Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

First, whether intentional or mistakenly asserted the play on the word “sufficient” within your use of it through “your” definition remains an attempt to “poison the well” as spelled out. Second, that you continue to use this “venom” after Allan and I both spelled out to you the problem (which you continue to ignore; hence my bolded sentence starting with “not to ignore”.) and which includes using “your rendition” based on what still is a “proof surrogate” as there is neither context to go by nor any other information leading to credibility it does not change the status of your claim or remove the truth in mine which attributes the fallacy to your argument. On the other hand to attribute me as uncharitable for “unpacking” and revealing the fallacies within your argument is simply an Ad Hominem and adding another fallacy to your argument by doing so.

Allan was only mistaken according to “your” prescibed understanding which attempts to separate “sufficient” into something more than just necessary (which Allan explained the necessity, God’s enabling is still there, but this was ignored) while you apparently hold sufficient and deterministic together while disregarding creaturely volition to fit your definition of what is necessary to be sufficient.

Again, please stop with the Ad Hominem, criticism of the premises in your argument while pointing out your rhetorical devices hardly gives you call to jump into this role of playing the abused martyr. Your sophistry may not be intentional and if I made it sound that way I apologize as it may very well just be in your ignorance, but it is not unjust to disagree with your premise and tell you why it is fallacy, it is simply my attempt to reason for getting to the truth in the matter, I’m sorry if you find that rude and uncharitable.

The statement in which you claim LFW violates the condition by lack of necessity to be sufficient is addressed through your own source:

“A condition can be either necessary or sufficient without being the other.”

This pretty much shoots down your claim of necessity as far as in one “must” believe.

“A sufficient condition is one that, if satisfied, assures the statement's truth.”

I know you Calvinists/Determinists do not usually care for the word “if” but if the condition is satisfied, (in this case regarding response to Divine influence) and it is positive toward belief it is sufficient to assure the statements truth...If not it only goes to show this truth has not yet been established, it does not disavow the possibility that the influence is there as a truth and the response has just not happened because of creaturely volition.

 

You aren't addressing what I said though, you've made no case yourself. Therefore you would have no claim to assert that you are right assuming you can't be proven wrong. You said before this isn't about Calvinism yet your assumptions seems to rely on the Calvinistic view. I believe the scriptures teach that man can and has rebelled against God; you would say God willed that to happen? I believe man can commit evil deeds against man and God, certainly God does NOT will that. I believe when God intervenes to reach out to man, man can either respond and believe or reject that. These are some of the facts the scriptures give account of.

Now if you want to assert the reverse, go ahead, you must build a case, rather than just assert and therefore have no burden of proof on your part.

Darren

 

Brian,

At this point I could only suggest that you learn the ABC's of philosphy before getting to the X,Y,and Z's. The fallacies I pointed out to you are 101 and unfortunately instead of learning from it, addressing it and/or adjusting you take that personally and resort to martyrdom and AD Hominem. Everybody is ignorant of something, that term does not have to be taken as an insult unless maybe you don't think it ever has any business of applying to you. If your fallacies weren't intentional then obviously I was only giving you the benefit of the doubt that they may be in ignorance. Venom was in reference to poison...as in continuing in your endeavor to inject it into the well, and was not personal.

There is a lot to be said about your whining and turning things personal, but I am not going to let this go into a personal brawl because you can't handle criticism of your argument. Your use of Ad Hominem, if intentional, to turn this into something personal is a shameful and desperate way of avoiding the issues and shows you have little other to offer in rebuttal to the criticism of your argument. If nothing else I hope you come to understand that basic philosophical point and how it adds to your fallacy.

Happy debating,

Ben

 

I am not sure what you mean by LFW. I would simply say what I posted on another thread: Though man will agree to the "Fall" they will not agree that "free will" went with it.

BTW, I took the liberty of adding a little emphasis.

 

Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise. The loss of free will was a result of the fall.

 

Why should there be?

You didn't listen to the arguments posed already which showed where you begin flawed and end up in the same place. You make the presumtion you know it all already and anyone not in conformity to your view is wrong even if they know their view better than you do. :BangHead:

 

So you contend that man does not choose sin willingly but is forced to sin?
I'm just wondering now, whom it is that forces man to sin since he does not choose to sin freely?

 

Hello again

We are not talking about physical circumstances here but spiritual. God uses the physical in conjunction with the spiritual but only as the vehicle through which He wishes to do His work. Therefore being at the Billy Graham crusade neither the 'necessary' nor 'sufficient influence' considering the crusade is the vehicle of the means - the Holy Spirit.

No, I know quite well what I am talking about.
The issue isn't my usage but your presupposition that sufficient is to mean 'resulting in a singular and partiticular action'. For you the issue is making a person believe and for those in opposition it is about bringing a person to the point of choise - to believe or not.

Therefore, as I see it, the problem is that you want people to interact with you using your terms and your defintions, and your preconceived notions/view. That isn't how it is done.

True, but only if you are speaking of something that has no choice.
It is in this you have a flawed premise because you have not proven man is without choice. Therefore you entire point is purely speculation at best till you establish this point.

Now I will give you this credit to your view brother, in that you are at least consistant. Man has no choice now because he had not choice prior. If you can prove the 'prior' is true, then it follows the rest of your argument must also be true. Now that would be something interesting indeed :thumbs:

With respect to your examples, both imply simply that the absense of gas equates to the the car not working and therefore the presence of gas is condition for the car to operate. So 'gas' is both 'sufficient' and 'necessary' - however neither guarantee the car will start unless the operator who has been given the gas starts the car.

Again, I will point out that your example above is speaking of something with no ability to act of choice but only respond and even in that, only to the desired end of the one making it respond. This necessitates the person/thing which causes said action to happen to not only be the orginator or author of said action but the finisher of that action as well, because the author will not relent until desired action is completely done.

If water will not boil without fire then the person who sets the fire is responsible for the boiling. So it must also be true with sin. If a person has no freedom to will/choose (even in a limited sense) then by virture of the above view -a person who commits any action (whether sin or not) does so because God has set the influence there to make or force them do what He so desires, whether or sin unto death or anything.

You however are correct in that it is necessary for gasoline to be in my car to run, but it will not run unless the person chooses to start the car.

WHat?
This is where you are missing the entire argument.
The 'influence' is the Holy Spirit not the means or devices He uses such as a Billy Graham crusade. He is both necessary and sufficient to bring about the event the event in question - that being to believe or reject what He has revealed.

No one has ever stated that 'grace' alone is what brings people to salvation.
I agree that grace is necessary but of itself does not do anything. This is why the argument is about the operation of the Holy Spirit, not grace alone.

The above might be true only if one does not have choice, but that has not been proven at this time.

Then I would encourage you to reread what I said because that is not even close.

Again, only if you think the object in question has no choice. This so far is only hypothosized.

No, it is sufficient to bring us 'to' belief but not that we 'will' believe.
Here is your biggest flaw in the entire thread. There are no scriptures you give that quantifiably state your ascertion. Even Paul never uses the term 'sufficient' in the manner you do.

Then you choose to ignore the very basic rules of debate. it isn't about what 'you' think it means but agreeing to a common ground truth that both sides agree with. You are not debating with those 'two' people here so it stands to reason that since others here disagree with your 'proposed' definition that their version of LFW is not consistant with what is commonly understood.
Seriously, there are multiple online resources on the subject who definition are consistant but are in opposition to your own.

You have cleared up what you meant but your definition is still lacking.
If you want to debate someone on something they believe it must be in accordance with their views and beliefs, not yours.

That said, I do not hold LFW but I do understand their conception of it. Just like I do not hold to Calvinism but I do understand their conception of it. Therefore I can debate with either using their views as the basis for discussion.

 

Hello.

This is an argument and one without any substance.

Actaully the burden of proof is on you. You make a claim but give no substance to validate your hypothosis.

Umm.. Yes. In this very post, you give two arguments that start with a flawed premise. One, you give nothing to validate your claim/view. Two, that no scripture speaks to the fact that God allows man choice.

But you aren't listening to any but yourself.

It is but you still contend your defintion is sufficient the debate even though it has already been argued you are incorrect in your understanding of it.

If anyone can show you any verse or verses in which man is asked to choose (whether by God or for God) then that, in and of itself defies your very hypothosis.

No, at least not according to those who hold that position but then again most reformed/calvinist say I do. Funny huh.

I believe that scripture speaks to the fact that God allows man to choose and that this choice is limited to those things which God brings to man.

Most likely because of how it typically ends up;
You don't believe the scripture; heresy; if you would actaully read scripture; etc...

But there are numerous places in scripture from which the argument is derived. I will give two just for discussion:

    
Notice if you will that only after they 'choose' life, THEN they will love the Lord thy God, Obey His voice, cleave/cling to Him, and receive both spiritual life and physical livelyhood. Not before but 'after'.

Then you have Paul making this statement in Hebrews concerning choice:

To sum up, when you hear God speaking to you don't harden your heart (negitive choice) but obey Him (positive choice).

Both illistration are action done by the people and therefore are not passive (being done to them) but active (they are the doers).

If you notice, they are not silent, you just aren't listening.

 

I presented verses where God himself spoke of a man's "own voluntary will". I don't understand how it can get any clearer than that.

Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

What part of "he shall offer it of his own voluntary will" do you not understand?

The word "voluntary" proves beyond a shadow of doubt that a man has the ability to make his own choices. The Calvinists argue that an unsaved man is a slave to his own evil will, but that is not what the scriptures say.

Deut 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

This verse makes no sense unless a man has the ability to turn to God.

Deut 11:16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

This shows man has within his own power to chose for God or against him.

Deut 29:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Again, this shows man is responsible for his own choices.

It's really past absurd to argue with those who do not believe men have their own free will, there are literally hundreds of verses that prove otherwise.

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Ezra 3:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

 

Hi Brian;

It is man's willingness to listen to the gospel. He doesn't ask to hear it because he has no idea what it is until someone tells him. When someone tells him the gospel he can either accept it as truth or rebel against it. Some rebel right away and never listen but a few will passively listen to start with.
Why does a man listen? The answer is interest because no one wants to die. After a man has heard the gospel he either becomes willingly convinced of it or he rejects it. If he becomes convinced he then believes and belief is the answer to how to be saved.
The Jailer who asked Paul how to be saved in Acts listened to paul preaching in the jail and was convinced of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was infact seeking Salvation and willingly so. Didn't he willingly ask Paul how to be saved.
MB

 

Allan please reread my post above but first take off your biased glasses.

Did I say anything about sin? Did I say anything about man choosing to sin? Did I say anything about man being forced to sin?

 

Allan was asked if he was committed to LFW.

He replied :"No, at least according to those who hold that position."

Brian said: "All I have done is asserted that LFW is not a doctrine derived from Scripture, but is read into Scripture."

And that prompted Allan to say:"This is an argument without any substance."

So which is it Allan, do you, or do you not, hold to LFW? You can't have it both ways.

 

Allan has the tendency to read anything he wishes into the comments of others.