Comments on Between Two Worlds: Is Praying for Others Compatible with Libertarian ...

This point may not take into account every liberta...

2007-09-01T12:27:00.000-05:00

This point may not take into account every libertarian view, but it is quite common to find people who think Calvinism is downright evil but who pray for God's salvation as if God can move to save people in a compatibilist way. I know lots of people who are Calvinists in practice but theoretically libertarian. They insist that no one can be saved without a work of God and that prayer can effect someone's salvation but then they don't accept the consequence of such a view that libertarianism is false. So this is not a straw man. A large contingent of evangelicalism holds exactly the combination of views that Feinberg is targeting. I've known lots of them.

I think the practical view is more important than the theoretical one, so I usually let it stand, since it's the right view. If they held to Calvinism but the wrong practical outworking, I would indeed confront it. If they denied the efficacy of prayer in salvation, I would also challenge it on biblical grounds. So I don't think I'd want to spend a lot of time emphasizing Feinberg's point. But I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Ron, thanks for taking the time to answer. I thin...

2007-09-01T11:53:00.000-05:00

Ron, thanks for taking the time to answer.

I think the word 'salvation' needs a little definition before your comments can be addressed.
If by salvation you mean people being conformed to Christ's image from the inside out (viz. learning to want to be Christ-like), then this is simply not something God can do. Not because God is somehow 'limited', but because I am me and God is God. God's choices belong to God, my choices belong to me. God cannot make my choices for me, because then they wouldn't be MY choices. Self-determination is entailed by the sheer fact of human existence (see my post here).

But if (as it is in my view) salvation is more than just a matter of God merely exercising his power, and if it involves him loving us before we ever loved him... then I can easily say God has saved us all in Christ. The Kingdom of God has come in Christ. And we are all invited, pushed and prodded to be joined to Christ, for the sake of our salvation. The responsibility for the damnation of some clearly falls with them, rather than with God. Some of us are more stubborn than others.

If you'd like to continue this conversation, perhaps we could do it over at my blog?

Thanks for the conversation.
-Daniel-

Sorry, I left off my name.Anonymous Ron (appearent...

2007-09-01T09:26:00.000-05:00

Sorry, I left off my name.

Anonymous Ron (appearently)

(I don't have a website or anything to link to, my full name is Ron Bush. Appearently It makes a huge difference in my comment if I am not part of the 'website' club and have a link to give. I have gotten this criticism from lots of places on the web, like unless i'm in the club, i'm not worth answering. - I have not found this on this blog and thank you for interracting. Just complaining...sorry for that. )

Ron Bush

Daniel, you don't seem to get my point. I'm asking...

2007-09-01T09:22:00.000-05:00

Daniel, you don't seem to get my point. I'm asking how you can say God is in any way Good if he wills that people be saved and he 'works toward' the salvation of men but can't actually do it, even though he has the power and authority to do it? If God CAN ACTUALLY SAVE MEN, then why would he let any go to hell. (Hey, just because CS can't stomach, doesn't mean that I can ignore what Jesus warned of.)

My conclusion is that you're retaining man's unhampered freedom to act as he wills in every sense and in every instance but showing God not to be 'good' at all because he yields to sinful people he knows are going to choose against him when left to themselves. How loving is that? How loving is it to watch a blind man walk toward a cliff and not actually turn him around? How loving is it for God to not ACTUALLY SAVE MEN, and leave their salvation up to their choice alone.

First, I'd like to give a small defense of Feinber...

2007-08-31T23:09:00.000-05:00

First, I'd like to give a small defense of Feinberg to Keith, then I'd like to offer my feeble libertarian challenge to the Feinberg quote.
Feinberg is not creating a straw man of hyper-Armenianism and then tearing it down. He is making the philosophically correct observation that compatiblists such as himself can expect an intercessory prayer to change human behaviors and attitudes without diminishing human freedom. They are able to pray and expect thus because compatiblism, by definition, holds that God can direct the wills of men (in different ways, depending on the compatiblist's flavor) freely to choose in accordance with his determinate direction.
As a person who believes in libertarian will, I get his point. Because I hold this freedom so important, it seems odd (or at least disappointing) that I must be willing to forfeit the value of, say, a tyrant's freedom in order to pray for God to change his attitude or actions toward the people under his despotism.
However, I am not actually disappointed. I consistently pray neither with the presumption that God will do what I ask nor with the limitation that I must understand how He will do what is best to bring about even what I want (much less, what might be much greater than what I want) in a particular circumstance. So I pray for God to change the attitude of my friend's boss. But I am putting that whole situation into God's hands as I pray it. My myopic perspective is about my friend. God may be at work convicting and confronting the boss with his need for salvation or any of a boundless set of other possibilities. On the other hand, God may respond to my prayer for my friend by taking up my friend's cause in a way that does not require changing his boss's attitude. Perhaps my friend's boss will die or be promoted to a position which removes him from my friend's life (after all, we libertarians make no pretense that libertarian freedom can choose about everything).
Such a prayer may sound impotent, but it is not. God can violate the freedom of any of His free creatures without explanation or apology to any of us--however, I find it unlikely He would do so. That said, God can accomplish whatever He wants with the results of choices freely made by His creatures even when those results are eccentric or even contradictory to the expectations of the free actors who made them. And finally, when I finish praying, part of my responsibility is to recognize that no matter what else happens as a result of my prayer, I have expressed my confidence in God's ability to make good of all of it--not that all of it will be good, but that God can make good of it.
I hope that explanation provides a little clarification and an apparently needed response to the Feinberg quote.
May God bless, whether we like it or not!

Anonymous Ron,I'm sure you've heard that so-called...

2007-08-31T20:00:00.000-05:00

Anonymous Ron,

I'm sure you've heard that so-called free will theists believe God wills all to be saved.
Therefore God works towards the salvation of all, but some choose against him. This seems fairly straightforward to me.

The alternative is that God willfully condemns men and women who couldn't have chosen otherwise to everlasting conscious torment.
The fusion of a traditional doctrine of hell (which even CS Lewis couldn't stomach) with the traditional Reformed take on predestination leads to a very odd picture of God. It takes a severe modification of the concept of 'justice' to make such a God 'just'. But of course, that is from my perspective.

I'd welcome your comments on my blog post (cf. above).
Cheers,
-Daniel-

(ps: as always, JT, thanks for hosting this lively conversation)

anybody?

2007-08-31T19:52:00.000-05:00

anybody?

O.k., let me ask this instead. If God 'can' influe...

2007-08-31T17:58:00.000-05:00

O.k., let me ask this instead.

If God 'can' influence the free actions of men unto salvation, then what determines who God saves and who he doesn't?

Keith said:"Most people who hold to libertarian fr...

2007-08-31T17:54:00.000-05:00

Keith said:

"Most people who hold to libertarian free will do so because they see it as the only view compatible with God's goodness. That is, they hold that if free will does not enter into the picture..."

And

"Arminians, for example, believe that God can and does intervene by directing human choices and actions through the power of persuasion and even by the power of permission. This kind of intervention can and really does change what human beings do--meaning (a) that a prayer that God would change someone's mind really can be effective and (b) if it is effective, it is not a violation of the values which motivate the notion of libertarian free will in the first place."

Keith, why do men go to hell? Why would it not be 'good' for god to save all men? Why does God, who can intervene if he wants to, allow men to die in sin, destined for hell? If God really were good as you claim, wouldn't it be apropriate to show his goodness by saving all men? If he has the power and authority to change and influence the eternal actions of men, how can he be called good when he denies them the opportunity of opening the eyes of their hearts that they should understand the gospel?

It appears to me that if God is Good and seeks to save sinners then logically, all must be saved or God's not good. Or is God Bad to some men and good to others?

Keith, anybody, help us understand.

Ron

Timbo,I'm not saying the straw man charge is usele...

2007-08-31T17:43:00.000-05:00

Timbo,

I'm not saying the straw man charge is useless, it's just it pops up so often and for things that it doesn't even seem applicable to. Notice how he quoted what I said and then wrote one word; "strawman". What was I even saying that deserved that charge. I wasn't setting up a straw man argument about Calvinsim and then arguing against it and then congratulating myself for easily knocking it down. In fact it was Feinberg who seemed to be doing that. That's why it seemed so odd to me.

I guess I would rather see someone first try to demonstrate that someone is making a straw man argument without even using the word, and then after showing that then they can say "this is a straw man argument as no one actually holds to these views."

So know I didn't cringe when I made the statement but honestly I wish I didn't even have to say it. It was only after being charged with it myself that I felt the need to employ the same rhetoric to show how it was not me arguing against a straw man but in fact it was Feinberg himself.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bryan L

Bryan, you wrote:Seriously though I cringe every t...

2007-08-31T17:30:00.000-05:00

Bryan, you wrote:

Seriously though I cringe every time I see someone yell out "straw man"! How are you even supposed to respond to that. All the sudden it's on that person to prove that he's not arguing against a straw man he created. It's sort of a guilty until proven innocent charge.

And then you wrote:

I am saying that Feinberg is arguing against a straw man, meaning he's arguing against a view that many if not most libertarians do not actually believe.

Did you cringe when you wrote that?

Todd let me try again.I am saying that Feinberg is...

2007-08-31T16:12:00.000-05:00

Todd let me try again.

I am saying that Feinberg is arguing against a straw man, meaning he's arguing against a view that many if not most libertarians do not actually believe. Read Adam and Keith to see what I'm talking about as well as Daniels post on his own blog. I pointed out how Feinberg's logic could be used in a similar was on Calvinist to infer that they believe in not sharing the gospel with people or that intercessory prayer doesn't matter because God will do whatever he wants. This would also be a straw man. I am not arguing this. If I were to argue this about Calvinists they would protest that they don't actually believe that and Calvinism doesn't lead to those views.

Now if you want to discuss whether FWL should lead to what Feinberg is arguing then that is another subject. But I think Daniel and Keith have given good answers to that question.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bryan L

Bryan I am not seeing the "straw man." Not trying...

2007-08-31T15:52:00.000-05:00

Bryan I am not seeing the "straw man." Not trying to be rude here but that sounds like a cop-out. He is simply talking about the unfeasible practical nature of certain concepts of freedom when it comes to prayer. These are reasonable and accurate observations that most of us can relate to because we have made these prayers types of prayers. Bottom line his point is valid, how do you ask God to over ride or impose his will on on a person who you believe to have free will? When you get into the praxis of the faith it just seems inconsistent.

todd

Great thoughts Daniel, you heretic!!

2007-08-31T14:15:00.000-05:00

Great thoughts Daniel, you heretic!!

Anonymous is a straw man ;)Seriously though I crin...

2007-08-31T12:11:00.000-05:00

Anonymous is a straw man ;)

Seriously though I cringe every time I see someone yell out "straw man"! How are you even supposed to respond to that. All the sudden it's on that person to prove that he's not arguing against a straw man he created. It's sort of a guilty until proven innocent charge.

Anonymous your right, it is a straw man argument. That was my point. I wasn't arguing that Calvinism and determinism lead to Hyper-Calvinism. I was saying to argue that would be the same logic that Feinberg is using to make his case against Libertarians. As someone already pointed out Feinberg is making a case against a straw man that's why the argument isn't effective.

Blessings,
Bryan L

As an open theist (yeah yeah, heresy, I know) who ...

2007-08-31T12:01:00.000-05:00

As an open theist (yeah yeah, heresy, I know) who has prayed prayers like the one Feinberg criticizes, I don't think he gives a good account of what the heart of such prayers is.
I have posted a brief reply here.
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
-Daniel-

"JT, this post just seemed odd because it seemed t...

2007-08-31T11:37:00.000-05:00

"JT, this post just seemed odd because it seemed to use the same reasoning that people use to argue that Calvinists or determinists are Hyper-Calvinist, or to come to the conclusion that intercessory prayer makes no difference since God will do whatever he wants anyway regardless of whether we pray or not."

Straw man.

Prayer is a means God uses for his ends. He has worked it into the achievement of his ends.

I was going to comment and then I realised I shoul...

2007-08-31T10:53:00.000-05:00

I was going to comment and then I realised I should try to -understand- this stuff first :)

What Keith said too. Although I think I missed tha...

2007-08-31T10:06:00.000-05:00

What Keith said too. Although I think I missed that Arminian survey that was sent out ;)

Blessings,
Bryan L

Adam and Bryan,Libertarian free-will is only usefu...

2007-08-31T09:38:00.000-05:00

Adam and Bryan,

Libertarian free-will is only useful in making us sinners. This is the author of all sin in the universe. Without God's overriding grace working in our hearts, who could be saved and who would want to be? Paul says, "By the grace of God I am what I am." Who would actually want God unless the Holy Spirit gives us a desire for God? I pray that God overrides my friends' hard hearts and gives them new hearts so that they can see! If God chooses to do so He will, and they will be saved. May He be glorified for His powerful mercy and grace that changes hard hearts - He changed mine!

I'm in agreement with Adam.Believing in libertaria...

2007-08-31T08:38:00.000-05:00

I'm in agreement with Adam.
Believing in libertarian freewill doesn't mean that God is not free to over-ride someones will. It's not the highest value that can never be over-ridden. At least not for me.

JT, this post just seemed odd because it seemed to use the same reasoning that people use to argue that Calvinists or determinists are Hyper-Calvinist, or to come to the conclusion that intercessory prayer makes no difference since God will do whatever he wants anyway regardless of whether we pray or not.

BTW I thought Barry said, "Do you agree with Frame's point?" I read him too quickly and that's why my answer appears the way it does.

Blessings,
Bryan L

Most people who hold to libertarian free will do s...

2007-08-31T08:25:00.000-05:00

Most people who hold to libertarian free will do so because they see it as the only view compatible with God's goodness. That is, they hold that if free will does not enter into the picture, then God is the all-determining reality and is necessarily the author of sin and evil, whether directly or indirectly. This is certainly the Arminian motivation for their affirmation of free will.

In other words, Arminians reject the notion that God controls all human choices and actions--especially the evil and sinful ones. Their concerns aren't violated--i.e., the line they are trying to protect isn't crossed--if God intercedes in some matters. Arminians, for example, believe that God can and does intervene by directing human choices and actions through the power of persuasion and even by the power of permission. This kind of intervention can and really does change what human beings do--meaning (a) that a prayer that God would change someone's mind really can be effective and (b) if it is effective, it is not a violation of the values which motivate the notion of libertarian free will in the first place.

I don't have Feinberg's book, but it would be interesting to see which theologians he had in mind here. It may be that he's providing an argument that refutes a position that no one actually holds. There may be some people who believe in libertarian free will in the way that he describes, where any and all divine intervention in human matters would be off the table because it is a violation of the values that are motivating their position. But most people who hold to free will (i.e., Arminians) don't fit that description, and thus wouldn't be affected by his critique (i.e., no line they think cannot be crossed is crossed if God intervenes in response to a prayer).

I actually find the argument to be valid. However,...

2007-08-31T07:19:00.000-05:00

I actually find the argument to be valid. However, I don't think it is correct to assume that a libertarian "truly values" such freedom so much that should not want to see it overridden. A bad choice is a bad choice, and it isn't morally questionable to plead with God to coerce an action out of a wicked person to avoid harm.

God is sovereign and can do what he pleases--whether it be granting people libertarian freedom or not.

The quote is from Feinberg, not Frame.He's making ...

2007-08-31T06:39:00.000-05:00

The quote is from Feinberg, not Frame.

He's making an argument. It's fine if you don't think it's valid, but then I think you should explain why. Simply saying that it doesn't work or is ridiculous doesn't really advance the discussion!

JT

Intercessory prayer is hard to reconcile with any ...

2007-08-31T06:33:00.000-05:00

Intercessory prayer is hard to reconcile with any systematic theology. That is because we come to these matters with what Charles Simeon called "proud reason", setting up theological systems which end up contradicting the Bible.