Libertarian Freedom, A Critique

[His clay]

This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way other than what was chosen. If the definition provided in this paragraph is questioned, then I can easily provide several sources that give the same key features as described above. With the target clarified and stated, we can now move toward the critique.

I have often said that (1) libertarian freedom is logically incoherent, (2) biblically contradictory, and (3) practically unlivable. I hope to spell these points out in a little more detail. Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary. Many posts would be required to fully spell out the details. With all that stated, let's dive in!

Libertarian Freedom Is Logically Incoherent

1. It fails the test of the law of identity. The idea of the law of identity is that something is itself and not otherwise. The law of non-contradiction also follows. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same way. The two are inextricably connected, for the law of non-contradiction is actually built upon the law of identity. How is this? Well, let's consider a few simple examples.
   1. A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).
   2. Sin entails a transgression; a person chooses to do wrong even though they knew the right thing to do. But if reality can be otherwise than itself, then the very idea of sin can be both true and false, for a person can sin, but the person can be otherwise than what they are, and thusly if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then sin can actually be good.
   3. The above two examples demonstrate that advocating a violation of the law of identity inextricably impacts the law of non-contradiction. In order to advocate the violation, then the ability to tell truth from error and sin from goodness is thrown under the buss. In short, a violation of the law of identity destroys the rationality of the issue it is tied to.
   4. Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent.
2. The two parts of the definition are at odds with one another.
   1. Sometimes the advocate says that the self causes the will. But then how can one do otherwise if there is only one self that causes.
   2. If the self does not cause the will, then we have a random chance event, where nothing causes the will. This is an ontologically arbitrary event, which means that it is completely indistinguishable from chance. How is a chance operation of the will the substance of responsibility? How can one be held accountable for something that just happened for no reason?
   3. Some like to say that the mind is involved, and the mind and knowledge presents a sphere in which the choice/will operates. But this scenario runs into the problems just mentioned. Does the mind cause the will to be thus and not otherwise, then the first part of the definition collapses. If the mind does not cause the will, then we still have a chance account of the will/choice, and responsibility is negated. Chance and responsibility are antithetical.
3. The idea of an undetermined choice is built upon the temporal perspective of one before the choice is made. But this goes without saying, from a person's perspective, before the choice is made, it has yet to be determined. Everyone holds this. This issue is that whether or not the choice was determined by something or someone when the full process is considered. God's eternal mind and omniscience does not reduce down to man's perspective, for this would be to project from man's ignorance of the future into a metaphysical statement of reality as a whole. This is a grotesque argument from silence at best.
4. The idea of the ability to do otherwise is often built off a conflation between two objects of choice, before the choice is made. Yes, a person may be considering the blue car or the red car, but this does not mean that either can be chosen given the preferences, deliberation, and thoughts of the person leading up to the decision. In fact, to speak of the ability to do otherwise is to ignore the internal process that leads to the choice made. This is to say that what one prefers is irrelevant with respect to the will/choice. Such an oversight is to deny the very nature of the decision making process itself.

Libertarian Freedom Contradicts Scripture

1. Deism is not true, for God did not just create He is also intimately involved with His creation. This involvement eliminates creation's autonomy. Creation needs God to begin to exist, and creation needs God to continue to exist. (Heb 1:3; Col 1:16-17; Acts 17:25, 28; 1 Cor 8:6; Rom 11:36) These verses point to God's continual sustaining activity, apart from which nothing would exist. Since, God sustains, then the second part of the libertarian freedom definition is false. It is false, for agent or will ultimacy would contradict a non-ultimate sustained will/agent.
2. Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make. (Eph 2:2-3; John 8:43-45; Rom 8:5-9; John 10:1-28; etc.) This point contradicts both aspects of the definition. Human/choice/will ultimacy is denied for a causal reason is given for the choice. The ability to do otherwise is denied for there is a causal reason the choice/will was thus and not otherwise. Thus, because Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make, then scripture contradicts libertarian freedom.
3. The absolute/certain knowledge knowledge of God cannot be otherwise than what it is. God is self-sufficient in His knowledge, which means that God's nature in no way is determined by His dependent creation. Thus, His perfect knowledge means that there is only one reality, and thusly a reality that can be otherwise is not possible. This presents a significant obstacle to the ability to do otherwise.

Libertarian Freedom Is Practically Unlivable.

• The unlivable nature is demonstrated by the opposition of those who despise Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose to believe Calvinism as truth. This is in spite of the evidence given. They routinely give reasons why they think Calvinism is evil, or unbiblical, or a false interpretation. But these reasons only demonstrate that the choises to oppose Calvinism are in fact validating Calvinism, for their unalterable opposition destroys the naive idea of the ability to do otherwise, and it also demonstrates that there are causal, mental reasons for the choices people make. Their very opposition to Calvinism invalidates their cherished idea of human freedom and decision making.

Much more could be stated; but this gives a small, summarized preview of my reasons for completely rejecting the very idea of libertarian freedom as complete and utter nonsense. Does this mean that I hold to people not making choice? Such a stance would be a gross non-sequitur (leaping to an unwarranted conclusion). My view of choice and the will has not been spelled out in detail, for this thread is about a critique of libertarian freedom, and just because I negate libertarian freedom does not lead to my denial of choice. There are other views of decision making. Only by begging the question of libertarian freedom can one say that I have destroyed choice.

 

[David1701]

This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way other than what was chosen. If the definition provided in this paragraph is questioned, then I can easily provide several sources that give the same key features as described above. With the target clarified and stated, we can now move toward the critique.

I have often said that (1) libertarian freedom is logically incoherent, (2) biblically contradictory, and (3) practically unlivable. I hope to spell these points out in a little more detail. Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary. Many posts would be required to fully spell out the details. With all that stated, let's dive in!

Libertarian Freedom Is Logically Incoherent

1. It fails the test of the law of identity. The idea of the law of identity is that something is itself and not otherwise. The law of non-contradiction also follows. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same way. The two are inextricably connected, for the law of non-contradiction is actually built upon the law of identity. How is this? Well, let's consider a few simple examples.
   1. A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).
   2. Sin entails a transgression; a person chooses to do wrong even though they knew the right thing to do. But if reality can be otherwise than itself, then the very idea of sin can be both true and false, for a person can sin, but the person can be otherwise than what they are, and thusly if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then sin can actually be good.
   3. The above two examples demonstrate that advocating a violation of the law of identity inextricably impacts the law of non-contradiction. In order to advocate the violation, then the ability to tell truth from error and sin from goodness is thrown under the buss. In short, a violation of the law of identity destroys the rationality of the issue it is tied to.
   4. Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent.
2. The two parts of the definition are at odds with one another.
   1. Sometimes the advocate says that the self causes the will. But then how can one do otherwise if there is only one self that causes.
   2. If the self does not cause the will, then we have a random chance event, where nothing causes the will. This is an ontologically arbitrary event, which means that it is completely indistinguishable from chance. How is a chance operation of the will the substance of responsibility? How can one be held accountable for something that just happened for no reason?
   3. Some like to say that the mind is involved, and the mind and knowledge presents a sphere in which the choice/will operates. But this scenario runs into the problems just mentioned. Does the mind cause the will to be thus and not otherwise, then the first part of the definition collapses. If the mind does not cause the will, then we still have a chance account of the will/choice, and responsibility is negated. Chance and responsibility are antithetical.
3. The idea of an undetermined choice is built upon the temporal perspective of one before the choice is made. But this goes without saying, from a person's perspective, before the choice is made, it has yet to be determined. Everyone holds this. This issue is that whether or not the choice was determined by something or someone when the full process is considered. God's eternal mind and omniscience does not reduce down to man's perspective, for this would be to project from man's ignorance of the future into a metaphysical statement of reality as a whole. This is a grotesque argument from silence at best.
4. The idea of the ability to do otherwise is often built off a conflation between two objects of choice, before the choice is made. Yes, a person may be considering the blue car or the red car, but this does not mean that either can be chosen given the preferences, deliberation, and thoughts of the person leading up to the decision. In fact, to speak of the ability to do otherwise is to ignore the internal process that leads to the choice made. This is to say that what one prefers is irrelevant with respect to the will/choice. Such an oversight is to deny the very nature of the decision making process itself.

Libertarian Freedom Contradicts Scripture

1. Deism is not true, for God did not just create He is also intimately involved with His creation. This involvement eliminates creation's autonomy. Creation needs God to begin to exist, and creation needs God to continue to exist. (Heb 1:3; Col 1:16-17; Acts 17:25, 28; 1 Cor 8:6; Rom 11:36) These verses point to God's continual sustaining activity, apart from which nothing would exist. Since, God sustains, then the second part of the libertarian freedom definition is false. It is false, for agent or will ultimacy would contradict a non-ultimate sustained will/agent.
2. Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make. (Eph 2:2-3; John 8:43-45; Rom 8:5-9; John 10:1-28; etc.) This point contradicts both aspects of the definition. Human/choice/will ultimacy is denied for a causal reason is given for the choice. The ability to do otherwise is denied for there is a causal reason the choice/will was thus and not otherwise. Thus, because Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make, then scripture contradicts libertarian freedom.
3. The absolute/certain knowledge knowledge of God cannot be otherwise than what it is. God is self-sufficient in His knowledge, which means that God's nature in no way is determined by His dependent creation. Thus, His perfect knowledge means that there is only one reality, and thusly a reality that can be otherwise is not possible. This presents a significant obstacle to the ability to do otherwise.

Libertarian Freedom Is Practically Unlivable.

• The unlivable nature is demonstrated by the opposition of those who despise Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose to believe Calvinism as truth. This is in spite of the evidence given. They routinely give reasons why they think Calvinism is evil, or unbiblical, or a false interpretation. But these reasons only demonstrate that the choises to oppose Calvinism are in fact validating Calvinism, for their unalterable opposition destroys the naive idea of the ability to do otherwise, and it also demonstrates that there are causal, mental reasons for the choices people make. Their very opposition to Calvinism invalidates their cherished idea of human freedom and decision making.

Much more could be stated; but this gives a small, summarized preview of my reasons for completely rejecting the very idea of libertarian freedom as complete and utter nonsense. Does this mean that I hold to people not making choice? Such a stance would be a gross non-sequitur (leaping to an unwarranted conclusion). My view of choice and the will has not been spelled out in detail, for this thread is about a critique of libertarian freedom, and just because I negate libertarian freedom does not lead to my denial of choice. There are other views of decision making. Only by begging the question of libertarian freedom can one say that I have destroyed choice.

Excellent post! I hope that many read and understand it.

 

[His clay]

Excellent post! I hope that many read and understand it.

Thanks David! I hope that others can understand it.

I think that I would reword the opening sentence for #2 under the logical incoherence section. The problem isn't so much with the two parts of the definition going against eachother. The problem is that of the chance objection. Attempts to avoid it end up destroying the opening definition. Not avoiding the objection leads to a destruction of responsibility, which is the very thing that libertarian tried to establish.

 

[Mr GLee]

this thread is about a critique of libertarian freedom, and just because I negate libertarian freedom does not lead to my denial of choice.

Thanks.

Yes, it would seem to lead to the "price is right" as it is written . The other choice ones own imagination. Oral tradition of dying mankind .

God the Faithfull Creator is greater than our conscience. He knows all things beforehand .

Hebrews 6:16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

 

[JIM]

This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way other than what was chosen. If the definition provided in this paragraph is questioned, then I can easily provide several sources that give the same key features as described above. With the target clarified and stated, we can now move toward the critique.

I have often said that (1) libertarian freedom is logically incoherent, (2) biblically contradictory, and (3) practically unlivable. I hope to spell these points out in a little more detail. Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary. Many posts would be required to fully spell out the details. With all that stated, let's dive in!

Libertarian Freedom Is Logically Incoherent

1. It fails the test of the law of identity. The idea of the law of identity is that something is itself and not otherwise. The law of non-contradiction also follows. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same way. The two are inextricably connected, for the law of non-contradiction is actually built upon the law of identity. How is this? Well, let's consider a few simple examples.
   1. A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).
   2. Sin entails a transgression; a person chooses to do wrong even though they knew the right thing to do. But if reality can be otherwise than itself, then the very idea of sin can be both true and false, for a person can sin, but the person can be otherwise than what they are, and thusly if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then sin can actually be good.
   3. The above two examples demonstrate that advocating a violation of the law of identity inextricably impacts the law of non-contradiction. In order to advocate the violation, then the ability to tell truth from error and sin from goodness is thrown under the buss. In short, a violation of the law of identity destroys the rationality of the issue it is tied to.
   4. Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent.
2. The two parts of the definition are at odds with one another.
   1. Sometimes the advocate says that the self causes the will. But then how can one do otherwise if there is only one self that causes.
   2. If the self does not cause the will, then we have a random chance event, where nothing causes the will. This is an ontologically arbitrary event, which means that it is completely indistinguishable from chance. How is a chance operation of the will the substance of responsibility? How can one be held accountable for something that just happened for no reason?
   3. Some like to say that the mind is involved, and the mind and knowledge presents a sphere in which the choice/will operates. But this scenario runs into the problems just mentioned. Does the mind cause the will to be thus and not otherwise, then the first part of the definition collapses. If the mind does not cause the will, then we still have a chance account of the will/choice, and responsibility is negated. Chance and responsibility are antithetical.
3. The idea of an undetermined choice is built upon the temporal perspective of one before the choice is made. But this goes without saying, from a person's perspective, before the choice is made, it has yet to be determined. Everyone holds this. This issue is that whether or not the choice was determined by something or someone when the full process is considered. God's eternal mind and omniscience does not reduce down to man's perspective, for this would be to project from man's ignorance of the future into a metaphysical statement of reality as a whole. This is a grotesque argument from silence at best.
4. The idea of the ability to do otherwise is often built off a conflation between two objects of choice, before the choice is made. Yes, a person may be considering the blue car or the red car, but this does not mean that either can be chosen given the preferences, deliberation, and thoughts of the person leading up to the decision. In fact, to speak of the ability to do otherwise is to ignore the internal process that leads to the choice made. This is to say that what one prefers is irrelevant with respect to the will/choice. Such an oversight is to deny the very nature of the decision making process itself.

Libertarian Freedom Contradicts Scripture

1. Deism is not true, for God did not just create He is also intimately involved with His creation. This involvement eliminates creation's autonomy. Creation needs God to begin to exist, and creation needs God to continue to exist. (Heb 1:3; Col 1:16-17; Acts 17:25, 28; 1 Cor 8:6; Rom 11:36) These verses point to God's continual sustaining activity, apart from which nothing would exist. Since, God sustains, then the second part of the libertarian freedom definition is false. It is false, for agent or will ultimacy would contradict a non-ultimate sustained will/agent.
2. Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make. (Eph 2:2-3; John 8:43-45; Rom 8:5-9; John 10:1-28; etc.) This point contradicts both aspects of the definition. Human/choice/will ultimacy is denied for a causal reason is given for the choice. The ability to do otherwise is denied for there is a causal reason the choice/will was thus and not otherwise. Thus, because Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make, then scripture contradicts libertarian freedom.
3. The absolute/certain knowledge knowledge of God cannot be otherwise than what it is. God is self-sufficient in His knowledge, which means that God's nature in no way is determined by His dependent creation. Thus, His perfect knowledge means that there is only one reality, and thusly a reality that can be otherwise is not possible. This presents a significant obstacle to the ability to do otherwise.

Libertarian Freedom Is Practically Unlivable.

• The unlivable nature is demonstrated by the opposition of those who despise Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose to believe Calvinism as truth. This is in spite of the evidence given. They routinely give reasons why they think Calvinism is evil, or unbiblical, or a false interpretation. But these reasons only demonstrate that the choises to oppose Calvinism are in fact validating Calvinism, for their unalterable opposition destroys the naive idea of the ability to do otherwise, and it also demonstrates that there are causal, mental reasons for the choices people make. Their very opposition to Calvinism invalidates their cherished idea of human freedom and decision making.

Much more could be stated; but this gives a small, summarized preview of my reasons for completely rejecting the very idea of libertarian freedom as complete and utter nonsense. Does this mean that I hold to people not making choice? Such a stance would be a gross non-sequitur (leaping to an unwarranted conclusion). My view of choice and the will has not been spelled out in detail, for this thread is about a critique of libertarian freedom, and just because I negate libertarian freedom does not lead to my denial of choice. There are other views of decision making. Only by begging the question of libertarian freedom can one say that I have destroyed choice.

You are positing total determinism. If all of that is true, then it is God and only God that causes one to sin. Or more to the point, if what you say is true and "libertarian freedom" is false then there can be no such thing as sin.

 

[Simons]

1. A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).

This seems wrong (to me). It should read: A man robs a bank, but if reality could be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he could have chosen not rob a bank even though he did.

That different choices would result in different realties makes logical sense. The potential for different choices could be said to create the potential for different realities (in the future, after the choice has been made), but the potential for different choices doesn't create multiple realities. (only the single reality resulting from the choice that is made comes into existence)

What am I missing?

 

[Simons]

But then how can one do otherwise if there is only one self that causes.

Why not? Why is "one self" limited to not doing otherwise? Are you presuming exactly what you are trying to establish? Again, what am I missing?

 

[His clay]

You are positing total determinism. If all of that is true, then it is God and only God that causes one to sin. Or more to the point, if what you say is true and "libertarian freedom" is false then there can be no such thing as sin.

"You are positing total determinism." I already dealt with the causal conflation fallacy at the following link. The reality is that there are different types of causation, and some types are very compatible with responsibility. God as ultimate, a dependent creation, and choices having causal reasons are what I have advocated in this thread.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

"If all of that is true, then it is God and only God that causes one to sin." This is what is called the non-sequitur fallacy, or some like to call it, leaping to unwarranted conclusions. The only way for your comment to be true is if I held to pantheism. I do not hold to pantheism. Therefore, since reality does not reduce down to only divine causation, then you are simply mistaken, and you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. We can also see here a failure to read my post with comprehension. One can easily note how the theology section in the op spelled out the fact that we have a creation, and God is not what He has made (creation 101).

"Or more to the point, if what you say is true and "libertarian freedom" is false then there can be no such thing as sin." Begging the question fallacy. There is much more than libertarian freedom out there. You will have to do better than to presuppose that only libertarian freedom can define sin. In fact, if libertarian freedom is true, then there is no such thing as sin, since chance occurrences of the will are not the substance of responsibility or morality. So quite the opposite from your statement is true, libertarian freedom cannot possibly be how one can have a proper understanding of sin. Therefore, we need a different basis for understanding human actions, choices, reality, and responsibility.

 

[makesends]

This seems wrong (to me). It should read: A man robs a bank, but if reality could be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he could have chosen not rob a bank even though he did.

That different choices would result in different realties makes logical sense. The potential for different choices could be said to create the potential for different realities (in the future, after the choice has been made), but the potential for different choices doesn't create multiple realities. (only the single reality resulting from the choice that is made comes into existence)

What am I missing?

You have no evidence that he could have done otherwise. Only the supposition. The assumption.

 

[JIM]

"You are positing total determinism." I already dealt with the causal conflation fallacy at the following link. The reality is that there are different types of causation, and some types are very compatible with responsibility. God as ultimate, a dependent creation, and choices having causal reasons are what I have advocated in this thread.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

"If all of that is true, then it is God and only God that causes one to sin." This is what is called the non-sequitur fallacy, or some like to call it, leaping to unwarranted conclusions. The only way for your comment to be true is if I held to pantheism. I do not hold to pantheism. Therefore, since reality does not reduce down to only divine causation, then you are simply mistaken, and you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. We can also see here a failure to read my post with comprehension. One can easily note how the theology section in the op spelled out the fact that we have a creation, and God is not what He has made (creation 101).

"Or more to the point, if what you say is true and "libertarian freedom" is false then there can be no such thing as sin." Begging the question fallacy. There is much more than libertarian freedom out there. You will have to do better than to presuppose that only libertarian freedom can define sin. In fact, if libertarian freedom is true, then there is no such thing as sin, since chance occurrences of the will are not the substance of responsibility or morality. So quite the opposite from your statement is true, libertarian freedom cannot possibly be how one can have a proper understanding of sin. Therefore, we need a different basis for understanding human actions, choices, reality, and responsibility.

I think you do not know what sin really is. How many times did you punish your child for something he did before you had even told him not to do it? Your philosophy of punish first, teach and train second if at all, is not good, even though that would appear to be your different basis for understanding human actions, choices, reality and responsibility.

 

[His clay]

I think you do not know what sin really is. How many times did you punish your child for something he did before you had even told him not to do it? Your philosophy of punish first, teach and train second if at all, is not good, even though that would appear to be your different basis for understanding human actions, choices, reality and responsibility.

"How many times did you punish your child for something he did before you had even told him not to do it?" Since no one holds to such a position, then your question is irrelevant. In only one sentence you managed to fit in the question framing fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and a red herring fallacy. You really might want to read with comprehension before trying to condemn others; this would help you to actually deal with real people and real positions, rather than imaginary ones.

"Your philosophy of punish first . . ." No one holds to this. Straw man fallacy. Again, try reading with comprehension rather than imagination. No one is being punished. The opening post dismantles a philosophical, pagan idol; that is far different than punishing anyone.

". . . teach and train second if at all, is not good" Where are you getting this from? Because I know that I did not write or advocate such a position. Again, try reading with comprehension.

"even though that would appear to be your different basis for understanding human actions, choices, reality and responsibility"
You are correct in that I do hold to something other than libertarian freedom, because libertarian freedom fails to be comprehensible, contradicts scripture, and lib freedom is practically unlivable, as the opening post spelled out.

"I think you do not know what sin really is." How could you arrive at such a view, since you have not demonstrated any understanding of my posts? All that you have given are straw men and other fallacies to support such a claim, so I am forced to conclude that you simply have no idea what you are talking about in this comment. But I definitely hear your opinion.

This is now your second post to contain a mountain of flagrant fallacies. I can see that you don't like the opening post, and you are opposed to it, but you have yet to give any substantive reason for your animosity. This is a warning, since my policy is to give a person three chances. This is your second. After the third strike, then I move on and will not longer interact. The way forward for you is to reread the opening post, understand what is said, and then express your concerns over real positions. Again, this is very simple. Comprehend, then interact. If you cannot do that in your next post, then I will critique your post like I have done previously, and then I will inform you that it will be my final interaction in this thread to you. I wish you the best. If you have any questions for understanding, then I would be happy to try and answer them.

 

[Simons]

You have no evidence that he could have done otherwise. Only the supposition. The assumption.

Huh? You do realize that I merely reworded point 1.1 from the opening post...where for the sake of argument the possibility of otherwise was postulated.

 

[makesends]

Huh? You do realize that I merely reworded point 1.1 from the opening post...where for the sake of argument the possibility of otherwise was postulated.

My bad. I jumped the gun.

 

[JIM]

"How many times did you punish your child for something he did before you had even told him not to do it?" Since no one holds to such a position, then your question is irrelevant. In only one sentence you managed to fit in the question framing fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and a red herring fallacy. You really might want to read with comprehension before trying to condemn others; this would help you to actually deal with real people and real positions, rather than imaginary ones.

Call it a framing fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and a red herring fallacy or whatever you like, but that is precisely your Original Sin. You really might want to read with comprehension before trying to condemn others; this would help you to actually deal with real people and real positions, rather than imaginary ones. The Calvinist theology says that all are condemned from the womb by virtue of Adam's sin, not by virtue their own sin unless and until God regenerates them. And that having nothing to do with them personally. In Calvinism, they are condemned to eternal damnation before they were even able to learn right from wrong, let alone actually doing anything wrong.

 

[His clay]

Call it a framing fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and a red herring fallacy or whatever you like, but that is precisely your Original Sin. You really might want to read with comprehension before trying to condemn others; this would help you to actually deal with real people and real positions, rather than imaginary ones. The Calvinist theology says that all are condemned from the womb by virtue of Adam's sin, not by virtue their own sin unless and until God regenerates them. And that having nothing to do with them personally. In Calvinism, they are condemned to eternal damnation before they were even able to learn right from wrong, let alone actually doing anything wrong.

It may be helpful to note that while in your mind what you talk about (original sin) may be relevant; it is not relevant to this thread. This thread is about critiquing libertarian freedom. Had you read and comprehended the opening post you would have realized this. Since I have not made an argument about original sin, I see no need to deal with a topic that is not relevant to this thread. Now, this is a forum, and you can start your own thread, and you can raise the issue of original sin. But I must remind you that this thread is about my critique of libertarian freedom, and I would ask you to try to stay on topic.

With regard to your earlier statement, "How many times did you punish your child for something he did before you had even told him not to do it?" (post #10) This is not relevant to the topic of original sin because it is only a caricature/straw man. Again, no one holds this, and the post #10 comment is not descriptive of a real position on original sin. Thus, you may want to actually study and do your research before creating straw man bonfires; your imagination is vivid and wild; but it is only your subjective imagination. It is embarrassing for you to be so very off the mark. Regardless of your animosity and poor attempt to be a parrot, your counter critique falls flat. Try to get your facts strait, and try to post relevant comments to the nature of the thread. Original sin is definitely a good topic to raise in this forum; it is just off topic for this thread. Again, because your reading comprehension is so very poor, this thread is about libertarian freedom and the critique I gave it. You still have yet to offer anything relevant to the opening post.

I warned you in the last post. I can grant that your post here is at least in the ballpark of the debate between Cals and Arms, but it is sadly not relevant to the opening post, which defines the topic of this thread. Now, if you can somehow connect your future thoughts to the actual topic of this thread, then I will interact with you. However, since you have not defended or corrected your erroneous statements, continuing to discuss with you is simply a waste of time. Again, feel free to start your own thread over original sin, but in this thread that topic is irrelevant unless you somehow connect it to the critique given in the opening post.

Again, this thread is about a critique of libertarian freedom.

 

[His clay]

This seems wrong (to me). It should read: A man robs a bank, but if reality could be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he could have chosen not rob a bank even though he did.

That different choices would result in different realties makes logical sense. The potential for different choices could be said to create the potential for different realities (in the future, after the choice has been made), but the potential for different choices doesn't create multiple realities. (only the single reality resulting from the choice that is made comes into existence)

What am I missing?

I hope you don't mind that I waited to let my conversation with the other poster to play out. I have deemed further interaction with that poster to be a waste of time, so now it is time to interact with your post. I really hope that we can discuss real positions and not resort to straw men (I'm thinking about post #10 in particular). I'm not accusing you; I'm only saddened by the poor quality I've interacted with thus far.

But let's move on. You have a post here, and I thank you for taking the time to write up your interaction with the opening post. At the end of the post you ask a question, "What am I missing?" I'll be succinct here, and then I'll expand. You are missing the context, authorial intent, and the point of the words you address.

You state, "This seems wrong (to me)." The reason it seems wrong to you is because you are jumping the gun and getting the cart before the horse. I did not intend my comment to deal with the ideal of libertarian freedom. Points 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 were all under the larger heading, dealing with identity and the law of non-contradiction. The opening sentence of 1 states, "It fails the test of the law of identity." (op) Hence, the context makes it abundantly clear that point #1 and 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 are dealing the the issues of identity and the law of non-contradiction. After laying out the groundwork of identity and non-contradiction, then I finally stated in 1:4 the following. "Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent."

What I have done is couch my statement in 1:1 in its proper context. It should read precisely as I wrote it, for I was illustrating the issue of identity and non-contraction. If reality can be otherwise than what it is, then we have truly jettisoned the ability to discern right from wrong and truth from error. This is true because the law of non-contradiction is built off the law of identity. The reason why the law of non-contradiction is important is because it is a critical element of discerning truth from error. If we have a discussion about the nature of God, for instance, and someone appeals to Isaiah 6 to support the fact that God is holy. Then we have a positive reason to believe that God is holy. But if reality can be other than what it is, then Isaiah 6 might also be saying the opposite. You might say that this is a contradiction (i.e. to arrive the opposite of God's holiness from Isaiah 6), but this would be irrelevant, since reality can be otherwise. Truth doesn't matter anymore if the law of identity goes. This is the extreme danger I was seeking to illustrate in points 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3. One absolutely must realize the catastrophic result of negating the law of identity. Only then, after seeing the devastating carnage (as point 1:3 stated, "In short, a violation of the law of identity destroys the rationality of the issue it is tied to"), can one then understand the critique against libertarian freedom position, which is what 1:4 states. "Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent."

In summary, my point was about the law of identity and non-contradiction. The illustration in 1:1 was not meant to illustrate libertarian freedom; rather, it was meant to illustrate a violation of the law of identity. Hence, my wording was correct for what it was intended for.

"That different choices would result in different realties makes logical sense." Intriguing statement! Let's explore it a bit. First, different choices resulting in different reality is absolutely true. But how do you get different choices? (1) One way would be to have different people. Someone else would make a different choice than myself in the same scenario because they are a different person. There is no violation of the law of identity, since we are talking about two different people. (2) Sometimes we speak in terms of hindsight. (e.g. Knowing what I do now, I would not have made the same choice as I did back then.) However, we have the same issue again. The person I am in the future, knowing the outcome of the choice, is a different person than the one who didn't have the knowledge. There is no violation of the law of identity, since we are talking about two different people. (3) We can also place the scenario prior to the choice. If I make choice A, then this will likely result; but if I make choice B, then a different reality would result. This is called the deliberation phase prior to the choice. This is when a person is considering the merits and demerits, strengths and weakness, of the future choice. But eventually, the deliberation phase is over, and the person has arrived at their preference for the choice they make. This is precisely where my critique in point #1 lands.

Some will say that even though a person prefers option A, and deliberation is ended, he still could have chosen otherwise. I reject this. I reject it (1) because it says that the final result of deliberation is irrelevant to decision making, since a person could do precisely what they didn't prefer. In fact, it would appear to result in insanity, where the mind's consideration and final preference is one way, but then a person doesn't follow through. I also reject it (2) because when you sever the causal link between the highest preference and the choice made, then you land in the chance criticism that I presented in point #2. I also reject it because to say that I could have done otherwise than what I did/chose is a (3) violation of the law of identity. In many ways, I'm just reiterating and explaining my critiques found in the opening post.

"The potential for different choices could be said to create the potential for different realities (in the future, after the choice has been made), but the potential for different choices doesn't create multiple realities." Due to my position in the theological section in the opening post, I have to reject making reality dependent upon human choice. Back of human choice is not human autonomy. Human autonomy does not exist in God's universe. Creation is both dependent upon God for the beginning of its existence, and it is dependent upon God for its continuing existence. Hence, God, not man, is the foundation of reality. Therefore, God is the foundation of reality, not man's choices.

Now, I can grant you a limited perspectival view of the future. Namely, it looks like we are creating our futures with our choices, but this is only at the secondary causation level. It is not at the ultimate causation level. As I pointed out, Scripture points out that God upholds all things by the word of His power, in Him we live and move and have our being, and by Him all things hold together. This leaves no room for autonomous views of man's will.

But the potential you describe is only an admission of human ignorance in the decision making process. During deliberation, we just don't know yet what we will choose; that's precisly why it is the deliberation phase. But from the divine perspective, God knows the end from the beginning, and His knowledge is perfect, and before a word is on my tongue He knows it all-together, and before my days even took place God had them written. I already wrote something to this effect in point #3. I think that it is a mistake to limit reality or make a metaphysical projection on the basis of human ignorance. Call this the argument against the human epistemology argument for libertarian freedom.

I hope that this addresses the issues you have raised. I can already tell that your post here is definitely relevant to the op, contrary the last few posts I interacted with. Thank you for this. We may end up disagreeing a lot, but at least you are currently aiming at the opening post. It also seems that your way of communicating is less abraisive than the prior poster. Thank you for this. I hope that my comments have been respectful and clear. God bless.

 

[His clay]

Why not? Why is "one self" limited to not doing otherwise? Are you presuming exactly what you are trying to establish? Again, what am I missing?

There is only one self at the moment of choice, that determines the choice (as stated in the op). I'm myself and not another person at the moment of choice. Again, this goes back to the issue of the law of identity. Because I'm only myself and not another person, at the moment of choice, then I cannot do otherwise than what I choose. To postulate the ability to do otherwise in such a situation is to presuppose another self. Another self does not exist, and thus the ability to do/choose otherwise is false.

In the op, this was a critique of the wording of some who say that the self determines the choice. They say this to try to avoid the problem of the chance objection, but when this path is taken, then it results in the elimination of the ability to do otherwise. They have advocated a cause for the choice made, and they have advocated one self, and thusly the choice cannot be otherwise. I tend to view it as a suicidal attempt to avoid the chance objection. It really is a painful dilemma for the libertarian freedom advocate, where the advocate either endorses chance or destroys the ability to do otherwise.

 

[Josheb]

......................Much more could be stated; but this gives a small, summarized preview of my reasons for completely rejecting the very idea of libertarian freedom as complete and utter nonsense. Does this mean that I hold to people not making choice? Such a stance would be a gross non-sequitur (leaping to an unwarranted conclusion). My view of choice and the will has not been spelled out in detail, for this thread is about a critique of libertarian freedom, and just because I negate libertarian freedom does not lead to my denial of choice. There are other views of decision making. Only by begging the question of libertarian freedom can one say that I have destroyed choice.

I think there's a problem in the first section because there are differences between the conditions of "do" and "are," but that is not adequately distinguished. What we are in any given moment is a sin-compromised volitional creature with the ability to make choices and what we do is make choices according to that sinful corruption.

Here's the text of an interview from R. C. Sproul describing the problem with libertarian free will.

"I was interviewed for a series of programs that were being presented about Reformed theology, and the person who was running this program asked me what the basic issue was between Augustinian theology or Reformed theology and historic semi-pelagianism. I said I think it comes down to a different understanding of freedom, and of free will."

"I think the principal problem that people have with divine sovereignty, with divine election, is immediately they say, “Well, we believe that man has free will.” Well, I don't know any Augustinian in all of church history who didn’t strongly affirm that we have free will. We are volitional creatures. God has given us minds and hearts, and he’s given us wills. And we exercise that will all the time. We make choices every minute of the day, and we choose what we want. We choose freely. Nobody’s coercing us, putting a gun to our head. And we’re not robots. Robots don’t have minds. Robots don’t have wills. Robots don’t have hearts. We’re human beings. We make choices."

"That's why we’re in trouble with God. Because the choices that we make in our fallen condition are sinful choices. We choose according to our desires which are only wicked continuously the Bible tells us. And that we are, as it were, dead in sin and trespasses, even though biologically we’re very much alive. And we’re walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of air, fulfilling the lusts of the flesh is what the Bible tells us. And so, the Bible makes it very clear that we are actively involved in making choices for which we are responsible, and which expose us to the judgment of God."

"And yet at the same time, the Bible teaches us that we’re enslaved. We’re free from coercion, but we don’t have what Augustine called royal liberty. We’re not free from ourselves. We’re not free from our own sinful inclinations and our sinful appetites and our sinful desires. We’re slaves to our sinful impulses. That’s what the Bible teaches us again and again and again. The Humanist doctrine of free will, the pagan view of free will, says that man is free not only from coercion, but man is free in the sense that his will is indifferent. It has no predisposition or inclination, bias or bent, towards sin because the pagan and the Humanist deny the radical character of the Fall. But the Bible teaches us that we are fallen creatures who still choose and make decisions, but we make them in the context of our prison of sin. And the only way we can get out of that prison is if God sets us free."​

Therefore, we see Calvinism does not negate free will. It simply understands volitional agency to be corrupted, adulterated, always influenced by sin to the point that every freely made choice inherently occurs with some element of sin.

 

[Josheb]

This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way other than what was chosen. If the definition provided in this paragraph is questioned, then I can easily provide several sources that give the same key features as described above. With the target clarified and stated, we can now move toward the critique.

I have often said that (1) libertarian freedom is logically incoherent, (2) biblically contradictory, and (3) practically unlivable. I hope to spell these points out in a little more detail. Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary. Many posts would be required to fully spell out the details. With all that stated, let's dive in!

Libertarian Freedom Is Logically Incoherent

1. It fails the test of the law of identity. The idea of the law of identity is that something is itself and not otherwise. The law of non-contradiction also follows. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same way. The two are inextricably connected, for the law of non-contradiction is actually built upon the law of identity. How is this? Well, let's consider a few simple examples.
   1. A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).
   2. Sin entails a transgression; a person chooses to do wrong even though they knew the right thing to do. But if reality can be otherwise than itself, then the very idea of sin can be both true and false, for a person can sin, but the person can be otherwise than what they are, and thusly if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then sin can actually be good.
   3. The above two examples demonstrate that advocating a violation of the law of identity inextricably impacts the law of non-contradiction. In order to advocate the violation, then the ability to tell truth from error and sin from goodness is thrown under the buss. In short, a violation of the law of identity destroys the rationality of the issue it is tied to.
   4. Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent.......................

........................There are other views of decision making. Only by begging the question of libertarian freedom can one say that I have destroyed choice.

The dispute between Augustinian monergists (Calvinists are Augustinian monergists) and semi-Pelagian synergists (Traditionalists and Provisionists are semi-Pelagian synergists) often boils down to a definition of sin, not a definition of volitional agency. There are many who define sin solely by 1 John 3:4's "sin is lawlessness." What they read when reading that verse is "Sin is only lawlessness," which is not what the text states or means at all. This "onlyism" leads to a variety of other scripture twisting, such as the belief Romans 5:12 means there was no sin at all because there was no Law, or that sin was never accounted prior to Moses at Sinai because no Law existed until that time. This misreading, this belief, this error in exegesis comes accompanied with either the neglect of all else that scripture states about how sin is defined or the proof-texting of all those verses being measured by 1 John 3:4.

For example, the words used in Hebrew and Greek, and English, for "sin" are words that mean "miss the target." This definition then begs the question, "What is the target?" and the answer is God and the attributes, characteristics, character, qualities of God..... which are all perfect. One example of scripture citing the target is found in Matthew 5:8's "Therefore, be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." The "lawfulness/lawlessness" synergist subjects that verse to 1 John 3:4, saying perfection is measured by the Law but perfect, especially God's perfection is extra-Law. God is not subject to, or to be subjected to, the Law of Moses. He is the Law by which all laws (including the Law of Moses) are created. In other words, the Law of Moses is a limited subset of God's perfect nature, not an authority to which He must submit and to which He must be subjected and by which He can be measured. The Law shows us sin (Rom. 3:20, 7:7, not perfection. Furthermore, the Law is powerless because it is weakened by sin (Rom. 8:3).

Two of the other ways scripture defines sin are "all unrighteousness is sin," and "anything that is not of faith is sin." Biblical texts like these help us to understand the extra-law or extra-legal aspects of sin. God's perfection, righteousness, and faith are not measured solely by the Law of Moses. Faith is not faithfulness. Faithfulness, the doing of faith, occurs causally as a consequence of faith. Any lack of faith is sin. Anything done as consequence of a lacking faith is faithlessness. Abraham was justified by faith, not faithfulness. His faithfulness followed causally and correlatively from his previously existing faith.* What this means is that there are qualities of sin that have nothing to do with the Law of Moses and, therefore, using 1 John 3:4 alone to define sin is an error that leads to more errors which, in turn, leads to a misguided soteriology.


Having singularly defined sin solely as a behavioral condition, the synergist has then created a place where autonomy exists. The sinner is "free" to choose absent any and all influence because s/he can, supposedly, always choose to obey the Law. Any obedience is not sinful and therefore a sinless act is possible, and the doctrine of Total Depravity is, therefore, wrong. The problem is that sin is not solely a behavioral condition. The moment a person sins they become imperfect. I would argue the minute sin entered the world it corrupted everything in the world, including all future humans born into the world but for now I will concede to the synergists operationalism. The fact is all have sinned and fall short of God's glory and that makes them imperfect. Not only does imperfection never beget or cause perfection, but every choice and every act then occurs as a consequence of that imperfection. There are no perfectly-caused choices. There are only sinner-caused choices. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear (despite the recent ill-informed dispute) the flesh of the person is adversely affected by sin and one of the consequences of flesh becoming sinful is fleshly acts. The chief fleshly act is that of selfishness. Because of the estrangement that results from a lack of unrighteousness, a lack of faith, and a lack of obedience every single choice and every single resulting action is an unrighteous, faith-lacking, disobedient choice. Even compliance with the Law is disobedience because any obedience is a flesh-only obedience and not an ontologically sinless obedience. The flesh is sinful. Fleshly choices are always and everywhere sinful-flesh choices and never perfect, ontologically righteous, faith choices of sinless flesh.

Sin is what we are, not just what we do.

The fact is the Bible never uses the phrase "free will." It uses the word, "freewill," but not "free will." The word "freewill" is always better translated as "voluntary," and it is by that word "voluntary" that we necessarily understand scripture's implicit assertion of volitional agency. The ability to make choices exists, but that ability is not free; it is not autonomous or without limit or influence, not under the control or power of something else, or able to do all that one chooses. A sinner cannot choose to be perfect. A sinner cannot choose free choice. As the op puts it, the sinner's identity is not a free identity; it is a sinful identity. S/he is not a free human; s/he is a sinful human. Sin kills. Sin enslaves. Sin makes certain things, like pleasing God, impossible (Rom. 8:7). The sinner is not free to please God; s/he cannot do so.

This is how scripture can claim a righteous act is filthy rags. Sin makes us unclean. As unclean people righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. Therefore, even when a sinner chooses to comply with any command or any law God has uttered, the sinner's choice and the sinner's act are filthy rags. There is no freedom to be, chose, or do otherwise.









*Which monergists hold to be a gift from God, not a natural product of a sinful mind.
.

 

[Josheb]

Modus Ponens

Modus Ponens has to do with propositional logic, or what is implied. As the Wiki article shows, the hypothetical syllogism "if... then... else..." is valid, but not always perfect. Two main errors can occur. The first is assuming or mistaking the "if" condition is true or factual, and the second is mistaking the implication of if's factualness necessarily implies a specific consequence.

For example, if a human is perfectly free to choose as s/he wishes then s/he can make a good, righteous, faithful, sinless choice. The problem with that argument is 1) the condition of the human has been left unstated, 2) no human is free to choose as s/he wishes, and 3) even if s/he were "free" to make any choice that choice would solely be a consequence of the sinner's inherent sinful nature. In other words, all of the inferences assumed by the synergist are incorrect. All of them, not just one or two.

This is why I so often point out the solely inherent inferential nature of all synergisms. an autonomous volitional agency must be eisegetically (and humanistically) read into the text of scripture because scripture never explicitly asserts any such autonomy.

Every sinner is a sinner and cannot be anything but a sinner. Every sinner is a sinner and cannot be anything but a sinner when measured by God. This measurement is not limited to the Law. Every sinner is a sinner and cannot be anything but a sinner when measured by the Law but the Law is a limited measure. The much, much, much larger, greater infinite measure is God Himself; His ontology, His divine nature, not just what He does or how He acts. All sinful humans fail that measure. Every single choice made is a choice made failing that measure - even the obedient choices because all of those choices are products of the sinful flesh. The sinner's identity cannot be an identity of any other identity apart from Jesus. That is where the law of noncontradiction applies. However, the law of noncontradiction should not be applied to what is possible, only what is. All three of the "Three Laws of Thought" apply to what is, not what may be in the future if conditions of what is are altered. However, what may be is irrelevant when it comes to sin and volitional agency. A sinner can make a good choice as far as obedience or compliance to the Law is concerned. A sinner cannot make a good or Lawfully obedient choice as far as the perfection of God is concerned.

And, technically, the sinner cannot make a Lawful choice because s/he's already broken the Law and if one Law is broken then the whole of the Law has been broken. Every subsequent obedience is an already-Lawless Lawfulness. It's like immigrants who enter the country to seek asylum. The laws of asylum screening require a lawful existence and the fact the immigrant has violated the laws of multiple countries prevents a lawful application for asylum. Every individual violated the laws of God's land. There is no asylum to be granted apart from His Son.