Re: A Compatibilistic Understanding of Free Will
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:13 pm
You're right, Si-- I am misunderstanding your view so my comments don't apply. That's obviously my fault, not yours.
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
No worries. I might not have been completely clear either.TK wrote:You're right, Si-- I am misunderstanding your view so my comments don't apply. That's obviously my fault, not yours.
Certainly the back-n-forth here has to do with disagreement about the definition of compatibilism. Most of us seem to think you are not using the term correctly. You seem to think we are not using the term correctly.Si wrote: Matt,
I think the push back to my position is against a misconception of compatibilism in general.
Is RC Sproul a mainstream Calvinist?I know of no mainstream Calvinist who thinks God determines every single human thought or action. That would be hard determinism.
I cannot tell if you are mentioning this description of compatibilism approvingly or not. Do you believe that "Man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills"? If so, that would suggest to me that you do not believe in libertarian freedom, but in compatabilistic freedom (which, to my mind, isn't actually freedom at all).I have typically heard compatibilism described as man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills. Man is free to act according to his nature, but only God can change his nature, and from that belief proceeds the Calvinist's views on election and grace. There is an important distinction between creaturely will, and God's will.
Consistent Calvinism is very coherent, no doubt! It is attempts to make Calvinism stomach-able that become incoherent. You have stated that you are not a Calvinist. It is unclear, however, if you believe in libertarian freedom. It is also unclear in what sense you believe in determinism (what exactly does your soft-determinism entail?). Many would consider it highly questionable that something like 'soft-determism' is coherent as a concept to begin with.Concerning my comments earlier on how I think Calvinists unfairly characterize Arminians and Open Theists as being man-centered and so forth; The other side of the coin is that I think Calvinists are unfairly characterized as being incoherent. Maybe they don't have the best arguments, but their theology is quite well thought out and coherent. The body of Christ is never going to be reconciled if we don't even take the time to learn each other's viewpoints honestly.
I appreciate the discussion. If you came to discuss compatibilism... it seems like you are getting the discussion you asked for. We are seeking to help you clarify your definitions of the important terms involved (compatibilism, determinism, free will).I came into this thread to discuss some thoughts I had on compatibilism and paradox, and I have received counter arguments against hard determinism and Calvinism (which I do not hold), and seemingly no acknowledgement that mystery or paradox has ever played a role in faith or theology, when it demonstrably has. Maybe because up here in Wisconsin there are so many Catholics and Lutherans, for whom mystery and paradox plays a big role in their faith.
I believe that divine determinism is fundamentally incompatable with libertarian free will. Divine determinists agree with this and, thus, deny libertarian free will.Si wrote:Matt,
I will go into more detail on your questions later, I don't have much time right now, but it would help if I understood better where you were coming from first. Do you believe that comptatibilism is fundamentally self-contradictory, and that one must either believe in hard determinism or libertarian free will, and there is no middle ground?
You say compatibilist free will is not free will at all, but doesn't accepting it's definition, that man can still make free choices according to his nature, mean that you can't apply the definition of determinism to it that you have? Compatibilists don't believe God determines every detail.