1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A Biblical and Logical Defense for Libertarian Free Will

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Jan 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 7
  1. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,436
    Likes Received:
    1,574
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What do you mean by" given the ability by God to make first cause choices..."
     
    #21 Earth Wind and Fire, Jan 29, 2011
  2. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    That God would by HIS OWN WILL and HIS OWN PURPOSE, choose to create beings who, like Him, know the difference between good and evil and can make decisions for themselves.

    A first cause choice is a choice that is the first in a line of causes. In other words, there is nothing outside of the choosing agent which causes the choice.

    Examples of each for consideration:

    1. When a lion chooses a steak over a salad that choice was determined by his desire or his inborn nature. We call that an instinctive choice. That would be a choice ultimately caused by the creator of that animal who instilled that instinct. (Some determinists limit man's choices to this, but I do not)

    2. When Jeffrey Dahmer chose to molest, torture and kill a child. Was this thought or temptation first originated in the heart of God, or in Dahmer? If in God then you have issues of God being the originator of sin. If in Dahmer, you must ask, "What CAUSED him to think that thought the first first time? If you believe he has the ability of "first cause choices" then you can just reply by stating that Dahmer originated that thought and no one else outside Dahmer caused that. The culpability is totally on Dahmer. However, if you attempt to say that God has somehow decreed, determined or caused whatsoever that comes to pass you once again put the origination of this heinous thought back onto God, which is not acceptable biblically.

    Make sense?
     
    #22 Skandelon, Jan 29, 2011
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Libertarian free-will doesn't deny causation? The definition in the first post says
    (emphasis mine)

    Doesn't that definition deny causation?

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #23 canadyjd, Jan 29, 2011
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, it limits the cause to the agent. The choice is caused by the chooser. That is why it says, "it is within his power." So we are not arguing for uncaused choices, but instead self-determined choices...choices not determined by someone outside the agent (i.e. God).
     
    #24 Skandelon, Jan 29, 2011
  5. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The idea that mankind can be "like God" in making decision concerning good and evil is the 2nd lie of Satan (the first was "you won't die"), and resulted in the fall, therefore, every decision concerning "good and evil" is impacted by the fall of man.
    Then the first cause in every choice of man is the choice of disobedience toward God, which led the fall, and taints every choice.
    The sin nature of the choosing agent, resting on the foundation of thousands of years of rebellion toward God, influences the choices made.
    Animals are not moral agents.
    This is a false choice, imho. Dahmer's background influenced his decisions. If you follow the series of events backward from Dahmer to the origional source of sinful acts, you eventually reach the fall of Adam and Eve.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #25 canadyjd, Jan 29, 2011
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by presuming true the position which is up for debate, which is that God didn't choose to give men this ability. It is only the 2nd lie of Satan if you accept your premise.

    So people born today are more "totally depraved" than those born in Adam's day? Please explain.


    No one said they were, but Calvinists seem to reduce us to the level of animals by suggesting our choices are free if they are made according to the nature God determined that we have beforehand. What distinction is there in an instinctive choice of an animal and the moral choice of a man in a system like that?

    Calvinists typically believe and teach that God as "decreed whatsoever comes to pass" (Westminister's Confession) Now, are thoughts and temptations included in "whatsoever comes to pass?" If the first thought in Dahmer's mind to commit these heinous sin was first decreed/determined/originated by God, then I think you have an issue with divine culpability.
     
    #26 Skandelon, Jan 29, 2011
  7. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't believe you understand the definition that you gave.
    The definition indicates that at the time of the choice, the chooser is free from any influence whatsoever in making the choice. Thus, "no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws" have any influence.

    So, the person's lifetime of experiences..., the people around him/her..., the success or failure of other choices they have made in the past..., and so on, have no influence whatsoever on the choice they make.

    Unless you believe "no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws" means something other than.... no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #27 canadyjd, Jan 29, 2011
  8. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is the 2nd lie of Satan if you believe scripture and are able to count to two. The first lie was "you won't die" and the 2nd lie was "you will be like God, knowing good and evil".
    I didn't say that. You were speaking of an unbroken chain of causes which leads to a particular sin. I believe that origin is found in the fall of Adam and Eve. They brought sin into the world and sin spread to all mankind. There is a "cause and effect" between the first sin and all that follow.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #28 canadyjd, Jan 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2011
  9. Cypress

    Cypress New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same problem as the coin toss analogy. The definition did not state that there are no influences.....only that the antecedent conditions or laws don't determine the choice. . I am not speaking for all others I am sure, but to me proponents of LFW cannot deny influences and don't need to.
     
    #29 Cypress, Jan 29, 2011
  10. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are making a distinction when there is no difference. If an antecedent condition and/or causal laws influence a choice then they are determining the choice.

    It is a contradiction to accept "influences" but deny "determines".

    Suppose I fly a kite. It would make no sense to say the speed of the wind (or lack thereof) influences how high my kite will fly, but that the speed of the wind (or lack thereof) doesn't determine how high my kite will fly. "Influences" and "determines" is the same thing.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #30 canadyjd, Jan 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2011
  11. Cypress

    Cypress New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. I don't have to let the wind determine how high my kite flies....let out more line and kite will lower. Anyway, deciding something is quite a different process. You are conflating influence to force and that does not work with the mind. If you hold this to be true, then no one is responsible for any decisions they make....they are always forced by influences. There is a very real distinction.
     
    #31 Cypress, Jan 29, 2011
  12. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The amount of line you have is an antecedent condition. Btw, if there is no wind at all (antecedent condition), then your kite will still fly as high as you want it to? Really?
    If something "influences", then it has effected the outcome. If something (antecedent condition) influences the choice a person makes, then it has effected the outcome... it has effected the choice.
    People are always responsible for the decisions they make. That doesn't change the fact that there are influences on those decisions.
    No, there is not. It is nonsensical and contrary to logic to believe something can "influence" a person, but that "influence" in no way determines or effects the outcome.

    If it did not determine or effect the outcome, then it had no influence. That is exactly what the first definition states. It denies that antecedent conditions and/or causal laws "determine" (influence) the choices a person makes.

    That is why libertarian free-will makes no sense, imho. It denies the obvious as a foundational principle.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #32 canadyjd, Jan 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2011
  13. Cypress

    Cypress New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have said alot without understanding the definition he gave. I deny that influence determines choice. Influence affects outcome but does not determine it in matters outside of physics. Your responses influence me but don't cause or force me to reply to you. I am free to do so or not. Could I have done otherwise? If you answer no, then I am merely a product of my environment and therefore not in control of my actions in any meaningful way....a mere animal. Now I am choosing to go to worship!:thumbsup:
     
    #33 Cypress, Jan 30, 2011
  14. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK. We'll disagree. I hope your worship this morning was productive and fruitful.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #34 canadyjd, Jan 30, 2011
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    After reading through the rest of this thread I'm certain you don't understand the definition I gave, or the basic understanding of the position of those who hold to LFW.

    As Cypress has explained you have failed to understand the clear and widely held distinction between an influence and a determination. If they are the same thing then you need to tell Websters and every other dictionary scholar to correct their books.

    This definition doesn't rule out the possibility of influential factors upon the agent, it only rules out the possibility of determinative factors, laws or conditions that would prevent the agent from doing something other than what he/she ends up doing.
     
    #35 Skandelon, Jan 30, 2011
  16. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I stand corrected. Those who hold to LFW believe influences have no determinative effect on decisions made.

    Perhaps you can explain to me how something (sin for instance) can influence a person, but that influence does not affect the decisions made?

    Just describe for me the what influence sin does have, and then how that influence doesn't affect decisions.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #36 canadyjd, Jan 30, 2011
  17. Cypress

    Cypress New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was joyful, thanks brother! Hope yours was as well.:love2:
     
    #37 Cypress, Jan 30, 2011
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    They do affect decisions, they just don't determine them. The determiner (agent) determines their own decision. A actor determines the act. A chooser determines his choice. A decider determines his decision.

    So, you walk into your closet and you have two shirts to choose from. One is red and the other is blue. You like the way the red one looks on you better, but the blue one is warmer and is better suited for the weather. Thus the weather is an influence and your the appeal for the red shirt is an influence, but there is NOTHING outside of yourself causing you to have to pick one over the other.

    Let's suppose you pick the blue one. Now, was there anything or anyone hindering you from picking the red one? Could you have willingly picked the red one? If your answer is "yes" then you have affirmed LFW. If your answer is "no" then you must explain why? What caused/determined you to pick the blue one in such a way that you couldn't have willingly chosen the red one?
     
    #38 Skandelon, Jan 30, 2011
  19. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Explain the effect that sin has on the decider, and how that doesn't determine the decision?

    Let's use this example. The sin nature influences a person's decision to sin...let's say the sin nature affects a person's decision to covet his neighbor's house.

    What exactly does the sin nature influence if it doesn't influence the decision made? How do you measure the influence that sin has on a person if the sin nature doesn't affect the decisions that are made?

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #39 canadyjd, Jan 31, 2011
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Canadyjd,

    Please allow me to refer to back to the original post of this thread and you will see a logical proof using this type of example. If you are tempted to sin in such a way that you could not resist how does that not violate what Paul clearly taught in 1 Cor 10:13?
     
    #40 Skandelon, Feb 1, 2011
Page 2 of 7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...