Does 1 Kings 22:20-22 Teach Determinism?

Does free will require supernatural power? | Reviewing The Free Will Sho...

Flowers Determinism, and Open Theism

We Need a Debate Between Dr Ken Wilson and Dr James White

In the past several weeks I have been watching an online back-and-forth between James White and Leighton flowers over Calvinism. Nothing new. The current debate centers on where John Calvin and Martin Luther got their ideas during the Protestant Reformation. Leighton Flowers and many folks who reject the ideas of Calvinism try to argue that the idea that salvation is outside of people's free-will choice was introduced to Christianity by Augustine and no early Christian church fathers believed in the total ability of man or God's meticulous control of reality, decreeing all that happens,  before Augustine taught it. They even take it far enough to that Augustine was influenced by Gnosticism.

Of course James White disagrees and has been interacting with an interview of Ken Wilson by Leighton Flowers on his podcast and a book Ken Wilson has written on how he believes that Augustine was influenced by 4th century Gnosticism. James White is spending several hours on this because he is also explaining what Gnosticism was and reading quotes from the Church Fathers.

I think both sides are talking past each other and not really interacting. Both White and Wilson have said that they want to debate each other. I sure hope this will happen. I think they need to agree on definitions including on what James White and Ken Wilson believe about what Calvinism and what Provisionism are and what they believe before they really get down to the fundamental questions that their disagreement raises: "Was Augustine the first to introduce the ideas, regarding Human free-will, that gave rise to Calvinism?"

Here are two videos that really sum up Ken Wilson's arguments.

James White has not finished his arguments but he has presented evidence that some Church Fathers did affirm God's sovereign control over everything. Here is an example from White's webcast.

I don't think James White has answered Wilson's thesis yet, but I do appreciate White going through all this history and thought I have not been exposed. I sure hope he will answer the video where Flowers and Wilson speak to White's critiques directly.

Here are some questions that I want answered in the debate between White and Wilson:
What is "predestination"?
What is "free libertarian will? Is it autonomous?
Was the a single early Christian author agree with libertarian free-will?
Is there anything "good" in me or you apart from God?"
How do we know what "good" is?
Does God control human will?
Has God ever controlled human will or just responded to it?
Is there a difference between the New Testament and the Church Fathers use terms like "Boulimai" and "Thelo"?

Free Will, Determinism, and Apologetics (LIVE with Tim Stratton, 8:00pm ...

Atheist Scientist tries to challenge Ravi Zacharias, INSTANTLY REGRETS IT!

Ravi Zacharias shuts down an Atheist scientist by bypassing his question regarding Human Free Will and God's Sovereignty and attacked the real problems with his worldview. He pointed out that the Bible has not been disproved by science and further arguing that determinism is just as much a controversy in science as it is in Christianity.  Dr Zacharias does not agree that our world is deterministic and I have a more compatibilistic view of Free Will. It seems to me that we do make decisions and do what we want but God does break in and changes things in our wills directly or indirectly if he wants to accomplish what he wants to do.

FacePalm of the Day #33 - Debunking Christianity: Jonathan Pearce's New Book on Free Will

John Loftus plugged Jonathan Pearce's new book called Free Will?: An investigation into whether we have free will, or whether I was always going to write this book. A facepalm is inevitable when atheists attempt to discuss such things. They have no point of reference. They deny that God intervenes in people's lives and history period because they deny the reality of his existence. They can't know that. As a Christian, even if one is to deny God's work in history and creation, the fact that God intervened and continues to do so in my life in a way recognizable to me is irrefutable. One might argue that they haven't seen evidence that God intervenes - making one an agnostic. Loftus was christian enough to pass on an excerpt from what Pearce sent him and I quoted from it to show what I am referring to.

I have to confess, it seems like an awful lot of interventional effort was expended by God in the direction of the Israelites, and their seemingly petty (on the scale of the history of the world) politics. The rest of the world seemed to exist perfectly well, developing their own moral and legal systems, co-operative farming techniques, civilisations and cultures, without the necessity for God to intervene. And they did this more freely, by definition of the fact that there was no influence from external agencies, from God / Jesus / the Holy Spirit.

It's a bold statement to say that God did not intervene in any of the rest of the world outside of Israel during antiquity. How would you know that? God plainly says He is in control of everything - not just with what concerns Israel. A simple example: God claims that Cyrus is his agent centuries  before Cyrus is even born.

I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.” - Isaiah 45:13

Cyrus was the emperor of the Persian Empire who ended the 70 year exile of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple in 586 BC. Isaiah was written in the 8th Century BC.

Another Example:

⁵ “Look at the nations and watch—
   and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
   that you would not believe,
   even if you were told.
⁶ I am raising up the Babylonians,^[a]
   that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
   to seize dwellings not their own.
⁷ They are a feared and dreaded people;
   they are a law to themselves
   and promote their own honor.
⁸ Their horses are swifter than leopards,
   fiercer than wolves at dusk.
Their cavalry gallops headlong;
   their horsemen come from afar.
They fly like an eagle swooping to devour;
 ⁹ they all come intent on violence.
Their hordes^[b] advance like a desert wind
   and gather prisoners like sand.
¹⁰ They mock kings
   and scoff at rulers.
They laugh at all fortified cities;
   by building earthen ramps they capture them.
¹¹ Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—
   guilty people, whose own strength is their god.”

Habakkuk 1:5-11

And here is one of my favorite:

 ²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
 ²⁹ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. ³⁰ In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹ For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”- Acts 17: 24-31

And another one  love:

 ³⁴ At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.
   His dominion is an eternal dominion;
   his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
³⁵ All the peoples of the earth
   are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
   with the powers of heaven
   and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
   or say to him: “What have you done?”
 ³⁶ At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. ³⁷ Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble. - Daniel 4:34-37

Yeah, I know what the objection is:  "You can't prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible". I'm not. I'm demonstrating that the Bible does not make the claim Pearce is making. The other thing that truly require a facepalm is one of the comments!

God giving humans free will then disavowing responsibility is like one of us giving a child dynamite to play with, waiting for him to blow himself up, then saying, "It isn't my fault! I didn't light the match!"

As coherent as I'm sure it is, it won't convince any fundies. The Arminians (if there are any left) will refuse to accept it, while the Calvinists (which is most of them) will just assume that physiology is one of the methods God uses to program us either to accept or reject him. - Cypher.

Why? If most Christians on the planet are Catholic (as so many atheists love to point out) then there is no way that most Christians are Calvinists. Most Protestants are not even Calvinists!!!! I'd like to know who this guy talks to.  exreformed suggested that Pearce get in contact and debate Matt Slick and James White. That I would like to see!!! Pearce being in the UK is not a problem!!!  Anyone can use Skype (for free) to call Dr. White's web cast Tuesdays and Thursdays 10 am and 3 pm PST respectively!!! I know he'd be more than happy to dialogue on this subject! Matt Slick also.  I'll be looking forward to that!

Debunking Christianity: Jonathan Pearce's New Book on Free Will

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Free Will

Brian Auten has posted a great definition for "Free Will".

Free Will: The ability of an agent to make genuine choices that stem from the self. Libertarians argue that free will includes the power to determine the will itself, so that a person with free will can will more than one thing. Compatibilists typically view free will as the power to act in accordance with one's own will rather than being constrained by some external cause, allowing that the will itself may ultimately be causally determined by something beyond the self. Hard determinists deny the existence of free will altogether. Most Christian theologians agree that humans possess free will in some sense but disagree about what kind of freedom is necessary. The possession of free will does not entail an ability not to sin, since human freedom is shaped and limited by human character. Thus a human person may be free to choose among possibilities in some situations but still be unable to avoid all sin

I'm not sure how Libertarian Free Will applies if it does not entail the ability not to sin. I agree it doesn't and I do not deny that humans possess personal will but I wouldn't call it Free Will as Brian defines it here. I think the definition covers what people mean when they use the term "Free Will", but I don't think we have it because without Christ we do not have the ability not to sin. Notice that I am not saying that people can't choose to do good things. I'm saying that without Christ we lack the ability to never sin in word or deed. Life become choosing which sins we indulge in and which ones we avoid with no hope of ever pleasing God. If we truly had Libertarian free will, we should be able to decide to not sin and Jesus' sacrifice would not have been needed to save His people.


Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Free Will

Brennon's Thoughts: The Theological Fatalist's Modal Fallacy

My brother-in-Christ, Brennon, has posted another fascinating article on his blog about determinism and human free will.  While I don't agree with Brennon on this point I appreciate his honesty and the loving demeanor he has always shown me when he has spoken to me about it. I understand this post to be saying that Calvinism has a problem because the just because God foreknows something then it does not necessarily follow that the thing must happen. There are two quotes from the post the I think bear further discussion.

If it is necessary that God knows a specific event will happen, then God is as fatalistically determined as everyone else. It certainly seems like God's knowledge of future events isn't necessary, because it is possible that God could have chosen not to create the universe, meaning there would be no future events.

I think what is missing is why God knows a future event is going to happen. The argument seems to miss the instances that God decrees  an event. When God does so, then the event must happen or God is not sovereign over everything. Without that how can God issue prophecies and they come true? I'm not saying that I think God decrees everything that happens but there are some things that must happen in order for God to get the results God desires. For example, did God foreknow or did God decree that Israel would be enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. God made this prophecy to Abraham before Isaac was even born. Was this something that could have been avoided? I'd say no. This was something God decreed not just foreknew.

So, in the case of free human actions, we have the ability to act in such a way that determines what God knows in the past. Take the example William Lane Craig likes to use. Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny Him. The moment before Peter denied Jesus, he had the ability to act in such a way that if he did, Jesus would not have prophesied as He did. Peter didn't have the ability to contradict Jesus' prophesy, because Jesus is infallible. However, Peter did have the ability to make it so Jesus would not have prophesied that Peter would deny Him.

Don't get me wrong I like and respect William Lane Craig but this example doesn't seem to work for me. The argument is basically, Jesus would not have had to make the prophecy if Peter had exercised his free will not to deny Christ. What?!!! How??? I just don't understand that. Peter made a free will choice but at the time that Jesus made that prophecy that he would rather die than deny Jesus. That was Peter's decision. When crunch time came and Peter folded (just as we do whenever we compromise with our sinful natures) that was also Peter's decision. The thing is when I look at that scripture it wasn't just prophesied that  Peter would cave but that he would also repent and be better. Look at Luke 22:31-34

³¹"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. ³²But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
 ³³But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."
 ³⁴Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

Jesus told Peter that he was going to be tested and that he was going to fail that test but he would be restored. We also see that the events were purposely against Peter's will but not God's.  This was something that God was going to use to build Peter up for the role he would carry after Jesus' Resurrection.

I think the unasked question in the post that is being posed is did God decree our salvation or did God just foreknow know it? I think the answer is given in Acts 13:48

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Brennon's Thoughts: The Theological Fatalist's Modal Fallacy

Brennon's Thoughts: Argument for Freedom

My brother-in-Christ, Brennon has posted a good  post an attempt to argue for freedom. I'd like to respond with a few questions and comments. My response is in bold.

1) We are only morally responsible for our actions if we have freedom in the libertarian sense.





How do we know that this is true?

2) God says we are morally responsible for what we do.


Agreed


3) God is inerrant and infallible.

Agreed
________________________________________
4) ∴ we have freedom in the libertarian sense.
Hold it a second.

I rely on Peter Van Inwagen's consequence argument to show that premise 1 is correct. It states:

If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us.¹

I think premises 2 and 3 are uncontroversial for Christian theists. Therefore, the conclusion follows deductively.


1 Peter van Inwagen, An Essay on Free Will, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 56.

I agree with Brennon that premises 2 and 3 is indeed true! However I have a problem with premise 1. If I understand correctly "libertarian free will" is the ability to choose to do something or otherwise. The issue is that no way can I make make sense of it because the Bible says that we are slaves to sin and unable to free ourselves. 

¹⁸Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. ¹⁹For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 ²⁰The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 5:18-21

and

 ¹⁴We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. ¹⁵I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ¹⁶And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. ¹⁷As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. ¹⁸I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. ¹⁹For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
 ²¹So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. ²²For in my inner being I delight in God's law; ²³but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. ²⁴What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? ²⁵Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
      So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. - Romans 7:14-25

The Bible says in multiple passages that we are stuck in our sins until Jesus frees us. Therefore I can't say that I have the freedom to do what I want in all situations. Therefore there can't be libertarian free will because we can't choose to live a life completely free from sin. We can only work towards it and only if the Holy Spirit empowers us.


Brennon's Thoughts: Argument for Freedom

Brennon's Thoughts: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions vis a vis God and the Human Will

Brennon recently posted a great post about "Necessary and Sufficient". I am putting my comments in bold. Brennon's words are not bolded. In discussing these matters with Brennon I am crystallizing my understanding. Let's see if we can force it further.

One particularly notorious determinist and I are discussing our different views on God's relation to the events in creation. He thinks that God has made any and every even that happens necessary by divine decree. I hold to libertarianism and think that God created free creatures whose actions are causally distinct from God in some circumstances.

I agree that our actions are causally distinct from God. I don't understand where does the Bible say we are free creatures while we are are dead in sin - slaves to sin. We are not free. If we were free the we could say that we  can choose never to sin.

I claim his view seems to implicate God in all sin. He asserts that I don't escape this problem because since I believe that God foreknows all things, He foreknew that the only way sin would happen would be to create free creatures, and that implicates God in their sin. As I argued in my response to James Swan (found here) this is not the case. It is logically inappropriate to transfer the responsibility for the sins of independent creatures to God simply because He foreknows them.

It's not just not that God foreknows  everything that can and does happen. God does not stop certain acts. If he can stop an action but doesn't, then how is it inappropriate to ascribe some responsibility to God. We also know that God takes credit for some of the bad things that befall people for judgment. 

 ⁵ I am the LORD, and there is no other;
       apart from me there is no God.
       I will strengthen you,
       though you have not acknowledged me,
 ⁶ so that from the rising of the sun
       to the place of its setting
       men may know there is none besides me.
       I am the LORD, and there is no other.
 ⁷ I form the light and create darkness,
       I bring prosperity and create disaster;
       I, the LORD, do all these things. -Isaiah 45:5-7

 And  God takes no responsibility for other events. 

  ³⁰ " 'The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the LORD. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. ³¹ They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. ³² So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. - Jeremiah 7:30-32

Therefore I don't think we can make a hard fast rule about what God is responsible for and what God isn't responsible for. 

Consider this example that I used in response to this: If no one invented the airplane, then 9/11 wouldn't have occurred. Hence: 9/11 causally depends on the invention of the airplane. Therefore Wilbur and Orville Wright caused 9/11.

The problem with this example is the Wilbur and Orville had no way to stop 9/11 and God could have.  therefore how could  God not be responsible?  God had a purpose.  We don't know what all of that purpose is and therefore we can't blame him or charge Him with error because we don't know all God had in mind. We need to trust God..

Or consider this example: The inventor of the automobile probably foresaw the potential tragedies that could come about from smashing a couple tons of steel into someone, but he obviously thought that the greater good that would come from having such a convenient form of transportation was worth it. He likewise can't be blamed for the negative future consequences that occurred because of the automobile's invention, even though he knew they most likely would occur.

Again the inventor of the automobile could not stop any of those consequences because he has no control over what people do with his invention. However God can and sometimes does intervene. God is under no obligation to intervene when and how we think he should. God is good and everything He does is good because all things work together for the good of God's people. (Romans 8:28-29). 


I think a better example is Iron Man (although fictional). Tony Stark invents amazing and powerful weapons and takes it upon himself to make sure his creation are stopped from being misused to hurt other people.  I think that is what God does. When there is suffering and pain, God allows it, although he has the power to stop it,  to bring about purposes  out of the council of his own will.

⁷In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ⁸that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. ⁹And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
 ¹¹In him we were also chosen having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹²in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:7-12

This is where recognizing the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions come in. The creation of free creatures is only a necessary condition for evil. Those free creatures did not have to sin, but in order for them to sin they would have to be free. On the determinist end, however, God's decrees become the sufficient condition for sin. All that is needed for necessitated creatures to sin is the simple decree made by the determiner. The determiner is therefore the responsible party, since they are the one who has made all these events necessary, even sin.

Again, where in the Bible does it say that we are free? It says we are only free in Christ (Romans 5;6;7;8). Adam did not have to sin. But that is not true for us. Added to the fact that we have scripture pointing out that sins and events are necessary in order for God's will to be fulfilled.

²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' - Acts 17: 26-28

This does not mean that  we don't do things against God's will, only that God's will ultimately be the reality that we experience because all things will conform to his will. I would say that make everything that God has determined necessary and sufficient.

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.- 2 Corinthians 2:9

Brennon's Thoughts: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions vis a vis God and the Human Will