Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism.

[Dave...]

Freedom

Divine sovereignty and human freedom, Compatible or Incompatible?

I believe that they are compatible if freedom is defined accurately (Biblically). And defining freedom is at the core of the debate.

This should get the ball rolling. BTW, I agree with this quote.

"The incompadibilist seeks to find some room for the sovereignty of God within the assumption of libertarian freedom. But incompatibilism fails badly as a way of understanding the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. First, it assumes a libertarian view of freedom. Human beings always possess the power of contrary choice. Second, incompatibilism insists that such a notion of freedom is the necessary condition for moral accountability: I cannot be held responsible if I could not choose to do otherwise. Third, in this view the sovereignty of God is necessarily limited by human freedom. If God has ordained that I perform some act, I could not choose otherwise and thus I am not truly free. While this collection of assumptions constitutes a coherent whole, each is no more than an assumption. And while they are all taken as having self-evident power within Arminian theological circles, we can find no evidence that scripture teaches or assumes any of them.---

---Scripture seems to deny the very sort of independence that the libertarian freedom demands. Human beings are never independent of God. Whereas incompatibilism holds that libertarian freedom--independence from all causes and forces external to the will--is the prerequisite for responsibility, the Bible seams to assume the opposite: responsibility is the necessary condition for freedom. The gift of responsible choice has meaning and significance not because of any connection to libertarian freedom but because it is an essential aspect of our imaging God. Freedom in scripture is not independence from God and His will but dependence upon God and our faithful participation in His Kingdom.

True freedom, freedom in the Biblical sense, is the liberty to obey God without restraint, without sin standing in the way.---

---Scripture teaches that the sinner is a slave to sin. A slave is not free but bound. Any discussion of freedom within a Christian or Biblical context must do justice to this fundamental Biblical principle: sin reigns over the unregenerate heart. The sinner is not free to please or love God. Biblical freedom, the ability to do that which is pleasing to God ( John 8:34-36; cf. Romans 6:15-23; 2 Corinthians 3:17 ), Freedom from sin, is given to us by the redemtive work of Christ.---

---Jesus said: "The good man brings forth good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored in his heart. For out of the outflow of his heart his mouth speaks" ( Luke 6:45; cf. Matthew 7:15-20; Matthew 12:33-35 ). A person chooses and acts according to his character. The will is not independent of the person and nature who chooses. We do what we want to do ( Deuteronomy 30:19; Matthew 17:12 Jas 1:14), even though our characters, which are themselves determined by a myriad of forces external to us and outside of our control, determine what we want to do. Personal character is not nearly as spontaneous as those who see the will as a power of contrary choice like to suggest.--- (Taken from the book "why I am not an arminian")


What say you?

 

[Drew]

I share the incompatibilist's assumption that some degree of what you call "libertarian freedom" is a necessary condition for moral accountability. I suspect that you believe that humans have no "power of contrary choice". Fair enough, but I would say that the only way human beings can conceive of accountability involves the notion that the person could have done otherwise - that they had the power to choose the better path. I am sure you are aware that this idea is powerfully held by virtually of humanity - it underscores our justice system for example.

From a purely intellectual perspective, I am sorely tempted to give up on the notion of free will - seeing it as explanatorialy superfluous. Do you think that there is no such thing as free will?

I cannot reconcile the problem of moral accountability with the absence of free will. In other words, I cannot make sense of the notion of punishing someone for something that they had no control over. If I did not believe in the reality of moral accountability, I would happily reject free will and, for me, the paradox would disappear.

I am going to shamelessly co-opt and possibly modify Novice's idea about this (from the OSAS thread): We have "free will" but it is a very weak form of free will - we are nowhere near as free as we think. God, in his incredible power and wisdom can "work around" our free will choices to still accomplish purposes. So this is how I would reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Technically, this does mean that God is not 100 % sovereign in respect to each and every minute event that takes place in the World.

 

[Dave...]

Hey Drew.

There is no need to give up on free will, as long as we understand it within the boundaries of scripture.

Some things to consider.

God's sovereignty is not affected, no matter how free or how enslaved one might be. So to pit God's sovereignty against mans freedom in reality doesn't solve anything. One does not cancel the other out. Freedom cancels out enslavement, and vise versa. God sovereignty is unaffected through all of this.

Libertarian freedom does not exist, and never has. The reason for this is that even when we experience our greatest freedom, it has never been because we were apart from God, but just the opposite.

1) Adam and Eve....perfect freedom (Before the fall)

2) (After the fall) man is cursed, he is enslaved to sin.

3) In Christ, we are freed from this enslavement. Though we can and will still sin, the degree of our freedom relies on the degree of our obedience in Christ. In other words, sin comes at a price, even though we are not enslaved by it to the degree that we cannot choose faith in Christ.

4) In our heavenly state, in Christ in faith and obedience, we experience the same perfect freedom that Adam and Eve did before the fall.

Jesus, while here walking with us, experienced perfect freedom because He was sinless.

So only two times has man (us) ever experienced perfect freedom, before the fall, and when we are in our heavenly state. Both times this freedom comes from the exact opposite of being apart from God.

Eph. 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Rom. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.


Here are a few examples of compatibilism explained by James White.

Joseph speaking to his brothers who sold him into slavery said;

Gen. 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. (also Gen. 45:4-8)

"One sinful action is in view. Josephs brothers meant it for evil. But in direct parallel, God meant the same action for good. Due to the intention of the hearts of Josephs brothers, the action in the human realm was evil. The very same action as part of God's eternal decree was meant for good, for by it God brought about His purpose and plan. One action, two intentions, compatible in all things. Josephs brothers were accountable for their intentions; God is glorified for His."(White)

Acts 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

"One action , the great sacrifice of the son of God, is in view. Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews were all gathered together against Jesus. Their actions were obviously sinful. Their intentions were evil. Yet, the Word of God is clear: They did what they did because God's hand and purpose predestined it to take place. Were they accountable for their intentions and desires? Of course. But was the certainty of the Cross and the sacrifice ever dependent upon man's will? Never. It happened according to the predestined plan of God and is therefore completely to His honor and glory. One action, part of the divine decree, sinful on the part of the intentions of the men involved, and yet fully in harmony with the holy purpose of God, to His glory and His praise. Man's will, God's sovereign decree, compatible with one another. This is the biblical teaching." (White)

In Christ

Dave

 

[Drew]

Hi Dave:

Thanks for your post. I am not sure if I fully understand it. I still think there are problems. If I may be so presumptuous, it appears to me that you are really playing a little loose with definitions - specifically what sovereignty means and what free will means (even the "non-libertarian" version you are describing). Can you define these terms more precisely and concisely?

To me, it seems rather clear that human free simply cannot be present in a world where God is fully sovereign, at least based on how I understand these terms. The two are indeed mutually exclusive. In the spirit of reciprocity, I will now take a shot at defining my terms.

Human Free Will: To me, this term must mean that each of us as has some degree of "power to make contrary choices", as you say. A human has free will to the extent that s/he has a degee of freedom to choose among alternatives. What does it mean to be free to choose? It means that the person is in no way compelled by any external force or influence to choose one alternative over the other. I have free will to choose to have Captain Crunch tomorrow for breakfast if I really and truly can choose this choice over Cheerios, despite any other consideration. To have free will in respect to some decision is to have the power to "go one way or the other" without external constraint, restriction, or compulsion.

God's Sovereignty: To me, this term captures the fact that God has a certain will in respect to things (He wants things to go one way rather than the other) and that God has full and unlimited power to actualize his will - to "make it so" as it were.

Defined in these ways, I cannot see how free will can exist in presence of full divine sovereignty. The two are mutually exclusive by the very meaning of each of the two concepts. To say that the two are compatible is like saying you can have a round square. I could be wrong, but I think it is only fair that a contrary case not be based on simply pointing out that the Scriptures support both concepts, especially when it is possible to address this issue "analytically" or "logically".

Now I fully admit that perhaps my understanding of these terms is not the same as yours. I am interested in your definitions (or the definitions of others).

I want to repeat that, in my opinion, we cannot argue that two clearly mutually exclusive concepts can co-exist simply because both concepts are supported by the Scriptures. Concepts, which by their very meaning or definition, are mutually exclusive cannot be "forced to co-exist".

 

[Dave...]

I think that you are close Drew. At least you are willing to recognize some things that many people won't

You stated:

We have "free will" but it is a very weak form of free will - we are nowhere near as free as we think. God, in his incredible power and wisdom can "work around" our free will choices to still accomplish purposes. So this is how I would reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Technically, this does mean that God is not 100 % sovereign in respect to each and every minute event that takes place in the World.

This is how I would state it:

We have "free will" but it is a very weak form of free will - we are nowhere near as free as we think. God, in his incredible power and wisdom can allow us to work through His providencial governing of all things and still accomplish His purposes. So this is how I would reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Technically, this allows God to be 100 % sovereign in respect to each and every minute event that takes place in the World.

Bold print mine.

 

[JM]

I share the incompatibilist's assumption that some degree of what you call "libertarian freedom" is a necessary condition for moral accountability.

What about Gen. 50? We find that Joseph was solid into slavery, but God has decreed it to happen and uses the wicked intentions and sinful acts of man to accomplish what he has planned.

What about Acts 2:23? Peter explained the wicked crucifying of Jesus by saying it was predetermined and planned by the foreknowledge of God and yet, God still holds them accountable. Why? Because the intentions of the heart where there in the first place.

peace

j

 

[JM]

Did these folks have a choice? Where's their 'freewill?'

“Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,†Prov. 16:4.

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed,†I Peter 2:8.

“For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,†Jude 4.

“But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,†II Peter 2:12.

“For God did put in their heart to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the word of God should be accomplished,†Rev. 17:17.

We also see “vessels of wrath†which by the Lord were “fitted unto destruction,†were “endured with much long suffering†in order that He might “show His wrath, and make His power knownâ€Â; and with these are contrasted the “vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory†in order “that He might make known the riches of His glory†upon them (Rom. 9:22, 23).

“God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting,†Rom. 1:28; and the wicked, “after his hardness and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,†Rom. 2:5.

“God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie,†II Thess. 2:11.

“Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you,†Acts 13:41.

“For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them,†John 12:39, 40.

“Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the Devil and his angels,†Matt. 25:41

“For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind,†John 9:39.

“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes,†Matt. 11:25.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine,†Matt. 7:6.

The Holy Spirit has been pleased to repeat six times over in the New Testament this passage from Isaiah (Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:27: Rom. 11:9, 10).

“But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let you pass by him; for Jehovah thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into thy hand, as at this day,†Deut. 2:30.

“For it was of Jehovah to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses.†Joshua 11:20.

“For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth,†Rom. 9:17 (see also Ex. 9:16)

Where's the 'son of perdition's' freewill? We can be sure at least one was elected never to come to Christ, the son of perdition in John 17, he was lost for fulfill Scripture.

"... And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? ..."

"Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia" (Acts 16:6)

Where's Paul's freewill? He was converted by being knocked off a horse and told to go! The idea of God's freewill (as listed above in the quotations I used) is clear man is only as free as his nature allows him to be...dead in sin.

 

[Drew]

This is how I would state it:

We have "free will" but it is a very weak form of free will - we are nowhere near as free as we think. God, in his incredible power and wisdom can allow us to work through His providencial governing of all things and still accomplish His purposes. So this is how I would reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Technically, this allows God to be 100 % sovereign in respect to each and every minute event that takes place in the World.

Bold print mine.

Hello Dave:

I still think you're "trying to have your free will cake and eat it too". The very meaning of God providentially governing all things logically excludes the possible exercize of free will, at least the kind of free will that most of us common folk think of.

I am curious - do you agree with me that God's complete sovereignty and man's free are mutually exclusive by the very meaning of these concepts, and yet are willing to live with that logical contradiction given that the Scriptures seem to support both sovereignty and free will?

Or do you believe that I am incorrect to claim that these 2 notions are mutually exclusive in the way that I have argued (i.e. by the very meaning of these 2 concepts)? On a related note, do you think my definitions of free will and sovereignty, as posted in this thread, are not quite right?

 

[Drew]

Hello Jason:

I think that I understand what all the scriptures you have provided are saying. I still see a "mutual exclusivity by definition" problem as regards human free will and God' sovereignty. In my opinion, we have to (or should at least make serious efforts to) show that these 2 concepts can co-exist in a "logical, meaning of the terms" sense. If we cannot do that, I think we may need to admit that the scriptures, while true, cannot possibly mean what they seem to be meaning - that perhaps we are being challenged to re-conceptualize the notions of free will and sovereignty from their "nominal" forms. Another, less desirable option, is to suppose that, scripture notwithstanding, we "gotta pick one or t'other".

 

[Dave...]

Drew wrote:

I am curious - do you agree with me that God's complete sovereignty and man's free are mutually exclusive by the very meaning of these concepts, and yet are willing to live with that logical contradiction given that the Scriptures seem to support both sovereignty and free will?

They are only exclusive by the libertarian definition of freedom. The libertarian freedom does not exist. In fact, it assumes a position that is contrary to scripture. Drew, trusting in the truth of God's Word is essential as a foundation in understanding these things. We should trust in God's word even though we cannot reconsile some of these truths in our minds as long as it is clearly layed out in scripture. These things are spiritually discerned, so we come to ask for answers on God's terms. You'll find that He will give you answers to many of the questions that you have if you do it His way by searching His word, as He wants us to do.

This is a good definition.

"The compatibilist holds that every human and action has a sufficient cause outside of the human will. Freedom in the compatibilist sense is the contention that even if every choice we make and every act we perform is determined by forces outside ourselves, and ultimately by God's ordaining guidance, we are still free, for we still act according to our desires."

 

[Drew]

This is a good definition.

"The compatibilist holds that every human and action has a sufficient cause outside of the human will. Freedom in the compatibilist sense is the contention that even if every choice we make and every act we perform is determined by forces outside ourselves, and ultimately by God's ordaining guidance, we are still free, for we still act according to our desires."

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. The above quote strikes me as being internally inconsistent. If every human action has a sufficient cause outside of human will, then there is no free will - this seems rather obvious to me through application of simple logic. Remember what it means for an external cause to be sufficient in respect to some human decision - it means that nothing from "inside" the person is required in order for the decision to be taken, the action is fully determined by the external agency. And how can free will possibly exist if our decisions are fully determined by external forces?

 

[JM]

Hello Jason:

I think that I understand what all the scriptures you have provided are saying. I still see a "mutual exclusivity by definition" problem as regards human free will and God' sovereignty. In my opinion, we have to (or should at least make serious efforts to) show that these 2 concepts can co-exist in a "logical, meaning of the terms" sense. If we cannot do that, I think we may need to admit that the scriptures, while true, cannot possibly mean what they seem to be meaning - that perhaps we are being challenged to re-conceptualize the notions of free will and sovereignty from their "nominal" forms. Another, less desirable option, is to suppose that, scripture notwithstanding, we "gotta pick one or t'other".

Think about the idea of freewill for a moment....it's a purely liberal idea. Man then becomes the factor and law for everything. Take the Bible, most folks who profess the arminian view of freewill, must consistently believe the Bible 'can' contain error. Man's freewill would never be violated enough to produce an error free Bible. I have much more to say, I'll get back another day.

peace

 

[Dave...]

If every human action has a sufficient cause outside of human will, then there is no free will - this seems rather obvious to me through application of simple logic. Remember what it means for an external cause to be sufficient in respect to some human decision - it means that nothing from "inside" the person is required in order for the decision to be taken, the action is fully determined by the external agency. And how can free will possibly exist if our decisions are fully determined by external forces?

Think of responsible choice when you think of a Biblically accurate freedom this is what the compatibilist believes the Bible teaches. That pretty much sums it up as far as your freedom goes with an unregenerate heart. Free enough to be responsible, not by the arminian standards, but by God's standards.

Drew, since you like to approach this study mainly from an intellectual stand point, I thought that maybe you would like read this (see link) to see the intellectual and Biblical folly from the arminian position that you may not have known about. It's a very good read and right up your alley.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... arian.html

If you like, we can go over each point one by one.

 

[Not_Registered]

I think at times we are confusing if free will and God's sovereignty are co-existent with how they are.

To be honest, I am not familiar with all the terminology, such as incompatibilist, compatibilist, libertarian free will, and so on. I don't want to get bogged down by the terminology, because it seems I agree with various aspects of different beliefs. So, I will refrain from choosing a side. Maybe after seeing what I believe that will help indicate which category best defines my view. But as for right now I don't want to commit to a certain stance.

God's sovereignty is not affected, no matter how free or how enslaved one might be

Agreed. But, the bible never indicates that man's ability to freely choose is ever violated either. God seems to have destined them to be in accordance. This is my view. I do not speculate on the how. But in regards to the if they are co-existent, I answer yes, based on a reading of the bible (which shows them to be in alignment, accordance, agreement, or however you want to state it). Bottom line is the bible never shows either to be violated.

We have "free will" but it is a very weak form of free will - we are nowhere near as free as we think. God, in his incredible power and wisdom can "work around" our free will choices to still accomplish purposes. So this is how I would reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Technically, this does mean that God is not 100 % sovereign in respect to each and every minute event that takes place in the World.

I can agree with this. To say God can "work around" our free will choices is just a manner of saying God has made it so that our free choices are in accordance with His sovereign will (which is what I believe). Your emphasis seems to be on the fact that God is 100% sovereign. This is true, but you have yet to show that we are not 100% free. There is no reason to think the two cannot be in accord. And there is reason to think they can be, because scripture says so.

The very meaning of God providentially governing all things logically excludes the possible exercize of free will, at least the kind of free will that most of us common folk think of.

I can't agree with this. There is absolutely no logical reason that causes those two concepts to be contradictory. The statements God is sovereign and man is free are not contradictory. God is sovereign and God is not sovereign are contradictory. But, there is no logical reason to believe that because man is free God is not sovereign.

They are only exclusive by the libertarian definition of freedom. The libertarian freedom does not exist. In fact, it assumes a position that is contrary to scripture.

If "libertarian freedom" is as it is outlined in the link you provided, then I agree. Not only does it contradict biblical scripture but it's not even coherent.

If you like, we can go over each point one by one.

I know this was directed at Drew, but I would like to go through the article point by point if you would like. I found the article interesting and agreed with a lot (maybe most) it had to say. But, it seemed at times to equivocate on its meaning of being free along with other things. Anyhow, if you will allow, I would like to go through it point by point on the thread.

 

[Dave...]

Not registered. You have quoted Drew a few times and credited me in your post. I'm looking forward to going over the points. Start on monday? Actually, it will need to be Tuesday because of the holiday. I'll be off line Sun, Mon.

Have a good holiday.

Dave

 

[Drew]

The very meaning of God providentially governing all things logically excludes the possible exercize of free will, at least the kind of free will that most of us common folk think of.

I can't agree with this. There is absolutely no logical reason that causes those two concepts to be contradictory. The statements God is sovereign and man is free are not contradictory. God is sovereign and God is not sovereign are contradictory. But, there is no logical reason to believe that because man is free God is not sovereign.

Perhaps I need to be more careful with my words (and, by the way, I believe you have mixed me up with Dave in your quotes). When I say "God providentially governs all things", I mean that God is a fully sufficient determining (causal) agent in respect to any and all events (including human decisions). In other words, no event occurs which is not directly caused by God and God alone. I suspect you will agree that this is not consistent with the exercize of human free will.

This "strong" form of God's sovereignty is indeed inconsistent with human free will - if God determines (as distinguished from foreknows) that I will have Captain Crunch tomorrow, I lose my free will. I understand that God's sovereignty (in this strong sense) is not conceptually contradictory with the notion of man's free will in a "direct" sense. But if God is the causal agent for all my decisions (fully, 100 %, no holds barred sovereign) then I simply cannot be the causal agent for any of my actions.

 

[Not_Registered]

I apologize to Dave and Drew for mixing up their statements. I would hate for someone to misquote me, so I am deeply sorry for doing that and apologize to you both.

Dave, I too looking forward to going through the points of the article you provided. Until then, enjoy the holiday!

Drew, I would agree with you, that "strong" sovereignty (of God), as you defined it, is incompatible with free will.

 

[Dave...]

The Holy Spirit is necessary in salvation, hence the idea of libertarian free will does not exist. Here is a non exhaustive list to get the idea across.

The result of the fall of man into spiritual death.

Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 3:1-7, Romans 5:12, Ephesians 2:1-3, Colossians 2:13, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, ( John 3:5-7 compaire to John 1:12-13 )

Darkened minds and corrupt hearts.

Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:19, Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 4:17-19, Ephesians 5:8, Titus 1:15.

Bondage to sin and Satan

John 8:44, Ephesians 2:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:25-26, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 5:19, John 8:34, Romans 6:20, Titus 3:3.

A universal bondage

2 Chronicles 6:36 (Compaire to 1 Kings 8:46), Job 15:14-16, Psalm 130:3, Psalm 143:2, Proverbs 20:9, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Ecclesiastes 7:29, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:9-12, (James 3:2, James 3:8), (1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10.)

Inability to change

Job 14:4, Jeremiah 13:23, Matthew 7:16-18, Matthew 12:33, John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 11:35-36, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 4:7, 2 Corinthians 3:5.

The Spirit saves

Romans 8:14, 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Peter 1:1-2.

The Spirit reveals the Secrets of God

Matthew 11:25-27, Luke 10:21, (Matthew 13:10-11, Matthew 13:16), Luke 8:10, Matthew 16:15-17, (John 6:37, John 6:44-45), John 6:64-65, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 1:17-18, (John 10:3-6, John 10:16, John 10:26-29).

The Spirit gives faith and repentance

Faith and repentance are divine gifts and are the result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:27, Ephesians 2:8-9, Philippians 1:29, 2 Timothy 2:25-26.

The Spirit effectually calls

In addition to the general outward call, the Holy Spirit extends a special inward call to the elect. The general call can be and often is rejected, the special call always results in the conversion of those of whom it was made.

Romans 1:6-7, Romans 8:30, Romans 9:23-24, 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 1 Corinthians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 1:23-31, Galatians 1:15-16, Ephesians 4:4, 2 Timothy 1:9, Hebrews 9:15, Jude 1, 1 Peter 1:15, 1 Peter 2:9, 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Peter 1:3, Revelation 17:14.

Salvation, Given by a Sovereign God

Isaiah 55:11, John 3:27, John 17:2, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 3:6-7, 1 Corinthians 4:7, Philippians 2:12-13, James 1:18, 1 John 5:20.

Perseverance is from God

Isaiah 43:1-3, Isaiah 54:10, Jeremiah 32:40, Matthew 18:12-14, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 6:35-40, John 6:47, John 10:27-30, (John 17:11-12, John 17:15), Romans 5:8-10, Romans 8:1, Romans 29-30, Romans 8:35-39, 1 Corinthians 1:7-9, 1 Corinthians 10:13, (2 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Corinthians 4:17), (Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:13-14), Ephesians 4:30, Colossians 3:3-4, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 4:18, (Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:15), Hebrews 10:14, Hebrews 12:28, 1 Peter 1:3-5, (1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:25), (1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:11-13, 1 John 5:20), Jude 1, Jude 24-25.

 

[Dave...]

The reason that I made the post with all the scripture was so that we can have no doubt of the Holy Spirits work in our salvation, and can no way reason within scripture that man can choose to be saved apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Which sets up number one in the ...

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... arian.html

11 Problems with Libertarian Free Will

(1) "According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.†There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, Christians all affirm that one must first hear the gospel in order to believe since general revelation is not enough to engender saving faith (Romans 10:13-15). But if it is always within the libertarian ability of the human will to believe, as they claim, then again, what purpose is there for the Holy Spirit while hearing? Doesn’t this reveal that they actually do believe we normally exercise choice according to the corruption of nature? [We must note, as an aside, that the Epistle to the Romans testifies that even those who have not heard the gospel know enough from general revelation to condemn them because “what is known about God is evident within them†and they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness†(Rom 1:18-20).] By all accounts, then, no true Christian believes that a person has libertarian free will to believe the gospel apart to any work of the Holy Spirit.

But, having deduced that libertarian free will must still be true, libertarians believe they resolve this problem by inventing a logical scheme (nowhere found in the gospels) where God grants something to all who hear the gospel called prevenient grace, which temporarily removes the sin nature by allegedly placing sinners in a pre-fall-like state where they have libertarian freedom to either chose or reject Christ, a choice undetermined by any desires or nature. Because the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. To grace we must add choice. While we heartily agree with libertarians in the necessity of preaching for salvation so that the Holy Spirit can germinate the “seed†of the gospel, yet to dogmatize the belief that once having heard that one is forevermore wandering the earth in a semi-regenerate state with a libertarian free will is wild speculation at best. For a biblical example that pronounces the differences among us, consider when Paul was preaching the gospel to Lydia and “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul†(Acts 16:14). A libertarian would argue this passage placed Lydia in a pre-fall-like state where she had libertarian freedom to believe or reject Jesus. But the passage plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond. There is not one instance in Scripture when such language is used (where God acts) when people actually refused (see 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37; 65). Rather, when God calls a person or opens a heart to respond, the matter is always settled biblically. Galatians 1:15 asserts that Paul was set apart and called by grace before birth. Can such a call be thwarted? Jesus call to Paul on the Damascus road was certain, not merely a possibility. When a person hears a preacher call for their repentance they can certainly resist that call. But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) nor does he want to. The biblical evidence for certainty in calling, then, is clearly on the side of the compatibilist in all cases the Bible reveals God’s intent.

If we had libertarian freedom all the time when hearing the gospel then we could theoretically believe the gospel apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. Yet I have not yet found one libertarian willing to admit this, for to do so would fall into the heresy of Pelagianism. In the end, we must note, that Scripture defines freedom, not as libertarians do, but as the freedom from the bondage to sin, since we are slaves of sin until the Son sets us free (John 8; Rom 6). Biblical freedom is the freedom to do what is pleasing to God (John 8:34-36; Rom 6:15-23; 2 Cor 3:17) and this freedom from sin is granted in the redemptive work of Christ. Yet the Scripture nowhere says anything about the freedom to choose contrary or apart from our desires altogether. We either desire Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace giving us a heart of flesh, not a result of nature itself (John 1:13; Rom 9:16). The real difference between the two views, then, is not really the nature of the will for we all can agree that apart from the Holy Spirit, the will acts according to the affections of its fallen nature in a compatibilist sense. The real difference rather is the nature of God’s grace in salvation (what it does for us). This brings us to the next criticism…"

Disagree?

 

[Not_Registered]

The Holy Spirit is necessary in salvation, hence the idea of libertarian free will does not exist.

That depends on your definition of libertarian free will. In the article you provided, it would seem that the definition of free will given there would be rendered inaccurate. But, I don't know if this is a universal definition of libertarian free will. As I read in Norman L. Geisler’s Systematic Theology: Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (pp. 84-5), there are three basic views of free will.

1. Determinism - Choices are caused by another. This can be divided into two sub-categories: hard determinism and soft determinism. Hard determinism says that an individual has no free will at all. Soft determinism says that an individual’s free will is controlled by God's sovereignty. This seems to be the type of free will that you believe humans possess (I may be wrong).[/*:m:8e873]
2. Indeterminism - Choices are uncaused. This seems to be how libertarian free will is defined in the article.[/*:m:8e873]
3. Self-determinism - Choices are caused by self. This is the type of free will with which I agree.[/*:m:8e873]

Now, I say that it depends on how you define libertarian free will because it can be seen defined as self-determinism (as opposed to indeterminism as the article seems to imply). For example, in the book Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, libertarian free will is defined as self-determinism, and not indeterminism. However, libertarian free will is also defined as indeterminism in many places as well; so I think it is better we distinguish what type of free will we are discussing by using the above terms: determinism (hard or soft), indeterminism, and self-determinism.

Actually, in the article, Walls and Dongell seem to equivocate in their definition of libertarian free will (although it might not actually be an equivocation). In defining libertarian free will, they say:

• The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence. . . . the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.

Then they say:

• . . . It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose . . . Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.

In the first quote they imply that our choices are uncaused and even explicitly state that they are "undetermined," which is in line with an indeterministic view. In the second quote, Walls and Dongell speak of choices we make, which could be confused with a self-deterministic stance; however, we should notice that they never say the choices are caused by one's self, but merely that choices exists. So, this might seem as an equivocation (and it did to me at first glance), but it actually isn't. I highlight this to say that I believe it would be accurate to say that Walls and Dongell hold an indeterministic view of free will. In contrast, I hold a self-deterministic view of free will. And, I believe you hold a soft deterministic view, although I may be wrong there. So, I will not say I disagree with libertarian free will, because it can be defined as either indeterminism (as in the article) or self-determinism. I will simply say that I disagree with indeterminism (which is Walls' and Dongell's interpretation of libertarian free will).

Now, the fact that the Holy Spirit is necessary in salvation does eliminate indeterminism (along with the fact that it is unintelligible by itself). But, that doesn't eliminate self-determinism. Self-determinism admits that we make decisions based on our nature. Given that we have a fallen nature, self-determinism holds that we cannot by ourselves come to God. What self-determinism does hold, though, is that we have the capacity to either accept or reject the gospel and that it is not God that causes us to believe. Self-determinists believe that God enables us to believe (through the Holy Spirit), but it is us that ultimately cause or self-determine our belief. This differs from soft determinism, which holds that God causes us to believe through His grace.

I know I did not comment much on the article or your posts Dave, but I have a limited amount of time right now. I mainly wanted to make an initial distinction between our views (of free will) and the one in the article, and put everything into context before we began. Tomorrow I will respond more directly to your comments and the article.