Philosopher Frederick Ferre: Incompatibilism (PhD Edit)

Paris-Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Frederick Ferre (1973)(1976) presents an incompatibilist view called self-determinism.[1]  Ferre reasons that, although there are external conditions relevant for every action, the outcomes of these actions are not fixed by any causal chain.[2]  Ferre here is suggesting that for some events there is not a prior determined cause.[3] Therefore, within this theory some human actions would not be caused or simultaneously determined by God or any external force,[4] and some human actions could be considered self-determined.[5] 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action.[6]  There can be no antecedent[7] conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed.[8] 

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form.[9]  P.S. Greenspan (1998) writes compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible.[10]  Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions.[11]  Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed.[12] 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids,  Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.  

---

[1] Ferre (1973)(1976: 31-44).

[2] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[3] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[4] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[5] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[7] In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if  p causes  q.  P  is the antecedent or prior cause of  q  which is the conditional and the consequence.  Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[9] Pojman (1996: 596).

[10] Greenspan (1998: 1).

[11] Feinberg (1994: 60).

[12] Feinberg (2001: 637).

Incompatibilism, Libertarian Free Will and Political Libertarianism (PhD Edit)

Provence, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Provence, France-Travel+Leisure and Facebook

I noticed this tonight in an edits file, then noticed there was a version in my PhD and so therefore I share...

Based on quick searches, the first appearance of Oxford Philosopher, Tim Mawson on my blogs.

Yes, I do check.

I share, and provide additional perspectives on my material. I hold to compatibilism, but academic balance is needed in PhD work and blogging for that matter.

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will,[1] believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states.[2] Thus within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God would have willed and determined it on his own before he simultaneously willed it with a given person.[3] 

Mawson writes that incompatibilism, which is closely related to libertarianism in regard to human free will,[4] states that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states[5]  This view would rule out God as a preceding force that determines the human will and actions.[6]  Libertarianism[7] is often viewed as a form of indeterminism.[8]  An action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[9]  Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.[10]  All human actions are only free if a person could have done otherwise.[11]  

I reason that many church attendees in our modern society make a connection, perhaps unconsciously, between libertarian political,[12] religious, social type freedom, and libertarianism[13] in regard to God.  However, political forces that grant some freedoms are finite (limited) entities and should not be equated with the freedom allowed by the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God. At the same time, God’s power to determine events is much greater than any political entity.

With a compatibilistic model, if the infinite, omnipotent God restrains himself and allows his permissible rather than perfect will to take place, his will is still being done, and he is still determining events, by allowing evil and sin to occur and not intervening.

---

[1] Mawson (1999: 324).

[2] Mawson (1999: 324).

[3] Mawson (1999: 324).

[4] Mawson (1999: 324).

[5] Mawson (1999: 324).

[6] Mawson (1999: 324).

[7] Libertarianism supposes that human free choice is not causally determined, but is not random either.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[8] Geisler (1996: 429).

[9] Mawson (1999: 324). 

[10] Geisler (1996: 429).

[11] Geisler (1996: 429).

[12] Political libertarianism maximizes individual rights and the state has its power minimized.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[13] Blackburn (1996: 218).  

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Brief On Revelation 3:20

Biarritz, France, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Even with the busy work week, I was pondering this week on Revelation 3: 20 and the various libertarian free will, evangelical freewill and incompatibilist freedom interpretations that would arise, often in missions and evangelism contexts.

Revelation 3:20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Revelation 3:20 English Standard Version (ESV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Old Third Mill.Org

Cited

'Question

If only Jesus can open my heart in order to save me, why is it that he knocks at the door of the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:20)? How can I fit together Calvinism (specifically that God alone causes men to turn their hearts towards him) and this verse?

Answer

There are at least a couple ways to answer your question:

First, Revelation 3:20 is part of a letter written to the Christian church in Laodicea. There is no indication that the people who open the door to Jesus are not saved prior to opening the door, or that opening the door is a metaphor for receiving Christ in salvation. Opening the door does not appear to be a metaphor for salvation, but for obedience. Those who open the door are those who hear the warning of this letter and repent of their sin. The implication from the context of the verse is that these people are already saved.

Second, Revelation 3:20 does not say anything about the process of how one comes to be able to open the door, or about who is able to open the door. Rather, it simply explains the result of opening the door. Even if one were to interpret this verse as speaking of salvation (which I believe would be an incorrect interpretation), the verse still would not provide any information as to how that person came to be able to open the door, whether or not he was regenerated and/or had faith prior to opening the door, etc. Thus, one could understand the verse to be speaking about initial salvation and be a consistent Calvinist. The verse does not refute the idea that a person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to being able to open the door.

Third (for the sake of argument assuming that this verse is about initial salvation), Calvinism does not require that Jesus forcibly open the door. Rather, Calvinism teaches that the Holy Spirit regenerates man and gives him faith, and that man then responds positively to the gospel in repentance. Metaphorically, opening the door to Jesus would seem to be a better illustration of the response of repentance than of regeneration and reception of faith. Once a person is regenerated and given faith, opening the door is the natural Calvinistic response.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin'

To be clear, I was not certain what the views of my documented authors would be on this verse prior to the research.  My sources could have stated otherwise and I would have noted such. I have so previously.

F.F. Bruce

By the way, incredibly, according to my very critical adviser, David Pailin of Manchester, causing me along with help from his colleagues to depart, Bruce was his academic adviser. 

What happened?

Bruce stated that 'Christ has no place in the life of the Laodicean Church, and seeks admission; even if the church as a whole pays no heed to his call, those members who do will enjoy mutual fellowship with him'. Bruce (1986: 1605).

Robert H. Mounce

Mounce writes that often, as I alluded to at the beginning, this verse is often used as referring to those outside of the Christian community. Mounce (1990: 128).

It is often pressed in the name of evangelism. Mounce (1990: 128).

However, he reasons in Scriptural context it is 'self-deluded members of the church who are being addressed'. Mounce (1990: 128).

Revelation is documented by many scholars to contain Christ speaking through the Apostle John and letters to seven churches.

Christ then is attempting to re-establish fellowship with this church. 

Therefore the context is not salvation for those outside of the Church.

I have come across free will perspectives online which are basically expressed in Mounce's summation as in being an evangelism verse and tool where those who hear Christ knocking have significant libertarian free will to accept the gospel message, or not.

Even with my Reformed, compatibilist leanings, although researched and educated leanings, the research is not convincing for free will orientated evangelism and libertarian views.

Rather, as this is metaphor, the knocking by Christ and therefore God, is divine movement by God upon the individuals that God is seeking.

Based on research I reason that this is directed in context to the Church at Laodicea.

But even if it directed to non-believers at that church in a salvation context, it is not a clear and concise libertarian free will context provide here.

I agree with McLaughlin's view that 'Rather, it simply explains the result of opening the door. Even if one were to interpret this verse as speaking of salvation (which I believe would be an incorrect interpretation), the verse still would not provide any information as to how that person came to be able to open the door, whether or not he was regenerated and/or had faith prior to opening the door, etc. Thus, one could understand the verse to be speaking about initial salvation and be a consistent Calvinist. The verse does not refute the idea that a person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to being able to open the door.'

Back to the verse:

'If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.'

This is still true to a compatibilistic, soft-deterministic view, although not a hard-deterministic/deterministic view void of any significant human freewill, where God would simply by compulsion force and coerce salvation and belief.

With God and Christ taking the initiative and regenerating; preaching, Scripture and gospel related input is used in the process so that at some point, one is saved, as chosen and has belief.

I can acknowledge certainly this may not always be immediately. God regenerating whom he wills (Ephesians 1-2) does not necessarily mean a process does not take place over an extended time in some cases before a  person is actually considered 'born again' (John 3), and regenerated (Titus 3: 5).

I reason God and Christ could knock multiple times with multiple events before one believed within a compatibilistic salvation context.

This would be limited human free will and not libertarian free will. It cannot be stated with certainty exactly how much time irresistible grace via the Holy Spirit shall take, only that it will occur is this realm and lifetime.

This is certainly pragmatically true as there would be a multitude of stories where a person heard the gospel and yet did not publicly acknowledge the Lord until years later.

Was he or she saved earlier or later?

I am a non-adult example of this finding interest in the Christian message at four years old on and even believing Christ was likely God at five to six, but still fearing God in the sense of questionable faith and not seeking the Bible and related. I did not call myself a Christian publicly and in a significant understanding until twelve years old.

I am not certain exactly when I was regenerated and saved, but I know Biblically, theologically and philosophically, I have been.

Even though I do not think salvation is the context of Revelation 3: 20.

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

MCLAUGHLIN, R.A. (2014), 'Knock, Knock', Third Millennium Ministries, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium Ministries.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Facebook

MPhil: Resurrection Thoughts This Easter

Parador de Oropesa, Spain. Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Edited from: 2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Christianity is a historical faith and it states through Scripture that God supernaturally interacted with human beings through his prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. So, the examination of Scripture is very important in any study of the problem of evil.

Critics may suggest it is very convenient that the supposed supernatural occurrences in Scripture which support the Christian faith, and its remedy to the problem of evil through Christ’s work, took place thousands of years ago, before our scientific age. These supernatural events, it could be stated, are now rather hard to either prove or disprove. If they cannot be proven, why should the Christian answer to the problem of evil be taken seriously? I admit this is an important criticism, but the Bible is consistent in its message, written within historical periods by historical people. The accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are in unity, and his resurrection, although disputed by some critics, does have the backing of New Testament authors, who claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, or to have personally known those who have.

Alister McGrath

McGrath also discussed in his text the weaknesses of a philosophical problem of evil discussion alone, without mentioning how the work of Christ will help us in human experience. He also mentioned how destructive Enlightenment theories on God have been the last few centuries. He thought the personal nature of the Biblical God was negated for a perfect philosophical God. He pointed the reader to the personal nature of God through the death and resurrection of the Son of God, and the saving work for humanity.

McGrath’s work in Suffering is helpful in that it provides historical, philosophical background on the problem of evil and suffering, and yet stays true to Scriptural historical Christianity and its remedy to evil through Christ.

To play devil’s advocate, a critic could claim that Christianity has not solved suffering any better than Communism or especially western liberalism; however, I think McGrath is correct. A belief in God in society and better yet a spiritual relationship with Christ leads to the tempering of evil in a nation and the world. Christianity’s ultimate answer to evil comes through revelation, but at least that has historical evidence of Scripture behind it. Christians are disobedient to God, just as nonbelievers are, and this is probably part of the reason Christianity has not made more social progress.

But I still agree with McGrath that Christ’s atoning work and resurrection is the only ultimate answer that remedies evil. This work has, of course, not been completely culminated, but I think the Scriptural evidence supports the idea that Christ will return to restore his creation. "In the fourth place, he was liberating us from the fear of death." McGrath (1992: 49).

McGrath explained that western culture was afraid of death to the point of not wanting to discuss it. He noted that Jesus liberated people from this fear as he defeated death through the reality of the resurrection and, at the same time, any power the devil had over people was destroyed. This will not be culminated until all believers are resurrected, but the required work has been accomplished by Christ. Believers’ resurrection is guaranteed. All people will be resurrected and believers will be in Christ’s presence.

Irenaeus stated with regard to Christ’s work defeating death: For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which He was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. Irenaeus. (ca. 130-200 AD) Book III, Chapter 18, Section 7. (Note: There does not seem to be a historical date to indicate when Irenaeus wrote this work. It is estimated that he wrote the work near the end of the second century.)

From Irenaeus’ comments, it can be seen that McGrath’s sentiments are echoed by this ancient author. Christ on the cross was the way that God incarnate could, in a loving act, take sin on himself, defeat sin in death, and through his resurrection defeat death itself. Humankind had no deliverance from the bondage of sin and death until Christ committed this work. McGrath is correct in that a future hope of Heaven is something to be considered since Christ has been documented in Scripture to be resurrected. His promises for believers’ resurrection seem to be certain. Suffering and the problem of evil will only end as resurrection and restoration culminate. God, through Christ, sacrificed because he was good, but at the same time because he loved humanity. In all human suffering he has always been present, he has defeated evil through his atoning work and this shall be culminated with the resurrection. Presently he desires that people seek him out when suffering.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

McGRATH, A. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

Facebook