# Argument against Arminianism (in development?)



## steven-nemes (Mar 2, 2009)

I am basically struggling with the idea of libertarian free will and the notion that God "predestines" some to be saved, meaning, he brings about the universe in which they are saved, based on knowledge of their having freely responded in faith to the gospel call.

If God creates that universe in which person S is saved, then when the state of affairs in which S is presented with the gospel is instantiated, can S do otherwise? If he has libertarian free will, it seems he would have to be able to do so, and then God would have false knowledge, so this cannot be possible. But then if he _does_ believe; is his choice still free? It seems he _necessarily_ acts in the way he does. But isn't that not possible, if he has libertarian free will? What's the difference in saying that God chose to save some and not others prior to the creation of the universe, and some people are saved and others not, necessarily, given the possible universe that has been instantiated?

But even the notion of God creating the universe in which a person will be saved doesn't seem to comport well with libertarian free will. If God "knew" which people would be saved in a specific possible universe, then is it implied that in other universes they would have _not_ chosen to respond to the call of the gospel in faith? Does that mean that there are factors external to themselves (like their mood, their feelings at that time, how their day went) that determine their choice? But then there is no libertarian free will, if those things do determine choices...

But perhaps God doesn't know who will be saved--maybe he is just taking a chance with sending Christ to die. But that doesn't work at all--Christ said himself that he came to die as a ransom for many, implying that he _knew_ that certain people would be saved. But then the problems associated with God's knowing certain people to be saved arise that seem to entail that libertarian free will does not exist.

Can anyone see into the muddy waters of my writing? Is there an argument in the making here?


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Is there an argument in the making here?



This argument has been developed by Jonathan Edwards in Freedom of the Will.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 2, 2009)

Good questions. Profound truths.

God is eternal and has known and purposed in Himself in eternity past who He would save.

Remember that, it was not really his foreknowledge of man's actions (response) but an eternal decree God has made in Himself with perfect agreement in the Godhead- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is in no way conditioned on anything outside Himself, and could not even possibly be (or He would not be God).

The Westminster Confession uses the term "high mystery" to describe the doctrine of predestination. In one way, it can only be known by an infinite, omniscent, omnipotent, omnipresent God. We cannot, as limited beings, even contain what God is. This should make us humble (and incredibly grateful for what this wonderful God has done for us, though we cannot fully comprehend the beauty of it- far less deserve it).


----------



## Berit (Mar 2, 2009)

Hi Steven,

I would say I see a possible argument that Paul Helm has developed, I'm not sure if Edwards overlap since I have never read Edwards. If you are interested in it Helm developed it most extensively in his book _The Providence of God (Contours of Christian Theology)_. Also Helm interacts with 'middle knowledge'.


----------



## reformed trucker (Mar 2, 2009)

Libertarian free will? Whazzzat? 

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html

620pixeltable

Triablogue


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 2, 2009)

I would like to point out that libertarian free will does not teach that if the circumstances were different or if the universe had been different, then people could choose otherwise. Libertarian free will teaches that given the same circumstances, same past events, same universe, and so on people could choose otherwise. If God created a possible universe that a person would come to Christ, then according to libertarian free will, that person could have chosen otherwise in that same possible universe. 

An argument that I have heard against libertarian free will goes like this:
Suppose that on a particular date and time person X commits murder. Suppose that history were rolled back to the particular date and time. Suppose that everything is exactly the same as before- same circumstances, person X had the same desires and so on. According to libertarian free will, the reason that person X had for committing murder would be the same reason he has for not committing murder.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 2, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Remember that, it was not really his foreknowledge of man's actions (response) but an eternal decree God has made in Himself with perfect agreement in the Godhead- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
> 
> It is in no way conditioned on anything outside Himself, and could not even possibly be (or He would not be God).



I know; I am assuming that the Arminian account of predestination (at least that which I have confronted in my discussions) for the sake of (hopefully) deducing absurd conclusions or impossibilities. 



cih1355 said:


> I would like to point out that libertarian free will does not teach that if the circumstances were different or if the universe had been different, then people could choose otherwise. Libertarian free will teaches that given the same circumstances, same past events, same universe, and so on people could choose otherwise. If God created a possible universe that a person would come to Christ, then according to libertarian free will, that person could have chosen otherwise in that same possible universe.



I know; that is what I am trying argue against. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.



> An argument that I have heard against libertarian free will goes like this:
> Suppose that on a particular date and time person X commits murder. Suppose that history were rolled back to the particular date and time. Suppose that everything is exactly the same as before- same circumstances, person X had the same desires and so on. According to libertarian free will, the reason that person X had for committing murder would be the same reason he has for not committing murder.



Wouldn't the libertarian free will espouser simply say he had no reason for murdering and not murdering? That to say he did have a reason to is beg the question (assume his choices are products of certain circumstances or stimuli, etc.)?



I will try and get a hold of the Edwards book, and possibly the other! Thanks...


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 2, 2009)

> *steven-nemes *
> 
> But even the notion of God creating the universe in which a person will be saved doesn't seem to comport well with libertarian free will. If God "knew" which people would be saved in a specific possible universe, then is it implied that in other universes they would have not chosen to respond to the call of the gospel in faith? Does that mean that there are factors external to themselves (like their mood, their feelings at that time, how their day went) that determine their choice? But then there is no libertarian free will, if those things do determine choices...



Remember, human beings "freely" do things consistent with their constitutent nature. That nature limits ability. Only God can do the miracle of first changing their nature...

A cat is "free" to play the piano but cannot because that is not in a cat's nature. It would take a miracle to change that, and a cat can't do that for itself.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 2, 2009)

> > An argument that I have heard against libertarian free will goes like this:
> > Suppose that on a particular date and time person X commits murder. Suppose that history were rolled back to the particular date and time. Suppose that everything is exactly the same as before- same circumstances, person X had the same desires and so on. According to libertarian free will, the reason that person X had for committing murder would be the same reason he has for not committing murder.
> 
> 
> ...



He could have chosen to murder without any reason. However, if he did have a reason to commit murder, then he could have chosen either to murder or not to murder.


----------



## Theognome (Mar 2, 2009)

*The myths and truths of free will*



steven-nemes said:


> I am basically struggling with the idea of libertarian free will and the notion that God "predestines" some to be saved, meaning, he brings about the universe in which they are saved, based on knowledge of their having freely responded in faith to the gospel call.
> 
> If God creates that universe in which person S is saved, then when the state of affairs in which S is presented with the gospel is instantiated, can S do otherwise? If he has libertarian free will, it seems he would have to be able to do so, and then God would have false knowledge, so this cannot be possible. But then if he _does_ believe; is his choice still free? It seems he _necessarily_ acts in the way he does. But isn't that not possible, if he has libertarian free will? What's the difference in saying that God chose to save some and not others prior to the creation of the universe, and some people are saved and others not, necessarily, given the possible universe that has been instantiated?
> 
> ...



I got into this argument online years ago with a 'Free Will' fellow. Below is my response, which was well received. 


We have all heard the term ‘free will’ many times throughout our Christian lives. Even non-Christians appeal to it. But what is it? When we hear the term, what does it imply? How is it defined in the scripture? The bible does speak about free will, and goes into great lengths to define it. First, let’s look into how we see this term used in contemporary Christendom and pagandom. 

1. “You choose what you believe, I’ll choose what I believe.”

This interpretation of free will suggests that all religions are the same. Man is free to choose to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or whatever. No single religion is more correct than another, being religious is simply a matter of taste. Someone who is a devout Roman Catholic is no different than a devout Calvinist or a devout Shintoist, since they are that way by mere choice. This version of free will denies absolute truth, since something ‘true for you’ may not be ‘true for me’. This viewpoint, though sometimes seen in Christian circles, is most often encountered among pagans. 

2. I’m a Christian of my own free will.”

This view of free will differs little from the above description. The primary idea is that the person who is Christian chose to believe in Christ of his or her own volition. Proponents of this version of free will typically appeal to God’s love, for a loving God would not want anyone to be unsaved. Others also demonstrate scriptures that speak specifically about the will of man, and how men make choices by their will. It becomes difficult, however, to separate these two definitions because the root of them is the same: Man chooses his religion.

So, am I trying to say that man does not have free will? No, I’m not. We’ve looked at some of the things that it is not, so now let’s look at what it is.


The Nature of Man

God created Adam, the first man, with a free will. He was made innocent, and without knowledge of sin. However, man chose to disobey God. Adam and Eve were told that, if they ate of the fruit, they would be like God. Wow! Wouldn’t that be awesome! So they ate… and became like God, but not in the way that they expected. Instead of receiving godlike power, they realized their ungodliness; their sin, and were ashamed. No longer could man walk with God. So God cast them from the Garden, so that they would not eat from the tree of life and live forever. “But that was Adam’s sin, not mine!” True, but that is not what happened here. When Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God (Gen. 2:17, 3:6) it changed their nature. If my father lost his leg in an accident before I was conceived, I would not be born one-legged. But, if my parents were Asian, I wouldn’t be born black. The heart or nature of man that was innocent was corrupted by sin, and therefore that nature passed on to all men. (Psalm 51:5, Gen. 5:3, Romans 5:12-19, 1Cor. 15:21-22, 49) Because of our sin nature, and our resultant banishment from Eden and the tree of life, we are born spiritually dead. (Romans 6:23, Eph. 2:1-3, Rom. 5:12) Due to this spiritual condition that we are born into, man is sinful by his nature, and left to his own devices, rebels against God. (Rom. 3:10-12, 7:18, 8:7, Mat. 15:19, Eph. 2:2-3, Col. 1:21)

The Will- a slave to the heart

We make choices every day. How? What drives our choices? When we choose to do or not to do something, we follow our strongest desire. Our heart determines that desire. What we do is a picture of who we are. When we decide on a school, a car, to take a dare rather than not, to play ball, or whatever, we obey our hearts. We obey our nature. Test yourself in this, and you will find, without fail, that you will choose to do what you desire most, even if it’s something that you don’t want to do. For example, let’s say that I want to be a Marine. However, I don’t want to go through boot camp. So, I join, and go through boot camp. I didn’t want to go, but my desire to be a Marine was greater. So our will is free to make choices, and those choices will be determined by our nature, even if those choices make no sense whatsoever. I have a friend who has a dog, and this dog likes to chase cars. His dog got run over, and hurt pretty bad. You’d think that his dog would have learned not to chase cars. But, as soon as the dog was recovered, back he was chasing cars. It’s in his nature. And so, man is a sinner. It’s in his nature. We make choices with our will, but our hearts are sinful. We can only choose sin. (Mat. 12:33-37, Romans 7:18-23, 6:20-22, 8:7-8, 1Cor. 2:14)

God’s Sovereign Choice

The only way that a man can seek God is if God changes his nature. Why? Because man’s nature is to rebel against God. A man cannot use his will to change his nature, because his nature drives his will. Old Testament or New we find references to God’s elect, chosen, or sovereign choice. When we look at these scriptures with the understanding of our sin nature, it makes sense. This is why the scripture talks about grace. God must do the work in our hearts, because we can’t do it ourselves. After all, all we can do is to follow our hearts. When the Lord changes our nature, He frees us from the bondage of our sinful heart, and by His grace allows us to seek Him and His goodness. (Romans 6:6-7, 17-19, 22, John 8:34-36, Phil. 2:13) Therefore, someone who says, “I chose to be a Christian” can only do so if the Lord changed their nature first, thus putting the work on the Lord and not the man. Of course, there are those persons who claim to be Christians but aren’t. How is that possible? Simple. Someone whose nature is still in sin can claim to be Christian, but they won’t be doing it out of truth. Confession is only half of the picture. To be a Christian, one must also believe in Christ, which no one can do unless God enables the heart. Of course, no man knows truly the heart of another, and so we are called to witness, and spread the gospel. (Mat. 28:18-20)

Theognome


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 2, 2009)

Steven, I have heard it put this way. If a particular action can be traced back to desires, circumstances, etc., then it is not, according to the libertarian definition, free. On the other hand, if it is not traceable back to any causes, it was arbitrary - completely random. A random decision is not "free" by any sensible definition of the word. So, either way, libertarian free will cannot exist. 

Or you could say that libertarian free will errs by having an effect caused by itself. Person A made choice B because .... he chose to. The only "self-caused" effect, if we can even use a term like that, is God.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Mar 2, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > *steven-nemes *
> >
> >
> > Remember, human beings \"freely\" do things consistent with their constitutent nature. That nature limits ability. Only God can do the miracle of first changing their nature...
> ...


----------



## Theognome (Mar 2, 2009)

That cat writes more thematically than Stravinski.

Theognome


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 3, 2009)

lol, the cat's music is kinda bleak and modern.... like something they'd play during a black-and-white indie film at a small inner-city film festival...


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 3, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> lol, the cat's music is kinda bleak and modern.... like something they'd play during a black-and-white indie film at a small inner-city film festival...



Plus, the cat is encouraged and assisted by a superior piano player-

sounds like Arminianism, "only needs help" to me


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 3, 2009)

Another resource that addresses what you're looking for is Luther's Bondage of the Will. Basically, the will is subservient to the nature of the person, not independent of it. And so, it never sits in a state of limbo, or in a state of indifference to where it can go left or go right. It will go in the direction that the nature of the person is bent towards going. It's true that those options are technically open to it, and so we are accountable to make the proper choice. But, the will is constrained and limited by the nature of the person that it belongs to and serves as a slave. And so, we the person are justly condemned for our wrong choices b/c our natures are corrupt, and therefore our will will do nothing other than follow the bent of our nature in precise accord. The book is worth every penny. A link to an online version is below as well.

Amazon.com: Bondage of the Will, The: Martin Luther: Books

The Bondage of the Will - Google Book Search


----------



## A.J. (Mar 4, 2009)

Luther's book is available in pdf file here: http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/luther_bondagewill.pdf


----------

