Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Wil

[Ryan Dozier]

Here is a great article refuting Libertarian free-will.

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

[Steve Noel]

Hey Ryan,

Quick question for you. Do you believe Adam and Eve had libertarian free will before the fall?

[Steve Noel]

Ryan,

I've only read through the introduction of the article you've listed so far but I wanted to point something out. I think Hendryx is somewhat deceptive in the way he uses quotes from the Walls and Dongell book. Let me give you a little context. In the book Why I Am Not A Calvinist they quote Reformed theologian R.K. McGregor Wright's book No Place for Sovereignty: What's Wrong with Freewill Theism where he writes:

"I will simply repeat Gordan Clark's challenge to Arminians to write out a proof that responsibility is in any way dependent upon, or can be derived from, their concept of free will." (p. 55; quoted on p. 105 in Walls in Dongell)

They discuss their understanding of intuition as being part of the image of God in man and then give this illustration:

"Consider another angle. What if someone challenged us to prove that it would be wrong to torture infants when they cry? It would be difficult to prove this to someone who doubted it. We might argue that it is wrong to punish anyone who is not a moral agent, but then the critic might ask us to prove that an infant couldn't be a moral agent. We might try to argue that an infant couldn't be a moral agent because infants lack both the understanding and freedom necessary to act differently than they do. But then, of course, the critic might challenge us to prove that such freedom is necessary for moral agency and responsibility, which is the very issue we started with. The fact that we can't prove this is not the slightest reason to concede the point. We believe it is as obviously true that responsibility requires libertarian freedom as it is wrong to torture infants when they cry.

So here is a major parting of the ways, and Calvinists no less than Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point." (p. 106)

Here's Hendryx's portrayal:

"Finally, in a very revealing admission, Wall and Dongell end their definition of libertarian freedom by asserting that to prove the validity of libertarian free will “…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.” By their own admission, then they RELY on philosophy, not Scripture as an ultimate basis for their conjecture. Walls and Dongell contest that Calvinists no less must also rely on philosophy to demonstrate the truthfulness of their positions. However, this is a notion which I will decisively refute later in the discussion by showing the Scriptural basis for the position that there is always, of necessity, a reason for the choices we make, especially moral choices (compatiblism)."

Is this really honest? Does he even mention the fact that they were writing in response to the challenge of McGregor and Clark here? Is there any hint at this context? Is there any justification for cutting the quote in half? Is this really a "revealing admission" that "they RELY on philosophy, not Scripture as an ultimate basis for their conjecture"?

This is deceptive and dishonest right from the beginning. This is the kind of stuff that causes so many problems in these discussions. I suggest you listen to Jeff and Chris' last program where they interviewed Roger E. Olson. They talk a little about this kind of foolishness.

[Paul A. Kaiser]

Mr. Noel,

I fail to see where the quote used by Hendryx was taken out of context and I'm not sure what validility does knowing this was a response to Clark's challenge brings to the content of the statement.

The original quote:

"So here is a major parting of the ways, and Calvinists no less than Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point."

Now, clearly the statement does imply that Arminians do rely on philosophy.

It like when a Calvinist states, "both Calvinists and Arminians limit the atonement in one way or another."

By admission we state that we limit the atonement. Now an Arminian may refute the notion that they do but it still stands that the Calvinist had made an admission.

And this brings us to the quote used by Hendryx:

“…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.” By their own admission, then they RELY on philosophy, not Scripture as an ultimate basis for their conjecture.

The quote was cut in half but as we see in conclusion the content of the quote that was left out is clearly addressed, rejected and reserved for further more in depth discussion later on.

Walls and Dongell contest that Calvinists no less must also rely on philosophy to demonstrate the truthfulness of their positions. However, this is a notion which I will decisively refute later in the discussion by showing the Scriptural basis for the position that there is always, of necessity, a reason for the choices we make, especially moral choices (compatiblism)."

So I do not see this being a mishandling of the quote or being dishonest on the part of Hendryx....


Your thoughts?

[Steve Noel]

Paul,

I basically object to that statement that Arminians rely on contested philosophy to prove the validity of libertarian free will. That was my point. The context of the statement used is a challenge to prove responsibility requires libertarian freedom. On this point they claim both sides rely on contested philosophical judgments. I don't think it's accurate to say that they are claiming to rely on contested philosophical judgments and not Scripture as the ultimate basis to prove the validity of free will. I may splitting hairs here, but I think he's taking a specific response to a specific challenge / question and generalizing it to apply to the broader issue. I don't think Walls and Dongell would agree that they rely on philosophy rather than Scripture as the ultimate basis for the validity of their view. Maybe I'm wrong (But at least I got one of you disinterested Calvinist's to bite!)

Steve

[Ryan Dozier]

Sorry Steve, I have been a little busy.

Concerning your posts I will check it out and read your post over again as soon as I have more time. It is quite possible that Hendryx took something out of context, but I have too check it out for myself.

Concerning Dr. Gordon Clark I do not know much except that in His book about politics he criticises those that defend libertarian free-will on the basis of their definition. And some of the problems presented in Hendryx's article. However, I know Vincent Cheung someone who seems to follow Clark would hold to the view that one is accountable to God percisely because they do not have a libertarian free will.

Do you believe Adam and Eve had libertarian free will before the fall?

I may sound Hyper-Calvinistic (which I am not ), but my present conviction is that prefall, man in relationship to God did not have a libertarian free-will. Unless someone can help me better understand this subject.