Dan's Questions for Turretinfan: The Bible Teaches Libertarian Free Will Debate (Part 5 of 12)


Dan:  Thank you turretinfan.  Can you please define choose as it’s used in Deuteronomy 30

TF: The definition for choose as used in this context is to judge as preferable

Dan: OK.  And what do you base that definition on?

TF: He is declaring to them what the consequences of their actions are.

Dan: Let me stop you.  My question is do you have a source?

TF: No, I didn’t prepare a source in advance for this particular question.

Dan: Ok, thank you.  Do you think that given God’s decrees one and only one future is possible?

TF:  Only one future is possible in the sense that no other future can come about.

Dan: You list a bunch of passages about the hardening of hearts.  Did any of those passages say the people being hardened can’t obey?

TF: No.  There are other passages talking about men being unable to obey, but no.

Dan: Do you agree with Edwards notion that motives determine the will?

TF: Yes.  As I remember reading him, yes.  Hopefully your recollection and my recollection align.

Dan: Do you believe that we are able to choose otherwise?

TF: Choose otherwise than we actually choose?

Dan: That’s correct.


TF: In the sense that we have the physical charticteristics and spiritual charticteristics such that if we were inclined otherwise, we could pick otherwise, then yes.  If you mean instead that we can choose what we don’t choose that’s a contradiction in itself.

Dan: The dictum of if you wanted to, you could.  In that sense you can choose otherwise, but not absolutely?

TF: and part of the reason that it is not absolute is the fact that there is a logical necessity placed on that you can only choose one or the other. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more