Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wanted to ask if somebody here knows the most devastating critique of libertarian free will in philosophy yet brought forward?
I have not finished this book yet but what I have read so far is excellent. It is a modern defense of Calvinistic theology, and a Biblical response to free will, including a discussion on Augustines argument. "Chosen in Christ: Revisiting the Contours of Predestination" by Dr Venema.
The Refomed Doctrine of Predestination (Boettner) remains a classic. Still one of my favourite books on this subject.
Not to the best of my knowledge. He primarily focuses on exegesis and theology which I believe is the best foundation for the subject.Does Dr. Venema deal with necessitarianism ala Edwards? I've been looking for a solid modern treatment of the subject
I also review (favorably) Paul Manata’s primer on free will here:
http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2011/07/Paul-manata-free-will-for-reformed.html?m=0
What happened with Paul? Does he post on Triablogue?
Jonathan Edwards "Freedom of The Will".
I clicked on the link but received this message: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist." Somewhere I have Paul's work on free will saved. What happened with Paul? Does he post on Triablogue? Btw, I have your blog linked on the front page of my blog: Presuppositionalism 101 Please pray about the work I am doing on permissions to post Van Til's articles from past issues of the Torch and Trumpet journal, the request will be heard by the board of Reformed Fellowship Inc. on June 12th. I think it could also bring more awareness to their ministry, as each article would include a link to their site. I just want to bring as much of Van Til's writings as possible to the masses, his work more than influenced me, my testimony is like Eric Sigward's, Van Til made me a Calvinist, and quite honestly, God used Dr. Van Til to keep me from falling into agnosticism. This happened to me back in 03' or 04'. Thinking back, it's really quite a story considering where I came from, truly a grace awakening. Praise God for saving me from conditional election, from preconceived autonomy, from myself.
Yeah. I'm he can be improved upon, we have nearly 200 years of theology/philosophy to draw upon. But it's a good place to start.Edwards is a good read on this topic, and should be read by everyone. But it should also be soberly noted that many major, major Reformed theologians have rejected his premise—namely, the so-called distinction between “natural” and “moral” ability. Many—like Bavinck, for example—have not been satisfied with such a distinction within human nature. In fact, Bavinck even said, if I remember correctly, that Edwards unwittingly “aided the cause of the Pelagians” by conceding that man has the “natural” ability to keep God’s law perfectly.
I'm not a big fan of faculty psychology myself.The problem with Edwards is that even if he didn't reject what the earlier Reformers said, he did reject, or at least abandoned, faculty psychology. This makes it really hard to understand what Edwards means when he comes to things like necessity. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't break with the Reformed tradition in substance, but he certainly did with terminology and clarity.
I'm not a big fan of faculty psychology myself.
Can someone give an example of Edwards using necessity in a confusing manner?
Can someone give an example of Edwards using necessity in a confusing manner?
I think it is quite easy to reconcile divine sovereignty with man's freedom. The problem arises when we treat the two concepts univocally, if treated that way than yes the two cannot both true. But analogically they can both be true. I don't know sovereignty exactly means applied to God, how it works.
The book "Beyond The Bounds: Open Theism and The Undermining of Chritianity" edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth is a wonderful book on this subject. It has a great essay by Mark R. Talbot on this very subject. The whole book is great, I recommend Michael Horton's essay as well.
Amen. And we need more gentlemanly behavior out of boys and womanly behavior out of girls. But you raise an interesting point, the women knows what a man will do in such a situation, is that determined in some sense? Who knows, but it happened.Frankly, I think those who get hung up on reconciling the two don’t yet grasp that the two are in no sense contradictory. They don’t even have to appear contradictory. (What would appear contradictory is if God were not sovereign over our choices.)
Even on a creaturely level, mere humans can orchestrate circumstances that can ensure the future choices of men. How much more the case with God? If a women intentionally yet discretely drops her glove in front of a gentleman, he’ll likely choose to pick it up. Does the woman’s action in any way violate the freedom of the gentleman when he chooses to reach for her glove?
The analogy isn’t perfect, obviously. But in essentials it works. Sure, the woman would not know with certainty the gentleman’s choice. She cannot ensure the outcome. Notwithstanding, when her charade succeeds in triggering gentlemanly behavior, we’re seeing causality. We’re also seeing creaturely freedom in the gentleman’s action.
Indeed, God is better at ensuring outcomes than the woman. But just because God ensures creaturely choices without fail, that should not cause us to ponder man’s freedom. Men are free when they can choose as they please. Freedom has nothing to do with the eternal truth of the future outcome. Apples and oranges.