The Myth of Libertarian Free Will

According to theopedia.com, “libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires.”

This is my daughter, Lydia. She recently turned three years old and is the apple of her daddy’s eye. I would die for Lydia.

Mr. Libertarian-Free-Will-Man, riddle me this: Am I “free” to murder Lydia? When I get home from work early this morning and Lydia lies sleeping in her bed, will I be “free” to suffocate her?

(A note before answering this question: There are no unusual internal or external forces acting upon me or this situation. In other words, assume that I am as sane as I am most mornings, and there are no terrorists compelling me to kill Lydia in lieu of a nuclear bomb being detonated in downtown Minneapolis.)

Under normal circumstances, in what meaningful way am I “free” to murder Lydia? How is it that I can be 100% certain I will not murder Lydia when I arrive home this morning? The proponent of Libertarian Free Will must hold that I am “free” to murder Lydia this morning, and therefore cannot be certain of my sparing her.

This has seemed to me for some time to be absurd on its face. I am certainly not free to murder Lydia. I am not free to do that which I have no desire to do. I am not free to plunge the Sharpie lying within my reach on this desk into my eye socket. I am not free to arrive at work this evening in the buff. Am I physically capable of doing all of the above? Of course, I am, but we are speaking here of moral freedom, not corporal capacity.

I am physically capable of doing all sorts of things I will never do, because I do not wish to do them. So, in what sense am I truly “free” to do these things? I would submit that I am not free, at least not in a libertarian sense, to murder Lydia or do anything I do not desire to do. I believe I am free to act according to my nature, desires and inclinations.

So, Mr. Libertarian-Free-Will-Man, am I free to murder Lydia? If yes, how so? If no, well… then I think we are nearing a more biblical view of human will and freedom, and facilitating a more biblical (and rational) discussion of God’s foreknowledge and election…

—————-
Now playing: Switchfoot - Twenty-Four
via FoxyTunes

A Response to Zack H. on IHOP and Intercession

On 12/28/2007, I posited a question to Zack H. at Forever Nocturnal.

Zack has been gracious enough to devote a post to his response. I will likewise post my response here and over at Zack’s.

—————-

Zack,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. You make me think these things through a bit more thoroughly as well.

First, I should address the issue of God’s sovereignty and prayer/intercession. You said:

God is all sovereign. …He doesn’t need us. Yet that’s the glory of the gospel, He desires that we partner with him, to be with him.

I believe I have stated this before, but likely not as clearly and emphatically as I should have:

I am a Calvinist. I believe in God’s absolute sovereignty over all, including the wills of men. I believe nothing happens apart from God’s predetermined plan. I believe no one hinders or turns back God (Job) through unbelief, lack of prayer or by any other means.

I also believe God has sovereignly ordained to realize much of His will via the prayers of His people. I believe prayer moves God, though I would say it moves Him to a place He had already determined to go. That He folds us into His sovereignty in this way truly is glorious.

I don’t think you and I are very far apart here. I nowhere meant to give the impression that I do not believe God is moved by prayer.

(John Piper preached on prayer two Sundays ago. You and I would find much to agree on here.)

—————-

On to my persisting issues:

The purpose of IHOP is not to make Jesus come back faster. Our purpose is to fast and pray because we believe Jesus is coming back soon. (Again I speak for IHOP in that as well because it’s a public fact, but I am not an official spokesman nor can I be labeled as one.)

…

Do I or have I heard it preached at IHOP that we are praying for the purpose of bringing Jesus back faster? No. But IHOP and I do believe Jesus is coming back soon.

I’m not sure this is a distinction with any difference. Perhaps, I again need to be a bit clearer. I recognize IHOP intercessors are not praying “to make Jesus come back faster”, but believe He is coming back soon (faster?) and this return is contingent upon prayer (contingent in the manner I would defend above). And not just any prayer - 24/7, Bridally Paradigm-ed prayer. You said:

Our prayers fill the bowl not because He needs us, but because He wants us. (John 3:16; John17) Thus why the Bridal Paradigm is needed.

24/7 prayer and the Bridal Paradigm are necessary to propel the end-times saints into the kind of prayer and holiness that will be required to usher in Christ’s Second Coming. This is exactly what Jennifer Roberts spoke of when I saw her at onething Minneapolis. (See: Here and here for my comments on Roberts, onething and the Bridal Paradigm.) I will concede that it is probably not your, Roberts’ or IHOP’s intent to portray 24/7 prayer or the Bridal Paradigm as a means of manipulating God. However, when these are lifted up as necessary, it inevitably gives the impression that if these are not followed (at least by a small vanguard of full-time intercessors), then Christ will not return.

Creating a place on the Earth for the spirit of the Lord to dwell. Not saying that we need to reestablish the rabbinic tabernacle of David. But saying we need to create a place with in us for the Holy Spirit to rest. Christ is in us. The Spirit already abides in us, but by resting place I mean a place free of gossip and slander. A place free of lust and perversion. A place where the spirit can rest. The city of refuge is not a biblical quotation, but from a prophecy about cities of refuge being raised up at the end of the Age.

To which prophecy do you refer? This drives to the heart of my problem with IHOP and other modern charismatic/prophetic ministries: they are driven, at least in part, by a gnostic understanding of Christianity and the Bible. No one outside this clique has any knowledge of the Bridal Paradigm, Cities of Refuge, the Joseph Company, Joel’s Army, Tabernacle of David… because they are essentially extra-biblical. They are wrapped in biblical language, but are really founded on extra-biblical, personal, divine revelation. If God hadn’t “spoken” to Mike Bickle, Bob Jones, Paul Cain, etc., then none of the above concepts/paradigms would exist.

To get into this clique, one must have a similar special, divine, personal, extra-biblical revelation about these things. As you and Roberts have both stated, these things are essential to what “God is doing” in these “final days”. I believe you have stated elsewhere on your blog that you believe we are fast-approaching the eschaton, because God told you so.

But what about the rest of us - the 99.9% of believers who haven’t received these secret messages from God? When people accuse IHOP’rs and other prophetic/charismatic types of being elitist, I don’t think they necessarily mean it personally or individually, but corporately. The movement is definitionally elitist, because it hinges on personal, extra-biblical revelation from God. It is, in this sense, a gnostic elitism.

“…we need to create a place with in us for the Holy Spirit to rest.”

I honestly don’t know what that means. If I (or my family, local church, small group, etc.) need to be free of gossip, slander, lust and perversion in order for the “Holy Spirit to rest”, I am/we are in trouble. This smacks of a moral perfectionism I see in much modern charismatic/prophetic language. No one individual or community is or ever will be free of sin this side of eternity. We Christians, sinners all, are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our inheritance (Eph. 1), not because we cleaned house beforehand, but because God is gracious, merciful and good to His undeserving called-out ones.

Do you believe IHOP is a place free of gossip, slander, lust and perversion? I don’t believe you do, and don’t believe your point here was to say that you do. But, why say it at all then? What’s the point? I think this again drives to the perceived elitism - there seems to be the implication that the average Bible-believing Christian church/ministry does not strive for holiness in the same way IHOP does, because it is not devoted to 24/7 prayer and the Bridal Paradigm (and Joel’s Army, and the JoCo, and establishing Cities of Refuge, etc.). I know that’s not your intent, Zack, but I think it is an understandable perception taken by those on the outside. (I also understand IHOP leadership repeatedly states their mission is not for the whole Church, but a small troupe of intercessors. However, I think this only reinforces the perception of elitism. IHOP is not for everyone, but only a select few. It’s like the Navy Seals of Christian spirituality.)

Zack, please accept that I say all of the above out of a genuine concern and desire to understand more clearly, not a desire to be unnecessarily quarrelsome. I don’t doubt the genuineness of your faith, and I admire your zeal. I just believe it is a zeal that could be put to better use.

God Bless,

Jim B.

—————-

P.S. If you happen to read/listen to/watch Piper’s sermon on prayer, I believe he paints a much more biblical picture of 24/7 prayer. It is not the picture of an Intercessory Missionary, but of a common saint breathing prayer as a 24/7 lifestyle. Though I fall dreadfully short of this goal, it is my life’s aim in regard to prayer.

—————-
Now playing: The Beach Boys - Sloop John B
via FoxyTunes

Be a Kinder… Christian

Abraham Piper posted on curmudgeon-y Calvinists and linked to a letter posted on Scot McKnight’s blog. Because I enjoy a good theological debate, I found both posts to be a helpful admonition. It is easy to get caught up in being right, and forget to be kind, charitable, humble, warm, etc. This is particularly true with the electronic blog/forum. The anonymity of the internet frees us to be a bit bolder in our conversations than we would dare to be face to face. This can be both good and bad.

However… I read the first 30 comments (of well over 100) that followed the post and was a little disheartened and frustrated at the lack of charity and understanding extended toward those of the Reformed persuasion. Here are a few quotes from these first few comments:

“The debate or “conversation” is pointless. It is not a relative issue. It really is pointless though.”

“…the extreme 5 pointers will never have anything but contempt for those who don’t hold to their system.”

“I know I have offended a number of them by asking them if they were J.W’s. when I’ve got myself in the unfortunate position of discussing theology with them.”

“…that peculiar theology [Calvinism] I had run into, that it wasn’t actually a cult (at least not in the US), and that some Calvinists could be loving and kind…”

“…but just realize that this is NOT a theological issue, but one of arrogance and pride…”

“There is no room for compromise in this Christian view, so don’t expect it.”

“Especially since I see it as so devoid of genuine Biblical exegesis and historical awareness… Its a growing problem…”

“This is “hyper” somethingism - Calvinistic neofundamentalism. And make no mistake, it is hyper, and founded in people who are educated by Piper, and a real problem.”

“My advice to the pastor would be to invite these Calvinists to leave his community.”

“To be honest, being reasonable with them isn’t going to work. …Trying to create a good relationship isn’t their goal, it is changing your mind to their path. And this is not unique to calvinists of any strip.”

“…don’t waste your time trying to dialogue. People who follow John Piper have planted their flag in the ground, not on a stance on soteriology, but an ideology that is more or less a fundametnalist mindset.”

“My belief is that you need to state your disagreement with them clearly, show that you are not open to reasoning with them on their terms..”

“Don’t non-Calvinist scholars have a duty to level the field? If all people ever hear is the enemy’s side…”

“…at least we no longer feel like we’re part of a Pharasitical community, as we unfortunately felt like we were at Sovereign Grace.”

—————-

John Piper seemed to find himself a common target of these commenters. I wonder if this should be taken as a compliment?

Humility and open-mindedness cuts both ways.

—————-
Now playing: The Flaming Lips - Approaching Pavonis Mons by Balloon (Utopia Planitia)
via FoxyTunes

C.S. Lewis & Compatibilism

Reformed Theological Seminary has made available several course on iTunes for free. I have been listening to a course by Dr. Knox Chamblin on C.S. Lewis. I’m a big C.S. Lewis fan, but haven’t read any of his work for several years. Dr. Chamblin quotes Lewis from Miracles (one of the few Lewis works I have never read):

In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment - or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one.

I found this illustration extraordinarily helpful in understanding Biblical compatibilism - the sometimes difficult notion that God’s complete sovereignty over human history and man’s responsibility (”free will”) can coexist. God has not created a random universe. All events are caused by other events. All actions (and inactions) have consequences. Yet, God is the ultimate cause of all events - working everything according to His purposes and to the good of those who love Him.

—————-
Now playing: The Notwist - Off the Rails
via FoxyTunes

I Love John Piper!

My family and I have been attending Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis (and now at a satellite campus in the southern metro area) for approximately 2 1/2 years. I had been listening to Pastor John Piper on the radio and reading his sermons and articles from Desiring God for a year or two prior to attending Bethlehem. My wife and I have grown to love his teaching.

Meanwhile, Mark Dever at the 9Marks Blog has written a 10-part series titled Where’d All These Calvinists Come From? In Part 9, Dever states, “…if I had to give a 2-word human explanation for their presence there [all those Calvinists], I know what two words I would utter: “John Piper.”"

Wow. Dever places Piper at the head of a list of men including Charles Haddon Spurgeon, John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul. It’s kind of surreal - realizing that you are afforded the weekly opportunity to sit under the teaching of someone like John Piper.

While I would like to thank Pastor Piper for the blessing he and his teaching ministry have been to me and my family, I also hope he never reads this. It would be for me a titanic struggle to resist pride in the face of so much fame and admiration. (A struggle I will most likely never encounter.) That John Piper has seemingly met both with such humility is a mark of God’s grace on his life.

—————-
Now playing: Sufjan Stevens - Springfield, Or Bobby Got a Shadfly Caught in His Hair
via FoxyTunes