The other day, Braxton Hunter posted a video where he, Leighton Flowers, Tim Stratton, and Jonathan Pritchett asked Calvinists 20 questions and wanted us to respond by comment, blog, or video. I responded to it on my blog yesterday, but today I was thinking it might be fun to make a video of my own asking them questions. I figured I would also post the questions on my blog in case anybody wants to answer them here or in case anybody is like me and prefers the written word to the spoken word.
Here are the questions.
1. In John 10, Jesus gives the analogy of the shepherd and the sheep. In verse 16, Jesus said, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; and they will become one flock, with one shepherd.” Since these sheep have not yet heard Jesus’ voice, how is it that they are already his sheep? How does anybody become one of Jesus’ sheep?
2. According to libertarian free will, if somebody acts freely, then there are no antecedent conditions prior to and up to the moment of choice that are sufficient to determine what that choice will be. Absent Frankfurt cases, if a person acts freely, they could have done otherwise even if everything in the universe prior to and up to the moment of choice had been exactly the same. Suppose there are two possible worlds that are exactly the same up to the moment Bob is faced with choosing whether to have a Dr. Pepper or not. In one of the possible worlds, he chooses to drink the Dr. Pepper. In the other, he chooses not to drink the Dr. Pepper. Could there be a sufficient explanation for why he chose the Dr. Pepper in one world or why he didn’t choose it in the other? What could the explanation for his choice possibly be in each world if no antecedent conditions, including his own desires or plans, are sufficient to determine his choice?
3. If we are capable of acting contrary to all antecedent plans, wishes, motives, inclinations, and desires, then how can we ever know what we are about to do next? It seems like the best we could do is attach some probability to our future actions based on our antecedent desires. However, in cases where we act contrary to our antecedent intentions or motives, our acts should take us completely by surprise. In those cases, there were no antecedent conditions that could have helped us predict our next move. If that is how libertarian free will works, wouldn’t driving be extremely dangerous, not knowing which way you were going to turn the wheel in the next moment?
If you need more explanation for where this question is coming from, see libertarian free will would be a dangerous thing if we really had it.
4. There are multiple places that tell us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Since it also says Pharaoh hardened his own heart, what difference did God’s hardening make? Did it have any effect on Pharaoh’s behavior? Did Pharaoh commit any sins as a result of God hardening his heart that he would not have committed if God had not hardened his heart? Is Pharaoh blamable for the acts he took as a result of God hardening his heart?
5. In John 12:49, Jesus said, “For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.” Could Jesus have disobeyed his Father’s commands? If not, is he still worthy of praise for obeying God’s commands perfectly? If so, how do you reconcile that with the view that before one can be worthy of praise or blame, they must have the categorical ability to do otherwise?
6. In Romans 9:19, Paul raises a hypothetical objection. He says, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?’” What gave rise to this objection? Does this objection make sense in light of what Paul taught prior to this objection? Please explain how.
7. Would you agree the stronger the evidence is for some conclusion, the harder it is to deny? If so, suppose the evidence was so strong that one could not honestly deny the conclusion. If a person could not deny the conclusion in light of the evidence, then wouldn’t it be the case that the evidence was sufficient to determine the belief? If our beliefs are determined by antecedent conditions (like being privy to evidence), would it follow that we could not be rational in holding that belief? If so, then wouldn’t it follow that the stronger evidence is, the less rational we are for affirming the conclusion? After all, the stronger evidence is, the closer that evidence is to determining our belief.
8. In 1 Timothy 2:3-4, it says, “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” If God wants every individual human to come to a knowledge of the truth, why does it appear from John 12:37-40 that God blinded people and hardened their hearts expressly so that they would not believe in Jesus? Why did God not perform the same miracles in Tyre and Sidon as he performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida, knowing that if he had, Tyre and Sidon would have repented (Matthew 11:21)?
9. In John 12:32, Jesus said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John followed up by explaining, “Now he was saying this to indicate the kind of death he was going to die” (v.33). It appears that Jesus being lifted up is a reference to his crucifixion. If the “all people” is not qualified in any way, but actually indicates every single individual, then why did Paul say that "Christ crucified" is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles? Doesn’t the cross turn at least some people off from Jesus rather than drawing them to Jesus?
10. When the authors of the Bible wrote their works, were they acting freely in the libertarian sense?
11. If God knew exactly who was going to believe in Jesus, why would Jesus’ death on the cross need to be intended for anybody other than those God knew would be saved by it?
12. Does God love those he raises to eternal damnation?
13. If libertarian free will is necessary to have rational beliefs, does it follow that for any rational belief, there are no antecedent conditions (including observations, evidence, arguments, etc.) that are sufficient to determine those beliefs? If so, then are you basically saying that, at least to some degree, your beliefs have to be divorced from or independent of evidence in order to be rational? If the ultimate reason you believe one thing instead of another is because you chose to believe one instead of the other, regardless of what the evidence happened to be, then wouldn’t that call the rationality of your belief into question? Could you choose, right now, to honestly believe the earth is flat?
14. If we have libertarian free will, why is it that nobody is able to live a sinless life? If there are people who are able to live a sinless life, then why is it that out of the billions of people who have lived for the last four thousand years, nobody but Jesus has ever done so?
15. Do you think God gives everybody the same chance to be saved? Does he exert the same effort to reach each individual? If not, why not if he loves everybody equally and wants everybody to be saved? If so, what’s the point in praying for somebody’s salvation? What more do you expect God to do?
EDIT: Here are some additional questions I thought of after making my video with just the 15 questions. I may add to these in the future as questions come to me.
16. This question is based on a thought experiment. Suppose there are two people named Voldemort. Voldemort-1 was born into the world in the usual way and grew up to be a nasty unscrupulous wizard who likes to hurt people. Voldemort-2 was poofed into existence instantaneously by J.K. Rowling just yesterday. Both Voldemorts are alike in every way, including all their brain cells, memories, personality, desires, ambitions, and everything. Considering the fact that at the moment Voldemort-2 came into being, they were identical, except maybe for their location, are they both morally accountable for their behavior? If Voldemort-1 is morally responsible for his behavior, and Vordemort-2 is exactly like Vodlemort-1, is Vodemort-2 responsible for his behavior? If Voldemort-2 is not responsible for his behavior since he was create complete with a bad disposition he didn't choose to have, does it follow that Voldemort-1 isn't responsible for his behavior either since they are exactly alike and have all the same advantages and disadvantages? If they are both responsible for their behavior, does that mean it's possible to be responsible for acting on evil motives that you did not choose to have and that were given to you by your creator?
17. Why is it that some people embrace the gospel and others reject the gospel even when they both hear the same gospel proclaimed in the same way? Is it because some are smarter than others? Is it because some are more humble than others? Is it because some are more moral than others? Or some other reason? If the reason one person embraces the gospel and the other doesn't is because one person has some virtue the other lacks, then doesn't that mean those who embrace the gospel and are therefore saved have something to boast about?
18. Did Jesus' death on the cross atone for the sins of all people, or did it merely make atonement possible? If it actually paid the penalty for everybody's sins, but some people for whom Christ died never exercise faith in him and are not saved, does that mean the same sins have to be paid for twice--once by Jesus, and once by the actual sinner?
No comments:
Post a Comment