July 10, 2020

The Council

A modern day council!

I recently discussed the issue of 1 Cor. 10:13 again with John Cranman:


John Cranman

TheSire, the first paragraph is not what I’m arguing. All I’m saying is that this verse affirms PAP/CCFW, and is thus incompatible with compatibilist determinism.

I am not arguing for moral responsibility. I am only arguing that it supports the idea that believing agents had two or more options they could’ve chosen – which falsifies compatibilist determinism.

TheSire:

The article argues the freedom Paul writes is that of believers. But usually, your side maintains all mankind has LFW. So, unbelievers would lack LFW.

John Cranman:

I grant that it’s referring to believers. But so long as there are two or more choices available to a believer, that still falsifies compatibilism.

TheSire:

But it falsifies LFW proponent’s assumptions aswell. If unbelievers don’t need LFW for moral culpability then we don’t either. Plus, the idea that two possibilities are available wouldn’t falsify determinism. Theistic determinist of idealist perspective would just maintain you chose differently in another world(the mental multiverse).

John Cranman:

You cannot choose otherwise if God is the one determining your choice. It doesn’t matter which world it is.

Chris Harris, does God ordain you to X and ~X at the same time?
X = sin
~X = escape from your sin

TheSire:

Yeah, I never said you have the ability to choose otherwise, I said alternate possibilities exist.

What you don’t understand is that this passage suffers from underdetermination.

John Cranman:

1 Cor 10:13 says you do have the ability to choose otherwise because God ensures it.

So when you sin, 1 Cor is saying God ordained a way of escape so you could’ve done otherwise. And whatsoever God ordains comes to pass, including the way out and the sin.
But God cannot simultaneously ordain your sin and a way for you to escape that sin without entailing a contradiction.
The only way to avoid the contradiction is to deny that He ordained one of those things. You can either deny compatibilism or you can deny scripture. You cant keep both.

It’s not underdetermined. Either God ordained a way of escape or He didn’t. Either God ordains your sin or He didn’t. He cant do both without a contradiction

TheSire:

“1 Cor 10:13 says you do have the ability to choose otherwise because God ensures it.”

Yeah Like I’ll concede all your points before you make a case. The issue is still the same that the statements are simply consistent with many metaphysical outlooks. I chose a Christian Idealist(determinist) as an example. I don’t think it is really saying that in any given circumstances an agent has the magical ability to act and cause a particular timeline to be instantiated.

Secondly, this is still leaving unbelievers in their “robotic” state. It leaves you with the notion that unbelievers are not accountable with sin because LFW is gifted to believers. So, given the interpretation, your position is contradictory to your other beliefs.

“But God cannot simultaneously ordain your sin and a way for you to escape that sin without entailing a contradiction.”

This assumes a lot about what these statements mean when it says you can possibly do x. Imagine a man and his friends are going to rob a place. God may have decreed many ways of escape for our confused Christian robber. But instead, he simply does the deed. He could have reported his friends to the police, simply left town, etc. All those states of affairs may have been possible but instead, he simply was decreed not to take them. So, it is perfectly consistent to maintain both. The very plausible read is that Christians are protected from apostasy or actions that would lead to such. It probably isn’t about general sins in some sort of sinless perfectionist type understanding. Ultimately, this is not possible to derive a metaphysic of the entire history of our universe from 1 Cor. 10:13. Modality is a highly debated concept and it ties into others(abstracts, Mind/matter, etc).

“does God ordain you to X and ~X at the same time?”
These aren’t contradictory, to determine one does x is not to say that -x isn’t possible.

John Cranman:

While I grant this passage seems to only apply to believers, there are other verses I would say apply to human free will in general. So that’s a red herring. For it is still the case that if even one believer had two or more options available to them that they *could have* taken, then this undermines compatibilism.
Per your robber example: you’re talking like a libertarian here, as if God only decrees “possible” outcomes like reporting friends, leaving town, and it’s wholly up to the agent to decide which option they’ll take, as if God doesn’t also determine the very choice the robber makes to “do the deed”.
So if God decrees that man to steal, then there is no way of “escape” for that man from doing so.
Hence again you deny 1 Cor 10:13.

“These aren’t contradictory, to determine one does x is not to say that -x isn’t possible.”

Again you betray your system here. Whatsoever God ordains comes to pass. Thus whatever God ordains isn’t merely “possible”. It’s actual.

So if God ordains ~X, it isn’t merely “possible”. It’s actual.

And if God ordains X, it’s actual too.

So now God ordains X and ~X simultaneously. And now you have a contradiction. Or you could adopt my view which doesn’t suffer from any of these problems.

TheSire:

“While I grant this passage seems to only apply to believers, there are other verses I would say apply to human free will in general. So that’s a red herring. For it is still the case that if even one believer had two or more options available to them that they *could have* taken, then this undermines compatibilism. “

That’s not the problem I’m raising. If mankind just has this freedom, then how is God providing a way of escape distinctive to believers and not unbelievers? So, this freedom that is given to believers to avoid apostasy isn’t something that is common to everyone. It also because of that reason couldn’t be LFW on your view. So, this is not a prooftext for your position.

“Per your robber example: you’re talking like a libertarian here, as if God only decrees “possible” outcomes like reporting friends, leaving town, and it’s wholly up to the agent to decide which option they’ll take, as if God doesn’t also determine the very choice the robber makes to “do the deed”.
So if God decrees that man to steal, then there is no way of “escape” for that man from doing so. “
Hence again you deny 1 Cor 10:13.”

Alternate possibilities can exist without entailing LFW. So, you’re begging the question in supposing alternate possibilities entail that humans have some specific ability to actualize them. That is just you assuming your metaphysical outlook on possibility and throwing back onto others that reject that grid.

[“These aren’t contradictory, to determine one does x is not to say that -x isn’t possible.”

Again you betray your system here. Whatsoever God ordains comes to pass. Thus whatever God ordains isn’t merely “possible”. It’s actual. ]

[So if God ordains ~X, it isn’t merely “possible”. It’s actual.]

This confuses what ~x I’m referring to. Certain the multiple things(ways of escape) are decreed. The example of the robbery has the police, other cities, etc. But all those timeless timelines are possible and not actual. It isn’t God predestined you to take the way of escape(some he does others he doesn’t) but rather one timeline is decreed and the others remain possible. So, no contradiction exists in these ideas.

John Cranman:

The problem you’re raising is a strawman of my OP. I’m simply not discussing humanity in general. I’m discussing those whom Paul is referring to in 1 Cor 10:13, which are believers. And I argue that if they have PAP, then that alone is enough to refute compatibilism.

In what sense does God decree alternate possibilities if whatsoever God decrees comes to pass? That’s a contradiction in terms. Only *actual* things come to pass, not *possible* things.

That’s not a grid. That’s logic. The burden is on you to make sense of this.

TheSire:

It’s not a Strawman. It’s an untenable implication of your interpretation.

God decrees creatures to be in situations in which alternative courses of action are possible. That’s hardly stating that he predestined both courses of action to occur.

That’s a grid that I believe blinds your judgment in these matters. It makes you go these extreme routes. You have a view of human freedom that you read metaphysics of God, modality, and all reality through. It makes you miss the big picture of things. That’s my honest take on the issue.

John Cranman:

But it’s not the argument at hand, which is why it’s a strawman.

In what sense are those alternate courses “present” when God decrees they not be taken?

That’s like saying apostasy is an alternate course thats available to a believer. No it’s not in any meaningful sense.

TheSire:

It’s not the argument You’re making but it’s relevant because if your argument has untenable conclusions, then we really should reject this argument.

I don’t get the “present” metaphor or whether it’s literal. I’m not really what’s being asked. How are Alternate possibilities real? It depends on your view of abstract objects and the nature of reality.

I just think that assumes apostasy was about believers moving from a state of grace to wrath but I think salvation occurs differently.

 

TheCouncil:

1 Cor. 10:13

 

RSS
Follow by Email