John S. Feinberg: Incompatibilism & Compatibilism (PhD Edit)

Today

According to Google, my two Blogger websites set my own personal record for approximately 67, 000 pageviews in September. The Stat Counter statistics were similar. I would personally, very much love to thank you all for the support in making that happen...But, in reality the views are mostly due to my template change to dynamic and resulting Googlebots. Again as per United Kingdom PhD academic standards, citations are primarily in my own words. This is re-presented material in a new form. The PhD is Russell Norman Murray, Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010), The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter.
------

John S. Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy or defence 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. Feinberg (1994: 64). 

There can be no antecedent[1] conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64).

Feinberg writes that for this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60). 

Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free,  the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637).

I reason, for example, God as primary cause, and in some cases secondary causes, can force or coerce human actions. But when actions are committed by a human being without significant freedom, there is not moral responsibility. For example, a person being forced or coerced to commit crimes under mind control, may not have significant moral responsibly for thoughts and actions.

Within hard determinism God (theistic model) would be the only cause of human actions,[2] while with soft determinism God would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause.[3] Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596).

Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions.

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. Feinberg (2001: 637).

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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.

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers. 

---

[1] 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).

[2] Pojman (1996: 596). 

[3] Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Calvin & Compatibilism: (MPhil/PhD)

Verona: People & Countries, Facebook

As per United Kingdom, MPhil and PhD standards, most citations are in my own words.

I consider myself more so Reformed as opposed to a Calvinist. I, for example, am joining a Mennonite Brethren, believer’s baptism church.

In modern, but not Reformation era terms, Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and explains that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

God was working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but Calvin pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

Calvin suggests outward human preaching ‘strikes only the ears’ while the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit is how a person is enlightened in Christ. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233).

Human preaching is valuable in that it works at times in conjunction with the Holy Spirit transforming individuals. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233).

Humanity has nothing on its own, but depends totally on God. God bestows on humanity what he wills. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1: 2).

Calvin did not believe that God would eliminate human impulse, but rather God would have the impulse of a person he desired subject to the spirit of God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 225).

Preaching and teaching the word of God impacts a person to believe in Christ. Calvin (1543)(1996: 34).

God’s motives remain pure in the simultaneous willing of human actions that are sinful and evil. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

Human beings and their actions were the secondary causes of primary causes willed by God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 38).

God’s motives in willing an action would work toward the greater good even while human beings freely sinned. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

‘For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them.’ Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

'At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God.’ Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

‘Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution.’ Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. Pruss (2003: 216).

The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Pruss (2003: 216).

Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pinterest

Pinterest

Matthew 16 & 18 In Brief

From trekearth with saturation added

I present brief research and provide a short presentation motivated by a recent sermon I heard at Northview Community Church.

Matthew 18: 15-20

English Standard Version

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Matthew 16:19

English Standard Version 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven.”

Footnotes: Matthew 16:19 Or shall have been bound… shall have been loosed

In basic agreement with the Northview sermon:

In regard to  Matthew 18: 19: From the Pastor Courson commentary

'Jesus is saying. "Church it's your job to bind sin. Sin is bound in heaven. Therefore you have authority to bind it on earth. Righteousness and holiness, mercy and forgiveness are released in heaven. Therefore you have been given authority to release them on earth." Binding and loosing speak of the authority the Church has in dealing with matters where sin is flagrantly, contently and obnoxiously practiced.' (146). The text also notes that church discipline is presented in like-manner in 1 Corinthians 5. Here is the story of the man in the Church delivered to Satan for discipline, because of sinful lifestyle. Following repentance, this is to lead to forgiveness and restoration. (146).

Notice, there is a distinct and definitive theological difference between, sin lifestyle as is being described in these texts, and the concept of each an every Christian being sinful or a sinner by nature (Romans, Hebrews). Until the resurrection and full human restoration (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Jesus Christ will be minimally tainted by sin. But this should be distinctly different than living a sinful, non-Biblical lifestyle. Even though the atonement and resurrection covers all in Christ, each believer is post-mortem, ultimately judged for works rendered in Christ (2 Corinthians 5, also Ephesians 2, James).

Pastor Courson in Matthew 16: 19, describes how the Church while binding sin, should be in harmony with heaven. (God, my add) (129). In regard to Peter, what I have heard Pastor Courson discuss online, is in basic agreement with William Barclay:

'There is no reason to doubt that Jesus gave to Peter a leading place, but this is the leading place expressed in terms of the church as an institution.' (65). And as the book of Acts forward, demonstrated, Peter was a key Apostle, although the Apostle Paul wrote more New Testament texts. Peter is key leader and Apostle, but not necessarily the preeminent leader and Apostle.

Based on the Northview sermon, Courson sermons and the texts referenced; I reason that those within the Church that flee church discipline, are risking rejecting the divinely sanctioned discipline of the Church.

Yes, church discipline can be in error and in the wrong spirit, but church discipline based in reasonable, contextual exegesis, guided by the Holy Spirit, to bind sinful, non-biblical, lifestyle, should be obeyed.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1966)(1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospel, Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

Doppelganger & Division

trekearth

Doppelganger & Division

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London

June 9

I stated:

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62). 'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62). 'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).
---

Division according to Pirie is:

'The doppelganger of the fallacy of composition is that of division. When we attribute to the individuals in a group something which is only true of the group as a unit, we fall into the fallacy of division.' (85).

'Both of these form a fallacy of equivocation.' (85). This occurs because of the ambiguity of collective nouns. (85). 'The gospels are four in number. St. Mark's is a gospel, so St. Mark's is four in number.' (85).

Something should not be attributed to an individual, only because it is often attributed to a group.

Chucky is German, Germany has won four World Cups and three Euros in football; therefore Chucky is very good at football.

There is a danger of 'typecasting people according to the groups from which they emanate.' (86).

Leroy is African American and is therefore a fast sprinter.

From the June 9 article:

Blackburn once again helpfully explains the converse fallacy, as he did with accident fallacy and its converse version, that I hopefully explained well in two articles. The fallacy of division is therefore stating: Corporate to individual C t I (my add):  'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).

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

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London

June 9 article