Libertarian Freedom, A Critique

[David1701]

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.
.

Just a couple of points (not disagreeing, just clarifying):

1) Lawlessness is a principle, that principle being that the person will not submit to external authority. In essence, this means that sin is being and doing what you want, rather than submitting to God's authority. This encompasses everything not done in faith and missing the mark.

2) Sin (singular - the principle) is what causes the sinner to sin - sins are what we think and do.

 

[makesends]

I'll very briefly respond to some of the quoted material. Since I have already gone on record, I have nothing to hide. I'll provide a link where I give 7 reasons for rejecting Alvin Plantinga's free will defense. I'll be more specific, take note of post #2. In my first point (of the seven), I make it clear that I reject ascribing the first part of the libertarian freedom definition to God (the ability to do otherwise). I think that it is dangerous, and it undermines the Christian faith. Link following.

The "ability to do otherwise" is illogical anyway, ascribed to God. It's not a question of ability, but simple fact, that God only ever does whatever he does, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He need not consider options; none can even be presented him. He really is not like us.

 

[makesends]

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.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw no treatment on the argument we have heard from the 'self-determinist', that it is not a matter of chance what the uncaused chooser chooses, and the fact of good choices vs bad choices stems from whether the chooser is good or bad. (Sounds like God, to me, and not creature). This is the answer I get when I point out that the notion of a creature's uncaused choice invokes mere chance.

 

[Josheb]

Just a couple of points (not disagreeing, just clarifying):

1) Lawlessness is a principle, that principle being that the person will not submit to external authority. In essence, this means that sin is being and doing what you want, rather than submitting to God's authority. This encompasses everything not done in faith and missing the mark.

That is true, but the truly moral person does not do what is write because there is a law stipulating or requiring what to do, or because there is some authority, or some comparison to which the person must submit. Just si is both a matter of disposition and conduct - we sin because we're sinful and we're sinful because we sin - so to is righteousness. The righteous person is righteous because he is right, and he is right because he is righteous. Jesus obeyed the laws of God and he did so in submission to his Father, but he would have lived a right life whether he was seeking to obey a law or submit to his father or not.

And to clarify your clarification even further...... Somewhere earlier in this thread (or perhaps it was another forum) someone said God had to obey His own laws. That is nonsense. God is extra-legal. He is the Law Maker, not the object of the law. There are numerous ways to understand this. One of the simplest is to understand God did not rest on the sixth day because He had to do so. He was tired, and he was neither obedient nor submissive when He rested. God could have worked 14 or57,000 more day but His work was finished so He rested..... so He rested. When God then makes a law that there is to be rest every seventh day that is not a law He must abide or to which He must submit. Similarly, God can kill you anytime he wants and not break the law prohibiting murder. Every single one of us has become dross, dross could discard anytime any way He so chooses, and we do not get a say in the matter. The protest, "Hey! You can't kill me!" is likely to get a person killed. Vengeance is God's! Our job is to owe no one anything but love but God can take out the trash anytime He likes, and He can do so quietly or violently, in secret or with a lot of show. The laws for men do not apply to God. The same holds true to homage, fealty, and worship. God is not sitting around consulting some code book of standards to understand how to pay homage, fealty, and worship to Himself. That's just dumb. Those commands, commandments, and laws are for creatures, not the Creator. God does not have to wear red and purple, avoid shellfish, or never make graven images of Himself Every believer in Christ would be a violation of that command by God), and its impossible for Him to steal or bear false witness (He owns everything and there is nothing in Him by which He could bear false witness.

Those are just the religious/moral/spiritual laws found in the Bible. Things like time, space, gravity, magnetism are also laws. They are the construction laws of creation, the design specifications of what God made. We cannot violate them, but God can do so any time He desires. In fact, the laws submit to Him, not the other way around. God cannot be bound by time and space. He and He alone is infinite and all that He made, whether moral, structural, or otherwise, is finite. The ontology and teleology of creation must submit to the ontology of God, not the other way around.

What God cannot do is be other than He is. That would violate the laws of identity and non-contradiction.

2) Sin (singular - the principle) is what causes the sinner to sin - sins are what we think and do.

Yep. That is also true as long as we correctly understand the stipulation stated. The "we" in that statement is "we, those who live after Genesis 3:6-7," because there was once a sinless man who sinned, and sin did not cause him to sin. Sin causes the sinner to sin. Sin did not cause the sinless man to sin.

 

[David1701]

That is true, but the truly moral person does not do what is write because there is a law stipulating or requiring what to do, or because there is some authority, or some comparison to which the person must submit. Just si is both a matter of disposition and conduct - we sin because we're sinful and we're sinful because we sin - so to is righteousness. The righteous person is righteous because he is right, and he is right because he is righteous. Jesus obeyed the laws of God and he did so in submission to his Father, but he would have lived a right life whether he was seeking to obey a law or submit to his father or not.

And to clarify your clarification even further...... Somewhere earlier in this thread (or perhaps it was another forum) someone said God had to obey His own laws. That is nonsense. God is extra-legal. He is the Law Maker, not the object of the law. There are numerous ways to understand this. One of the simplest is to understand God did not rest on the sixth day because He had to do so. He was tired, and he was neither obedient nor submissive when He rested. God could have worked 14 or57,000 more day but His work was finished so He rested..... so He rested. When God then makes a law that there is to be rest every seventh day that is not a law He must abide or to which He must submit. Similarly, God can kill you anytime he wants and not break the law prohibiting murder. Every single one of us has become dross, dross could discard anytime any way He so chooses, and we do not get a say in the matter. The protest, "Hey! You can't kill me!" is likely to get a person killed. Vengeance is God's! Our job is to owe no one anything but love but God can take out the trash anytime He likes, and He can do so quietly or violently, in secret or with a lot of show. The laws for men do not apply to God. The same holds true to homage, fealty, and worship. God is not sitting around consulting some code book of standards to understand how to pay homage, fealty, and worship to Himself. That's just dumb. Those commands, commandments, and laws are for creatures, not the Creator. God does not have to wear red and purple, avoid shellfish, or never make graven images of Himself Every believer in Christ would be a violation of that command by God), and its impossible for Him to steal or bear false witness (He owns everything and there is nothing in Him by which He could bear false witness.

Those are just the religious/moral/spiritual laws found in the Bible. Things like time, space, gravity, magnetism are also laws. They are the construction laws of creation, the design specifications of what God made. We cannot violate them, but God can do so any time He desires. In fact, the laws submit to Him, not the other way around. God cannot be bound by time and space. He and He alone is infinite and all that He made, whether moral, structural, or otherwise, is finite. The ontology and teleology of creation must submit to the ontology of God, not the other way around.

What God cannot do is be other than He is. That would violate the laws of identity and non-contradiction.

Yep. That is also true as long as we correctly understand the stipulation stated. The "we" in that statement is "we, those who live after Genesis 3:6-7," because there was once a sinless man who sinned, and sin did not cause him to sin. Sin causes the sinner to sin. Sin did not cause the sinless man to sin.

Well, I thought about Adam's first sin (many years ago) and realised that, in order to commit the first act of sin, he must have had a prior sinful desire (because it's sinful desire that leads to sinful action). This means that he was not sinless immediately prior to eating of the forbidden fruit (and possibly not before that - we don't know; although, as originally created, he was without sin).

Was hidden, internal corruption one of the reasons why the Lord permitted Satan to tempt Adam and Eve (to reveal it, amongst many other reasons)? It's speculation, of course, but it would make sense.

 

[His clay]

Maybe I missed it, but I saw no treatment on the argument we have heard from the 'self-determinist', that it is not a matter of chance what the uncaused chooser chooses, and the fact of good choices vs bad choices stems from whether the chooser is good or bad. (Sounds like God, to me, and not creature). This is the answer I get when I point out that the notion of a creature's uncaused choice invokes mere chance.

In the opening post I stated.

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.

In post #17 I stated.

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.

These two statements address both the chance objection and the self-caused response. We can also ask the objector, what of the self causes the will to be thus and not otherwise? Often, they just back up to the "self" because it coincides with the second aspect of the libertarian freedom definition, but as I have pointed out in the above quoted words, the lib freedom advocate is on the horns of a very painful dilemma.

With respect to the assumed autonomous self, it does not exist in God's universe as the first point under "Libertarian Freedom Contradicts Scripture" in the op states.

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.

 

[Josheb]

Well, I thought about Adam's first sin (many years ago) and realised that, in order to commit the first act of sin, he must have had a prior sinful desire (because it's sinful desire that leads to sinful action).

The logic there is flawed. There's an implicit, unstated "only" in there.

"...because it is [only] sinful desire that leads to sinful action."​

As posted, that quote is conflicts with the fact Adam was created good, there was nothing sinful in the world God made, and it was as a consequence of Adam's disobedience (not his thought or desire) by which sin entered the world. Adam cannot, logically speaking, have a sinful desire if he is good and there is no sin in the world.

This is important and very op-relevant because Adam is the last free man to have ever lived (apart from Jesus). None of us are made inherently good. None of us are born into a sinless world. None of us have sinless parents. Adam is good and sinless prior to Genesis 3:6-7.

This means that he was not sinless immediately prior to eating of the forbidden fruit (and possibly not before that - we don't know).

That would mean Genesis 1:31 and Romans 5:12 are untrue. We might say Genesis 1:31 was true on the sixth day but the conditions of creation changed some time prior to Genesis 3:6-7 but that would not speak to Romans' 5:12's statement sin entered the world through one man's disobedience.... unless it is said Adam's desire is the "act" of disobedience. The devil is in the details. God did not prohibit a desire. He prohibited an act. James 1:13-14 cannot be applied to anything before Genesis 3:6-7 because there is nothing in the good and sinless Adam that would entice him and drag him away to sin. What Adam did he did without any untoward desire. That is what makes his disobedience, his sin so unique.

Was hidden, internal corruption one of the reasons why the Lord permitted Satan to tempt Adam and Eve (to reveal it, amongst many other reasons)? It's speculation, of course, but it would make sense.

Was Satan's hidden corruption one of the reasons God permitted.....?


Not only is that question, and its answer, a matter of speculation it's also a very problematic premise. For one, Satan's corruption wasn't hidden. It certainly wasn't hidden from God or Satan, and the moment Satan lied about God's command any corruption that might have been hidden was then made known. We do not have any record of what Eve (or Adam) thought about Satan's word, but they necessarily understood Satan was saying God was wrong in His understanding of His creation and wrong in His commanding a command, and wrong about the effects of not following His wrong command. That's a whole lot of corruption. We're supposed to think none of it was recognized by Eve or Adam?

You are correct: that is speculation and, imo, speculation that is enormously inconsistent with the whole of scripture. If nothing else, we'd have to believe A& were ignorant, God made them Ignorant, and God made them ignorant and called it good. I do not find that makes sense at all.

In addition, if the tradition that Satan was a fallen angel, a created creature that rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven, down to earth, and subjugated to the power and authority God gave Adam and Eve, then one thing is necessarily true and the other is probably true: the first is that the act of disobedience was not eating the forbidden kiwi, as is typically thought to be the case in theological discourse. The first act of disobedience was not ruling over Satan. Had Adam ruled then Adam would never have eaten (and the same applies to Eve). It was his failure to rule that precipitated his subsequent eating. Second, it is doubtful God s cast Satan to earth for the purpose of having his corruption ruled over OR having his corruption used as an element of God's redemptive purpose without Adam knowing that. The earth was desolate (wilderness), and Adam's job was to make it fruitful. It was the good work for which he (and Eve) was created (see Ephesians 2:10*). Even if the tradition is incorrect the fact remains the serpent (Satan) was under the authority of Adam and Eve and, therefore, under their power if and when Adam and Eve asserted that authority (and the power that came with it). It is also equally true that Satan lied, and the lie could/would/should be recognized simply because it was not good (and Adam, Eve, and everything else in the world was good. That lie would have stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb as something utterly contrary to the world God created. So, again, I do not think the speculation make sense. Too much of the rest of scripture conflicts with the speculation.

God did permit Satan to test Adam and Eve.

For you or me that would be a matter of inevitable disobedience because of the previously agreed upon sinful sinfulness inherent to you and me. Inherent sinful sinfulness does not apply to Adam. He was the last good, unashamed, sinless man Satan ever tempted (apart from Christ).













*Adam hadn't yet been created in Christ, but he did have free access to the tree of life, and he was the workmanship of God, created for good works that God had planned for him to perform prior to his being made.
.

 

[David1701]

The logic there is flawed. There's an implicit, unstated "only" in there.

"...because it is [only] sinful desire that leads to sinful action."​

It's obviously only sinful desire that leads to sinful action. Sinful desire being anything that is contrary to God's revealed will, or with ungodly intent, or not in faith.

As posted, that quote is conflicts with the fact Adam was created good, there was nothing sinful in the world God made, and it was as a consequence of Adam's disobedience (not his thought or desire) by which sin entered the world. Adam cannot, logically speaking, have a sinful desire if he is good and there is no sin in the world.

He clearly became corrupted (at least to a small extent), prior to his fall, otherwise he would not have eaten of the forbidden fruit.

This is important and very op-relevant because Adam is the last free man to have ever lived (apart from Jesus). None of us are made inherently good. None of us are born into a sinless world. None of us have sinless parents. Adam is good and sinless prior to Genesis 3:6-7.


That would mean Genesis 1:31 and Romans 5:12 are untrue. We might say Genesis 1:31 was true on the sixth day but the conditions of creation changed some time prior to Genesis 3:6-7 but that would not speak to Romans' 5:12's statement sin entered the world through one man's disobedience.... unless it is said Adam's desire is the "act" of disobedience. The devil is in the details. God did not prohibit a desire. He prohibited an act. James 1:13-14 cannot be applied to anything before Genesis 3:6-7 because there is nothing in the good and sinless Adam that would entice him and drag him away to sin. What Adam did he did without any untoward desire. That is what makes his disobedience, his sin so unique.

It was a very specific sin that caused Adam to start to die (and so pass that death, of all kinds, on to his posterity), which was eating of the forbidden fruit.

Given that Adam knew that to eat of the forbidden fruit was ... forbidden, his desire to eat of it was rebellious. This is obvious. The Bible says that Eve was deceived, but not Adam.

Was Satan's hidden corruption one of the reasons God permitted.....?

By the time Satan tempted Adam and Eve, his corruption was not hidden. In any case, I was referring to Adam and Eve's hidden corruption, not any "hidden" corruption in Satan.

Not only is that question, and its answer, a matter of speculation it's also a very problematic premise. For one, Satan's corruption wasn't hidden. It certainly wasn't hidden from God or Satan, and the moment Satan lied about God's command any corruption that might have been hidden was then made known. We do not have any record of what Eve (or Adam) thought about Satan's word, but they necessarily understood Satan was saying God was wrong in His understanding of His creation and wrong in His commanding a command, and wrong about the effects of not following His wrong command. That's a whole lot of corruption. We're supposed to think none of it was recognized by Eve or Adam?

See above.

You are correct: that is speculation and, imo, speculation that is enormously inconsistent with the whole of scripture. If nothing else, we'd have to believe A& were ignorant, God made them Ignorant, and God made them ignorant and called it good. I do not find that makes sense at all.

Non-sequitur...

Why would we "have to believe" that Adam and Eve were created ignorant (and ignorant of what; they certainly did not have knowledge of evil, for example?)?

In addition, if the tradition that Satan was a fallen angel, a created creature that rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven, down to earth, and subjugated to the power and authority God gave Adam and Eve, then one thing is necessarily true and the other is probably true: the first is that the act of disobedience was not eating the forbidden kiwi, as is typically thought to be the case in theological discourse. The first act of disobedience was not ruling over Satan. Had Adam ruled then Adam would never have eaten (and the same applies to Eve). It was his failure to rule that precipitated his subsequent eating. Second, it is doubtful God s cast Satan to earth for the purpose of having his corruption ruled over OR having his corruption used as an element of God's redemptive purpose without Adam knowing that. The earth was desolate (wilderness), and Adam's job was to make it fruitful. It was the good work for which he (and Eve) was created (see Ephesians 2:10*). Even if the tradition is incorrect the fact remains the serpent (Satan) was under the authority of Adam and Eve and, therefore, under their power if and when Adam and Eve asserted that authority (and the power that came with it). It is also equally true that Satan lied, and the lie could/would/should be recognized simply because it was not good (and Adam, Eve, and everything else in the world was good. That lie would have stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb as something utterly contrary to the world God created. So, again, I do not think the speculation make sense. Too much of the rest of scripture conflicts with the speculation.

I see no disagreement between my speculation and Scripture (which does not mean that it's correct, however).

Yes, Satan's lie should have been obvious to Eve, but she did not receive the love of the truth she'd been told, so she believed the devil's lie instead. Adam was not deceived, so his sin was rebellion.

God did permit Satan to test Adam and Eve.


For you or me that would be a matter of inevitable disobedience because of the previously agreed upon sinful sinfulness inherent to you and me. Inherent sinful sinfulness does not apply to Adam. He was the last good, unashamed, sinless man Satan ever tempted (apart from Christ).

Good men do not rebel. Something in Adam was not "very good" any more, which is why he ate the forbidden fruit.

*Adam hadn't yet been created in Christ, but he did have free access to the tree of life, and he was the workmanship of God, created for good works that God had planned for him to perform prior to his being made.

Yes.

 

[makesends]

What God cannot do is be other than He is. That would violate the laws of identity and non-contradiction.

But even that —the HUMAN notion, that he is limited in any way, or that he cannot do something— has a very limited view of what God IS. As you said in your post, and as some others of us have been saying in different ways, it's not a limit, but simply the fact of who he is. To say, "God cannot", such as where the Bible says "...in which he cannot lie..." has nothing to do with any lack of ability on God's part, but because it is self-contradictory for him to be other than he is. As you said, violation of non-contradiction.

Why we insist on language with which to measure God, is beyond me.

 

[makesends]

It's obviously only sinful desire that leads to sinful action. Sinful desire being anything that is contrary to God's revealed will, or with ungodly intent, or not in faith.


He clearly became corrupted (at least to a small extent), prior to his fall, otherwise he would not have eaten of the forbidden fruit.

Sounds like a lot of speculation, to me. Be careful not to call sin what God doesn't call sin. Remember that it is GOD who looks upon the heart to judge the deeds.

True that a sinful heart will always produce sinful deeds, but we have no reason, but speculation, to say that Adam sinned before eating. We can analyze all we want, but God doesn't declare anything but the eating of the forbidden fruit, to be the disobedience.

James chapter 1 doesn't seem to agree with you either, in his sequence of what leads to sin. Even in those whose desire IS evil, (I say, "sinful"), the sin is not until AFTER one is carried away by that desire and enticed. So your analysis of Adam's desire does not succeed in showing him to have sinned before what God says was his sin.

 

[David1701]

Sounds like a lot of speculation, to me. Be careful not to call sin what God doesn't call sin. Remember that it is GOD who looks upon the heart to judge the deeds.

True that a sinful heart will always produce sinful deeds, but we have no reason, but speculation, to say that Adam sinned before eating. We can analyze all we want, but God doesn't declare anything but the eating of the forbidden fruit, to be the disobedience.

James chapter 1 doesn't seem to agree with you either, in his sequence of what leads to sin. Even in those whose desire IS evil, (I say, "sinful"), the sin is not until AFTER one is carried away by that desire and enticed. So your analysis of Adam's desire does not succeed in showing him to have sinned before what God says was his sin.

Pro. 24:9 (Webster) The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.

Ex. 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Matt. 5:27,28
27 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say to you, That whoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The desire to sin is itself sin, as the Bible clearly declares, and as I would expect every experienced Christian to know.

 

[Josheb]

It's obviously only sinful desire that leads to sinful action.

No, it is not.

Sinful desire being anything that is contrary to God's revealed will, or with ungodly intent, or not in faith.

False cause and question begging

He clearly became corrupted (at least to a small extent), prior to his fall, otherwise he would not have eaten of the forbidden fruit.

1) There is no scriptural evidence for that, 2) the statement is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, 3) the statement is unsupported speculation, 4) because Adam's sin is said to be behavioral, motive or desire may be irrelevant (regardless of his desire, the behavior was sinful) 5) I've already addressed the problems with that statement.

It was a very specific sin that caused Adam to start to die (and so pass that death, of all kinds, on to his posterity), which was eating of the forbidden fruit.

Yes, it is. One of the unique aspects of this specific sin was that it is the only one is scripture that was committed by a good and sinless person.

Given that Adam knew that to eat of the forbidden fruit was ... forbidden, his desire to eat of it was rebellious. This is obvious.

Neither claim is correct. There are many desires that could have prompted his act of disobedience, including his belief (however misguided it may have been) that he was not disobeying God and was not being rebellious. As I stated previously, his first act of disobedience was not ruling over the serpent, not eating the forbidden fruit. Adam may have seen nothing wrong with the serpent's comments because he'd just witnessed his wife eat and he'd just witnessed nothing (observable) happening to her. The evidence at that point would have shown he would not die if he ate and there was, therefore, no need to overrule the serpent. However.....

Motive and/or desire is irrelevant.

What mattered is that Adam knew better.

The Bible says that Eve was deceived, but not Adam.

Yep. What Adam did, he did knowingly without any adverse effect explaining (or justifying) his act of disobedience.

By the time Satan tempted Adam and Eve, his corruption was not hidden.

Yes, it was.

In any case, I was referring to Adam and Eve's hidden corruption, not any "hidden" corruption in Satan.

Post 45's inquiry does not make that clear. The fact remains the supposed "hidden, internal corruption" is a matter of speculation based on fallacious reasoning.

Non-sequitur...

Why would we "have to believe" that Adam and Eve were created ignorant (and ignorant of what; they certainly did not have knowledge of evil, for example?)?

It does follow. The position being asserted (Adam had sinful desires even though he was said to be good, and the world was sinless) is predicated upon claims of his knowledge, observations, and ability to reason. It's irrational to say he has those faculties but the work only in the direction of sin. Adam cannot be rational and irrational at the same time (and if nothing else, a sinful desire would be irrational).

I see no disagreement between my speculation and Scripture (which does not mean that it's correct, however).

Then let me try to make the contradictions clearer.

1. God explicitly stated everything He made was very good. That statement necessarily means Adam and Eve were made good. They were not made with bad, evil, or sinful desires. There is nothing in scripture reporting that condition changed between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:6-7. The claim Adam had a sinful desire is sheer speculation, speculation without scriptural evidence, and speculation without scriptural evidence that directly contradicts what is stated in Genesis 1:31. Some form of change is assumed to have occurred between those two verses.
2. Romans 5 explicitly states sin entered the world through one man's act of disobedience. Sin did not exist in the world until Adam acted disobediently. That necessarily means there was no sinful desire prior to his act because it was his act that brought sin into the world. To say he had a sinful desire would necessarily mean sin had entered the world prior to his act of disobedience and that would make Romans 5:112 and 18 untrue. That would mean God's inspired revelation to Paul is untrue and scripture is, therefore, not authoritative and true.
3. There were two sinners in the world prior to Adam disobeying God. One of them was Satan. The other one was Eve. Eve is an example of someone scripture reports sinning a) in a state of deception and b) out desires that are good. She is reported to observe "the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise," all of which is true and correct. That example stands as blunt denial of the speculation only sinful desires can cause sin.
4. The speculation is based on a series of assumptions not evidenced in scripture.
5. The speculation is built on a series of logical fallacies that, so far, include a false cause, a question-begging definition, and a post hoc fallacy.

There are, therefore, several flaws in the case for an already-sinfully-desirous Adam.

Yes, Satan's lie should have been obvious to Eve, but she did not receive the love of the truth she'd been told, so she believed the devil's lie instead.

More speculation. There's no scripture stating she did not "receive the love of the truth she'd been told," and if there is then that should be posted when the claim is made so I and others don't need to ask. Eve was made in God's image (Gen. 1:27), He made Eve good (Gen. 1:31), and she'd clearly heard and understood God's prohibition against eating the forbidden fruit (3:2).

An immediate problem arises from the claim she didn't have a love of the truth because it must then be explained how a good and sinless person made in God's image would not have a love of the truth. The opposite of love would be apathy or perhaps, in this circumstance, contempt. That would leave us with the necessity of concluding God made Eve with an apathy or contempt for the truth and He called that good.

Adam was not deceived, so his sin was rebellion.

That is not a point in dispute.

We're talking about the claim there was a sinful desire in Adam before he acted. According to the posts, that claim is based on the belief only sinful desires prompt sinful acts. According to the posts that claim is a function of self-acknowledged speculation. Logically, that claim is a false-cause fallacy and its veracity os further built on a post hoc argument. Because scripture states Adam was good, and scripture also states it was through one man whose transgression brought condemnation to all others. It was his transgression, not his desire that brought sin into the world. Prior to that there was no sin in the world.

Good men do not rebel.

Adam did.

Something in Adam was not "very good" any more, which is why he ate the forbidden fruit.

Prove it.


Prove some change from "very good" to "sinful desire" had occurred. Wherever possible use scripture, and wherever possible use explicit statements from scripture. Avoid the fallacies of assuming only sinful desires can cause sin, the question-begging definition of a sinful desire anything contrary to God's will,* and the post hoc argument that because the behavior was sinful so too must have been the desire prompting it.











*Did Jesus ever desire not to suffer crucifixion? Is his request the cup be passed from him, if possible, and indication he'd desired not to suffer? If so, then the definition asserted makes Jesus sinful and none of us are saved from sin.
.

 

[David1701]

No, it is not.

So, given that the strongest desire is always (and as a universal principle) master of the will, do you honestly believe that it was a very good desire that made Adam will to rebel against God? If not, then please explain your reasoning.

False cause and question begging

I posted that sinful desire is any desire that is contrary to God revealed will, or with ungodly intent, or not in faith, which is entirely biblical.

1) There is no scriptural evidence for that,

What? Are we to understand that you don't know that such desires are sinful? Is that really what you think?

2) the statement is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy,

Rubbish!

The post hoc fallacy is when one assumes that because something follows something else, it was caused by that something else. That was not at all what I posted, nor what I thought.

It is well known that actions are always caused by one's strongest desire (whether good or bad), leading one to will the action, then, if able, to do it.

3) the statement is unsupported speculation, 4) because Adam's sin is said to be behavioral, motive or desire may be irrelevant (regardless of his desire, the behavior was sinful) 5) I've already addressed the problems with that statement.

Bad behaviour comes from bad motives. Adam knew that he was forbidden to eat the "forbidden fruit", so to eat of it was wilful rebellion. There is no getting round that, and any attempt to do so is merely stubbornness and pride.

Yes, it is. One of the unique aspects of this specific sin was that it is the only one is scripture that was committed by a good and sinless person.

What??? Are you claiming that Adam sinned, without any prior desire to sin (remember that he was not deceived)? That is nonsensical! It is desire that leads to action.

Neither claim is correct. There are many desires that could have prompted his act of disobedience, including his belief (however misguided it may have been) that he was not disobeying God and was not being rebellious.

This is either mind-staggeringly stupid, or disingenuous. Adam was not deceived and he KNEW that eating of the forbidden fruit was forbidden.

You know what? I've had enough of your ludicrous, convoluted and nonsensical claims. This kind of thing is always how discussions with you go, so you're going on "ignore".

 

[Josheb]

So, given that the strongest desire is always (and as a universal principle) master of the will, do you honestly believe that it was a very good desire that made Adam will to rebel against God? If not, then please explain your reasoning.

What I believe is scripture. What I do not believe us any case of speculation lacking an explicit scriptural foundation also containing logical fallacy. People with good intent choosing with good desire make sinful acts every day. Basic reality should have precluded the sinful-desire-is-the-only-cause-for-sinful-conduct argument.

I posted...

Yes, and I have addressed every constituent element of what has been posted, especially the false cause argument of sin causing sin in a sinless man. The result is.....

This is either mind-staggeringly stupid, or disingenuous.

A fallacious appeal to ridicule....

You know what? I've had enough of your ludicrous, convoluted and nonsensical claims. This kind of thing is always how discussions with you go, so you're going on "ignore".

....and ad hominem. The truth is I do not always note the lack of scripture and use of fallacy. In cases where those problems do not exist, I commend the post. I have previously done so often with your posts and would have been glad to do so here had I read such a case.

"@David1701, despite the few lapses in which nonsense was put on me, I want to thank you, once again, for having a much better conversation than everyone else. It's greatly appreciated, and you're again to be commended for setting an example. I know we may still disagree, but I've made the case and there's sufficient evidence in my posts to prove the position for those who will contemplate it."​

"I'll add I have always respected the respect received and commend your example to all others because this is how disagreement should be handled."​

It would have been better to either agree to disagree or post nothing. It would have been best to correct the logical fallacies and either make a better case or adjust the conclusions to the facts of scripture. Adam was explicitly stated to be sinless and there is no evidence in scripture's report any change in him occurred prior to Genesis 3:6. Romans 5 tells us sin hadn't entered the world until he transgressed God and James 1:14-15 is different for a sinful creature living in a sinful world than it is for a sinless creature living in a sinless world. Simply put, there's a lack of scripture and too many logical errors for the case presented to be valid. Perhaps a case could have been made for the existence of sinful desire being what brought sin into the world, but this was not it. Because this discussion took a sudden irrational and rule-violating turn, and because there's nothing new in Post 53 and any further topically relevant reply on my part would only be unnecessarily repetitious, I bid you adieu in hope what I have posted will be considered further.

 

[Simons]

The "ability to do otherwise" is illogical anyway, ascribed to God. It's not a question of ability, but simple fact, that God only ever does whatever he does, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He need not consider options; none can even be presented him. He really is not like us.

I actually find myself (sort of) agreeing with you here… he (the Father) really is not like us and in our efforts to describe him we often resort to anthropomorphisms. To be consistent we must acknowledge that such is the case with scripture too, where it seems God has “dumbed it down” for us (by using anthropomorphisms). E.g. In the book of Job, where angels and Satan attend at God's court and they debate as to who has the better grasp of the future,…that clearly presents God as all too human (and Satan as all too stupid). You obviously wouldn't take the Job story literally as it has options being presented to God… something that you declare can't happen.

What gets tricky is knowing where to draw the line (between where scripture is accurate and inaccurate in ascribing things to God) and that difficulty is further compounded by the fact that scripture is written in languages, and it seems you have properly realized that language is an inadequate tool by which to measure God.

….but back to the coherency of Libertarian Free Will (LFW)…as I don’t want to be accused of derailing this derailed thread

The "ability to do otherwise" is illogical anyway, ascribed to God. It's not a question of ability, but simple fact, that God only ever does whatever he does, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He need not consider options; none can even be presented him. He really is not like us.

but didn’t the incarnation make the Son like us? Are you saying that: Jesus only ever did whatever he did, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He did not consider options; none could have even been presented him?

In Matthew 5 it sure sounds like an option was presented to him. Are you saying that he couldn’t have done otherwise?....that he had no choice but to send them into the pigs? Or even simple things, such as eating, was he prevented from deciding to grab one more piece of bread….or was bread and wine consumption predetermined down to the last crumb and drop?

Let me remind myself of your position which is:

"Libertarianism", then, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions. If the choices are not equally influenced, they are not equally possible, and if not equally possible, then only one can possibly happen— the one chosen, as a matter of fact.​

​

In effect, then, the only reasonable thing that Libertarian Free Will can say is that we do choose, and that our choices are real choices, or words to that effect, but it cannot reasonably say that our choices are not determined.​

…So please clarify as to whether:

• The Son made actual choices (which IMHO presents a problem for your claim that LFW reduces to self-contradictory notions and the opening poster’s claim that LFW violoates the laws of identity and non-contradiction) ; or
• Like the Father, the Son never made/makes choices (and so much of each gospel should be declared to be inaccurate/anthropomorphic in its descriptions)?

Let me try to show how the notion is bogus, concerning God, by way of a parallel. We often say that God thinks. But the very word, "think", is, in our minds, a human construct appealing to our experience of it. God need not think, unless for him to think is to do.

from this I can’t help to note that “love” is also a human construct appealing to our experience of it. If saying God “thinks” is inaccurate then what should I make of those that say God “loves”. I suppose you could also say that for him to “love” is to do….but you can’t get away from that construct.

He need not consider options —options proceed FROM him. Things don't happen to God, things happen to us.

…again, things didn’t happen to Jesus? ….the crucifixion didn't happen to him? Your position has merit when considering the Father....the Son, not so much.

Why we insist on language with which to measure God, is beyond me.

well, I guess we could try interpretive dance,…I am willing to give that a try if you’re game

If there is something that you said (and that I missed) that you would like addressed please advise...but it may take me awhile as I am off for a bit starting tomorrow noon..

 

[Josheb]

but didn’t the incarnation make the Son like us? Are you saying that: Jesus only ever did whatever he did, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He did not consider options; none could have even been presented him?

It's not a question of what Jesus could have done.

Scripture is quite clear. Jesus' own report is that he said and did only what the Father told him to do..... and there is no report he ever did anything different from or apart from what his Father desired, intended, and/or instructed him to do. However, the question is a bit of a red herring because this op is concerned with our doctrine of salvation, not how we can and do live outside of the arena of salvation. Asking questions like, "Can I choose my own favorite flavor of ice cream?" or "Does God direct my choice pertaining to the color of my car?" are red herrings because they have absolutely nothing to do with salvation from sin. The question to which this op is attending is,

"Can I choose salvation from within my own still-sinful unregenerate faculties?"

Or, even more specifically,

"Does scripture teach a sinner can and does choose God using his/her solely sinful faculties while still in the dead-in-sin enslaved-by-sin state?"

The answer to those two questions is an unequivocal, "NO!" There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly causally attributes salvation to the sinner's will. Not one. Neither is there an example, a precedent, of any still-unregenerate, dead-in-sin, enslaved-by-sin sinner choosing God without God first acting in that sinner's life for the express purpose of his/her salvation. Not one.

Furthermore, Using Jesus as an example creates another unrelated comparison because Jesus does not need salvation from sin. He is not a sinner. He is not dead in sin, nor is he enslaved by sin. Jesus is the sole free man. He's not even bound by the laws of creation. He could, hypothetically for the sake of an argument, do whatever he wants to do BUT the fact is what he always wants to do is his Father's will. He and his Father are one. The Father and the sinner are never one, apart from Christ. Even if we were to explore the volitional faculties and that relationship between the Son and the Father we'd be limiting that discussion to the op and the op is entirely soteriological. We should not imagine there is a need for God to tell Jesus exactly how many beans he is to eat for breakfast, exactly on which specific 100 square inches of ground to place each footstep, or even which specific bush he should pee behind on his multi-day journey from town to town. Those choices have nothing to do with salvation. Neither does what size candy bar to buy.

but didn’t the incarnation make the Son like us?

Not exactly.

Jesus is the logos of God that is God made flesh (John 1). He willingly emptied himself, took the form of a bondservant, and was made in the likeness of humans (Php. 2). Doctrinally, Jesus is fully God and fully human..... BUT Jesus is a completely sinless human. He knew no sin. There's not a sinful cell in his body and he has no cognitive, affective, volitional, or experiential knowledge of sin. Jesus is the Thesis and in him there is no antithesis (sin being the absence of all that is God, an absence of righteousness, and absence of perfection, etc.). We're not like him. We're all sinners in need of salvation from that sin.

And, stereologically speaking, libertarian freedom rejects any and all determinism (both God and sin), holding the sinner possesses faculties sufficient to act autonomously for all circumstances in which the sinner exists. Sinners are not actually, literally dead in sin and they are not literally enslaved by sin. How can a person be soteriologically dead or enslaved if he can still choose his own favorite flavor of ice cream?

Ice cream does not save anyone from sin, or appease the wrath of God commensurate of sin. God will gladly take your ice cream for Himself and leave the sinner a moldering heap of ash because it is an act of grace and love on his part that the sinner does not continue to live in his own putrid, decaying, corruption once the nature of that rot is fully revealed. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. For some that is salvation by grace. For others that is putting them out of their misery (or His misery, as the case may be ).

The anthropomorphism that is most to be avoided is the clay demanding an explanation from the Potter. The Potter is neither human, finite, nor sinful. The clay is all three. God has no need of salvation, and the clay cannot purify itself.

 

[Simons]

However, the question is a bit of a red herring because this op is concerned with our doctrine of salvation, not how we can and do live outside of the arena of salvation. Asking questions like, "Can I choose my own favorite flavor of ice cream?" or "Does God direct my choice pertaining to the color of my car?" are red herrings because they have absolutely nothing to do with salvation from sin. The question to which this op is attending is,

"Can I choose salvation from within my own still-sinful unregenerate faculties?"

The opening poster has declared that “libertarian freedom is incoherent”. He has done so on the basis that he claims it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction (and not that it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction only when the ability to do otherwise involves salvation). He doesn't mention salvation or the doctrine thereof and he contemplates the ability to do otherwise in the context of a man robbing a bank...It is about the ability to do otherwise in any situation (ice cream selection and car colour included).

 

[His clay]

The opening poster has declared that “libertarian freedom is incoherent”. He has done so on the basis that he claims it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction (and not that it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction only when the ability to do otherwise involves salvation). He doesn't mention salvation or the doctrine thereof and he contemplates the ability to do otherwise in the context of a man robbing a bank...It is about the ability to do otherwise in any situation (ice cream selection and car colour included).

In post #16, I explicitly argued against attributing to my words the idea of libertarian freedom. I did not have "the ability to do otherwise in the context of a man robbing a bank." I will quote my response, for it deals directly with this point.

=============(quote)
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.
=============(end quote)

With the qualification in place, you are correct that the main point of the thread is the coherency of libertarian freedom. I raise three general points against LF: (1) logically incoherent, (2) contradicts scripture, and (3) practically unlivable. Thus, you are correct in that my main focus is upon the coherency of LF. If it is incoherent, then if fails in every single circumstance and becomes a completely false assumption in any topic or dialogue. Therefore, I do agree with the main point of your response; namely, that the op is more general than the other poster is seeking to define things.

Now, under section #2 of the op, I spell out 3 areas where I think that scripture contradicts LF. One of those areas is that scripture presents causal reasons for the choices that people make, and this coincides nicely with the issue raised by the other poster. In the category of depravity, the unregenerate nature is definitely a causal reason for certain choices. The references listed in the opening post utilize this argument. I will quote the op in this regard.

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.

One can see in the quote that I referenced a few of the common verses that argue for total depravity. So, the issue of unregenerate choices, is a subset and demonstrative of my larger point: namely, that scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make.

I hope that this post clarifies the intent of the op and thusly the scope of the discussion.

 

[His clay]

Sadly, while I would love to interact more, the above post is all the time I can allocate to interaction at this point. I must move to other writing projects. @Simons , I still hope to respond to your post #24 soon. I've been making quick responses here and there because responding to your post #24 will take some time to write. I wish that I could type with greater speed and accuracy, but we have the abilities that we have, and we have the limitations as well.

 

[Josheb]

The opening poster has declared that “libertarian freedom is incoherent”. He has done so on the basis that he claims it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction (and not that it violates the law of identity/ the law of non-contradiction only when the ability to do otherwise involves salvation).

That is correct.

He doesn't mention salvation or the doctrine thereof and he contemplates the ability to do otherwise in the context of a man robbing a bank...It is about the ability to do otherwise in any situation (ice cream selection and car colour included).

This is the "Arminian and Calvinism" board/forum. EVERYTHING in this board is specifically about the Arminian and Calvinist doctrines of salvation and nothing else. The title of the board is stated directly above the title of the opening post. If there is an error in the op it is that this board is explicitly designated as, "This forum is for Arminians and Calvinists. It is not intended for other groups such as Pelagians, Provisionists, etc..." CCCCF/CCAM does not have a board designated for salvation doctrines in general.


Was the title of this board not noticed? Is the inherent soteriological context of the board understood?