The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Will and Boasting

Theology Philosophical
#141

Auggy: Heres where I’m totally missint it:
a) The decision to reject God is a libertarian free choice.
b) Libertarian free choice can only be made when one realizes his value is no greater than any other person.

Tom: On (b), no, a libertarian choice doesn’t require that one realize he’s no greater than any other person. A libertarian choice doesn’t even require theism. There are libertarian atheists.

Do you mean the free choice to embrace the gospel? If so, then yeah, I think there’s something wrong with a repentance and acceptance of the gospel that’s predicated upon the belief that one is a better person than other people, especially that one is better on account of one’s repentance! Jesus told the story of the Pharisee and sinner. The pharisee boasted that he wasn’t as bad as “that sinner over there” while the sinner beat his chest and wouldn’t even lift his gaze toward heaven. The sinner went home justified. The Pharisee went to hell.

Can people who struggle with pride get saved? I suppose so. I hope so. God takes us as we are and starts working on us. BUT…I’m talking about seeing the ACT OF REPENTANCE as grounds for prideful boasting. I don’t think that saves anyone.

God, I’m here today to repent
I’m sure you’re glad that I sent
You my acceptance of your gospel
Toward which I was not freely hostile;
You’re blessed to have me on your team,
Of the whole crop I am the cream!
That I am now on your own side
Makes ME better, gives ME pride!

Come on guys.

Tom

#142

I wonder Tom whether you haven’t detected this attitude because you are interacting with these people in a like group (i.e. you are all Christians). I must say I have come across it fairly frequently when conversing with Christians of the Arminian persuasion and they are evangelising me.

#143

Thanks Jeff. I appreciate your personal history.

But just to clarify, we’re not talking about proud Christians or Arminians per se who might be proud that they’re now believers are another person isn’t, or that they no longer commit certain sins which other sinners commit, or that they are doing more for the world than unbelievers, or a hundred other reasons Christians might think they’re superior to (of more value than) unbelievers. We’re talking about a very specific claim, and that is the claim that my having chosen libertarianly (or freely)–JUST that single point in itself–reveals that I am superior to or of greater value than others who have the same freedom (and who could choose as I did) but don’t exercise it. You really run into a lot of Christians who go around making THIS claim?

Tom

#144

Hi Tom,

Wow, it does seem our differences on the philosophical logic that influences Christians arise from quite different perceptions of actual experience. I too have spent a lifetime in ministry among Arminians, and DO see pride as a common predicament. Of course they’d never put it that it rests alone on their choice of the Gospel. But I see a deep tendency to despise those who choose another path. E.g. they’ll say, “The language and concerns of the wretched people I work with are pathetic compared to the way that I have chosen. I have NOTHING in common with those non-Christians that I dislike so much!” So, yes, the focus of their sense of superiority includes what they do and think. But my impression is that this is consistent with, and begins on the foundation of the assumption that my pivotal initial choice (“repentance”) to embrace the Gospel and its’ philosophy is morally superior to others, and “I” am the one who accounts for that superior move. So I’m mystified, but very glad that such dynamics do NOT occur as a challenge in your circle.

#145

Someone should do a documentary on this! Amazing.

I’m glad you and I are perfectly humble though! :wink: Well, and Auggy too. OK. But nobody else, 'cause we don’t want more than THREE!

Tom

#146

The real puzzle is why Calvinists tend to be proud–even though they’ve won the lottery through no merit of their own… :wink:

Bob describes what I observe from both groups: an attitude of despising unbelievers. So maybe it’s not free will at all but something else.

This discussion has been very interesting to follow. I find myself in agreement with Tom, though I’ve generally classed myself as a determinist. Gotta go now, it’s a busy evening, will try to come back to this tonight.

Sonia

#147

Sonia, does seeing the puzzle as why Calvinists can be proud, affirm that it seems MORE illogical for Calvinists than for Arminians? I agree with Tom that Calvinists do that, perhaps because of what Talbott calls the ego-centered nature of the existence in which we begin. My only contention is that Arminians who indulge pride have a more coherent rationale, which I am not sure should be uncontested.

#148

Sonia,
That’s been TGB’s stance since the beginning. But, perhaps due to my low conprehension skills, I fail to see why a Calvinist (who boasts) has to be due to Determinism. Indeed there are many factors which can cause boasting. And simply because LFW and DET systems may have their fair share of arrogant people, it does not follow that either one of them is due to the system itself.

BUT! It seems logical to me that at the RAW core system LFW entails that a person deserves credit for generating a godly faith which God himself cannot generate. For if God generated the faith which causes us to call ont he name of the Lord then that’s determinism (at least of a soft kind).

There are several hinges which impact the destiny of someone. In LFW even if 999 of them are God’s responsibility, 1 is mans but in Determinism 1000 are God’s.

So I’m trying to follow TGB in his explanation why Free Will and boasting is illoical.

I’m re-reading the whole thread too TGB so don’t give up.

Aug

#149

Thanks Auggy! I’m not giving up. I’m still here! I’ve just run out of ammo. I don’t have any more angles from which to try to approach this issue.

Auggy: That’s been TGB’s stance since the beginning. But, perhaps due to my low comprehension skills, I fail to see why a Calvinist (who boasts) has to be due to Determinism.

Tom: Right, and I’m suggesting that nobody “has” to boast “given” determinism’s or indeterminism’s understanding of choice IF all the truths that qualify our wills and choices are kept in mind and appreciated. Bob has reminded us that even boastful CEOs will stand up and qualify their success by recognizing others who have contributed, but they’ll still go on to boast about “their part.” I can see some comparisons, sure, but what I’ve been saying is that the qualifications that a theist ought to make about their making right choices places God in relationship to believers in a way the workers in a company cannot stand in relationship to their CEOs. The grace and presence of God constitute our very existence as well as any possibility we enjoy of moving in God’s direction and God sustains our capacities and powers in their exercise. There’s a depth of intimacy and a connection between what we’re able to become and our becoming it (on one hand) and God and his grace (on the other) that sets THIS relationship apart from any other.

Auggy: Indeed there are many factors which can cause boasting. And [1] simply because LFW and DET systems may have their fair share of arrogant people, it does not follow that either one of them is due to the system itself.

Tom: Exactly my view and the point I’ve been making.

Auggy: BUT! [2] It seems logical to me that at the RAW core system LFW entails that a person deserves credit for generating a godly faith which God himself cannot generate.

Tom: Your last two claims seem contradictory to me (I inserted the [1] and [2] above in your comments to point them out:

(1) Simply because LFW and DET systems have arrogant people, it doesn’t follow that either one of them is due to the system itself.

(2) It follows that in the LFW system believers have legit grounds for boasting about their faith.

If (1) is true, then isn’t our debate over? If an Arminian can consistently with his belief system conclude that he does NOT have any grounds for boasting, then we’re done, because you’ve been arguing that an Arminian who is not boasting has to be inconsistent with his belief system to avoid boasting. You think Arminians who don’t believe they have grounds to boast about their faith only do so by denying the truth about their freedom (i.e., being inconsistent with their belief system. If we were straight-up consistent with our system, your argument has been, we’d have to agree that we have reason to boast. But your (1) clearly means that one may not boast and be consistent with his belief in LFW. That’s been my position all along.

Let’s PARTY! :stuck_out_tongue:

Tom

#150

TGB,
I think you misunderstand my first point. It’s not that it CANNOT follow (which seems to be a premise your endorsing) but that there are many factors to which a determinist might otherwise be arrogant. So when you say - Determinism does not allow for arrogance and Determinists are often arrogant proves LFW has no inherent defect – I’m saying (and I think Bob is saying too) that does not logically compute.

  1. There may be other reasons why a Calvinist is arrogant apart of the issue of choice.
    This means LFW is not off the hook. It does nothing to prove that LFW is not prone to boasting.
  2. There may be other reasons why an Arminian is arrogant apart of the issue of choice.
    This means LFW is not off the hook. It does nothing to prove that LFW is not prone to boasting.

So when we exclude ALL other possibilities to boasting, I find that LFW is vulnerable where DET is not.

It appears to me that your position is changing: You said one may not boast and be consistent with his belief in unconditional love. – that I agree with. However you’re presenting a premise that requires that if there is boasting it always has to do with the issue of choice.

Here’s how I see your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  1. Determinists boast
  2. Libertarians boast
    Conclusion: boasting is non-related to choice or lack of choice.

It’s as if you think the only reason a person boasts is due to choice. But again, in their raw form, LFW demands that a person gets credit (leaving them a temptation to boast in their choice) where Determinism the person has no choice (leaving out the very temptation that LFW inherits)

Now, take down the streamers and balloons, put your gloves back on, and get back in the ring! The party hasn’t started to the fat lady sing!

#151

Hi Tom,

I think see the distinction you are drawing and probably you are right - although being smug because one has ‘chosen’ to be a Christian and making out one is superior because of that choice aren’t all that far apart in my book :wink:

#152

Auggy,

It seems I’m not such a good communicator. I’ll try to clarify. My point in making the comparison to proud determinists was not to “get LFW off the hook” but to—given your logic—hang BOTH Arminians and Calvinist on the hook. If proponents of LFW can misconstrue their choosing freely as a rationale for boasting, so can determinists misconstrue their election as a rationale for boasting. You (rightly) rule this move out of bounds by means of qualifying the nature of election in the case of determinism. What I’m arguing is that pride can be similarly ruled out of bounds by means of qualifying the nature of freedom in the case of indeterminism. I’ve accepted that my comments aren’t gaining any ground with you and Bob, but I’m not buying your reasons for why we are logically bound to grant that LFW provides a rationale for boasting (whether or not some Arminians manage to escape this logic and remain humble).

So for the record, I don’t think the presence of some proud determinists necessarily means LFW doesn’t logically entail grounds for boasting.

Auggy: It appears to me that your position is changing: You said one may not boast and be consistent with his belief in unconditional love. – that I agree with. However you’re presenting a premise that requires that if there is boasting it always has to do with the issue of choice.

Tom: Not sure I see that. I don’t think boasting always has to do with the issue of choice.

Auggy: Here’s how I see your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  1. Determinists boast
  2. Libertarians boast
    Conclusion: boasting is non-related to choice or lack of choice.

Tom: I’m sorry I’ve come across as saying that. It’s not my argument. I’m rather saying something like:

-Determinists understand election in terms that preclude boasting.
-LFW can and should be understood in terms that preclude boasting.
-The terms that qualify LFW so as to preclude boasting are not incidental matters, they define the possibility, nature, and context in which LFW is exercised.

Auggy: It’s as if you think the only reason a person boasts is due to choice.

Tom: I don’t think that. I’m just staying on topic, because you and Bob are making “choice” the issue. That’s the point of the thread, right? You opened by arguing that libertarian choice provides grounds for boasting.

Auggy: But again, in their raw form, LFW demands that a person gets credit (leaving them a temptation to boast in their choice) where determinism the person has no choice (leaving out the very temptation that LFW inherits).

Tom: I’ve been essentially arguing all along that this “raw form” (of anything) is bad business/theology. At its very best it is only a place to “start” understanding a thing. At its worst it is (as it seems to be for you and Bob and other determinists) a place to “stop” and “make conclusions” about the truth of the form in question. If Calvinists have managed to so define election as to embed the qualifications necessary for precluding boasting into the “raw form” of the choice to accept the gospel, I’m happy for them. That just mean Calvinists have other things about which they boast. If Arminians have an understanding of freedom which when understood in its stripped down and raw form suggests that we have reason to boast, then that’s just our struggle. So Arminians and Calvinists each have to avoid their own unique potholes.

What my point has been is that evaluating systems in terms of their “raw components” this way is not good stewardship. If there are truths about us which preclude boasting for libertarians but which truths are not themselves part of the general understanding of LFW’s “raw form,” why would you insist that libertarianism be evaluated irrespective of these truths? I honestly don’t get that. You want to hold LFW up, cut it lose from all other truth in the universe, and ask it to stand up under the scrutiny of questions that have LFW’s falsification designed into them. Why should I concede conclusions based on the performance of a “raw form,” especially when life and faith are dynamic and symbiotic?

Tom

#153

TGB,
I’ve been re-reading the posts because I get really confused with your position. I don’t think it’s you as a communicator, nor me with a low comprehension - I think it’s just a difficult topic so it’s difficult for both parties to get their ideas across.

I think we’re talking on different wave lengths. When I state that Determinism has no inherent weakness, I’m referring to a particular weakness of one person being better than the other. Know re-reading I think your answer is that it depends on the form of determinism- that is if a Christians determinism view is based on conditional election then Determinism encourages boasting. So as you’ve been clarifying (If I’m understanding you) external qualities form whether either determinism or LFW include boasting as a vulnerability.

But here we’re not talking about a form of Calvinism which is based on conditional election nor are we talking about Universalism which embraces unconditional love. We’re talking about God’s salvation and how a man who saves himself will not boast. Leading me to the charge against Libertarians - namely that it endorses - God’s helps those who help themselves; or more sharply put - God saves those who save themselves. Where unconditional election embraces that God does the saving from top to bottom (monergism).

Now you stated earlier that if Determinism can be accompanied with unconditional election and thus save determinism from having an inherent defect then you can do the same with LFW - Here (possibly) might lie the million dollar question.

Will you demonstrate from a Christian perspective how you can accompany LFW and keep out an inherent defect - mind you, if you rely on unconditional love - that does not qualify. That would only be nuetralizing the defect (if one exists). But when I say inherent I mean, the nature of unconditonal election (determinism) leaves no room for choice (which is why it qualifies as determinism) vs the nature of every man for himself [because God’s not going to do it](free will) demands one person choosing rightly on his own merit where others choose wrongly on their own merit.

Perhaps my negative view of the nature of LFW is a presupposition that needs to be dealt with. At this point I can only see that a man who creates faith where God did not act - that is God did not create the faith in him - only leaves a man to take credit for this faith. In the same manner, a man who generates a good work (for his faith- belief) could take credit for his salvation. It’s hard for me to see LFW in the same manner you do so perhaps this is all good discussion for the foundation - what is LFW?

So lest start a new thread on that topic and perhaps re-visit this one later.

#154

Auggy: We’re talking about God’s salvation and how a man who saves himself will not boast.

Tom: Really? We’re debating whether or not a person who saves himself will boast or not? Um, that’s not a debate I’d be interested in having since I don’t agree that LFW means people “save themselves.”

Auggy: Will you demonstrate from a Christian perspective how you can accompany LFW and keep out an inherent defect - mind you, if you rely on unconditional love - that does not qualify.

Tom: I can’t do it, so you win the debate! :sunglasses: Without appealing to the unconditional love of God I’m unable even to be a theist (to say nothing of defending doctrine). Without the unconditional love of God I don’t know how to make sense of a single Christian doctrine. Seriously. I mean, deterministic theism is not even a theistic option for me. It’s the unconditional love of God or atheism. I can more easily believe God doesn’t exist than I can believe he exists but does not love us unconditionally. How do I explicate ANY doctrine and defend it’s true function in our lives without appealing to divine love? I can’t do it.

Tom

#155

LOL! yahoooooo I win! Ok, trust me when I say, I’m thinking outloud. My words are only thoughts and not accusations. I started the other thread to try to walk your path to get a better grasp because - (I think it’s obvious) I’m confused by your ideas. So I want to start at sqr 1 and try to work our way there.

Also let me say this. I’ve quite a laugh on this thread. I should have pulled out one of those humdingers like:

Are you a LFW believer or a Christian?

LOL!!!

#156

Tom,

Perhaps we need to also discuss Romans 9 where Paul states
“It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

As I understand libertarians, God’s mercy depends on human desire. How would you explain LFW in light of romans 9

#157

Tommy, (sorry I meant Tom)
Before we go into Romans 9. I need to kick the whole thread around abit. Do you mind me continuing on this thread?

#158

I’m Tommy to my family! Ha.

I think this whole conversation has been very loving and kind, no accusations or anger or heat. It’s been great!

I’ll be back!

Tom

#159

Tom,

Allow me to refocus my thoughts (as I see clearly they’re messy and bless your heart for hanging in there with me) to get a better grasp of where our differences lie.

after having re-read the thread, allow me to question (even if I’m asking a 2nd time) in order to possibly come around to your understanding.

As I understand you:

Now I objected to this using the metaphor of Virus/Anti-Virus. And I don’t seem to think you’ve resolved this for me (not that you’ve failed to do so, but that I don’t understand your reasoning).

I hear you in the above statement to say that.
Calvinism - due to unconditional election [which is what makes it a determinist system] leaves no room to boast.
however due to a Calvinist’s defect of mind, they infact find reason to boast in their being elected.

First off, I think Bob Wilson is pointing that this is true in any case no matter what the belief system is. But a Calvinist’s view has to be DEFECTIVE in order to boast in their unconditional election.

So my question is.

It seems to me that an Arminian’s view DOES NOT have to be defective in order to find that their choice [the very difference between the righteouss and the unrighteouss] is superior to those who reject God. Therefore do you believe that a Calvinist view can boast in unconditional election without being defective of it’s own doctrine (or disbelieve it’s own doctrine)?

Aug

#160

Let’s drop the comparisons to determinism if that helps. I think that’s complicating things.

Tom: You mean an Arminian’s view of what constitutes a libertarian choice in its “raw form” doesn’t have to be defective in order for it to provide a rationale for boasting. But like I said, you want to define LFW’s “raw form” by identifying its necessary features in isolation from other truths that WOULD otherwise preclude boasting.

But here’s the thing for me. I’m categorically denying the legitimacy of your ‘raw forms’ (the way you’re using them). We cannot “define” a thing until we’ve defined its relations, and that means that until you’ve talked about how a thing relates to God you haven’t said all that goes into defining that thing. It may have to be said very carefully, but it’s got to be said: God is part of the definition of all created entities. No account or definition of a created entity can be given that does not mention its relations vis-a-vis God. Thus:

[size=150]Our ‘raw form’ just IS our relations—
We are nothing apart from our relations—
We ARE our relations.[/size]

How we relate to God (as ground and sustainer of the capacities that define our natures) IS our ‘raw form’, if you will. So for me, yes, I’ve definitionally ruled out boasting. Bob thought this was—what—arbitrary? Can’t remember. But for me it’s fundamental. I can’t but evaluate a theory of choice based on everything else that’s true about the chooser—and that means positing the love and grace of God as ground and sustainer of choosers and their choice. True, boasters manage to acknowledge the contributions of others in their lives and go on to boast and “their” part (Bob’s point), but our relation to God (of dependence upon the all-present sustaining grace of God) is far more than a mere contribution that can be set aside when one turns to consider one’s “own” part. In my view, wherever we turn, however deep or raw we boil LFW down, we stand face to face with God pursuing us, extending the invitation to come, sustaining and empowering our capacities, etc. You can’t get so raw in your definition of a human being that you hold in your hand JUST the chooser in her freedom, NOTHING BUT the stark reality of free choice and THERE have grounds for boasting. Everywhere, at every level, boasting is precluded.

Tom