Reconsidering Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense

[Arial]

The world has affected our churches, even many genuine believers. Free will (individualism) is the idol. It is an easy idol for the devil to use. My heart jumped for joy when I read, that this makes you want to take up your sword and shield. And isn't that what we must do? All believers. It's a battle for the mind. I have even heard Christians say, that the gospel is only for those outside the church to get lost sinners, not for in the church. I believe that is one of the biggest lies of the devil. I believe myself and every other believer needs to hear the gospel all the time.
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 2 Peter 1.

I have had that fighting spirit for the church and gospel, the war drums of the Scottish Highlands, for a long time now. SOmetime it lies quietly and then it finds me metaphorically stand, and there I stand, with sword and shield. Sometimes only in prayer. I am often reminded of Nehemiah and his lament, "Our walls are broken down, and our gates are burned with fire." And the way in which he placed watchman on the walls and when the enemy approached the alarm was sounded and the men took up arms.

Many years ago I had a dream, and I do not think the dream meant anything or was a message from God, but it certainly encapsulates my inner self. It took place in the days of the westward movement the whole church I was attending at the time (it was a small church in a small Nebraska town) was in a wagon train crossing the mountains in a blizzard. There were wolves shadowing us, waiting for opportunity. Everyone said don't look at them and don't say anything or they will attack. Even the pastor agreed. But not me. I left the wagons and marched headon towards them commanding they leave. Everyone was terrified at what I was doing. But they turned and fled, every last wolf.

I do not know if I am the least bit effective, and of course I am not. If anything is accomplished it is God doing it through His word and whatever He wants it to accomplish. But it is important to remember, the gospel both saves and condemns.

 

[fastfredy0]

Libertarian Definition
Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.
LFW is amoral as there is no reason to decide to do "A" or "B".
LFW is irrational as there is no reason to decide to do "A" or "B".
LFW is contrary to scripture for man is caused to have a sin nature which he himself did not chose which invalidates LFW. Said sin nature being casual.

Definition of Force
Power made operative against resistance; exertion. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain.
Using this definition, most of man's decisions are not forced. Man does what he desires most at the time. Man's desires are not self determined; you don't pick your desires though your desires determine what you pick (unless you are 'forced').

Law of Causality
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free in the libertarian sense; rather, it is designed by God.

• Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being],
• Colossians 1:17, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15, John 1:3

God causes ALL things. God is not "propelled" to uphold your decision to do "A" or "B"; rather, God caused (propels) all things to occur. Hebrew 1:3a upholding and maintaining and propelling all things
by His powerful word

The Source of God's Omniscience
Premise 1: From nothing, nothing comes
Premise 2: God knows all things; He is a immutable and therefore His knowledge is immutable
Premise 3: Before creation man was NOTHING (and therefore there is no other source of information for
God per Premise 1. God and His knowledge are uncaused. God and His actions are never an 'effect'.
Conclusion: the source of God's omniscience must be solely Himself. As God at one time was the only thing in existence He must be the cause of all things which is the execution of His plan/His omniscience. Therefore, Libertarian Free Will is not possible.

God's self-determined purpose
God’s purpose and man’s purpose are one and the same: to glorify God and enjoy him forever; as he is the cause of all, so he is the end of all. This purpose should guide one's formulations rather than anthropocentric ideas.

 

[His clay]

Libertarian Definition
Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.
LFW is amoral as there is no reason to decide to do "A" or "B".
LFW is irrational as there is no reason to decide to do "A" or "B".
LFW is contrary to scripture for man is caused to have a sin nature which he himself did not chose which invalidates LFW. Said sin nature being casual.

Definition of Force
Power made operative against resistance; exertion. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain.
Using this definition, most of man's decisions are not forced. Man does what he desires most at the time. Man's desires are not self determined; you don't pick your desires though your desires determine what you pick (unless you are 'forced').

Law of Causality
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free in the libertarian sense; rather, it is designed by God.

• Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being],
• Colossians 1:17, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15, John 1:3

God causes ALL things. God is not "propelled" to uphold your decision to do "A" or "B"; rather, God caused (propels) all things to occur. Hebrew 1:3a upholding and maintaining and propelling all things
by His powerful word

The Source of God's Omniscience
Premise 1: From nothing, nothing comes
Premise 2: God knows all things; He is a immutable and therefore His knowledge is immutable
Premise 3: Before creation man was NOTHING (and therefore there is no other source of information for
God per Premise 1. God and His knowledge are uncaused. God and His actions are never an 'effect'.
Conclusion: the source of God's omniscience must be solely Himself. As God at one time was the only thing in existence He must be the cause of all things which is the execution of His plan/His omniscience. Therefore, Libertarian Free Will is not possible.

God's self-determined purpose
God’s purpose and man’s purpose are one and the same: to glorify God and enjoy him forever; as he is the cause of all, so he is the end of all. This purpose should guide one's formulations rather than anthropocentric ideas.

I'm glad that people are getting these points. It is good to see you communicate these verses and thoughts.

 

[fastfredy0]

One more definition, RESPONSIBLE/RESPONSIBILITY

... so responsibility has nothing to do with whether or not you have a opportunity to do "A" or "B". It is just a matter that someone can hold you to account. So, by way of example, when it comes to salvation one can be held 'responsible' even if one has no opportunity to respond in a salvific way. This is empirically demonstrated below:
Premise 1: One must know of Christ to be saved (John 3:18; John 14:5-6; John 12:48; John 17:3; Acts 4:12,
etc.)
Premise 2: Billions have died since Christ's death who never heard of Christ
Conclusions: Billions of people have been held responsible for not believing in Christ; said people had no
opportunity to do so (as Libertarian Free Will proposes or Aminians Free Will for that matter)
Note: Ignores tangential issue of 'age of accountability'

 

[makesends]

Seventh, the very appeal to libertarian freedom in the defense is an appeal to human autonomy; and autonomy begets autonomy. What is meant when saying that autonomy begets autonomy? The point that is being made is that a little autonomy from God creates absolute autonomy from God when dealing with a consistent skeptic. When one says that autonomy is needed in order to solve the problem of evil, then it creates a snowball that the skeptic will continue to push. What the theist intends as a means of getting God off the hook in reference to moral evil (evil perpetuated by moral agents), the atheist sees as an area where God is not needed, since man is independent of Him. The same can be said about "natural evil". Getting God off the hook for natural evil leads to a universe that is not dependent upon Him, so then why is He needed again? What this does is promote a "god-of-the-gaps" view of providence. The assumption is that either nature does it autonomously (independently), or God does it. And if a natural explanation is given, then God is not needed; and eventually the atheist (like Dawkins and others) will say that God is really not needed for anything. God is irrelevant, since everything is independent of Him. In short, granting a little autonomy begets complete autonomy from God. Atheism then results from what were originally, apparently good intentions. Namely, protecting God from incrimination.

Certainly, this is a slippery slope kind of argument. However, this slope has been evidenced in history, and I'll leave R. K. McGregor Wright's book, "No Place for Sovereignty: What's Wrong with Freewill Theism," to fill in the gaps there if one needs them filled.

Somewhat distressingly, I can never think of the right word to describe a principle like this, that I know to be entirely reasonable—even logical, and axiomatic. But let me try to describe it: Words like, "autonomous", (and not in the context where, for eg, a robot operates without further instruction, continuing according to its design and programming, nor in speaking of 'moral autonomy', which is a different subject), and like, "sovereign", (and not in the use where, for eg, a nation is independent of other nations), are in themselves universal in effect. If one is sovereign, he is absolutely sovereign. There is no "little bit sovereign", or "sovereign to a point". If one is autonomous, that autonomy is absolute. When one tries to say something or someone is only to a degree autonomous, he has presented a self-contradictory notion. If he is "only a little bit autonomous", meaning that he is impacted only to a point by influences from outside himself, then claims his autonomy releases him from acting according to those influences, he has used big words that come to mean nothing. All he has described is choice, for one is always presented with opposing influences in choosing. And one always ends up doing what he wants, even if he wants it only for that instant of choosing.

Causation is universal. Whether one holds to the idea of God as First Cause, the Uncaused Causer, or whether one conjectures on "Turtles all the way down", the chains of causation make everything, (subsequent to whatever started the chains), effect, and every effect is caused, even if it itself causes subsequent effects. Except for Uncaused Cause Himself, (or "itself", if that makes the reader feel better), there can be no other uncaused cause, no other first cause, nothing else quite autonomous.

This holds true in even considerations of a godless (i.e. naturalistic) universe. And most believers have no real problem with this, as long as they don't smell a rat, (seeing a conflict with libertarian free will). Their outcry begins when one brings up the fact of brute fact —God himself— being the uncaused causer of all subsequent fact. Their arguments become semantic at best, and not substantial.

So, it's not just a slippery slope. The notion of libertarian freewill is illogical at its outset.

 

[His clay]

Somewhat distressingly, I can never think of the right word to describe a principle like this, that I know to be entirely reasonable—even logical, and axiomatic. But let me try to describe it: Words like, "autonomous", (and not in the context where, for eg, a robot operates without further instruction, continuing according to its design and programming, nor in speaking of 'moral autonomy', which is a different subject), and like, "sovereign", (and not in the use where, for eg, a nation is independent of other nations), are in themselves universal in effect. If one is sovereign, he is absolutely sovereign. There is no "little bit sovereign", or "sovereign to a point". If one is autonomous, that autonomy is absolute. When one tries to say something or someone is only to a degree autonomous, he has presented a self-contradictory notion. If he is "only a little bit autonomous", meaning that he is impacted only to a point by influences from outside himself, then claims his autonomy releases him from acting according to those influences, he has used big words that come to mean nothing. All he has described is choice, for one is always presented with opposing influences in choosing. And one always ends up doing what he wants, even if he wants it only for that instant of choosing.

Causation is universal. Whether one holds to the idea of God as First Cause, the Uncaused Causer, or whether one conjectures on "Turtles all the way down", the chains of causation make everything, (subsequent to whatever started the chains), effect, and every effect is caused, even if it itself causes subsequent effects. Except for Uncaused Cause Himself, (or "itself", if that makes the reader feel better), there can be no other uncaused cause, no other first cause, nothing else quite autonomous.

This holds true in even considerations of a godless (i.e. naturalistic) universe. And most believers have no real problem with this, as long as they don't smell a rat, (seeing a conflict with libertarian free will). Their outcry begins when one brings up the fact of brute fact —God himself— being the uncaused causer of all subsequent fact. Their arguments become semantic at best, and not substantial.

So, it's not just a slippery slope. The notion of libertarian freewill is illogical at its outset.

One of my past critiques of William Lane Craig has been with respect to his Kalam Cosmological Argument.
(1) That which begins to exist must have a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

While using this argument as a Classical apologetic proof for God's existence, he then endorses libertarian freedom. And libertarian freedom says
(1) That which begins to exist must have a cause.
(2) The will (or agent) began to exist.
(3) But the will (or agent) need not have a cause.

If he does not endorse libertarian freedom, then by all means let me know. But even if he does not endorse libertarian freedom, it is enough to point out the blatantly obvious inconsistency regarding causation. So I would heavily recommend that people who do believe in libertarian freedom not try to use the Kalam Cosmological argument.

Since I've brought up the KC argument, I'll a portion of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Note how Hawking appeals to universal autonomy to avoid the argument.

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (p. 146)

His statement is actually a non-sequitur, since God is not bound by the universe as Hawking supposes.

What I've found is that the issue of autonomy is simply central to the secular worldview. Restated, the secular worldview is just a universal statement of the assumption of autonomy.

 

[Mr GLee]

God makes the unwilling to be willing by imparting a new nature. It is much like a change of mind. Whereas once the sinner saw the things of Christ and God as odious, but then God works in such a way so as to make Jesus glorious, and faith and repentance follow. There is no arm twisting.

However, the Holy Spirit may weigh heavy on a person's heart for some time. The person's conscience may be pricked for an extended period. My dad's testimony is much to this effect. Where he knew that he needed to repent of his sin and trust in Christ, but my dad wanted to do his own thing. But God kept pushing, for years, and eventually one day the pressure effectively worked and my dad could do nothing other than come to Christ. That is my dad's testimony.

However, when a Calvinist speaks of God making the unwilling to be willing, it may be over and extended period of time like my dad, or it may be a shorter time, where God takes His word and powerfully works in a person's heart, and the person has a change of mind regarding what used to appear bad, and now it appears good, and faith and repentance follow.

What do you think?

Thanks gives me a hunger

I would agree when given the fruit of righteousness, Christ's grace working in us. . The one born again spiritual seed the living word ..Believers are strengthened to both understand and do His good will

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Mankind failed to eat the food or meat "test" in the Genesis according to the letter of the law (death) as it is written .

Genisis2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Deceived by the father of lies Satan he added to prophecy. . . false prophecy "neither shall you touch" destroying the integrity of the living word . Violating the principle not to add or subtract from the perfect (Deut 4:2)

The food of rebellion' took over . The two false pride builders .Lust of the eye. . Lust of the flesh .

The lust of the eye led them to the center of the garden, beholding the fruit the corrupted flesh took over they touched did not die .Then they consumed the fruit of unrighteousness .

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Having not eaten of the fruit of Christ's righteousness The temporal spirit of life given under the letter of the law (death) returned to the father of all spirit life and the dead flesh and blood returns to dust. . food for the serpent.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

What Adam failed to eat The Son of man did eat . free wil a wil empowered by Christ.

Yoked with him our daily bread or called hidden manna strengthens gives us a living hope beyond the grave.

The kind of manna the apostles knew not of at first. Taste like gospel Honey

John 4:33-34King James Version Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Free will the agility to do the will of our invisible God .