A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

You have changed your definition.
Here is you first definition of LFW.

The section in bold is our reference.
Your position is defeated; if it can be biblically proven that both believers and non-believers do not have the "ability" to refrain or not refrain, because "antecedent conditions and "causal laws" determine a choice.

This is developed in the following verses.

As to the believer' ability:

Verse 1. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course.

Who has planned man's course?

Verse 2.(Ephs. 1:17-19)
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

The believer's power is given from God, not self-generated.

Verse 3. (Ephs. 2:10)
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This is an "antecedent condition" that determines choice.
Can a "true" believer walk (choose) opposite to God's ordination?

Verse 4. (Philippians 1:6)
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This verse gives both "antecedent condition" and "causal law" as determining a believer's choice.

Verse 5. (Philippians 2:12,13)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This verse needs no explanation, as to our current debate.


As to the unbeliever's ability:

10 as it is written:"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.(Rms.3:10-11)

"No one understands", this is an "antecedent condition" that determines ability.


7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.(Rms. 8:7,8)

"It, the mind of flesh, cannot", this is a "causal law" that prohibits ability.

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.(Eph. 2:1-3)

"Carrying out the desires...", what choice does he have or even want.


What about when a man truly, through the Law of God, sees "good and evil" the way GOD views it.
Does he then have ability, without outside determination, to "refrain or not refrain?

16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Paul knows what is good and what is not good, but still has no self-determining ability to perform it.

You say, "he must trust in Christ, then he will be able".
Is trusting Christ "doing right"?
Then according to Paul's confession, how can you trust Christ without Christ's power, ie. "antecedent condition" and "causal law"?

We cannot!
We must have a deliverer. One to come where we are, in our "inability", and rescue us.

Here again is a quote from Alvin Plantinga, from "Warranted Christian Belief".

The ravages of sin were of two sorts.
First, affective effects: sin induces a sort of madness of the will whereby we fail to love God above all; instead, we love ourselves above all. But the damage was also cognitive.
Sin induces a blindness, dullness, stupidity, imperceptiveness, whereby we are blinded to God, cannot hear his voice, do not recognize his beauty and glory, may even go so far as to deny that he exists.

No wonder Paul cried from his inability....
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!



The debate is not "compatibilism" verses "LFW".
The debate is does LFW exist.
The Word of God says no, at least as you have defined LFW.

 

OK I'm back.

Will AFW work? Apparent Free Will.

HankD

 

Apparent- manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Is it possible for mankind to think he possesses free will based on his experience, yet God's word gives the true perspective?

Hank, there is no doubt that we make choices, but God's Word tells us these choices have boundaries, sometimes very limited boundaries.

And it is God, not man, that sets these boundaries.
(Jeremiah 10:23)
Jeremiah’s Prayer
23 I know, Lord, that our lives are not our own.
We are not able to plan our own course

 

I didn't say that, but from the immediate context of Acts and their actions of selling their stuff it is apparent Ananias and his wife were believers.'

You cannot put Acts into context using 1 John.

 

Nope... Like an "actual" infinity, it cannot exist.

 

What is categorical ability?

 

Oh ratzlefratz!!

HankD

 

You mean I'm not the master of my own destiny!?

Ya, I knew that. I'de mess it up anyway.

HankD

 

Come on, GL will tell you, we do limits at infinity and infinite limits everyday in calculus. It is true, that some infinities are larger than other infinities. In reality, nothing in mathematics actually "exists". Even on the most rudimentary level, it is ALL simply a construct of the mind of mankind.

 

So, if we only have "choices" contained within parameters, means we really dont have choices?

 

Almost makes one believe God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thoughts.

I know He knows; and if I need to know He will let me know, as I seek to know.

The rest is what I think I know. You know what I mean.

Charles Spurgeon tells how he came to know.

"One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

 

If I can return to the OP, the answer it yes, it does matter if you're a Calvinist. It matters if you're not one.

It matters because each soteriology contains certain assumptions, from which each presents the gospel.

For instance, non-Calvinists believe that God has given everyone free will, and the ability to make choices. They believe that as a result, it is possible to persuade men, starting with the preaching of the gospel, followed by any number of methods to get one to make a "decision" for Christ.

Calvinists believe that God employs all the means necessary to bring his elect to salvation--including the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating, convicting, drawing and regenerating. Even repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are gifts from God to his elect. Thus, the gospel is preached, the lost are exhorted to repent and believe, and the results left to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let's don't get sidetracked here by a debate on the extent of the atonement. The point is that salvation is all of God and none of man. The debate is not over the ability to choose; it is over when that ability is given.

But that difference makes the difference in how each presents the gospel.

In fact, if you visit a church, but don't know whether the pastor is a Calvinist or a non-Cal, listen carefully to the exhortation (altar call, invitation). It will provide you enough for you to make a good guess. If no invitation is given, that's another clue.

Let me conclude this post by saying that God is not boxed in by our methods. Each soteriology can preach a pure gospel, and God is pleased to save the lost in Cal and non-Cal churches. But there is a difference in the way each calls men and women to Christ.

 

Tom,
Did you mean to post this on the "does Calvinism matter" thread.

 

We all operate freely within our natures.

My human nature will limit my ability to fly.

My sinful nature as a lost person prevented me pleasing God, or wanting to.

My new nature, given to me as a new believer, freed me from those chains.

But I still can't fly.

 

What!!! Your definition of LFW denies a determining influence outside of the person's will.

Romans 7:20 very clearly states that sin is a determining influence concerning a person's decisions.

Therefore, the definition of LFW that you gave is clearly contrary to scripture.

And yet, you have forgotten the former argument and now state that there is a battle on-going between the new nature and the old (both the new and old are antecedent conditions... which... according to your definition, have no determining influence). This battle of influences, you now say, is the very heart of LFW.

How can there be a war of natures when those natures (the new and the old) never had a determining influence on a person's decisions in the first place?

Your definition has been proven false by your own arguments made for it.

peace to youraying:

 

Actually, I did mean to. I realized it and thought I had zapped it, but obviously not. I probably wouldn't have noticed it without your calling it to my attention. Thanks. And folks, please don't respond to it here.

In the meantime, I have posted it in the other thread.

I realize that it doesn't fit very well in this thread, does it?

Hmm, that's the first mistake I've made in I don't remember how long.