Debate on Calvinism. White/Hunt

[Josheb]

Hunt is better at exposing cultural seduction of Christianity and how the culture influences the Church.

Perhaps, but even there I find he often errs and handles matters... (what shall I say?) sophomorically? Unscripturally? Just as he is stuck in volitionalism when he talks soteriology, he is stuck in modern futurism with his views on cultural influence. It can be summarized by a simple comparison with his anti-Calvinism: he "Cal-rags," and he "church rags."

So let me elaborate. If anyone has read his books/articles or heard his sermons on Calvinism then his use of strawman as a basis of criticism is well-known. When it comes to his culturalism, he is rooted in the Dispensationalist holdover that the Church is corrupt. This is presuppositional for Hunt. Hunt is not of the mind of impeccability or of ultimate victory. Not only is the Church corrupt, but Hunt starts with the view the Church is weak and vulnerable. Remember: he is of the mindset the Church will become impotent and need rescuing from the tribulation. God will "spare" the Christian. What this leads to is (often) unjust and divisive judgment of the Church. There is a term the Bible uses for those who unjustly divide the Church. The word is "devil". He is an accuser of the brethren. Look/listen for it then next time you happen upon a sermon by Hunt. All of us can go to the Theology or Eschatology board in this forum and find modern futurists ragging on the Church.

What is the healthy, biblical alternative? Accountability and reform. It's a huge irony given the fact modern futurists are constantly making baseless claims about the future and no one does anything about it. The lack of conscience and accountability is an example of cultural influence Hunt (and other modern futurists) universally ignore. Congregations that maintain sound teaching and accountability and address the need to self-correct don't just survive, they thrive victoriously. The congregations in Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. were a mess! They endured. The pagan temples in those cities now sit as relics and the gospel thrives. Yes, there are what you and I might call "dead" churches, but when the dead are the focus of criticism that just means a strawman is being argued. Secular culture has always been a challenge; the wheat grow among the weeds. We should expect it. We should defend against it. We should not hate on ourselves, or our kin.

Sadly, there are many Church-raggers.

From its inception Dispensationalism subordinated Christology and soteriology to eschatology and ecclesiology. If Jesus is coming any day now, then people can be stirred to repent and fill the plate. If the Church is corrupt and you hold the true view and teach in a pure group, then people's hope and pride can be preyed upon. Everyone wants to be part of the "true" Church, not the false one.

 

[His clay]

Perhaps, but even there I find he often errs and handles matters... (what shall I say?) sophomorically? Unscripturally? Just as he is stuck in volitionalism when he talks soteriology, he is stuck in modern futurism with his views on cultural influence. It can be summarized by a simple comparison with his anti-Calvinism: he "Cal-rags," and he "church rags."

So let me elaborate. If anyone has read his books/articles or heard his sermons on Calvinism then his use of strawman as a basis of criticism is well-known. When it comes to his culturalism, he is rooted in the Dispensationalist holdover that the Church is corrupt. This is presuppositional for Hunt. Hunt is not of the mind of impeccability or of ultimate victory. Not only is the Church corrupt, but Hunt starts with the view the Church is weak and vulnerable. Remember: he is of the mindset the Church will become impotent and need rescuing from the tribulation. God will "spare" the Christian. What this leads to is (often) unjust and divisive judgment of the Church. There is a term the Bible uses for those who unjustly divide the Church. The word is "devil". He is an accuser of the brethren. Look/listen for it then next time you happen upon a sermon by Hunt. All of us can go to the Theology or Eschatology board in this forum and find modern futurists ragging on the Church.

What is the healthy, biblical alternative? Accountability and reform. It's a huge irony given the fact modern futurists are constantly making baseless claims about the future and no one does anything about it. The lack of conscience and accountability is an example of cultural influence Hunt (and other modern futurists) universally ignore. Congregations that maintain sound teaching and accountability and address the need to self-correct don't just survive, they thrive victoriously. The congregations in Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. were a mess! They endured. The pagan temples in those cities now sit as relics and the gospel thrives. Yes, there are what you and I might call "dead" churches, but when the dead are the focus of criticism that just means a strawman is being argued. Secular culture has always been a challenge; the wheat grow among the weeds. We should expect it. We should defend against it. We should not hate on ourselves, or our kin.

Sadly, there are many Church-raggers.

From its inception Dispensationalism subordinated Christology and soteriology to eschatology and ecclesiology. If Jesus is coming any day now, then people can be stirred to repent and fill the plate. If the Church is corrupt and you hold the true view and teach in a pure group, then people's hope and pride can be preyed upon. Everyone wants to be part of the "true" Church, not the false one.

Could you take a moment to describe "volitionism" and the alternative you prefer? Please.

 

[Josheb]

Could you take a moment to describe "volitionism" and the alternative you prefer? Please.

lol! Sure

"Volition" is simply another word for "will;" the ability to make choices or assert intent. I could use the phrase "free-willism," but that's a problematic phrase because people will read it differently as their doctrine dictates. The word "free" means "unfettered," or "absent any control or influence," "autonomous," and no one I know (at least none who are intellectually honest with themselves) actually believes the human will is autonomous, completely unfettered, and absent any and all control or influence. No one's will, for example, can over-rule God's will. God's will is a limitation on the human will. Sin would be another example. Even Pelagius acknowledged sin had an adverse effect on the human will, or volition, but he thought something remained of the God-given ability by which a sinful sinner could still choose God within his or her own sin-adulterated faculties of........ volition. No one, not even the Pelagian wholly believes in free will. We all believe humans have a very real, and not fake, ability to make very real choices. Originally God made us that way and God made the mind, will, emotion, etc. good (Gen. 1:31). Sin adulterated or corrupted what God made. Some few Christians acknowledge that the heart and mind are corrupted by sin but still believe the will, or the volitional faculties of the sinner, remain unaffected and, therefore, functional exactly as God originally designed. Most Christians do not hold that view. Even the Pelagian and the Provisionist acknowledge everything is adversely affected (even as they maintain the position something of the original design persists. The Arminian and the Calvinist wholly disagree. Both hold to what we now call "Total Depravity," or the view that sin has had such an adulterating effect that t has compromised everything a human does to the point of his or her no longer being able to choose salvation in their own might. Sinners must be aided by God. What separates Arms from Cals is the point at which each says regeneration occurs: does regeneration occur before or after faith is asserted. The Arm says faith precedes regeneration. The Cal, or monergist, says regeneration precedes faith and faith, like regeneration (and all the rest of salvation's constituent aspects) is a gift from God. We do what we do because God enabled and empowered us to do so.

However, even after being saved, a person's will, a person's volitional agency - his ability to make choices - is still limited.

When I use the word "volitionalism," I am talking about all of the various soteriological points of view that place salvation on the end of the spectrum involving, requiring, and expecting the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to assert his or her will, his or her choice, his or her volition toward salvation - the sinner willing himself into the antithesis of his sinful state. Complete autonomy absent any and all restriction or limit would be at the extreme end of volitionalism, Pelagianism would be placed slightly toward the middle of autonomy, Provisionism very close but slightly more toward the center, and Arminianism would be somewhat distant from that end of the spectrum, close to the middle. Calvinism would be on the opposite side of the middle but still close and strict determinism would be the outlier on the other end.

I am monergist. I do not believe we do anything in the sinfully dead and enslaved state to obtain salvation. Or, more accurately and specifically, I separate conversion/regeneration (which I see as synonymous - some do not) from the rest of salvation because once a person has been brought from death to life and indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit, gifted with the power of God/Christ and all that goes with His giftings, we then can, are, and expected to be active participants - delightedly willing collaborators - accomplishing God's will (in our lives, the lives of others, and God's purpose in creation. It is the purpose for which we are saved. We are created in Christ to perform good works, and those works are ones God had planned for us to perform before He ever saved us (Eph. 2:10). Even here, though, we are not autonomous or independent of God, or the design specifications of creation. It is (still) God who works in us - in our will and our conduct - to do His will and fulfill His purpose.

Does that answer your question? If not clarify the inquiry and I'll attempt a better reply.

 

[prism]

Sadly, there are many Church-raggers.

Apparently and sadly, Dispensational-raggers as well.

 

[Josheb]

Apparently and sadly, Dispensational-raggers as well.

The difference is scripture directs critique as I have cited...... and practiced , and Hunt does neither. You can at any time go back to any of the sermons by Hunt that you think/thought were good and valid and critique them in light of what I posted and verify for yourself whether or not he is church ragging, or church edifying.

That would be MUCH better than insinuating valid criticism of Dispensationalism is equivalent to unjust and divisive judgment.

And as far as my views of Dispensationalism go, ANYONE can at ANY TIME ask me to prove my commentary OR provide proof what I post is incorrect. Until that happens 1) what I post stands as true and correct, and 2) criticism and doubt are unjustified and inappropriate.

 

[prism]

The difference is scripture directs critique as I have cited...... and practiced , and Hunt does neither. You can at any time go back to any of the sermons by Hunt that you think/thought were good and valid and critique them in light of what I posted and verify for yourself whether or not he is church ragging, or church edifying.

That would be MUCH better than insinuating valid criticism of Dispensationalism is equivalent to unjust and divisive judgment.

And as far as my views of Dispensationalism go, ANYONE can at ANY TIME ask me to prove my commentary OR provide proof what I post is incorrect. Until that happens 1) what I post stands as true and correct, and 2) criticism and doubt are unjustified and inappropriate.

I see not only did you rag on dispensationalists but 'modern futurists' as well (post #21). Would you consider the Apostle Paul a 'modern futurist', in his time as well when he writes to Timothy?...

1 Timothy 4:1-3 CSB
Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, [2] through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. [3] They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 CSB
But know this: Hard times will come in the last days. [2] For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, demeaning, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, [4] traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people.

 

[Josheb]

I see not only did you rag on dispensationalists but 'modern futurists' as well (post #21).

Never happened.

Would you consider the Apostle Paul a 'modern futurist', in his time as well when he writes to Timothy?...

No.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 CSB
Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, [2] through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. [3] They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 CSB
But know this: Hard times will come in the last days. [2] For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, demeaning, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, [4] traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people.

The last days occurred in Paul's day, not ours. We know this because Peter tells the crowd at Pentecost what they were experiencing is what Joel prophesied would happen in the last days (Acts 2:17; see also 1 Pet. 1:20). Likewise, the author of Hebrews plainly stated God had spoken to the author and his original readers in "these last days" (Heb. 2:1). Not "those last days sometime in the far, far distant future multiple millennia from now." James told his readers they had laid up treasure in the last days (Jms. 5:3). They had, not they will or would. Paul told the young Timothy "know this," there would be difficult times in the last days (2 Tim. 3:1). That would be a meaningless "know" if the last days were not going to happen during Timothy's life. Timothy could know it all he wanted but it would have absolutely no relevance or application for his life. Paul told Timothy there'd be difficult times so Timothy would prepare for it. Although he used different language, Paul also explicitly stated that the ends of the ages had come upon his Corinthian readers in the first century (1 Cor. 10:11). It was not the beginning of the end, or the beginning of the ages; it was the ends of the ages.

So, no, Paul was NOT a modern futurist. He was an ancient futurist . The end times prophesies' future fulfillment was to occur in his lifetime and those of his fellow apostles and their readers in the first century. What was pending in his future is now long passed for us.

The "last days" have come and gone. The "last day" has not.











And you are getting off topic. This thread is about Hunt's debate with White on soteriology. You (off-topically) brought up Hunt's indicting the Church because of cultural influences and now you're digressing further to make this about me and my views on eschatology - NOT HUNT'S! What you should be doing is providing some evidence Hunt's criticism of the Church is correct, justified, and scriptural (and not, as I said, due to biases associated with his Dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology).

You are not doing that.

Hunt was a poor exegete. Not only did he handle scripture poorly, but his logic was often faulty. I do not doubt the man's salvation, but I would never recommend him as a reasonable and rational source for understanding Arminian salvation, valid criticisms of Calvinism, or what scripture has to say about the Church, how the Church should thrive among a weed-filled culture, or how or what the Church would be doing in end times. While I sometimes find problems with White, he handles scripture much better than Hunt, and Hunt was outmatched in every way attempting to have a "debate" with White. Hunt brought a toothpick to an artillery barrage .

But, if Hunt is thought to be "better at exposing cultural seduction of Christianity and how the culture influences the Church" then do please prove that position, because while he may be better at "exposing cultural seduction" than he is defending synergism, he is not better at exposing cultural seduction than a plethora of other theologians. I for one, would put Francis Schaefer waaaay ahead of Hunt when it comes to exposing cultural seduction of Christianity and further argue Hunt was thusly indebted. I'd consider Hunt a sophomore in comparison to folks like J. Gresham Machen, C. S. Lewis, H. Richard Niebuhr, Marvin Olasky, Gary Demar, Timothy Keller, George Barna, Gregory Koukl, Stephen McAlpine, Carl Trueman, Nancy Pearcey, or any number of examiners of Christianity and culture. Every Christian should be reading Pearcey if they want to understand Christianity and cultural seduction(s).

 

[makesends]

The difference is scripture directs critique as I have cited...... and practiced , and Hunt does neither. You can at any time go back to any of the sermons by Hunt that you think/thought were good and valid and critique them in light of what I posted and verify for yourself whether or not he is church ragging, or church edifying.

That would be MUCH better than insinuating valid criticism of Dispensationalism is equivalent to unjust and divisive judgment.

And as far as my views of Dispensationalism go, ANYONE can at ANY TIME ask me to prove my commentary OR provide proof what I post is incorrect. Until that happens 1) what I post stands as true and correct, and 2) criticism and doubt are unjustified and inappropriate.

Far be it from me to support Dispensationalism! But as for 1 and 2, NO!, the fact that someone goes unopposed does not render his position to be more than opinion, and the fact that I may not be able to muster an appropriate response to that position does not mean I must not doubt it. I doubt pretty much everything, to include precisely EVERYTHING man puts into words by his own derivation.

 

[Josheb]

Far be it from me to support Dispensationalism!

Glad to read it.

But as for 1 and 2, NO!, the fact that someone goes unopposed does not render his position to be more than opinion...

Nice red herring. It's not the lack of response that makes my view correct; it is the facts in evidence.

....and the fact that I may not be able to muster an appropriate response to that position does not mean I must not doubt it.

No, but it does mean any dissent and doubt are unsubstantiated and therefore unjustified.

Poster A: Hunt is better at exposing cultural seduction of Christianity and how the culture influences the Church.
Josh: Perhaps, but I think that very has to do with his Dispensationalism, not an objective or scriptural view of Church and culture.
Poster A: You're (hypocritically) Dispensationalism-ragging.
Josh: No, I am drawing a causal connection between what Hunt does and his Dispensationally-informed eschatology and ecclesiology. It is a fact Dispensationalism, or more generically, modern futurism, teaches X, Y, and Z, and has a long history of incorrectly, unjustly, and unscripturally judging both culture and the Church. Those are the relevant facts of Dispensationalism, not my opinion.
Poster A: You're not just (hypocritically) ragging on Dispensationalism, you're also ragging on modern futurists. Was Paul a modern futurist?
Josh: No, and here is what scripture explicitly states and necessarily implies proving he was not a modern futurist. The conversation is getting far afield of the op, so if you'd like to evidence the dissent please do so.
Poster B: I can't. Just because I cannot does not mean your posts are anything more than opinion or my doubt is unwarranted.
Josh: It is the facts of Dispensationalism's teaching that are being asserted, not my personal opinion and, yes, those facts and an inability to refute them does mean any doubt is unwarranted.

And either one of you would be invited to prove Dispensationalism does not teach what it teaches and hasn't influenced Hunt's views on Christianity and culture but 1) I don't believe that cannot be done, 2) you, @makesends, have gone on record stating an inability to do so, and 3) it's off-topic (so if either of you can do so then do so and do it now in a decisive and convincing manner so we can all quickly return to the subject of this op).

Don't hate me for my assertiveness, decisiveness, and bluntness. Keep the posts about the posts and prove the posts incorrect.

Or get back to the matter of the White v Hunt debate on Calvinism. I'd venture to add that a few Arms here and in other forums can do a btter job than Hunt did.

I doubt pretty much everything, to include precisely EVERYTHING man puts into words by his own derivation.

Then I infer you doubt your own words and no one, therefore, can take anything you ever post to have any veracity or efficacy as a reflection of your own ever-doubted views.

I'm a skeptic (and a bit of a cynic), so I understand what I think you're trying to say. Doubting everything man puts into his own words leave you with nothing (so dial it back a bit ).

 

[makesends]

Glad to read it.

Nice red herring. It's not the lack of response that makes my view correct; it is the facts in evidence.

No, but it does mean any dissent and doubt are unsubstantiated and therefore unjustified.

Poster A: Hunt is better at exposing cultural seduction of Christianity and how the culture influences the Church.
Josh: Perhaps, but I think that very has to do with his Dispensationalism, not an objective or scriptural view of Church and culture.
Poster A: You're (hypocritically) Dispensationalism-ragging.
Josh: No, I am drawing a causal connection between what Hunt does and his Dispensationally-informed eschatology and ecclesiology. It is a fact Dispensationalism, or more generically, modern futurism, teaches X, Y, and Z, and has a long history of incorrectly, unjustly, and unscripturally judging both culture and the Church. Those are the relevant facts of Dispensationalism, not my opinion.
Poster A: You're not just (hypocritically) ragging on Dispensationalism, you're also ragging on modern futurists. Was Paul a modern futurist?
Josh: No, and here is what scripture explicitly states and necessarily implies proving he was not a modern futurist. The conversation is getting far afield of the op, so if you'd like to evidence the dissent please do so.
Poster B: I can't. Just because I cannot does not mean your posts are anything more than opinion or my doubt is unwarranted.
Josh: It is the facts of Dispensationalism's teaching that are being asserted, not my personal opinion and, yes, those facts and an inability to refute them does mean any doubt is unwarranted.

And either one of you would be invited to prove Dispensationalism does not teach what it teaches and hasn't influenced Hunt's views on Christianity and culture but 1) I don't believe that cannot be done, 2) you, @makesends, have gone on record stating an inability to do so, and 3) it's off-topic (so if either of you can do so then do so and do it now in a decisive and convincing manner so we can all quickly return to the subject of this op).

Don't hate me for my assertiveness, decisiveness, and bluntness. Keep the posts about the posts and prove the posts incorrect.

Or get back to the matter of the White v Hunt debate on Calvinism. I'd venture to add that a few Arms here and in other forums can do a btter job than Hunt did.

Then I infer you doubt your own words and no one, therefore, can take anything you ever post to have any veracity or efficacy as a reflection of your own ever-doubted views.

I'm a skeptic (and a bit of a cynic), so I understand what I think you're trying to say. Doubting everything man puts into his own words leave you with nothing (so dial it back a bit ).

Ha! That's good advice —Dial it back a bit...

 

[His clay]

lol! Sure

"Volition" is simply another word for "will;" the ability to make choices or assert intent. I could use the phrase "free-willism," but that's a problematic phrase because people will read it differently as their doctrine dictates. The word "free" means "unfettered," or "absent any control or influence," "autonomous," and no one I know (at least none who are intellectually honest with themselves) actually believes the human will is autonomous, completely unfettered, and absent any and all control or influence. No one's will, for example, can over-rule God's will. God's will is a limitation on the human will. Sin would be another example. Even Pelagius acknowledged sin had an adverse effect on the human will, or volition, but he thought something remained of the God-given ability by which a sinful sinner could still choose God within his or her own sin-adulterated faculties of........ volition. No one, not even the Pelagian wholly believes in free will. We all believe humans have a very real, and not fake, ability to make very real choices. Originally God made us that way and God made the mind, will, emotion, etc. good (Gen. 1:31). Sin adulterated or corrupted what God made. Some few Christians acknowledge that the heart and mind are corrupted by sin but still believe the will, or the volitional faculties of the sinner, remain unaffected and, therefore, functional exactly as God originally designed. Most Christians do not hold that view. Even the Pelagian and the Provisionist acknowledge everything is adversely affected (even as they maintain the position something of the original design persists. The Arminian and the Calvinist wholly disagree. Both hold to what we now call "Total Depravity," or the view that sin has had such an adulterating effect that t has compromised everything a human does to the point of his or her no longer being able to choose salvation in their own might. Sinners must be aided by God. What separates Arms from Cals is the point at which each says regeneration occurs: does regeneration occur before or after faith is asserted. The Arm says faith precedes regeneration. The Cal, or monergist, says regeneration precedes faith and faith, like regeneration (and all the rest of salvation's constituent aspects) is a gift from God. We do what we do because God enabled and empowered us to do so.

However, even after being saved, a person's will, a person's volitional agency - his ability to make choices - is still limited.

When I use the word "volitionalism," I am talking about all of the various soteriological points of view that place salvation on the end of the spectrum involving, requiring, and expecting the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to assert his or her will, his or her choice, his or her volition toward salvation - the sinner willing himself into the antithesis of his sinful state. Complete autonomy absent any and all restriction or limit would be at the extreme end of volitionalism, Pelagianism would be placed slightly toward the middle of autonomy, Provisionism very close but slightly more toward the center, and Arminianism would be somewhat distant from that end of the spectrum, close to the middle. Calvinism would be on the opposite side of the middle but still close and strict determinism would be the outlier on the other end.

I am monergist. I do not believe we do anything in the sinfully dead and enslaved state to obtain salvation. Or, more accurately and specifically, I separate conversion/regeneration (which I see as synonymous - some do not) from the rest of salvation because once a person has been brought from death to life and indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit, gifted with the power of God/Christ and all that goes with His giftings, we then can, are, and expected to be active participants - delightedly willing collaborators - accomplishing God's will (in our lives, the lives of others, and God's purpose in creation. It is the purpose for which we are saved. We are created in Christ to perform good works, and those works are ones God had planned for us to perform before He ever saved us (Eph. 2:10). Even here, though, we are not autonomous or independent of God, or the design specifications of creation. It is (still) God who works in us - in our will and our conduct - to do His will and fulfill His purpose.

Does that answer your question? If not clarify the inquiry and I'll attempt a better reply.

It's a lot to think through. I've identified a few areas where we use terminology differently (e.g. defining autonomy, which leads to a different understanding of the spectrum, which leads to a different understanding of the issues, etc). I agree with your idea of synergy (def: "combined action or operation"); as a compatibilist I hold that often we are "active participants," and "willing collaborators" but that God's is still sovereign over our actions. So I guess that I hold to a compatibilist sort of synergy rather than an Arminian type of synergy. Often, the idea of synergy is that each participant contributes something that the other does not so that you end up with something more than each person could contribute individually. However, after reading Acts 17 and the idea of worship conveyed there (God is not worshiped by human hands as though He needs anything, since He gives to all men life and breath and everything), biblical synergy happens because God is distinct from His creation, but creation owes God for its participation. So the picture is not of two autonomous contributors, but rather of one autonomous contributor sustaining a dependent contributor, and in that way working together.

When I use autonomy, I'm not really focused upon "absent any control or influence". I use the term more in keeping with self-sufficiency in relation to something or someone. Hence, a teenager may be becoming more and more autonomous from his parents as he acquires a license, a job, and another place to live. The teen is becoming more "self-sufficient" in relation to his "parents". Now, branching over to theology, I find this most commonly in dispute with "self-sufficiency" in relation to "God." And the critical point at issue is with respect to advocating a will or choosing faculty ("volitional agency" as you describe it) that can do otherwise or choose otherwise than what was done or chosen. This is where I bail entirely because I find that idea to be so utterly problematic (scripturally, logically, and experientially) as to render it no longer a real option for understanding the choosing process. Key to being able to do or choose otherwise is the idea of not being caused to choose one way or another. And this is where "autonomy" as "self-sufficiency" rears its head. I'm not critiquing an absence of any control or influence, since any appeal to those at this point could only be a limitation upon the sphere of decision, but the control could never be "causal" or the influence could never be "causal," otherwise the ability to do otherwise would be lost. So my bullseye focus is upon this "ability to do otherwise" and what it means and what it entails. I've read enough of those who hold to libertarian freedom to know that they really don't like the random chance critique, and so they take some time to try to distance themselves from the objection, but the objection comes because the very ideology of their position demands it. And that ideology is this "ability to do or choose otherwise." But if the choice is caused, then it cannot be otherwise. And this is precisely why they balk at Calvinistic sovereignty, because it goes against their view of autonomous choice, a causeless view of choice in relation to God.

What do you think? In your response, I'll be specifically looking for an understanding on your part where our ideas of "autonomy" differ. My post could be summarized by two words: synergy and autonomy.

How does this relate to White and Hunt? It should be obvious that Hunt and White share different understandings of God's providence, and I have no doubt that the issue of the will and its ability is central (compatible or incompatible with God's sovereignty over it), which is why I find that the issues of "synergy" and "autonomy" to be very relevant to the opening post.

 

[His clay]

Relating to my post above ^

The best definition of libertarian freedom I've found (among many) comes from a coauthored book by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland.
========================
Definition of libertarian freedom (270-71)

"Libertarianism claims that the freedom necessary for responsible action is not compatible with determinism. Real freedom requires a type of control over one's action--and, more importantly, over one's will--such that, given a choice to do A (raise one's hand and vote) or B (leave the room), nothing determines that either choice is made. Rather, the agent himself must simply exercise his own causal powers and will to do one alternative, say A (or have the power to refrain from willing to do something). When this happens, the agent either could have refrained from willing to do A or he could have willed to do B without anything else being different inside or outside of his being. He is the absolute originator of his own actions. As Aristotle said in Physics 256a, "A staff moves a stone, and is moved by a hand, which is moved by a man." The event of the staff moving is caused by the event of the hand moving which is caused by the substance known as the man himself. When an agent acts freely, he is a first or unmoved mover; no event or efficient cause causes him to act. His desires or beliefs may influence his choice or play an important role in his deliberations, but free acts are not determined or caused by prior events or states in the agent; rather, they are spontaneously done by the agent himself acting as a first mover. Thus libertarian freedom is both a position

(271)

about freedom itself and a theory about the nature of agents and agency."
========================
Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003.

Hence, my critique of autonomy comes directly from the "absolute originator," "first or unmoved mover," and "no event or efficient cause causes him to act" idea inherent in the definition.

Many other definitions could be provided, but I've chosen to simplify it down to one for now.

 

[His clay]

@Josheb
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I really do appreciate it, and I failed to say as much in post 31. So here I am saying it now. Thanks for taking the time. Your thoroughness has hopefully aided clarity, which I hope has enabled our discussion to hit the key/critical areas.

 

[Josheb]

Relating to my post above ^

The best definition of libertarian freedom I've found (among many) comes from a coauthored book by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland.

Aren't Craig and Mooreland Molinists?

 

[Josheb]

What do you think? In your response, I'll be specifically looking for an understanding on your part where our ideas of "autonomy" differ. My post could be summarized by two words: synergy and autonomy.

I'll follow up on this later but, as a monergist, I believe God is the sole causal agent in salvation. You use the word "synergy," but I hope that is not intended to mean salvation is synergistic, a combination of both divine and sinful human effort or work. As far as autonomy goes, the only one who is autonomous is God, the Creator. The creature is never autonomous, not can s/he be. That' however, does not preclude volitional agency and that point is where many on both sides of the debate have failed in their understanding. White sometimes errs in that regard. It's one of the places I think Sproul better than White. Hunt never came close to understanding.

The analogy I often use is the drowning victim washed ashore but I don't have time to post it now. I'll re-post it later but it can be found HERE. Once that is understood the matter of volition becomes irrelevant. It is moot. Will turns out to be a red herring!

How does this relate to White and Hunt? It should be obvious that Hunt and White share different understandings of God's providence, and I have no doubt that the issue of the will and its ability is central (compatible or incompatible with God's sovereignty over it), which is why I find that the issues of "synergy" and "autonomy" to be very relevant to the opening post.

Yes, White and Hunt hold different views of divine providence. You say "synergy and autonomy. Where is monergism? If none, then the divine causality must be explained synergistically and done so in a manner that does not make God dependent. How do you do that?

 

[His clay]

Aren't Craig and Mooreland Molinists?

I know that Craig is. As for Moreland, I'm unsure. However, both are good philosophers who know their stuff (being good theologians is a different matter). Back when I interacted at CARM, another poster really liked their definition. I think that he was one of the only real Arminian posters there. I am forgetting his screen name.

As a side note, JP Moreland's book on scientism is excellent. Personally, having done a lot of research into Logical Positivism and Scientism, I found his book to be excellent. Sadly, I definitely disagree with his position on the will (as posted by FlTom).

 

[Josheb]

@His clay (and anyone else with an interest), here's the analogy I mentioned...

Suppose we find unconscious man found washed up on a beach on the verge of death, knowing he will die if nothing is done to revive him. You or I may shake the person and call out to them, "Sinner! Sinner! Do you need help? Do you want my help? Do you want my help?" We could drag that guy all up and down the beach and yell at him in 100 different languages up close to his ear or far away with a bullhorn and it would not make any difference when it comes to the unconscious man's will because his will is not operational while he is unconscious. Not only can he not act to respond, but he also cannot choose to respond. The decision to save that unconscious man is entirely that of the one finding the unconscious man in his unconscious, near-death state. Do we save the man because he is black, white, striped, polka-dotted, Zimbabwean or Low Slobovian? Is our decision to act based at all on faculties of this unconscious man? No! Do we decide based on whether the man was a "good" man or a "bad" man? No. Our decision is made based on us, not him. Our decision is based on our desire to save the man, on the kindness of our heart, the degree to which we want to act, the degree to which we want to save the man who would otherwise die were we not to act. We could just as easily think, "The man should have obeyed the signs that say do not go into the water here (because of the conditions of the surf) and perhaps he should experience the consequences of his actions. Perhaps his corpse will be an example to others. Perhaps if others see the ensuing rot, the decay of death, and what ignoring the warnings does to a person some will think, will, and act better." We could just as easily choose to do nothing. If we do not know CPR then the question is entirely moot. That guy is gonna die. The question is relevant only if you or I possess the ability to revive the man. The man can do nothing to express his want for resuscitation. Likewise, he can do nothing to refuse. He cannot will or act in a manner to choose or refuse resuscitation. So, we decide to revive the man because we choose to do so. We did not cause his current state and he cannot tell me what he wants; his will is irrelevant. Whatever faculties he may have possessed in the sober conscious, unadulterated state prove useless, ineffective....., irrelevant.​

Gathering people viewing the soon to die man might debate the matter of the dying man's volitional agency all day, for days, months, years, centuries, millennia, but all that conversation and debate lacks the same veracity and efficacy as the unconscious man's inoperable will.

Sin kills. Sin enslaves. Sin does not ask what you want; it corrupts a person's wants, and it does so in the exact opposite direction of life and life eternal.

The only we that many will ever be saved is if someone other than him acts and acts regardless of the man's character and faculties. Everything about the man, other than his lethal state, is irrelevant.

 

[Josheb]

I know that Craig is. As for Moreland, I'm unsure. However, both are good philosophers who know their stuff (being good theologians is a different matter). Back when I interacted at CARM, another poster really liked their definition. I think that he was one of the only real Arminian posters there. I am forgetting his screen name.

Yes, both men are intelligent, educated, and experienced, and I generally enjoy what I've read by them and respect both. However, even good philosophers err and no one is perfect. I've read a couple of Craig's articles on middle knowledge (and other sources beside Craig as well) and find them flawed. One of the problems, as I've already posted, is the irrelevancy of the sinner's will. Everyone (figuratively, not literally) thinks the sinner's volition is relevant when it is not. They take the bait and argue over a red herring. One of the reasons this may happen is because scripture is often silent specifically about the will or choice of the sinner. In the entire Bible there are a little more than 100 mentions of words like "choose," or "choice" and 99.9% of them occur in the context of the already-existing God-initiated monergistic covenant relationship having already been established. Everyone ignores that, too. Everyone including Craig and Moreland! In fact, while there are sevral places in scripture where soteriological causation is assigned to God, there is not one place in the entire Bible where causality is explicitly assigned to the still sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will. None. Craig and Moreland neglect that, too. The debate typically centers on the degree of volitional agency not its existence. If it doesn't exist then there is no degree, large or small. A similar condition exists in scripture regarding "free will." If we removed all the mentions of "freewill," and searched for the phrase "free will," we'd find there is only one(!) mention in the entire Bible (Phm. 1:14), and that is only in the NAS. Everywhere else words like "voluntary," or "willingness" are used. Humans have a will and they can choose and do things voluntarily but 1) the will is not free (autonomous) or 2) able to choose God outside of an already established covenant relationship.

Now go back and re-read that book by the good philosophers Craig and Moreland and see if they ever mention those facts.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I reiterate my personal respect and appreciation for those guys. They are good, but their views are flawed. They neglect some very important facts found in whole scripture and they got diverted by some very old, well-used, and oft-debated distractions. When good philosophers are found that do not assume a tension between the Creator's will and the creature's will the entire conversation changes...... and so does our learning. Pelagianism cannot exist without that assumption. Neither can Provisionism. Neither can Molinism.

Aside from the fact of scripture's (relative) silence and the problem of assuming premises nowhere stated, and the problem of neglecting the always-present contexts (plural) of God as causal agent, the monergistic nature of divine covenant, the post-covenant nature of soteriological choice, and a few other conditions I haven't yet mentioned one of the other problems to avoid is making The Infinite Creator God (and God's plan) dependent on the will finite sinful creature. Craig and Moreland do address that somewhat but, imo, woefully inadequately. A tension between divine will and sinful human will is assumed, never proven.

So, in conclusion, while that definition of libertarian will, or libertarian free will, may be a good and valid definition, it is also irrelevant. We should avoid getting caught up discussing, debating, arguing what logically proves to be a red herring.

As a side note, JP Moreland's book on scientism is excellent. Personally, having done a lot of research into Logical Positivism and Scientism, I found his book to be excellent. Sadly, I definitely disagree with his position on the will (as posted by FlTom).

I'll keep this brief because I do not want to digress far afield of the op. I haven't read "Scientism and Secularism" (assumes that's the books being referenced), but I have read "Scaling the Secular City" and enjoyed it. Science and scientism are two different things (as I am confident Moreland explains. Logical positivism is, in essence, a form of idolatry that substitutes one form of certainty (divine) for another (creaturely). Even though it will take you into secular thinking, I would encourage you read those Moreland cites. Comte and Russel are accessible, but Wittgenstein's a hard read (at least I find him so) but worth the effort. LP's critics, like Quine, Popper and Kuhn are also worth the read. They are all building on predecessors like Descartes, Kant, Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau, Mill, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hegel and others. Starting from the beginning and reading philosophy and history is enormously informative because no philosophy occurs in a vacuum and understand what and how people thought when what was happening in history is powerful. Craig and Moreland are (predominantly) classical apologists, so they're working from a foundation first established with folks like Aquinas..... and Aquinas' arguments were often very flawed. Centuries of debate have refined the classical argument. Centuries of scientific uncovery (we do not actually "discover" anything , we just find what has already always existed) has informed evidential apologetics. However, if someone really wants to understand the world, develop a Christian worldview able to speak too ALL of life's circumstances then the presuppositionalists are necessary. Craig and Moreland (and every other Christian writing in the last half century (or more) are both informed and dependent on them. So, if you have not already done is then I encourage you to read Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Haddon Clark, Francis Schaeffer (his trilogy is the place I recommend starting), and Lesslie Newbigin, John Frame, and Greg Bahnsen (and Alvin and Cornelius Plantinga are nice fits between the presuppositionalists and classicists like Craig and Moreland).

Becoming adept at presuppositionalism takes some practice but it is well worth the time and effort. Everything changes.

 

[His clay]

@His clay (and anyone else with an interest), here's the analogy I mentioned...

Suppose we find unconscious man found washed up on a beach on the verge of death, knowing he will die if nothing is done to revive him. You or I may shake the person and call out to them, "Sinner! Sinner! Do you need help? Do you want my help? Do you want my help?" We could drag that guy all up and down the beach and yell at him in 100 different languages up close to his ear or far away with a bullhorn and it would not make any difference when it comes to the unconscious man's will because his will is not operational while he is unconscious. Not only can he not act to respond, but he also cannot choose to respond. The decision to save that unconscious man is entirely that of the one finding the unconscious man in his unconscious, near-death state. Do we save the man because he is black, white, striped, polka-dotted, Zimbabwean or Low Slobovian? Is our decision to act based at all on faculties of this unconscious man? No! Do we decide based on whether the man was a "good" man or a "bad" man? No. Our decision is made based on us, not him. Our decision is based on our desire to save the man, on the kindness of our heart, the degree to which we want to act, the degree to which we want to save the man who would otherwise die were we not to act. We could just as easily think, "The man should have obeyed the signs that say do not go into the water here (because of the conditions of the surf) and perhaps he should experience the consequences of his actions. Perhaps his corpse will be an example to others. Perhaps if others see the ensuing rot, the decay of death, and what ignoring the warnings does to a person some will think, will, and act better." We could just as easily choose to do nothing. If we do not know CPR then the question is entirely moot. That guy is gonna die. The question is relevant only if you or I possess the ability to revive the man. The man can do nothing to express his want for resuscitation. Likewise, he can do nothing to refuse. He cannot will or act in a manner to choose or refuse resuscitation. So, we decide to revive the man because we choose to do so. We did not cause his current state and he cannot tell me what he wants; his will is irrelevant. Whatever faculties he may have possessed in the sober conscious, unadulterated state prove useless, ineffective....., irrelevant.​

Gathering people viewing the soon to die man might debate the matter of the dying man's volitional agency all day, for days, months, years, centuries, millennia, but all that conversation and debate lacks the same veracity and efficacy as the unconscious man's inoperable will.

Sin kills. Sin enslaves. Sin does not ask what you want; it corrupts a person's wants, and it does so in the exact opposite direction of life and life eternal.

The only we that many will ever be saved is if someone other than him acts and acts regardless of the man's character and faculties. Everything about the man, other than his lethal state, is irrelevant.

First, I wish to express my thanks. Your posts demonstrate thoughtfulness and competency. I generally appreciate what you communicate. I say this because the forum can easily become overly negative, and sometimes a critique is void of the positives. I don't wish to err on the side of negativity, so I hope you truly hear me when I say thank you.

Second, I completely agree that unconscious people do not possess a choosing faculty. They are blind to objective reality, and they are completely contained within their subjective world. They may be dreaming, or they may not.

Third, I'll try to place my critique in the form of a question. Do you really think that the depravity of sinners is adequately characterized by being unconscious? My response to this question is no. I'm interested in how you handle this question.

 

[ReverendRV]

It's similar to the thought that God uses us as his Musical Instruments; there is a Hypostatic Union of the Breath of God and the Breath of Man, a Concert. This is not Synergism, or else the Life of Christ before his Death would have been Synergistic; and his Life after the Resurrection is also Synergistic...

How Beautiful are the Feet of those who bring the Gospel, people who do not bring it Synergistically? All parts of the Body are God's Instrument...

Provisionism will have you believe you are Mozart; not the Piano...