in the real world. There is too much evidence that says that people are influenced by outside factors and that these factors determine the choices that people make.

Your position is that God gave people LFW. If you are correct, then the question Andrew raised is whether God’s restraint of evil conflicts with the idea of LFW operating in real life. It seems that you will allow God to negate LFW in some instances so long as He does not do it in all cases and you seem to see no conflict in this.

However, the conflict that we must address relates to salvation. If God negates LFW as it relates to the salvation decision, then is there a conflict? Again you seem to allow God to negate LFW for some people (e.g., Paul) and effect their salvation. You somehow object if God “gives” people LFW and then “allows” them to choose death. I do not understand your position on this.

Calvinists have no problem with people “freely” choosing to reject Christ. Whether such people exercise LFW in making that choice is the point of debate.

Calvinists claim that no person has true LFW and that the decision that a person makes about salvation is either influenced by God or by Satan and that salvation choices reflect those influences.


Ormly
It's more than an influence, in their thinking. I think you know that the "Puppeteer" does more than influence his puppets.

rhutchin

I will grant that Satan is a puppeteer.

Ormly
By that I can assume you are prepared to explain how, in the mind of the reformed, God isn't?

Under the reformed view (as I understand it), Satan is subservient to God and therefore exercises only those powers and abilities granted to him by God. Under this system, Satan is able to tempt and influence people to do things and is such a master at doing so that he can be likened to a puppeteer. Satan jerks the strings of temptation and people respond.

God on the other hand is not limited to just exerting His influence. God is able to change a person’s heart so that the person becomes a different person after that change than he was before. That change is the idea behind being born again. The person who is reborn, for example, does not desire sin as they did before and would not be subject to temptation and control by Satan as before. If God were only a “puppeteer,” then He would have no more ability than Satan to manipulate people and events to accomplish His purposes. The reformed view sees God as fundamentally more powerful than Satan and as exerting that power specifically on behalf of the elect.

[Andrew]

The question I posed came about after reading some Van Til. He uses common grace to mean God restraining people from the depths of sinfulness that they would reach apart from that grace.

I have another question. And it's probably been done to death on these boards but I can't find it off-hand: how does one reconcile one's inability to lead a perfect life with LFW? Do LFW-ers temper "one cannot but sin" to "one will not but sin?"

[Ormly]

Under the reformed view (as I understand it), Satan is subservient to God and therefore exercises only those powers and abilities granted to him by God.Yes

Under this system, Satan is able to tempt and influence people to do things and is such a master at doing so that he can be likened to a puppeteer. Satan jerks the strings of temptation and people respond.Maybe, maybe not.
It is man's decision to make in the matter. It just so happens unregenerate man likes darkness and sometimes has a difficult time in ascertaining it even when looking at light. This can be said to be the case for many regenerate as well. But there is no puppeteer thing going on in this but man's freewill in action.

God on the other hand is not limited to just exerting His influence. God is able to change a person’s heart so that the person becomes a different person after that change than he was before. That change is the idea behind being born again. The person who is reborn, for example, does not desire sin as they did before and would not be subject to temptation and control by Satan as before.Easy here.. Jesus, the man, was tempted, remember? Why was He tempted and why shouldn't we be tempted also?

If God were only a “puppeteer,” then He would have no more ability than Satan to manipulate people and events to accomplish His purposes. The reformed view sees God as fundamentally more powerful than Satan and as exerting that power specifically on behalf of the elect.You mean He's just a greater puppeteer. ---Sorry, but that's what came across from your explanation.:smile:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Under this system, Satan is able to tempt and influence people to do things and is such a master at doing so that he can be likened to a puppeteer. Satan jerks the strings of temptation and people respond.

Ormly
…It is man's decision to make in the matter. It just so happens unregenerate man likes darkness and sometimes has a difficult time in ascertaining it even when looking at light. This can be said to be the case for many regenerate as well. But there is no puppeteer thing going on in this but man's freewill in action.

If it is true that unregenerate man likes darkness and sometimes has a difficult time in ascertaining it even when looking at light (and I will agree that such is the case), then one’s “freedom” to act is limited by that darkness. 2 Corinth says that Satan has blinded those who are headed for destruction making him a key player in decisions that people make.

A puppet can be said to act with free will if he is free to do that which he wants. The problem arises because people want free will to mean that a person chooses to do that which he does not want to do. A puppet always does what he wants. At least, I’ve never heard a puppet complain about being coerced to do something against his will.


rhutchin
God on the other hand is not limited to just exerting His influence. God is able to change a person’s heart so that the person becomes a different person after that change than he was before. That change is the idea behind being born again. The person who is reborn, for example, does not desire sin as they did before and would not be subject to temptation and control by Satan as before.

Ormly
Easy here.. Jesus, the man, was tempted, remember? Why was He tempted and why shouldn't we be tempted also?

I did not mean to imply that we are not or should not be tempted. However, the person who has been born again has a different perspective on sin and the manner in which a believer deals with temptations in much, much different than before.


rhutchin
If God were only a “puppeteer,” then He would have no more ability than Satan to manipulate people and events to accomplish His purposes. The reformed view sees God as fundamentally more powerful than Satan and as exerting that power specifically on behalf of the elect.

Ormly
You mean He's just a greater puppeteer. ---Sorry, but that's what came across from your explanation.:smile:

I guess that depends on your definition of puppeteer. When Christ said that you will know the truth and it will make you free, I think He meant it in a very literal fashion. The will is free to act if and only if it knows the truth.

[Ormly]

If it is true that unregenerate man likes darkness and sometimes has a difficult time in ascertaining it even when looking at light (and I will agree that such is the case), then one’s “freedom” to act is limited by that darkness. 2 Corinth says that Satan has blinded those who are headed for destruction making him a key player in decisions that people make.You can do better than that, can't you? What strength does darkness have over man that man's love or hate for it can't determine it's effect? That's like saying money is the root of all evil. :ahem:

A puppet can be said to act with free will if he is free to do that which he wants. The problem arises because people want free will to mean that a person chooses to do that which he does not want to do. A puppet always does what he wants. At least, I’ve never heard a puppet complain about being coerced to do something against his will.Does a puppet have a choice? And why would a person choose to do anything except there is the appeal made to him to satisfy the "self" in him? What is stronger than that for one whose only ambition is self satisfaction. That's all Paul was referring to when he spoke of it in himself. Self is the "string puller" in this and thank God there is now no condemnation to those in Christ who struggle in the crucifying of the flesh with all the self that doesn't die easily.

I did not mean to imply that we are not or should not be tempted. However, the person who has been born again has a different perspective on sin and the manner in which a believer deals with temptations in much, much different than before.Only the allegiance should have changed in one which will govern temptation. Whose disposition do you want? It should be unto the Father if he is born again. The one born again has no different perspective unless he truly has one. Most don't know much about what temptation is even all about. That's not an automatic given and is what discipleship and accountablity is all about.

I guess that depends on your definition of puppeteer. When Christ said that you will know the truth and it will make you free, I think He meant it in a very literal fashion. The will is free to act if and only if it knows the truth.The will is free to act always. God's grace to man underwrites and assures that. The truth is Christ. Intimate relationship with the Father will explain Christ to you. Jesus, the man, reveals the Father. Go to the Father and He will place His Christ into you that you become a son as Jesus, the man, was.:smile:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If it is true that unregenerate man likes darkness and sometimes has a difficult time in ascertaining it even when looking at light (and I will agree that such is the case), then one’s “freedom” to act is limited by that darkness. 2 Corinth says that Satan has blinded those who are headed for destruction making him a key player in decisions that people make.

Ormly
You can do better than that, can't you? What strength does darkness have over man that man's love or hate for it can't determine it's effect? That's like saying money is the root of all evil.:smile:

No, it is like saying that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

The context here is unregenerate man. This is John’s testimony of the unregenerate, “…the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.” The strength of darkness is that men love it.


rhutchin
A puppet can be said to act with free will if he is free to do that which he wants. The problem arises because people want free will to mean that a person chooses to do that which he does not want to do. A puppet always does what he wants. At least, I’ve never heard a puppet complain about being coerced to do something against his will.

Ormly
Does a puppet have a choice? And why would a person choose to do anything except there is the appeal made to him to satisfy the "self" in him? What is stronger than that for one whose only ambition is self satisfaction. That's all Paul was referring to when he spoke of it in himself. Self is the "string puller" in this and thank God there is now no condemnation to those in Christ who struggle in the crucifying of the flesh with all the self that doesn't die easily.

Exactly right. Again, in context, it is the unregenerate who are the puppets (of Satan and this because God allows it). “What is stronger than that for one whose only ambition is self satisfaction?” Nothing. So where is free will in that? The only question is then, Who other than Satan is pulling the strings of self satisfaction.


rhutchin
I did not mean to imply that we are not or should not be tempted. However, the person who has been born again has a different perspective on sin and the manner in which a believer deals with temptations in much, much different than before.

Ormly
Only the allegiance should have changed in one which will govern temptation. Whose disposition do you want? It should be unto the Father if he is born again. The one born again has no different perspective unless he truly has one. Most don't know much about what temptation is even all about. That's not an automatic given and is what discipleship and accountability is all about.

Much more than allegiance has changed in those who have been regenerated (born again). God has given them a new heart. God has opened their eyes so that they see the truth. They hunger and thirst for righteousness and find it in His word. There is a tremendous difference between the unregenerate and the saved.


rhutchin
I guess that depends on your definition of puppeteer. When Christ said that you will know the truth and it will make you free, I think He meant it in a very literal fashion. The will is free to act if and only if it knows the truth.

Ormly
The will is free to act always. God's grace to man underwrites and assures that. The truth is Christ. Intimate relationship with the Father will explain Christ to you. Jesus, the man, reveals the Father. Go to the Father and He will place His Christ into you that you become a son as Jesus, the man, was.:smile:

In a sense the will is always “free to act” even when it is restricted in the actions that it can take. When God extends His grace to a person and saves them, they receive the truth and that truth sets them free. This freedom is considerably different than that which they experienced before God saved them. Certainly, the freedom that God gives those whom He saves is not something that can be described as a puppeteer controlling the puppet.

[rhutchin]

...

I have another question... how does one reconcile one's inability to lead a perfect life with LFW? Do LFW-ers temper "one cannot but sin" to "one will not but sin?"

Andrew raises an interesting point. Under LFW, one should be free of external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences. Yet, we find that all people are essentially the same and always sin. In any other system, the observation that people always do a certain things leads to the conclusion that a law exists that says that people cannot do otherwise. In other words, people must be wired to sin. If that is true, where is LFW?

[Ormly]

Andrew raises an interesting point. Under LFW, one should be free of external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences. Yet, we find that all people are essentially the same and always sin. In any other system, the observation that people always do a certain things leads to the conclusion that a law exists that says that people cannot do otherwise. In other words, people must be wired to sin. If that is true, where is LFW?
That's presumptuous of you. They "all" do not always sin. But again what is prurifying the soul to be about but rectification and correction. Convictions have a very large part to play in this possess you aren't much considering. What is the whole armour of God if not something one learns to wear?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin

Andrew raises an interesting point. Under LFW, one should be free of external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences. Yet, we find that all people are essentially the same and always sin. In any other system, the observation that people always do a certain things leads to the conclusion that a law exists that says that people cannot do otherwise. In other words, people must be wired to sin. If that is true, where is LFW?

Ormly
That's presumptuous of you. They "all" do not always sin. But again what is purifying the soul to be about but rectification and correction. Convictions have a very large part to play in this possess you aren't much considering. What is the whole armour of God if not something one learns to wear?

The clear testimony of Scripture is that ALL (in context, all the unregenerate; the lost) have sinned and always do sin. You appear to be confusing the saved with the lost.

There is no issue, so far as I am aware, of the saved having LFW. The issue always concerns whether the unregenerate have LFW. Let’s stick with the unregenerate for now and resolve the issue of LFW that Andrew raises.

[Ormly]

The clear testimony of Scripture is that ALL (in context, all the unregenerate; the lost) have sinned and always do sin. You appear to be confusing the saved with the lost.

There is no issue, so far as I am aware, of the saved having LFW. The issue always concerns whether the unregenerate have LFW. Let’s stick with the unregenerate for now and resolve the issue of LFW that Andrew raises.Both have freewill. The scripture is quite on that and you made no distinction between either when you said "all" men. ---- words do mean something.:ahem:

[rhutchin]

Both have freewill. The scripture is quite on that and you made no distinction between either when you said "all" men. ---- words do mean something.:ahem:

It's all context. You have to look for context. When the Scripture says that All have sinned, context tells you who the "ALL" consist of. Learn to recognize context and you will gain a better understanding of the Scriptures.

[Ormly]

It's all context. You have to look for context. When the Scripture says that All have sinned, context tells you who the "ALL" consist of. Learn to recognize context and you will gain a better understanding of the Scriptures.I'm not quoting scripture. I'm quoting you. It's incumbent that YOU get it right. You've use something right and twisted to mean something wrong. But's that's been the way from your side of the aisle.. :ahem:

[geebob]

Andrew

I have another question. And it's probably been done to death on these boards but I can't find it off-hand: how does one reconcile one's inability to lead a perfect life with LFW? Do LFW-ers temper "one cannot but sin" to "one will not but sin?"

I think those in weslyan Holyness tradition can answer this consistently. You can indeed lead a life that is always seeking God's will with success. And it is God that enables this possibility.

But apart from that, if one denies that we can ever lead a sinless life (sinless not because they never sinned, but because they don't sin anymore), the libertarian only needs to say that it is a statistical impossibility for them to completely stop sinning. You still have libertarian free will because each individual choice that may lead to sin can go either way, however, all though as of now, no specific one must be sinful, some not yet determined will be sinful. There is no truth about which ones those will be because all of them are libertarian free. But that doesn't keep us from making the general claim.



rutch

Andrew raises an interesting point. Under LFW, one should be free of external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences.

perrenial misunderstanding. Libertarian freedom is not independence of influences. Libertarian freedom has one major requirement. more than one option must be absolutely possible for that person to choose in a specific instance. It doesn't have to be all choices, but only some for signficant libertarian free will. those choices can be influenced as long as it is possible for those influences to fail. But the influences may shift the probability that a certain choice will be made, because that's what influences do. That does not negate the libertarian status of the choice as long as shifiting the probabilities doesn't reduce the probability of the choice that influence is against to a probability of 0.

If We cannot live perfect lives even after salvation, then surely it's because many evil influences still sway us and it is mere statistical necessity that those influences will succeed on occasion. That simply does not conflict with libertarian free will.

Yet, we find that all people are essentially the same and always sin.

If God doesn't at least help people reduce the amount of sins they commit, I geuss he failed.

But no, we don't find this at all. This a blind faith in an extreme version of total depravity which does not bear out in real life. People often live lifes full of moral choices where they do not sin. Not that this is the case with all of their choices, but they still often make the right choice. And often, they are even better people than many evangelical christians who espouse views of total depravity!

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Andrew raises an interesting point. Under LFW, one should be free of external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences.

geebob
perrenial misunderstanding. Libertarian freedom is not independence of influences. Libertarian freedom has one major requirement. more than one option must be absolutely possible for that person to choose in a specific instance. It doesn't have to be all choices, but only some for signficant libertarian free will. those choices can be influenced as long as it is possible for those influences to fail. But the influences may shift the probability that a certain choice will be made, because that's what influences do. That does not negate the libertarian status of the choice as long as shifiting the probabilities doesn't reduce the probability of the choice that influence is against to a probability of 0.

If We cannot live perfect lives even after salvation, then surely it's because many evil influences still sway us and it is mere statistical necessity that those influences will succeed on occasion. That simply does not conflict with libertarian free will.

Confusion always appears in LFW discussions. Let’s take the extreme -- Under Total Depravity the individual has zero (0) probability of doing right. Given the choice between right and wrong, the person who is totally depraved always chooses wrong. The reason for this is the nature of the individual. That nature dictates the end result. Only one outcome is absolutely possible. This is independent of external influences. External influences present choices to the individual but the nature is only inclined to choose wrong.

Now, we want to change that situation. We want to give the person some ability to choose between two options such that the probability is not zero (0) for each option. What does this require?

We begin by changing the nature of the person. This part is tricky. We change the nature of the person from that of Total depravity (under which there is zero (0) probability of choosing right) to a more neutral condition where there is some non-zero probability of choosing right. If we do that, then outside influences would then be able to influence whether one chooses right or wrong.

However, LFW does not want outside influences to dictate the choice that is made. It wants that choice to be made by the person based on a nature that is not totally depraved. Consequently, LFW wants a person to be free from external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences. In other words, when presented with two options, LFW wants the choice between those options to be dictated by the person’s nature (a non-Totally Depraved nature) and not by outside influences.

For example, LFW does not want people to make choices based on the influence of a lie. Otherwise, the result would be that Satan would lie to people and they would never choose salvation. That influence has to be negated under LFW so that the person actually can choose otherwise.


rhutchin
Yet, we find that all people are essentially the same and always sin.

geebob
If God doesn't at least help people reduce the amount of sins they commit, I geuss he failed.

But no, we don't find this at all. This a blind faith in an extreme version of total depravity which does not bear out in real life. People often live lifes full of moral choices where they do not sin. Not that this is the case with all of their choices, but they still often make the right choice. And often, they are even better people than many evangelical christians who espouse views of total depravity!

The Scriptures say clearly that whatever is not of faith is sin. People can make choices where they choose not to kill or steal from others. However, actions such as killing and stealing are the outward expressions of sin. Sin is determined in the heart and later expressed in some outward, physical action. Does the heart of the lost person ever not sin? The answer is, NO. The heart of the lost, the unregenerate, always chooses that which is in its self-interest. That can result in the lost making “right choices” to not kill or not steal but only because it is in the self-interest of the person not to kill or steal. In making those "right choices" the person still sins. He certainly cannot be decribed as acting in faith.

[Ormly]

rh ----No where in scripture can you find the term or implication of total drepravity applied to man used in the sense you have been taught to understand it. You are "totally" wrong in your post.

[Ormly]

rh ----No where in scripture can you find the term or implication of total drepravity applied to man used in the sense you have been taught to understand it. You are "totally" wrong in your post.
Just a little more on this subject: To say man is totally depraved is to declare he can't make distinctions; he's totally without sensibilities having to do with right and wrong.. To say otherwise is to say he has a freewill ---he has abilityto choose.
Everyman knows it is wrong to commit murder. It is a law written within him. Likewise, anyman knows that immorality is wrong. Again, choices are made.

[rhutchin]

Ormly
…To say man is totally depraved is to declare he can't make distinctions; he's totally without sensibilities having to do with right and wrong.. To say otherwise is to say he has a freewill ---he has ability to choose.

Everyman knows it is wrong to commit murder. It is a law written within him. Likewise, anyman knows that immorality is wrong. Again, choices are made.

The issue of “freewill” relates to man’s ability to choose freely to accept the salvation offered by God. Within that context, an ability to choose God suggests an ability to choose to obey God. There is little distinction between the two. The Pelagians argue that man has some desire for God and to obey Him. Maybe you are one of them.

Whether everyone knows that it is wrong to murder is debatable. Many people see nothing wrong with killing a baby so long as its head has not exited the womb. Some people see nothing wrong with killing older people or the infirm. Many people see nothing wrong with killing people who are different (like Negroes or Aborigines). Not everyone agrees that immorality is wrong. Homosexuals do not. Given the hedonistic bent to society, it is not hard to find people who would say that there are no moral wrongs.

[Ormly]

The issue of “freewill” relates to man’s ability to choose freely to accept the salvation offered by God.That's right.

Within that context, an ability to choose God suggests an ability to choose to obey God.Yes

There is little distinction between the two.Why not?

The Pelagians argue that man has some desire for God and to obey Him. Maybe you are one of them.Maybe Pelagian got that part right. We both can come with examples when man might have a hope for God. Consider the soldier on the frontline of combat. Ever think of that? ----and no, I don't believe I'm entirely in his camp.

Whether everyone knows that it is wrong to murder is debatable.Perhaps for the irrational and agenda ridden.

Many people see nothing wrong with killing a baby so long as its head has not exited the womb.Some people see nothing wrong with killing older people or the infirm..You mean few do -- until it conflicts with their convenience or proclivities then it becomes many.. If going against partial birth abortion interferes with other perks they won't go against it. See anything hypocritical in that?

Many people see nothing wrong with killing people who are different (like Negroes or Aborigines). Not everyone agrees that immorality is wrong. Homosexuals do not. Given the hedonistic bent to society, it is not hard to find people who would say that there are no moral wrongs.Everyone thinks immorality is wrong so there must be a dumbing down of the culture that the immoral act can now be viewed as moral. What doing think has been going on in this country for the last fifty -sixty years? Gangsta rap is now sacred music to many. Body pierced tattooed men and women are in leadership in the mainstream churches. Care to explain that in the context of total depravity and moral choices?

#1 I'm not referring to people with seered consciences, a distinction you aren't making.

#2 I'm speaking of killing, not murder ---another distinction you aren't making. Killing can always be justified by the immoral and even the moral --- murder cannot. The records of nurses who quit the abortion clinics testify to that.

[Ormly]

It's all context. You have to look for context. When the Scripture says that All have sinned, context tells you who the "ALL" consist of. Learn to recognize context and you will gain a better understanding of the Scriptures.
How about applying your admonition to yourself when citing this text:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Romans 3:10-12 (KJV)

Who is "all and none" in the context? ----- Hmmm?

[rhutchin]

How about applying your admonition to yourself when citing this text:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Romans 3:10-12 (KJV)

Who is "all and none" in the context? ----- Hmmm?

We have--

Romans 3
9 ...we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin,
10 ...“There is no one righteous, not even one,
11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,

In context, I read "all and none" as " Jews and Greeks alike." Do you read it differently? Also, can you explain the point that you are seeking to make?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Within that context, an ability to choose God suggests an ability to choose to obey God.

Ormly
Yes

rhutchin
There is little distinction between the two.

Ormly
Why not?

My understanding is that the choice of salvation is a choice to submit to God. Consequently, when one chooses God, he is choosing to submit to God (i.e., to obey Him). Can you describe what you think the situation is?


rhutchin
Many people see nothing wrong with killing a baby so long as its head has not exited the womb.Some people see nothing wrong with killing older people or the infirm..

Ormly
You mean few do -- until it conflicts with their convenience or proclivities then it becomes many.. If going against partial birth abortion interferes with other perks they won't go against it. See anything hypocritical in that?

The point is that many people are driven by circumstances and respond to their needs above others. Under those conditions, not everyone sees murder as wrong.


rhutchin
Many people see nothing wrong with killing people who are different (like Negroes or Aborigines). Not everyone agrees that immorality is wrong. Homosexuals do not. Given the hedonistic bent to society, it is not hard to find people who would say that there are no moral wrongs.

Ormly
Everyone thinks immorality is wrong so there must be a dumbing down of the culture that the immoral act can now be viewed as moral. What doing think has been going on in this country for the last fifty -sixty years? Gangsta rap is now sacred music to many. Body pierced tattooed men and women are in leadership in the mainstream churches. Care to explain that in the context of total depravity and moral choices?

#1 I'm not referring to people with seered consciences, a distinction you aren't making.

#2 I'm speaking of killing, not murder ---another distinction you aren't making. Killing can always be justified by the immoral and even the moral --- murder cannot. The records of nurses who quit the abortion clinics testify to that.

Next time you make blanket statements, add the caveats, and stop making others do it for you.

[Ormly]

My understanding is that the choice of salvation is a choice to submit to God. Consequently, when one chooses God, he is choosing to submit to God (i.e., to obey Him). Can you describe what you think the situation is?I like what Oswald Chambers, a reformed teacher, says: "As we were condemned to eternal separation by the transgression of Adam so we are condemned to salvation by Christ Jesus." [sic] ----I'll let you ponder that.


The point is that many people are driven by circumstances and respond to their needs above others. Under those conditions, not everyone sees murder as wrong.
Needs by damned! Murder is murder and everyone knows that within themselves. Guilt reveals it unless the conscience is seered.

Next time you make blanket statements, add the caveats, and stop making others do it for you.Why? My hope is that you will ponder more and post less thoughtless considerations.

[rhutchin]

...
Needs by damned! Murder is murder and everyone knows that within themselves. Guilt reveals it unless the conscience is seered.

...

The operative word in your comment is "UNLESS." That was the point I was making in disagreeing with your comment that everyone knows that murder is wrong. As you concede above, not everyone knows this.

[geebob]

However, LFW does not want outside influences to dictate the choice that is made. It wants that choice to be made by the person based on a nature that is not totally depraved.

Rhutch, you'd argue the definition of marxism to Karl Marx. LFW is as I said it is. If you disagree, quote a real libertarian. There's nothing confusing about it, it's as simple as beans. It gets complex because we throw it into a complex world, but the heart of it remains exactly the same. One is libertarian free if he may choose something and refrain from that choice for a particular moment and there is absolutely nothing that dictates which will occur. We can add a lot of complexity to that and as long as there are some choices that have that description in the center, we have libertarian freedom. There are some other necessities, but they are not relevent to our conversation. For example, it must be choices made by a conscious intentional beings. But again, that is not an issue here. What is at issue is this very simple central concept (central to libertarian freedom) and how it works in a complex world, and that is going to have a complex explanation. And that's the way it should be. A complex world requires a complex explanation.

You're using notions from a 16th and 4th century debate within Christianity to define what lfw has to be and yet libertarian freedom, compatibilism and determinism are debates that go on even outside of Christian circles.

To insist that it depends on a will that is not totally depraved is one method of explaining lfw, (of course you could have that and still fail to have lfw). But that's not How we arminians explain it. It's not because our will isn't totally depraved. It's because God through his grace has made it possible for us to do what is right all though he doesn't remove our ability to do what is wrong. We are dependent upon God to have libertarian freedom with regard to morality.

LFW wants a person to be free from external influences and able to make choices independent of those influences.

LFW wants a person to be free from external influences that are DETERMINATIVE. We don't have to be free from external influences provided they don't dictate which we will choose.

In other words, when presented with two options, LFW wants the choice between those options to be dictated by the person’s nature (a non-Totally Depraved nature) and not by outside influences.=

No, the choice is not dictated by the nature. Rather, the nature combined with God's grace dictates that the two options will both be possible. The nature under the influence of God's grace determines that both options will be possible. Nature does not dictate the choice. That would contradict LFW.

For example, LFW does not want people to make choices based on the influence of a lie. Otherwise, the result would be that Satan would lie to people and they would never choose salvation. That influence has to be negated under LFW so that the person actually can choose otherwise.

If the lie interacts with the nature such that only one outcome is possible, the choice will not be libertarian free. But it doesn't have to be that way. A lie could enable the libertarian moment. As christians, as people who value morality, we want our libertarian free choices to be based on the truth, but truth or lie, it does not make a difference.

Libertarian free choice does not equal a good choice. That's like saying a car equals a blue car and any car that isn't blue isn't a car. No, this has nothing to do with whether a choice is libertarian free or not. A choice is libertarian free if a person at a particular moment can really truely TRUELY take one option and in he really really really can refrain from that and prior to his decision, there is nothing that dictates which way it will go. whether or not a lie enables this process or the truth enables it makes little difference in terms of whether it is libertarian free or not.

[Ormly]

The operative word in your comment is "UNLESS." That was the point I was making in disagreeing with your comment that everyone knows that murder is wrong. As you concede above, not everyone knows this.
You are reaching. Everyone can never include those with seered consciences or those "given over" in their thinking. That's why I made that distinction. Try to make some sometime and avoid this pettiness.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The operative word in your comment is "UNLESS." That was the point I was making in disagreeing with your comment that everyone knows that murder is wrong. As you concede above, not everyone knows this.

Ormly
You are reaching. Everyone can never include those with seered consciences or those "given over" in their thinking. That's why I made that distinction. Try to make some sometime and avoid this pettiness.

Everyone cannot include… What do you get if everyone does not include everyone? Hardly pettiness. Maybe you do not know the distinction that your exclusion entails.

[Ormly]

Everyone cannot include… What do you get if everyone does not include everyone? Hardly pettiness. Maybe you do not know the distinction that your exclusion entails.
Well, I'll tell you what you do --- you reconcile your biased thinking regarding man's total depravity with what you just stated, Ok? Begin now to do that because I'm weary of watching you pick fly crap outta pepper.