If you'd like to hear an interview I did with a Calvinist philosopher/theologian making a case for his view on free will, check out the video below. And if you'd like to hear these two men have a debate/discussion with each other on my channel, leave a comment letting me know. kzread.infoRDrPCy8aet4?si=h5XZls755E0gAVL0

@PresbyterianPaladin

8 ай бұрын

I'd love to see a debate on the topic between Doctors Capes and Bignon.

@coltoncarlson6334

8 ай бұрын

Capes and Bignon! Oh absolutely. (Though I think Capes is a bit more researched on the scholarship on free will, at least on contemporary free will)

@coltoncarlson6334

8 ай бұрын

I would honestly love a stab at a formal response to Dr. Capes here. He says a lot of interesting things, but I am not convinced, and I think Calvinist-compatibilists have significant answers to many of his responses.

@stevemateuszow

8 ай бұрын

When are we going to lay aside this divisive issue and focus on reaching the lost. People are dying and going to hell everyday and we’re arguing over something that Christians have been debating for centuries. You just lost someone who subscribed to your podcast. I’m very disappointed.

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

@@stevemateuszow sorry to see you go Steve. The video was not intended to be divisive, but rather to raise some points for all Christians to consider as they reflect on God’s sovereignty and role in our salvation. If you watch the video I think you can see we try to be fair to Calvinists watching. Evangelism is important and many of my videos focus on offering reasons to think Christianity is true and good, things that I think can play an important role in evangelism. But I do think there is great value in Christians reflecting on what scripture teaches and the implications of it for one’s view of God. Discussions about soteriology fall into this category. One final thought, there are people who have walked away from Christianity because they thought that the Bible taught Calvinism. So offering someone reasons to reject Calvinism while retaining core Christian doctrines can actually be a way to do evangelism.

Excellent video! I really enjoyed it. If I were a theological determinist (TDist), these would probably be my responses. Re: first problem While it may be intuitive that determined love is less valuable than undetermined love - and while this provides God with _some_ reason to actualize creatures who are undetermined in their love for one another and God - there are also lots of _other_ reasons God has for actualizing a _deterministic_ world which plausibly outweigh this value, such as affording God greater providential control over the character of created reality. Another response, for TDists who don’t share the intuition, is simply to note that they don’t share the intuition, and so the argument here is powerless against them. A final response might be to push worries about whether undetermined love really _is_ valuable - one might appeal here to the luck objection and apply it to love, for instance. A final response here is that *God* , given his nature, doesn't seem free to refrain from loving us; given that we exist, he *must* love us. Likewise, the members of the Trinity necessarily love one another; they cannot fail to love one another. But it doesn't seem very plausible to say that God's love for us, and the love between members of the Trinity, is somehow a lower-grade or not-maximally-valuable kind of love. Re: second problem One of the central responses to the flicker of freedom move is that, if leeway theorists are right that alternative possibilities are required for responsibility, then agents in Frankfurt cases are _not_ responsible for choosing on their own to act as they do, contrary to the flicker of freedom response. Here’s the argument: (P1) If alternative possibilities are required for responsibility, then if the agent is responsible for choosing on their own, having the relevant alternative possibility should (partly) ground or explain the agent’s responsibility for choosing on their own. (P2) Having the relevant alternative possibility can only ground or explain the agent’s responsibility for choosing on their own if the agent would act responsibly in the alternative course of action. (P3) The agent in the Frankfurt case would _not_ act responsibly in the alternative course of action. (C) So, if alternative possibilities are required for responsibility, then the agent is NOT responsible for choosing on their own. And if (C) is true, then leeway theorists like Capes cannot make the flicker of freedom move. (P1) seems plausible; after all, if the relevant alternative possibility doesn’t explain the agent’s responsibility, then having alternative possibilities doesn’t seem relevant to moral responsibility, which leeway theorists like Capes deny. (P2) seems plausible; if the alternative course of action isn’t even one you’d be responsible for performing, it doesn’t look like the kind of thing that’s relevant to explaining your actual responsibility. The alternative possibility should be one you can freely and responsibly choose; otherwise it isn’t robust enough to ground the agent’s actual responsibility. (P3) seems plausible, at least given leeway theory; after all, in the alternative course of events, the agent is forced to act by the counterfactual intervener, which leeway theorists think removes responsibility. Re: third problem This is a clever argument. I think the TDist can push back in at least two ways. First, wouldn’t this be a problem for basically *any* theory of divine providence when conjoined with divine blame/punishment? Consider molinism. God is basically doing exactly what Jenn is doing, no? Jenn knows a particular subjunctive conditional about how her client George would (or would very likely) behave when placed in a certain circumstance; Jenn sets George up by placing George in that circumstance for Jenn’s hidden purposes; and lo and behold, George does exactly what Jenn knew he would do all along. This is exactly what God does under molinism: God knows subjunctive conditionals about how creatures would behave when placed in various circumstances; he sets creatures up by placing them in those circumstances for God’s hidden purposes; and lo and behold, creatures do exactly what God knew they would do all along. So if this objection works against TD, it also seems to work against molinism. But the objection even seems to work against other theories of divine providence, too, such as open theism. As Capes himself set up the story, Jenn only knows that it’s *very likely* that George will punch her if she insults him. But then surely the open theist God’s providence is relevantly like Jenn’s case, too. After all, the open theist God knows how likely we are to freely do certain things in various circumstances given our personalities, histories, dispositions, and so on. Sure, he doesn’t know that we *would definitely* do the relevant actions; but neither does Jenn. Jenn only uses high likelihoods. But it seems like the open theist God will be doing that too in orchestrating the character of created reality. God knows that if he places certain creatures in certain circumstances, they’re very likely to do some action that furthers his providential ends; so he places them in those circumstances, exactly like Jenn does with George. So if this objection works against TD, it also seems to work against open theism. Second, aren’t there many cases where we *do* think someone S has the standing to blame/punish someone else E even though S ‘sets E up’, that is, even though S places E in circumstances that S knew, in advance, would lead E to achieve some hidden purpose of S? Undercover cops do this all the time, and we tend to think these cops have the standing to blame and punish those whom they set up. Presumably the TDist can simply assimilate God’s case to these cases. (And arguably God’s case is more relevantly similar to these cases than Jenn’s. Cops have a certain kind of legitimate authority that Jenn doesn’t, and legitimate authority seems relevant to blame and punishment. And for theists, God likewise has legitimate authority over us.)

Nice job! I enjoyed the discussion.

Ex-Jehovah’s Witness here. Been really enjoying your videos 👍

When Mr. Capes is asked how he would respond to a Calvinists objection to his rejection of “theological determinism” based on the biblical doctrine of ‘Total Inability’, Mr. Capes response is thus: (@ approx. 19:00) “In Theological Determinism…God has determined that we are totally depraved, so, it certainly seems as though God could have created us that we could respond of our own accord.. I don't see any reason why God could not have arranged it so that we could have the capability to respond to Him." And this response is sufficient? Is this response nothing more than a deflection, a way of stating that Mr. Capes is unable to connect what he called in his own words “that’s a really interesting objection and it highlights why Total Depravity is often, sort of, an important part (of determinism)”. Interesting objection? Does it not follow that if man is unable to love God that God would have to change man’s character so that man could love God? After all, God is God and this is His chosen method of redemption as taught in the Scripture! We are glad that Mr. Capes finds this common Scripture doctrine “interesting” and we do hope that it not only catches his attention, but, that it holds his attention longer than it took for him to give the non sequitur response that we have quoted above, a response that is entirely without meaning. We understand why Mr. Capes would want to run and hide from the biblical doctrine of ‘man’s total inability to seek and love God’ (which is what total depravity means) and stick to the larger conceptual topic of ‘biblical determinism’. But, not having an adequate response to the intricate detailed doctrine that concerns the greater more general concept, which is a result of all the details, including, but not limited to, ‘total depravity’, is akin to painting a picture by numbers as opposed to painting a picture via the talent that God bestows upon painters, viz., the ability to see, feel and interpret what he sees and feels with paint upon canvas with brushes and paint, something that caught the artists eye or ‘interest’ if you will. The fact, according to the infallible Scripture, is thus: God did create man perfect with the ability to respond and love God of his own accord (read the first three chapters of the Bible!) he fell into sin, and, in doing so is now completely incapable of free will and lives a darkened, spiritually dead life in the dominion and realm of the devil (Romans Ch.5:12-21); this is the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Inability; this is the explicit teaching of the entire Bible. Nothing that a philosophical mind can muster will never change the fact that God is ‘all in all’ and that man is a creation of His, of whom, without a divine intervention and quickening of his soul, he will continue in the darkness and death of which he loves, until the day of judgment. Then, on that day of judgment, man, in his own sin will be held entirely responsible for his rebellion and enmity towards his Creator. If an inadequate understanding of ‘Determinism’ is blinding you from seeing the truth about your own desperate, dead, sinful self, then forget about “Determinism’; it’s beyond man’s pigmy intellect by infinity anyways. Philosophy is alright as far as it goes, but, according to God's word it can never go farther than man's own prideful desires, viz., man's need to have God as his very own creation by which man can wrap his philosophical mind around God and keep Him in a box. To engage in philosophy in relation to theology is an exercise in what the apostle Paul calls “evil (or vain) reasonings”; and, these “reasonings”, then in turn, lead to man’s “foolish heart to be darkened” (Romans 1:21). Also, just to say a word about your idea of “a Love Potion”, what you are doing is belittling the Holy Spirit, viz. God Himself. I am afraid that this belittling of the Holy Spirit is what the Scripture defines as blasphemy, and this is no light matter! This “Love Potion” is literally God entering into a dead soul, bringing it to life, and revealing the truth of what God, through Christ, has done in order to redeem your unworthy soul from God’s eternal judgment. For those of whom God converts their mind and soul are awakened to the truth about themselves and the condition that they were once in, but, by God’s grace are now removed from forever. You can believe whole heartedly that that once dead, but now living soul, does now have a love for God that is pure, unadulterated, and free of all contention and outside influence; the influence is now from God the Spirit dwelling in the new creation, it is perfect and true love. In fact, there is no knowledge of love aside from those who have received this gift from God; all that the unredeemed call love is by name only and of a different definition. God’s redeemed are made by Him a “new creation” in Christ, “old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”(2Cor 5:17) And, this new love and desire that the new soul has for God, as a result of His regeneration, is now their very own. True philosophy always begins and ends with man as the centre and purpose, as we have an example of in Mr. Capes’ arguments; again, nothing wrong with this as far as it goes, philosophy is finite and it has it’s place. However, true theology always begins and ends with God as the centre, purpose, and reason for everything; theology, like God, is infinite and is superior to every other form of reasoning. So, when the philosopher says things like, “wouldn’t that be better…”, or “I can’t believe God would do this…”, or “I see no reason why God wouldn’t …”, then he is firmly cementing himself into the temporal finite reality, thus, placing himself at an infinity apart from truth, (which is spiritual, being that God is spirit and truth) and thus, exhibits his ‘total inability’ to please God, let alone to understand Him. Philosophy, as taught in Scripture, does not have a place in theology, it is a separate discipline, and, is painfully inadequate for the demands of what theology is equipped to do, which is, of course, to “prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

I’d be curious if the guest is familiar with Kevin Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy work on this issue and how much of Fischer’s work he has read.

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

He’s very familiar with John Martin Fischer’s work. Justin recently published a book with OUP on Frankfurt cases and interacted with Fischer’s work there. As for Vanhoozer, I don’t know if Justin is aware of his work. But how do you think Vanhoozer might interact with Justin’s arguments?

Excellent interview! Also, Dr Justing Capes looks so much like Magnus Carlsen, the five-time world chess champion, except for the length of the beard.

@dashaunjefferies1168

8 ай бұрын

Haha really does look like magnus

Lol “indiscretions.” love the way philosophers talk, it’s kind of endearing. As for these arguments, I imagine the Calvinist would just retreat into his stronghold of Scripture and call this “deceptive human philosophy” in the manner of Colossians 2:8. Perhaps combining philosophical arguments with a scriptural approach might shake them out of their box, so to speak.

@adamduarte895

7 ай бұрын

But they are also doing philosophy too. They just don’t admit it, they just don’t do it well much of the time making logical errors

You should invite Anthony Rogers on to discuss this "bogus" claim.

@hudsontd7778

8 ай бұрын

That would be Fantastic because anthony rogers would fail

Where's the exegesis of scripture? Whatever your interpretation is - compatiblism, Theological Determinism, or libertarian free-will - we're talking about revelation. What does the word of God *say*? Some scripture to consider: Romans 8:29-30, Rom. 8:32-34, Eph. 1:4, Eph. 1:5, Eph. 1:11, John 1:12-13, John 6:44, John 6:65, John 10:11, Prov. 16:9, Mark 10:45

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for raising this concern. I’m making a separate video about Biblical reasons to reject Calvinism. In terms of theological method, it’s appropriate to allow philosophical reasons like those discussed in the video to drive one back to the text to try to find a plausible interpretation that fits well with both scripture and reason.

@HumanAction1

8 ай бұрын

​@@TheAnalyticChristianare you Arminian?

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

Yes

@Henry-yh6vv

8 ай бұрын

In practice, you may have some texts that seem to support one side, and other texts that seem to support the alternative side. So both positions may find difficulties with certain verses. The philosophical argument can't tell you what the Bible teaches; but it CAN tell you that IF the Bible is teaching such and such a doctrine, then it involves an evil "god". What I'm guessing people will do here is just change the meaning of "goodness" so it becomes meaningless; and they have an excuse to follow evil.

@adamduarte895

8 ай бұрын

The better would be what does Bible teach

What about sting operations then?

Why do we insert the term "free" when talking about our will? Calvinism introduce these redundant terms...

@cecilspurlockjr.9421

8 ай бұрын

Absolutely

@User18w839

8 ай бұрын

Because theology matters

@unitedstates3068

8 ай бұрын

@@User18w839 not sure what you mean by your comment... are you asserting that these redundant terms are necessary for better theology?

@User18w839

8 ай бұрын

@unitedstates3068 Of course you dont understand what I mean. That's the point of the comment

@cecilspurlockjr.9421

8 ай бұрын

@klam2283 That was a truly pathetic reply my friend. Of course theology matters and that's why calvinism is the most minority view in Christianity and especially amongst scholars with high view of scripture and is actually rejected by roughly 80% of protestants alone . Calvinism corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness and denies the intent and accomplishment of the death and resurrection of CHRIST JESUS, as well as diminishes the very purpose of the incarnation of our SAVIOR.

I think the "consequences argument" can make an interesting argument against atheism/naturalism. Along the lines that moral responsibility exists, that it requires libertarian free will, and libertarian free will is incompatible with naturalism. In one sense, the atheist has an easy escape, as they can just deny moral responsibility. But then they can be charged with a form of moral nihilism by the theist. And "theological determinism" is also going to be a form of moral nihilism in a similar way.

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

I think that last step would be very difficult to defend. The step that says libertarian free will is incompatible with naturalism.

Bring on Guillaume Bignon

This seems really odd… why wouldn’t you subsume divine blame and divine determinism under compatibilism? Furthermore, more nuance is still needed as not all Calvinists see determinism as necessary… very odd indeed. Even more difficult to watch was the trite analogies that have long been discredited in excellent philosophical works like Bignon or Helm. I appreciated that he said, “it’s not as though it were against their will but was determined through their will.” This was crucial as if there are relevant differences to the original example then the analogy fails. But then incredibly he goes back to not seeing that nuance and sees a determinism that is done outside the human will in using the analogies he did. Lastly, why wouldn’t it be more desirable that God ensures that all his will will come to pass which is the supreme good? If what God desires by that very token is even better, then why wouldn’t we (those who want him to be glorified) want that also? And the Frankfurt case discussion was brutal… the point is to show compatibility. If the killer does kill by his own choice, then he is culpable. 🤦‍♂️ the flicker of freedom response seemed in adequate since it does not address what he’s really wanting to argue: that any outside decision that would ensure a result in variables is blameworthy. This was merely assumed. The point of Frankfurt style cases is to show that determinism and blame worthiness in separate subjects is possible. Not that this is precisely how* God did this but only that they are “compatible.”

@Henry-yh6vv

8 ай бұрын

If you are talking about the "Consequences Argument", I don't think it matters if things are determined in such a way that a person wants/makes a choice. It's still stuff controlled by outside factors that you have no control over.

The contradiction inherent in 5-point (TULIP) Calvinism: 1. Sin is acting in a manner contrary to the will of God 2. God wills that the retrobate continue to sin, and withholds His grace from them - the primary and indispensable element that they need in order to stop sinning. 3. Thus, God wills what He doesn't will, and doesn't will what He wills.

@unitedstates3068

8 ай бұрын

let's correct TULIP... T.U.L.I.P. 2.0 T Totally able to respond to Christ's invitation [Revelations 3:20] U Universally offers salvation to anyone who will believe... to both Jew and Gentile [Rom 1:16 / Romans 2:9-10] L Loves us so much - sent His son to die in our place, was raised the third day - death on a cross [1 John 4:10 / 1 Corinthians 15:4 / Philippians 2:8-10 / Romans 5:8] I Incarnated Spirit [John 1:14] P Promised Victory - Sanctification; and the Beast and the False prophet are defeated [1 Corinthians 10:13 & Revelation 19:19-21] look forward to seeing other peoples TULIP2.0

@jalapeno.tabasco

3 ай бұрын

You don't know the difference between decretive will and revealed will

Why does God need to "Make" people want him? If he's by definition the greatest being and what one ultimately desires, then you don't need to force someone to want him, you just need to provide them with sufficient information on how to properly identify that ultimate good. You don't "force" someone to choose between a turd sandwich and a million dollars, unless there's something wrong with their brain, they will always freely choose the million dollars.

@nicktheflanders

8 ай бұрын

Agreed. For me this is the strongest argument for thinking compatibilism is true. (At least in regards to choosing to love God) . All God has to do is make rational creatures, and by their rationality they are determined to choose him (At least by my lights). This seems totally compatible with free will 🤷‍♂️

@wonderbuilds6523

8 ай бұрын

Well the point is that because of our sinful nature (Romans 3:23, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), we are utterly depraved and do not want to choose God, we are not simply free to choose God, we are enslaved to our sin. So God has to give us new hearts (regeneration) and cleanse from our sins so that our desires our made right and we actually seek God. But that only happens after he saves us, John 6:44 says “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

@nicktheflanders

8 ай бұрын

@wonderbuilds6523 right, I understand that is the Calvinist position. My position is that God could just create us without sinful natures in the first place. We would be rational from the get-go. Then we would all choose him freely. (At least, freely in a compatible sense). I am curious how a Calvinist would respond to my position philosophically.

@cecilspurlockjr.9421

8 ай бұрын

​@wonderbuilds6523 What you've said is utterly unbiblical. We are free to choose GOD according to scripture and salvation is available to everyone according to scripture . Mark 16 : 15 tells us that CHRIST has offered salvation to every creature in the whole world.

@LordZultair

8 ай бұрын

@@nicktheflanders Philosophically I think a Calvinist would grant that there is indeed a possible world in which God creates people as you describe -- i.e. a world without original sin. Why God didn't choose to actualize that particular world is another question (and a very interesting one!). In fact, a Calvinist would probably say that God *did* originally create humans with exactly the sort of will you describe -- e.g. Adam and Eve before the fall. Adam had a will that wasn't bound by sin, so he was able to choose God freely, as you put it. Of course, Adam didn't make the right choice and thus plunged humanity into the bondage of sin.

the determinism of Calvinism seems more consistent with actual neuroscience than the other silly libertarian conceptions of free will you see in other strains of christianity

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

Why do you think that?

@cecilspurlockjr.9421

8 ай бұрын

Spoken like a true atheist my friend. Atheist are in error obviously.

@hiker-uy1bi

8 ай бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian Because the empirical evidence is clear: we don't actually make completely unrestrained choices. Our thoughts, actions, and decisions are shaped by prior causes and factors such as neural processes, genetics, and environmental influences.

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

@@hiker-uy1bi there’s a difference between being influenced and being causally determined. Libertarians are happy to acknowledge that there are many influences on us.

@hiker-uy1bi

8 ай бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian You're welcome to think that, Jordan. But it's inconsistent with the current consensus in brain science. There's no empirical evidence I'm aware of that separates the "choices" we make from the neural processes of our brains that underly those choices. Libertarians envisage some kind of autonomous freedom from these underlying physical processes that is wholly out of tune with the science in this area. Full stop. We can have a debate about compatibilism vs. hard determinism, but libertarianism isn't on the table anymore from an empirical perspective.

Yeah I never bought in to Calvinism. It’s just not Biblical

@User18w839

8 ай бұрын

Lmao

@unitedstates3068

8 ай бұрын

not elect ....

You are almost there. Now do non calvinism.

@TheAnalyticChristian

8 ай бұрын

You mean make a video critiquing Arminianism?

@Sfourtytwo

8 ай бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian Nope. Just "the rest of christianity" you know after taking calvinism in giant strides the rest it can go too.

@JW_______

8 ай бұрын

@@Sfourtytwo most Christians I know who grew up Chrisian and as adults rejected Christianity rejected it because they thought that Christianity and Calvinism were synonymous. Forget the fact that Calvinism arose more than 1500 years after Christ, is self-contradictory, unsupported by the biblical text, and doesn't align with the teachings of the early church fathers.

@Sfourtytwo

8 ай бұрын

@@JW_______ Most people that grew up christian and rejected it as grownup did so because the indoctrination did not stick and there is no healthy reason for a grown up to believe in magic. There. Fixed that for you.