 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > wondering about Libertarian Free Will | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/23/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Hey Everyone,
I guess in this post I am going to play devil's advocate.... Or maybe I'll just say that I am going to voice my utter confusion about this subject. I have been thinking a whole lot here lately about the issue of Libertarian free will (or Metaphysical Freedom as Van Inwagen terms it)
I think that this is a subject that is near and dear to most of us free-will theists. LFW is the only way that I can understand why there could be evil in the world if we believe that God is good. I also have an intuitive belief that people should be held morally accountable for their actions, so I can only make sense of this by postulating LFW. And on this board when we talk about the issues that surround the working out of the implications of the Open View, LFW is taken as true.
But the more I read about the subject, the more I realize that many of the great thinkers of history have felt that LFW to be false, and many even go so far as to say that the concept is unintelligible.
Here is what Arthur Schopenhauer says in his "Essay on the Freedom of the Will"
"[E]very thing-in-being must be something, must have a definite nature. It cannot exist and yet be nothing, it cannot be something like the ens metaphysicum, that is, a thing which simply is and no more than is, without any definitions and properties, and consequently, without a definite way of acting which flows from them. . . . But all this is just as true of man and his will as of all other beings in nature. . . . Freedom of the will, when carefully analyzed, means an existence without an essence, which means that something is and at the same time is nothing, which in turn means is not, and consequently is a self-contradiction."
Here is the stripped down version of my problem. Human actions are done for a reason. Now there are times that agents have competing desires or reasons. But it seems that we decide based on the reason that we most value. And isn't that compatibalism?
I want to be an incompatibalist, but I dont have a clue as to how we are to make sense of HOW Libertarian free will works.
Looking forward to the discussion,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 9/23/2004 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey rossfadeinout,
It seems to me that many "arguments" against LFW merely assume LFW does not exist. For example, Schopenhauer says that LFW cannot exist because our choices are determined by our "essence". How is that not begging the question?
The question, it seems to me, is whether God has the ability to create some "essence" that has the ability to make rational and real choices (i.e., exercise "say so"). If so, we find that those choices are not 100% predictable (becaues they are real choices). Thus, knowing the "essence" does not necessarily entail knowing all choices created by such "essence". Moreover, the fact that such choices are somewhat unpredictable does not mean they are random. There are in fact reasons for the choices. The reasons may explain the choice, but the reasons don't determine the choice. Freedom of the will does not mean an "existence without an essence". LFW means that our "essence" (created in the image of God) includes the ability to create our choices.
Say I have $100 that I value. Suppose I choose to give it to someone else in need. Someone may say that I obviously value giving it away more than I value keeping it. But to say that my choice is determined by what I value seems to merely assume that LFW does not exist. Why not say, instead, that I have LFW and I exercised my "say so" by choosing the way I did?
On one hand, we have good reasons to believe we have LFW. (As you said, LFW explains how God and evil can co-exist and provides a basis for love and moral responsibility.) On the other hand, what reason is there to believe (without merely assuming LFW doesn't exist) that the explanation for [all of] our choices is ultimately grounded outside of the choice itself? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 9/23/2004 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | I just typed a summary of Doc's response to compatabilistic objections to LFW in Satan and the Problem of Evil, but it vaporized when I tried to post it without logging on. No time to re-type so I'll just refer to SATPOE, pp. 68-78. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/23/2004 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey everyone, thanks for the input.
I hope to get som more input, especially from Tom and Alan (I'm sure that the both of them have thought about this subject alot)
Just a couple of quick comments....
For JET
you said quote:
The question, it seems to me, is whether God has the ability to create some "essence" that has the ability to make rational and real choices (i.e., exercise "say so").
I think that this brings up a point that I wanted to make in my first post. I think that any defense of Libertarian freedom has to be theistic, and have some sort of "agent causation."
I would also say that I don't really buy the whole "quantum indeterminacy proves that indeterminacy of the will is possible". My reasoning is that Quantum Indeterminacy is random, and if LFW is to make sense of moral responsibility then it can't be random, but a rational (or sometimes irrational) choice.
Also, I have read the section in SATPOE several times, and I'm planning on going over it again soon. All of Doc's arguments convince me that LFW is necessary in order for Love to be real, for us to make sense of evil and God's goodness, in short, to make sense of life. But how does it work?
More to follow.... Got to get back to work.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/23/2004 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
All of Doc's arguments convince me that LFW is necessary in order for Love to be real, for us to make sense of evil and God's goodness, in short, to make sense of life. But how does it work?
Hi Ross,
I think one thing that is missing from your presentation of the issue is the absolutely crucial distinction between desire and will. I can desire to play guitar indefintely, but until I CHOOSE to at least attempt to learn, all my desiring produces in me is abject frustration.
Interestingly, we had some great discussions about this at the recent EEM conference. While one part of Edwards' compatibilistic argument (that we are free to do as we desire) seems reasonable, in the end it ignores the issue of intelligent deliberation and choice, thus making us all into basically animals, acting only according to our desires, with no THOUGHT or meaningful volition involved in any of our actions.
As to how LFW works, I think when all is said and done, and all internal and external influences are allowed for, our consciousness affirms that we have the power to choose self-determinatively between two moral options in any given moral situation. If this were not true, man would be nothing but a puppet on a string, acting as he desires, while his desires are all given to him by God.
One of the most striking passages depicting LFW in Scripture is in Gen. 4:
Gen. 4:4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." NIV
A NT passage that reflects the same thought is:
Rom. 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. NKJV
These all reflect the "choose ye this day" theme so pervasive in Scripture.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 9/23/2004 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ross,
You ask, "How does LFW work?" Well, ordinarily when one asks such a question one is looking for some kind of mechanical or quasi-mechanical process consisting of a series of event-causes. Thus, one might ask, "How does a bicycle work?" and the answer would look something like pushing the pedals turns the gear, which turns the chain, which turns the rear wheel, etc. It should be clear, however, that this sort of answer not going to work for LFW precisely b/c it is not, by definition, a mechanical process. So, then, what kind of answer are you looking for? Perhaps asking how LFW "works" is the wrong question? Maybe a better question would be "How do we exercise LFW?"
I think the main problem with understanding LFW, and why it seems to mysterious, is that we have a deeply ingrained urge to explain things in terms of efficient causes. Very roughly, an efficient cause is one that brings about or influences the coming about of an event by "pushing", "pulling", or some other application of force. Such explanations serve us very well in dealing with the concrete world of material objects, but cannot be total explanations of our choices if LFW is correct.
Anyway, I have more to say, but I've gotta run. I'm getting kicked off the computer by an efficient cause.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/23/2004 2:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
quote:
All of Doc's arguments convince me that LFW is necessary in order for Love to be real, for us to make sense of evil and God's goodness, in short, to make sense of life. But how does it work?
From my reading, the best answer to that question I've ever read is as follows (forgive the lame explanation):
The mind has the ability to generate impulses. When the alarm clock goes off in the morning, I would never get up if I MERELY allowed the strongest NATURAL impulse to prevail. Instead, I purposely/volitionally think of the reasons why I NEED to get up. These thoughts, in turn, generate e-motions which have associated impulses. Thus, I can generate an impulse to get out of bed.
The point is, I don't have a natural impulse to get out of bed at all. I generate an impulse to get out of bed by volitionally THINKING about what consequences generate the appropriate e-motion, impulse, incentive, etc. Hence, the key is the intellect. It is free and can act off it's own understanding of the greatest good, at least to the extent that it is disciplined enough to generate the appropriate impulses to that end - an impulse which MUST be strong enough to over-ride the competing natural impulses.
But that self-control comes through practice, obviously. In other words, it is strengthened by use just like "outer" strength.
Clear as mud??
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/23/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
I think this is perhaps one reason Calvinists typically call free willers rationalists.
Was it that muddy? 
I didn't think what you wrote was muddy.
quote:
It would seem to me that the Calvinists would be more properly called rationalists since compatibilism is reducible to rational explanation in a way that a true final (LFW) cause is not. Alan has rightly argued that a final cause is NOT reducible to explanation in the way efficient causes are. Final causes are truly SUI GENERIS. Hence, the failure of analogy to get a good handle on them.
In several Calvinist polemical writings against Arminianism that I've read, I've seen them say that Arminians are rationalistic because they affirm LFW primarily based on self-awareness of free will (IOW, it is intuitive, which of course LFWers affirm).
Additionally, it seems to me that Edwardsean compatibilism makes us out to be either animals or marionettes, in every case ruled by involuntary desires, whereas LFW asserts that we have self-determining freedom by virtue of our ability to reason, deliberate, and decide.
That said, I agree with you that Calvinism is logically consistent with its premises, though I would argue that they have to redefine the normal meanings of concepts like "love," "grace," "free will," "good," "evil," and "God's will" to maintain their paradigm.
quote:
BTW, I've missed corresponding with you. I hope all is well with you and yours.
Back to ya, friend. Thanks.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/24/2004 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi all,
Thanks to everyone who responded. I want to try to get a response to each of the posts if I can.
It looks like Spenlake is our compatibalist representtive here. He frames the situation in terms of what kind of "freedom" we will have in heaven. Spen makes a basic statement summing up the Theistic Compatibalist's position when he said quote:
" If our decisions are dependent on our heart and lusts that are found there, as I believe, the answer would be simple. We will never sin because we will always freely choose the good and never ever choose sin because we will never ever want to. Our heart will have been completely changed and never desire to sin at all."
Spen says our decisions are dependant on our "heart and lusts that are found there" This implies that the agent is acted upon by his desires, and we are simply some kind of "desire-o-meters" (for lack of a better term)
He then poses his final question, saying quote:
If free will is "freestanding" and not related to choosing the action that best fulfills the appetites in my heart, how is it that we "change" and no longer sin?
This statement seems to question the coherence of the idea of LFW. In a brief response, the poponent of LFW would NOT say that free will is "freestanding." We do choose with ends in mind... But not only do we weigh our desires, we weight our desires-- the agent exercises say so.
JEE, thanks for bringing up the distinction between desire and will. And I agree that I would personally feel less significant and responsible if Edwardsian compatibalism were true. I wish that I could have sit in on some of your discussions at the EEM conference.
Jeffscott, thanks for your response. You do describe an instance where on reflection it seems like there is a choice that has to be made, and one where it seems LFW is taking place. But I think that the compatibalist would say that the THINKING you are describing is simply your figuring out which desire is strongest.
Alan, I was really looking forward to your response. As usual, you really got to the crux of the problem quickly. I do seem to be thinking exclusively in terms of some kind of mechanical process-- the event (my strongest desire) is the efficient cause of my decision. But that kind of thinking does seem to rule out what would be the case if LFW is true.
Alan (and jefscott) mentioned that there are different kinds of causes. If you get a chance I would love to hear more on the different kind of causes. Norm Geisler in his discussion of LFW uses the different types of causes as his explanation of how LFW works.
And you're right, a better way to ask my question would be "How do I exercise LFW?"
Lets keep the discussion going!
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/24/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Ross-
Can't say much now. Gotta clean the house! Wife is in Florida for a week visiting family and I've got the kids. I am NOT free to NOT clean the house!
I just picked up at Barnes & Noble what looks like an interesting little book. Oxford University Press has been putting out what they call Very Short Introductions to different subjects. Nice little paper back books you can read in an afternoon (or two or three if you read as slowly as I do). You can check these volumes out at: www.oup.co.uk/vsi
Anyhow, Barenes & Noble carry these short introduction. I picked up a couple. They have a nice one on "Logic" too. But Free Will: A Very Short Introduction looks good. It's written by Thomas Pink. He defends LFW. What don't ya pick it up Ross?
I'll try to jump in later!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/24/2004 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
quote:
Jeffscott, thanks for your response. You do describe an instance where on reflection it seems like there is a choice that has to be made, and one where it seems LFW is taking place. But I think that the compatibalist would say that the THINKING you are describing is simply your figuring out which desire is strongest.
I would reply to the compatibalist that I have no desire to get out of bed when the alarm clock (at least in most cases). I have to volitionally focus my mind to generate a counter-impulse based on what I KNOW INTELLECTUALLY is in my best interest (think of Peter saying "gird up the loins of your mind"). Now he/she could of course deny that. But I would suspect if he/she has never experienced what I'm talking about, then maybe they rarely or never exercise true LFW. There are exceptional people in the world who behave quite satisfactorily (with respect to the world's expectations) by just doing what comes natural. Specifically, there are people who get up in time for work full of energy and vitality. Man, I wish I had those genes!!
But I also think the compatibalist is in trouble epistemologically. If even thought, itself, is devoid of LFW, then how can we know that our feeling of certainty coincides with TRUE/ACCURATE thinking - since all thinking and feeling is inevitable by their view. Not that LFW in thinking is a sufficient condition of a sound epistemology, but it seems like it must at least be a necessary condition.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/24/2004 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. There are also many other Greek scholars and much more educated people than either of us, who woudl disagree with that statement. The back-up of 100 well educated people in no way proves that that is what the text is talking about.
2. If the Holy Spirit is "quite capable" of convicting people of their sins, then why doesn't it follow that all repent? Can you have true conviction without true repentance? Or are you willing to say that there comes a point when the Holy Spirit has done all the work He can do in helping this person along, and now it's left in the sinner's hands?
If this is what you mean, then doesn't that to a degree necesitate merited salvation? If "no" why?
3. Your third argument seems to not hold to your second argument. It would seem that either 1) The Holy Spirit does truly convict one of his sin and he turns and repents (which still nags the question why do some not repent) or 2) To some degree salvation is merited to me, because I do the last (and most important) role in my salvation and that is to repent. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that we are not saved by our works.
"There can be no merit involved, for merit cannot ever accrue for merely doing what one OUGHT to do (repent, believe, and love God)."-- could you explain this statement in more detail, for in my ignorance it seems a little muddied.
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/24/2004 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
1. There are also many other Greek scholars and much more educated people than either of us, who woudl disagree with that statement. The back-up of 100 well educated people in no way proves that that is what the text is talking about.
I've quoted even Calvinistic Greek scholars who say the same thing. It's not due to an Arminian bias.
quote:
2. If the Holy Spirit is "quite capable" of convicting people of their sins, then why doesn't it follow that all repent? Can you have true conviction without true repentance?
Conviction precedes repentance, but does not necessitate it. The rich young ruler had a direct revelation of the truth of what he should do, and he turned away from it, because he loved his possessions more than Christ.
quote:
Or are you willing to say that there comes a point when the Holy Spirit has done all the work He can do in helping this person along, and now it's left in the sinner's hands?
Yes. From Genesis to Revelation, God places the blame for refusing his grace squarely on the shoulders of the sinner.
quote:
If this is what you mean, then doesn't that to a degree necesitate merited salvation? If "no" why?
Do you agree that all people ought to do right? If so, how can it be merit to simply do what one ought to do? If I'm a criminal condemned to death, and the governor offers me a pardon with certain conditions attached (like truly repenting for my past crimes and sincerely intending to do what's right to the best of my ability from then on), how did I EARN or merit anything?
quote:
3. Your third argument seems to not hold to your second argument. It would seem that either 1) The Holy Spirit does truly convict one of his sin and he turns and repents (which still nags the question why do some not repent) or 2) To some degree salvation is merited to me, because I do the last (and most important) role in my salvation and that is to repent. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that we are not saved by our works.
"There can be no merit involved, for merit cannot ever accrue for merely doing what one OUGHT to do (repent, believe, and love God)."-- could you explain this statement in more detail, for in my ignorance it seems a little muddied.
I'm sure we both agree that no one can EVER be justified by works. Romans 1 clearly states about sinners, that though they KNEW God, they did not want to retain the knowledge of God, suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, and were consequently given over by God to a depraved mind. For this reason they are blameworthy, and for this reason God is justified in His righteous condemnation of them. And even if (hypothetically) they had not ever gone down that path of willful sinfulness, God still would not OWE them anything; they would merely be living as they should have. And clearly, no merit can ever accrue simply for doing what one ought.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/24/2004 7:13 PM (GMT -6) | | "Conviction precedes repentance, but does not necessitate it. The rich young ruler had a direct revelation of the truth of what he should do, and he turned away from it, because he loved his possessions more than Christ."
So "conviction" is merely the showing of truth? So I would be "convicting" you if I said, "Burning CDs is wrong, here is why... The Bible puts it this way..." And that would be conviction?
I would say that the rich young ruler was not convicted, for had he been, he would have repented. If conviction means truly coming to grips with your sinfulness and feeling remourse, it seems the only way that remourse would be felt is through repentance. Does this make sense?
"Yes. From Genesis to Revelation, God places the blame for refusing his grace squarely on the shoulders of the sinner."
I do not question this statement, and on this we can both agree. However where we would tend to disagree is as to whether God ever shares responsibility with the sinner in the sinners salvation.
I say the Bible NEVER; in any way, shape, form, or anything, NEVER credits man in salvation. Do you see God ever praising man for "freely" (in the LFW sense) coming to Him in anyway?
"Do you agree that all people ought to do right? If so, how can it be merit to simply do what one ought to do? If I'm a criminal condemned to death, and the governor offers me a pardon with certain conditions attached (like truly repenting for my past crimes and sincerely intending to do what's right to the best of my ability from then on), how did I EARN or merit anything?"
Is the act of repenting a work? If I tell you that I have a paycheck for $1000 written out to you and you have to take it (because I am the govenor of the state and I have commanded it of you) but you have to do the work that the $1000 demands, did you merit the money with your work? Or was the money merely an act of grace given to you, though you would not have recieved it had you not worked? Do you recieve the $1000 based on your earning it (doing the work) or on the basis of another's work?
On a side note: we agree that repentance is a command. If it be a command, then is it a sin to not repent? If it is a sin and the Lord Jesus died for ALL men (universally) and died for ALL sin (including the sin of nonrepentance 'unbelief') then why are not ALL men saved? it would necesarily follow that 'unbelief' a.k.a. non-repentance would be covered by the Blood of Christ and nothing would be lacking in anyone's salvation. That's just some food for thought.
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/24/2004 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
"Conviction precedes repentance, but does not necessitate it. The rich young ruler had a direct revelation of the truth of what he should do, and he turned away from it, because he loved his possessions more than Christ."
So "conviction" is merely the showing of truth?
No, it's knowledge of the truth.
quote:
So I would be "convicting" you if I said, "Burning CDs is wrong, here is why... The Bible puts it this way..." And that would be conviction?
No, it would not be personal conviction until I was persuaded (convicted) that it was wrong.
quote:
I would say that the rich young ruler was not convicted, for had he been, he would have repented. If conviction means truly coming to grips with your sinfulness and feeling remourse, it seems the only way that remourse would be felt is through repentance. Does this make sense?
The above argument assumes its own conclusion, with no supporting evidence. REPENTANCE is "truly coming to grips with your sinfulness and feeling remourse" with the consequent proper action of TURNING from an ultimate motive of selfishness to an ultimate motve of unselfish goodwill (godly love).
quote:
"Yes. From Genesis to Revelation, God places the blame for refusing his grace squarely on the shoulders of the sinner."
I do not question this statement, and on this we can both agree. However where we would tend to disagree is as to whether God ever shares responsibility with the sinner in the sinners salvation.
I say the Bible NEVER; in any way, shape, form, or anything, NEVER credits man in salvation. Do you see God ever praising man for "freely" (in the LFW sense) coming to Him in anyway?
As I said above, there can be absolutely NO possible "credit" for doing one's duty, as our Lord revealed when He said:
Luke 17:7 "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' "
quote:
"Do you agree that all people ought to do right? If so, how can it be merit to simply do what one ought to do? If I'm a criminal condemned to death, and the governor offers me a pardon with certain conditions attached (like truly repenting for my past crimes and sincerely intending to do what's right to the best of my ability from then on), how did I EARN or merit anything?"
Is the act of repenting a work?
Not a meritorious one. It is everyone's DUTY, or else no one can deserve Hell.
quote:
If I tell you that I have a paycheck for $1000 written out to you and you have to take it (because I am the govenor of the state and I have commanded it of you) but you have to do the work that the $1000 demands, did you merit the money with your work? Or was the money merely an act of grace given to you, though you would not have recieved it had you not worked? Do you recieve the $1000 based on your earning it (doing the work) or on the basis of another's work?
Again, there can be NO merit in merely receiving a GIFT proferred.
quote:
On a side note: we agree that repentance is a command. If it be a command, then is it a sin to not repent?
Yes, of course. Sin is a transgression of the law, and "God commands ALL men everywhere to repent."
quote:
If it is a sin and the Lord Jesus died for ALL men (universally) and died for ALL sin (including the sin of nonrepentance 'unbelief') then why are not ALL men saved? it would necesarily follow that 'unbelief' a.k.a. non-repentance would be covered by the Blood of Christ and nothing would be lacking in anyone's salvation. That's just some food for thought.
That would be true, if the Bible actually taught that Christ's death was a payment of debt or a penal substitution. It is not true when we take the Bible's own description of what Christ's death was (a ransom or redemption price), there is no logical difficulty. Christ's death is the divine provision by which God can be "just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus." It is not a quid pro quo, and could not possibly be.
The penalty for even ONE sin is ETERNAL death in Hell. If Christ's death was a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby the debt of sin was discharged, He would have to have suffered the EXACT penalty for sin--multiplied times EVERY ONE of the sins that have ever been committed. This was not his purpose, however. And yes, universalism would be the only logical result of this, for God would surely be worse than the devil were He to punish sin twice or make sin be paid for twice. It would also be odd indeed if the wrath of God were truly appeased on Calvary, and then we see in Romans 1 Paul saying "the wrath of God IS BEING revealed...", not to mention the Book of Revelation's depiction of the wrath of God and of the Lamb.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/25/2004 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
That would be true, if the Bible actually taught that Christ's death was a payment of debt or a penal substitution. It is not true when we take the Bible's own description of what Christ's death was (a ransom or redemption price), there is no logical difficulty. Christ's death is the divine provision by which God can be "just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus." It is not a quid pro quo, and could not possibly be.
The penalty for even ONE sin is ETERNAL death in Hell. If Christ's death was a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby the debt of sin was discharged, He would have to have suffered the EXACT penalty for sin--multiplied times EVERY ONE of the sins that have ever been committed. This was not his purpose, however. And yes, universalism would be the only logical result of this, for God would surely be worse than the devil were He to punish sin twice or make sin be paid for twice.
I've never seen it argued so well. Are there some good books along these lines from revivaltheology.com that get into this? I would like to have such books to loan out to folks!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/25/2004 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
I also appreciated your arguments and their focus on the gospel. I had another observation concerning conviction. It seems to me that you differentiate between "being guilty" and "conviction." Am I understanding you correctly? To me guilt and conviction happen when there is a standard and one fails to meet it. This guilt can be self-proclaimed or understood by the guilty party, or it can be declared/imposed upon an individual by one in authority (regardless of whether the individual agrees with this judgment or not). Something like pleading guilty in court and being declared guilty by the court after claiming our innocence. The presentation of the truth or standard will bring guilt upon a non-conforming individual in any case (because we know that there will be an ultimate judgment based upon truth) and the only issue that is not clear is whether the individual pleads guilty or not before the time of judgment. The trust says that all are guilty and deserve death - better to acknowledge guilt and plead for mercy.
I see holes when Borg states, quote:
"So "conviction" is merely the showing of truth? So I would be "convicting" you if I said, "Burning CDs is wrong, here is why... The Bible puts it this way..." And that would be conviction?
I would say that the rich young ruler was not convicted, for had he been, he would have repented. If conviction means truly coming to grips with your sinfulness and feeling remourse, it seems the only way that remourse would be felt is through repentance. Does this make sense?"
The example of Judas would seem to be enough to state that remorse is not repentance. We need to plead for mercy to the one that can grant mercy according to the means that He has chosen to offer it to us. I would think that Judas was "convicted" in that he felt guilty for the actions that he had chosen. Instead of "repentance" and trusting in God to deliver him from his guilt through His merciful gospel, he took matters into his own hands and sought solice in suicide. Peter's actions when he denied Jesus also led to conviction with him experiencing guilt for his denial, yet we know that he repented and sought mercy.
Lastly, one task of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me." I always understood this to mean that the Holy Spirit, through the message of the gospel brings the world under universal guilt and this will be unniversally evident at the judgment. It is from this understanding of guilt that some believe the gospel and escape the coming wrath by pleading for mercy according to the only and unique way that God has given us - trusting in the death of His Son.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/25/2004 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Its tough to keep up around here!
Tom, I appreciate the heads up on the book by Thomas Pink. I'm gonna look for it today at Borders, and if i can't find it I'm hitting amazon.com. I understand the difficulty with finding time to post, I'm newly married and we're trying to still get the apartment set up... But I really would love to hear your thoughts on the subject of LFW.
Jefscott, I think that a correct understanding of LFW includes your idea of "volitionally focusing my mind." I agree that in addition to having desires come to me, I experience that I can influence which desires I think on by volition.
Lock, you asked about finding info on the OV's understanding of LFW. Here is a link to the question and answer section of the Christus Victor Ministries that addresses your question www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=516
It seems that the discussion has turned to a question of the biblical support on whether we are free to come to Christ. I hate to be rude, but that is not really what I had in mind when I started this thread. I was hoping to hear endorsements and critiques of the concept of Libertarian Free Will. As such, I'm looking more at the philosophic side and less at the biblical side.
That being said, I firmly believe that the only consistent way to affirm compatibalism and believe that God is loving and holy is to affirm Universalism. Van Inwagen's consequence argument seems perfectly sound -- if my choices are determined by factors outside of my control then I cannot be held responsible for them.
Alan, still hoping that you can get in some more on your thoughts on the subject.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|