LFW cannot escape the randomness charge

[Simpletruther]

The libertarian free willer is in a bind here.

The typical attempt to escape is to claim something like "but I had reason for choosing Christ, I felt the burden of my sin" (or some such notion). "And since I had a reason, then it can't be random".

The problem is, at that moment you could have instead rejected Christ because "you wanted sin more" or something like that.

So why did one motivation triumph and result in conversion instead of the other motivation resulting in rejection?

If you offer another reason to explain why one motivation triumphed, it starts to look suspiciously like determinism.

If there is no reason, then the result was ultimately random, this particular result happened "just because".

There is no escaping this dilemma.

 

[ReverendRV]

The libertarian free willer is in a bind here.

The typical attempt to escape is to claim something like "but I had reason for choosing Christ, I felt the burden of my sin" (or some such notion). "And since I had a reason it's not random".

The problem is, at that moment you could have instead rejected Christ because "you wanted sin more" or something like that.

So why did one motivation triumph and result in conversion instead of the other motivation resulting in rejection?

If you offer another reason to explain why one motivation triumphed, it starts to look suspiciously like determinism.

If there is no reason, the the result was ultimately random, this particular result happened "just because".

There is no escaping this dilemma.

The Hardening and the Softening of the heart...

They will say that the Bible teaches we can Soften our hearts...

But I think this is your point; it is the individual who made the difference. Like the saying that God voted for you, the devil voted against you; so you cast the deciding Vote...

 

[Dizerner]

The "why" is the will of the agent.

There are some desires we cannot control, but there are some desires we can choose.

If you define random as "unable to be predicted" then it cannot fit the definition of free will, because the agent at some point can predict their choice.

If you define random as "having no prior cause" then it cannot fit the definition of free will, because the will is always the prior cause of the decision.

If you define determinism as "determined by something" then it fits free will, which is why we use the term "divine determinism" and not just "determinism."

So it just doesn't work, sorry.

 

[Kampioen]

The libertarian free willer is in a bind here.

The typical attempt to escape is to claim something like "but I had reason for choosing Christ, I felt the burden of my sin" (or some such notion). "And since I had a reason, then it can't be random".

The problem is, at that moment you could have instead rejected Christ because "you wanted sin more" or something like that.

So why did one motivation triumph and result in conversion instead of the other motivation resulting in rejection?

If you offer another reason to explain why one motivation triumphed, it starts to look suspiciously like determinism.

If there is no reason, then the result was ultimately random, this particular result happened "just because".

There is no escaping this dilemma.

God's choices whether to create the universe or not or how to create are not predetemined nor random, and thus there is a third option ie libertarian. Likewise God created us libertarian.

Otherwise God is either random or has no other choice but to create us with no other choice. Their is no way out.

 

[Simpletruther]

God's choices whether to create the universe or not or how to create are not predetemined nor random, and thus there is a third option ie libertarian. Likewise God created us libertarian.

Otherwise God is either random or has no other choice but to create us with no other choice. Their is no way out.

They are determined by his eternal purpose.

 

[Simpletruther]

The "why" is the will of the agent.

There are some desires we cannot control, but there are some desires we can choose.

If you define random as "unable to be predicted" then it cannot fit the definition of free will, because the agent at some point can predict their choice.

If you define random as "having no prior cause" then it cannot fit the definition of free will, because the will is always the prior cause of the decision.

If you define determinism as "determined by something" then it fits free will, which is why we use the term "divine determinism" and not just "determinism."

So it just doesn't work, sorry.

Your will determines your choice but since nothing determines your will, it necessitates randomness. You can't escape this. You were motivated to choose X choice........just because. It's not that it can't be predicted, it's that their literally is no reason and it could happen either way.

 

[Our Lord's God]

The libertarian free willer is in a bind here.

The typical attempt to escape is to claim something like "but I had reason for choosing Christ, I felt the burden of my sin" (or some such notion). "And since I had a reason, then it can't be random".

The problem is, at that moment you could have instead rejected Christ because "you wanted sin more" or something like that.

So why did one motivation triumph and result in conversion instead of the other motivation resulting in rejection?

Same thing happens everytime you choose to sin rather than not.

Why did you do that? That's the answer to your question.

If you offer another reason to explain why one motivation triumphed, it starts to look suspiciously like determinism.

If there is no reason, then the result was ultimately random, this particular result happened "just because".

There is no escaping this dilemma.

 

[Simpletruther]

Same thing happens everytime you choose to sin rather than not.

Why did you do that? That's the answer to your question.

I agree. Only it's not the same answer you give, and it makes sense.

 

[Dizerner]

Your will determines your choice but since nothing determines your will, it necessitates randomness. You can't escape this. You were motivated to choose X choice........just because. It's not that it can't be predicted, it's that their literally is no reason and it could happen either way.

You're not giving a definition for how you are using randomness.

The will is not defined as "just because," it is defined as "agent causation."

If you want to define the will as "random," then you just changed the word random into the word will. Random is a bad word to use too, because it's actually difficult to define it technically.

No one cannot know what they will choose and just has to wait and find out, like "WOAH, I just chose to scream, woah, I just chose to wave my arms, woah, I just chose to bonk my head." THAT would be a classic understanding of random.

You are in control of what your will chooses and thus know exactly what you will choose, and the values you specifically chose to let be predominant. That is not a classic definition of "random," like a lottery machine.

 

[Kampioen]

They are determined by his eternal purpose.

And He eternally had no other choice but to give us no other choice?

 

[Dizerner]

And He eternally had no other choice but to give us no other choice?

From my experience, some Calvinists think God has free will, some think he himself is determined.

God being able to choose a morally good character is more virtuous then it being somehow forced on him.

 

[CrowCross]

The libertarian free willer is in a bind here.

The typical attempt to escape is to claim something like "but I had reason for choosing Christ, I felt the burden of my sin" (or some such notion). "And since I had a reason, then it can't be random".

The problem is, at that moment you could have instead rejected Christ because "you wanted sin more" or something like that.

So why did one motivation triumph and result in conversion instead of the other motivation resulting in rejection?

If you offer another reason to explain why one motivation triumphed, it starts to look suspiciously like determinism.

If there is no reason, then the result was ultimately random, this particular result happened "just because".

There is no escaping this dilemma.

I call that "happenstance salvation", where as the daily in and outs, ebb and flows of life determine ones salvation. For one reason or another life deals you the cards, "so to speak" that give you the reasoning to choose Jesus or reject Jesus.

Of course the "free-willers" mostly agree that the Lord has to step in and intervene giving you the ability to choose or reject Christ.
That would be like the Lord dressing you in swim trunks, giving you flippers, a mask and snorkel...putting you in a boat in the middle of the water and saying, "it's now up to you to jump in". Your choice. The desire to jump in is solely on you. For some reason if the Lord gives you the desire to jump in and you do then God violated your free-will. If God gave you the desire to jump in and you did then God is accused of making you some sort of "robot".

 

[Dizerner]

God is accused of making you some sort of "robot".

Can you logically explain to me how the elimination of libertarian free will does not make a being's will exactly like a preprogrammed robot?

Because I've never heard anyone explain that yet, just "Trust me, it's not."

 

[christ_undivided]

From my experience, some Calvinists think God has free will, some think he himself is determined.

God being able to choose a morally good character is more virtuous then it being somehow forced on him.

You are correct. We cause many things but it never overcomes God's purpose. We can't fight against God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The libertarian free willer is in a bind here.

There's no "Bind at all". Your're not COMING to Christ, unless you're Drawn (john 6:44), but you're ONLY drawn to the "point of decision" (unless you're a Calvinist paradigmatic, in which case your personal will means nothing).

"Feeling the Burden of SIN", is just a derogatory way, of referring to Holy Spirit CONVICTION OF SIN, and of judgement - i.e being DRAWN by God (probably the Calvinist process that they call "Regeneration") - John 16:7-11

But IN the "Valley of decision", you have two free will choice options. Repent, surrender, and become Born again, OR RUN AWAY!!!! back into death.

The urgency of Holy Spirit Conviction will pass, and your entry into salvation is then no longer possible UNTIL/IF HE convicts again.

SO "Free will" is valid, BUT ONLY when the option to be BORN AGAIN is offered.

 

[CrowCross]

Can you logically explain to me how the elimination of libertarian free will does not make a being's will exactly like a preprogrammed robot?

Because I've never heard anyone explain that yet, just "Trust me, it's not."

Well for starters I don't see it as a preprogrammed robot. Perhaps you can explain why it would be considered as a preprogrammed robot if the Lords gives you the "desire" for Him.

 

[christ_undivided]

Can you logically explain to me how the elimination of libertarian free will does not make a being's will exactly like a preprogrammed robot?

Because I've never heard anyone explain that yet, just "Trust me, it's not."

Can a tiger change his strips? The strips are programmed. Would you deny this?

 

[ReverendRV]

Well for starters I don't see it as a preprogrammed robot. Perhaps you can explain why it would be considered as a preprogrammed robot if the Lords gives you the "desire" for Him.

I say the Bible doesn't know anything about robots, but it does know about the Animal Kingdom. The Wolf will lay with the Lamb, etc. I say we can Conflate the notion of Puppets and Robots with Lions and Vipers; does a change of Nature constitute being pre-progranmed?

No; just changed for the better...

 

[christ_undivided]

Well for starters I don't see it as a preprogrammed robot. Perhaps you can explain why it would be considered as a preprogrammed robot if the Lords gives you the "desire" for Him.

Creation can cause people to desire God. However, the issue is really more complicated than this. The desire for God creates idols. An idol is anything that actually replaces the Only True God.

Man forms "idols".

A person has to answer what makes Jesus Christ different? How does a man embrace Jesus Christ in his desires for a "god".

 

[CrowCross]

There's no "Bind at all". Your're not COMING to Christ, unless you're Drawn (john 6:44), but you're ONLY drawn to the "point of decision" (unless you're a Calvinist paradigmatic, in which case your personal will means nothing).

I call that the "here kitty, kitty" salvation method. That is where you have a tiny morsel of a cat treat in your fingers and are trying to entice the cat to eat it.

Personally I believe the word "drawn" is better translated or has the meaning of "dragged" 1670. helkó...as seen in Acts 16:19. But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.

"Feeling the Burden of SIN", is just a derogatory way, of referring to Holy Spirit CONVICTION OF SIN, and of judgement - i.e being DRAWN by God (probably the Calvinist process that they call "Regeneration") - John 16:7-11

That may be part of the process of regeneration

But IN the "Valley of decision", you have two free will choice options. Repent, surrender, and become Born again, OR RUN AWAY!!!! back into death.

It may feel that way but I believe repenting, surrending and being born again all happen at the same time.

To be honest how ever salvation occurs...free-will choice or God choosing you...doesn't matter as long as a person is saved. How we think it happens doesn't save us.

The urgency of Holy Spirit Conviction will pass, and your entry into salvation is then no longer possible UNTIL/IF HE convicts again.

This would then mean the reason for your choice not to accept has to be removed by God.

SO "Free will" is valid, BUT ONLY when the option to be BORN AGAIN is offered.

I would say as you are being born again...you freely come to Christ.