Free to Choose what we Desire Most?
Many Calvinists today think of free will as the ability to choose what we desire most. They view our strongest desire as the determining cause of choice. That doesn’t seem to be the way Edwards saw things. Edwards claims that reason, not desire determines choice. In places where I was expecting Edwards to say desire determines choice, I find Edwards saying reason determines choice. Whereas the modern Calvinist definition of choosing what we desire most concerns me as having too dim a view of reason and making our actions too similar to animal instincts, this is not a charge that applies to Edwards. Edwards view is simply different than modern Calvinists - he says reason determines choices, they say desire determines choices.
A close reading of Edwards’ book about the will reveals that not only does he not say desire determines choice, he says reason determines choices. In fact, what Edwards says about desire rules out the idea that our choices are determined by our strongest desire. I will attempt to show this in three steps. First, John Locke states that desire can conflict with choice, but Edwards harmonizes desire and choice by distinguishing the objects of desire. Second, to avoid the conflict, not only must there be two objects, but if one of the objects is an action of ours, the other must be a remote object (i.e. not an action of ours). Finally, I will draw the conclusion that if desires don’t compete, one can’t be stronger than another, so therefore in Edwards view we don’t choose according to our strongest desire.
John Locke States that Desire Can Conflict with Choice, but Edwards Harmonizes Desire and Choice by Distinguishing the Objects of Desire
In part I.I, Edwards engages John Locke’s work “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. Locke states that choice A) only involves our actions and B) immediately gives rise to those actions. This highlights the difference between choice and desire because desire may involve things beside our actions. Locke argues that we can make a choice which tends to produce one result and desire the opposite result. By this conflict between desire and choice, we can distinguish desire from choice. We can make choice A, which leads to our action B, which leads to state of affairs C, while at the same time we have desire D for the opposite of C or ~C.i
Edwards objects to Locke’s claim that choice and desire can be contrary. ii Edwards’ basis of objection is not a causal relationship between desire and choice, but rather his basis is an insufficient distinction between desire and choice. If we desire and choose the same thing, it is difficult to distinguish when desire ends and choice begins. Edwards disagrees that a distinction between desire and choice may be established on the basis of conflicts between the two. Instead, the only basis of distinction between the two is that choice relates directly to our action, whereas desire relates to things beside our actions.
Locke stated that choice only involves our actions, whereas desire may relate to things beside our actions. Edwards agrees with this. Where Edwards disagrees is that based on this we can conclude that desire and choice conflict. Locke argued: we make choice A, which leads to our action B, which leads to state of affairs C, while at the same time we have desire D, for the opposite of state of affairs C, ~C. Edwards notes that there is no conflict between desire and choice, because the objects are different. Choice A has action B as its object, whereas desire D has ~C as its object. Since they have different objects, they don’t conflict.
To Avoid the Conflict, Not Only Must there be Two Objects, but If One of the Objects Is an Action of Ours, the Other Must Be a Remote Object (I.E. Not an Action of Ours)
Edwards leverages this argument in part III.V by arguing along these lines:
1. Some falsely argue the unregenerate can’t perform their spiritual duties, but do desire and endeavor to, so they are excusable.
2. This entails the contradiction that we are inclined and disinclined to the same thing
3. Obedience consists in the inclination itself
4. The inclination is itself the choice
5. “Desire without performance” is a phrase sometimes used, but it's improper as the desire relates to something future or something else is the object of desire. (i.e. someone might say a drunk doesn't want to drink the drink he's drinking, meaning: a drunk who desires to avoid drinking “someday” so he can keep his money)
6. This “indirect willingness” falls short of any virtue or even partial obedience to God’s command
7. “Sincerity” in indirect willingness doesn’t make it any better, people can be sincere about bad things.
I plan on addressing this argument in a separate post. For right now, I am just trying to highlight the difference between Edwards and modern Calvinists.
Points 2 & 5 come from Edwards arguments above about distinct objects. For Edwards, saying someone desires to obey God’s commands and chooses not to, is an illogical confusion of two distinct objects of desire. The unregenerate has sinful desires, even if they don’t desire some of the associated consequences.
But let’s say Edwards’ objector in part III.V claims the only reason Edwards arrived at the contradiction of desiring and not desiring one object is by conflating desire and choice. It’s not that we desire and don’t desire the same act. Desiring to choose A and desiring to choose B have two distinct objects: choice A and choice B. Thus we can want to choose in accordance with God’s law, but at the same time want to choose against God’s law.
Edwards provided his two part response already in part I.I and in point 5 of his argument. First, desire must relate to a remote object. Second, if the desire is for choice, desire becomes indistinct for choice. Not only do there have to be two objects (to avoid the conflict of two desires on one object) but the other object has to be something remote and cannot involve an action on our part. So desiring to choose A and B is not possible. If one desires to choose A, they can desire the effects of choosing B, but they can’t desire to choose B. In the example of the drunk, if he desires to drink, he can’t desire to walk out of the bar, even if he can desire the consequences of walking away: keeping his money. Because drinking and walking out are both actions on the drunks’ part, he cannot desire both at the same time. The alternative desire has to be for something remote, not an action on his part.
If Desires Don’t Compete, One Can’t Be Stronger than Another
From this I will carefully draw a two conclusions which I think rule out the idea that we choose according to our strongest desire. The problem I have is with the word strongest, which implies two or more desires.
First, for Edwards, it is impossible to have a “strongest” desire with respect to one object. Since there cannot be two competing desires with respect to an object, one cannot be stronger than another.
Second, even though a person may simultaneously have two desires for two separate objects, if one of those objects was for that persons’ action or choice, the other couldn’t be. The other desire must be for some remote object, otherwise desire would be conceptually indistinct from choice. The desires didn’t compete such that the strongest comes out victorious. They don’t compete for our action, because one relates to our action and the other doesn’t.
In short, Edwards rules out the notion that our strongest desires determine our choices by saying:
1) reason determines our choices
2) desire can’t conflict with desire with respect to one object (i.e. one can’t be stronger than the other, because there is no other)
3) desire, when conceptually distinct from choice, must relate to a remote object (i.e. something other than our action)
This seems like a minor difference in a small detail between a Calvinist over 100 years ago and Calvinists today. Who cares? Well, what I find interesting is that Calvinists today say they got their notion from Edwards. Both Tchividjianiii and R.C. Sprouliv make this claim. Seems like a case of Edwardian eisegesis.
And additional error Sproul makes is that Edwards didn't say the will is free, he said the person is (or at least sometimes is) free to execute the will's commands. For more on Edwards' view, please see this post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i For he that shall turn his thoughts inwards upon what passes in his mind when he wills, shall see that the will or power of volition is conversant about nothing but our own actions ; terminates there ; and reaches no further ; and that volition is nothing but that particular determination of the mind, whereby, barely by a thought the mind endeavours to give rise, continuation, or stop, to any action which it takes to be in its power. This, well considered, plainly shows that the will is perfectly distinguished from desire which, in the very same action, may have a quite contrary tendency from that which our will sets us upon. A man, whom I cannot deny, may oblige me to use persuasions to another, which, at the same time I am speaking, I may wish may not prevail on him. In this case, it is plain the will and desire run counter. I will the action; that tends one way, whilst my desire tends another, and that the direct contrary way. – An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
ii I do not suppose, that Will and Desire are words of precisely the same signification: Will seems to be a word of more general signification, extending to things present and absent. Desire respects something absent. I may prefer my present situation and posture, suppose sitting still, or having my eyes open, and so may will it. But yet I cannot think they are so entirely distinct, that they can ever be properly said to run counter. A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will. The forementioned instance, which Mr. Locke produces, is no proof that he ever does. He may, on some consideration or other will to utter speeches which have a tendency to persuade another and still may desire that they may not persuade him; but yet his Will and Desire do not run counter all: the thing which he wills, the very same he desires; and he does not will a thing, and desire the contrary, in any particular. In this instance, it is not carefully observed, what is the thing willed, and what is the thing desired: if it were, it would be found, that Will and Desire do not clash in the least. The thing willed on some consideration, is to utter such words; and certainly, the same consideration so influences him, that he does not desire the contrary; all things considered, he chooses to utter such words, and does not desire not to utter them. And so as to the thing which Mr. Locke speaks of as desired, viz. That the words, though they tend to persuade, should not be effectual to that end, his Will is not contrary to this; he does not will that they should be effectual, but rather wills that they should not, as he desires. In order to prove that the Will and Desire may run counter, it should be shown that they may be contrary one to the other in the same thing, or with respect to the very same object of Will or Desire: but here the objects are two; and in each, taken by themselves, the Will and Desire agree. And it is no wonder that they should not agree in different things, though but little distinguished in their nature. The Will may not agree with the Will, nor Desire agree with Desire, in different things. As in this very instance which Mr. Locke mentions, a person may, on some consideration, desire to use persuasions, and at the same time may desire they may not prevail; but yet nobody will say, that Desire runs counter to Desire; or that this proves that Desire is perfectly a distinct thing from Desire. part I.I
iii> Tchividjian states Edwards' thesis is that "we are free to choose that which we most desire". (link)
iv "Christian thinkers have given us two very important definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the freedom of the Will.
Edwards defined the will as "the mind choosing." Before we can ever make moral choices we must first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two different things.
A second definition of free will is "the ability to choose what we want." This rests on the important foundation of human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.
Now for the tricky part. According to Edwards a human being is not only free to choose what he desires he must choose what he desires to choose at all. What I call Edwards's Law of Choice is this: "The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment." This means that that every choice is free and every choice is determined.
I said this was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradiction to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is determined. But "determined" here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one's internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom." - RC Spoul Chosen by God p. 53-5. Tyndale House 1986.
Comments
glad to see you back. I will be away for 8 to 10 days and most likely will only have today and tomorrow to get a word in edgewise with you.
Question:
What's the intent of this post: "FREE TO CHOOSE...."?
And in regard to it, this post, can you square it with this reasoning of Paul the Apostle's here:::>
1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
Thanks, good to see you as well.
The intent of the post is to show the differences between the popular Calvinist opinion of the day and Edwards' opinion.
I have been doing a series on Edwards. I started the series because I was told Edwards' book is the best out there on the Calvinist perspective on the will. I was also told that his arguments were unanswered and unanswerable. So I figured I would read his book and go through it.
Yes, the post can be squared with the verse you quote. In fact, I am not sure I see even apparent tension between the verse and the post. But it is a good reminder of our responsibilities as Christians to fight! But remember, greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world. To God be the glory!!!
May God grant you victory in your fight!
Dan
hmmmmmm,
Can you tell me how dead people fight?::::>
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
And according to John, the definition of Eternal Life is::::>
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
I have some things I would like to unpack but I don't want to unless there is freedom to do so?
The basis is based on this admonition::::>
2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
“hmmmmmm,
Can you tell me how dead people fight?::::>”
I think Dan and I will tell you how they do so, when you explain how all of these nonbelievers get married, have children, work at jobs, go on trips, drive cars, take planes, fly planes, ride trains, do physics equations, split atoms, type posts on blogs, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. . . . . . . .
Natamllc then cites the two standard calvinist proof texts used in support of their doctrine of depravity (Eph. 2:5 and Col.2:13):
“Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,”
The error you make, like many, many other calvinists Natamllc, is to conceive of a spiritually dead person as being **like a physically dead corpse**. A physically dead corpse does not do anything, does not respond to external stimuli, makes no response and is incapable of any response to what is occurring in the surroundings. Now that may be true of a dead body, but **spiritual death** in the New Testament does not mean that the nonbeliever is completely inactive and nonresponsive (cf., “Can you tell me how dead people fight?”) like a physically dead corpse. In fact, the nonbelievers are quite active doing all sorts of things including fighting and many, many other things. So in what sense are they **spiritually dead**? In the bible death often refers to a separation of some kind (e.g., a common example being at death when the spirit and the body are separated). Because of our sins we are separated from God who is the ultimate source of all good and life and so from God’s perspective when we are nonbelievers and not in a saving relationship with Him. We are **spiritually** dead. There is scripture which teaches that the body may die, but no scripture which teaches that the human spirit ever dies. So if ontologically speaking the nonbeliever’s body is functioning (as it is as long as he is alive in this world) and his/her spirit is also functioning (if his spirit were dead he would be unconscious and incapable of thought or action): then in what sense is he dead? He is dead spiritually meaning he is separated from God by his sins. If you want an absolutely clear example of what spiritual death means in the New Testament look at what the father says in the Prodigal Son parable in Luke 15:24 where in describing his son who has left and so been separated from him: “for this son of mine WAS DEAD and has COME TO LIFE AGAIN; he was LOST, and has BEEN FOUND.”
Even in one of the proof texts that Natamllc cites (Ephesians 2:5) if you go further in that very chapter, Paul speaks of this spiritual death as separation from God and God’s people: “remember that you were at that time SEPARATE FROM CHRIST, EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, and STRANGERS TO THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having no hope and WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD. But now in Christ Jesus you WHO FORMERLY WERE FAR OFF have been BROUGHT NEAR by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:12-13) In both Eph. 2 and Col. 3 then, the apostle Paul uses the metaphor of being dead and then being made alive/being resurrected, to speak about how people who were separated from God by their sins and so spiritually dead, have been “made alive” spiritually by now being in a personal and saving relationship with God.
Calvinists mistakenly take the metaphor of being “dead” to refer in an ontological sense to mankind (that as nonbelievers we are like physically dead corpses incapable of doing any action or having any response or doing anything). When the metaphor speaks not ontologically, but **relationally**( i.e., we are separated from God by our sins, and so spiritually dead; we need to enter into a saving relationship with God in which our sins are forgiven and we can then relate to God as He wants us to do so).
Robert
I want to comment on what deserves to be called the WARE ERROR. I dub it the “Ware Error” because I have seen Bruce Ware the calvinist who argues for compatibilism and against libertarian free will **repeatedly** make this error in his writings on the subject (and just now I saw a YouTube clip where in a debate he does it yet again). The “Ware Error” is an intentional misrepresentation, a straw man, if you will, that is supposed to show the absurdity of the libertarian free will position.
The error goes like this: the calvinist first says that the standard definition of LFW is the ABILITY TO DO OTHERWISE. Next is added the some line about assuming or given all the preceding causal factors are the same. So far I would have no problem with what is being asserted. It is the next little move that is where the error lies.
Ware was talking about someone pulling the trigger of a gun, which involves a conscious intentional action on their part. Ware says of this pulling the trigger that the libertarian believes that the person also could have done otherwise (meaning they also could have chosen not to pull the trigger of the gun). Again, there is nothing objectionable to this at this point. But then comes the absolutely ridiculous reasoning and claim which deserves to be called the “Ware Error” since he commits it repeatedly so many times and other calvinists follow suit.
Ware says that the person pulling the trigger had a certain reason or reasons for pulling the trigger. Let’s call pulling the trigger “A”. Ware says/and writes that say “Joe” has reason(s) for pulling the trigger. But Ware also says that if Joe had instead chosen not to pull the trigger (let’s call that “B”) HIS REASONS FOR NOT PULLING THE TRIGGER WOULD BE THE SAME. In other words, Joe has the identical same reasons for both pulling the trigger/A or not pulling the trigger/B. And that is presented by Ware to make LFW appear to be ridiculous to be suffering from a severe philosophical problem.
But what Ware is saying is in fact ridiculous and anyone who makes even the most mundane choices knows that that is not what it is like at all when we make choices. Joe may have certain reasons for wanting to pull the trigger (including that he hates Bre, or Bre has committed adultery with Joe and had told Joe that she was not married, etc. etc.) On the other hand, Joe may have certain reasons for not wanting to pull the trigger (including that he really does not want to go to prison, that shooting Bre would not be worth the possible consequences that may ensue so it would be wiser for Joe not to shoot her, etc. etc.) What should we notice here? That in fact, different reasons are associated with different possible actions. This is the common experience of mankind and I would wager the common experience of Bruce Ware as well. I am sure that when Ware makes choices to do or not do something, that he does not have THE SAME IDENTICAL REASONS for both doing and not doing what he does. None of us makes choices this way. That’s not how it works. In fact we have reasons for doing various things and these reasons are not the same but are in fact very different and even conflicting.
Back to Joe with the gun in his hand pointed at Bre whom he has had an affair with. Say that in his mind before he pulls the trigger are only two reasons (to keep it simple). One reason in his mind is to pull the trigger and shoot her intending to kill her for what she did to Joe. Another reason in his mind before he pulls the trigger is to not pull the trigger because he does not want to go to prison. Say that Joe chooses to in fact pull the trigger, so he shoots at Bre killing her. And he is then convicted of the shooting and sent to prison.
And say that Joe then has feelings of regret about his choice to pull the trigger. His regret is based upon the reality that before he did in fact pull the trigger he had a choice, he was considering reasons both for pulling the trigger and reasons for not pulling the trigger. Did Joe think these reasons for pulling the trigger and not pulling the trigger were the identical same reasons as Ware claims? No way, it is precisely because he chose to act upon the wrong reason(s) that he has regret. He knows that he could have and should have not acted upon the reasons for pulling the trigger but instead have acted on the reasons for not pulling the trigger. And we all know this about our choices. Even our most mundane choices involve these competing “importances”, competing reasons, reasons that are not the same for both doing and not doing something. So why does Ware keep making the WARE ERROR or arguing that when we make a choice our reasons for both doing something and not doing something are identical? I think he keeps bringing it up because he wants to make LFW look foolish. It is a desperate attempt on his part and on the part of other calvinists who adopt the same argument. And if we grant his assumption that LFW means having the identical same reasons for both doing and not doing something, then LFW would indeed be foolish. But that is not what proponents of LFW such as myself and the philosophers and theologians such as Plantinga and Thomas Reid and even secular proponents of LFW such as John Searle believe (note = I keep telling people to read Searle’s book RATIONALITY IN ACTION. Searle is a better philosopher than Ware and the other calvinists and Searle argues clearly and persuasively that whenever we act intentionally and voluntarily we do so for reasons and we do in fact experience LFW.)
So Dan while you are having your excellent dissection of the erroneous views of Jonathan Edwards I just could not resist talking a bit about WARE’S ERROR. Keep up the great work on your blog you are doing an absolutely fantastic job of taking apart first John Owen’s arguments and now the arguments of Jonathan Edwards.
Robert
Eternal life and regeneration are not the same thing. Eternal life is our life with God in Christ that we have both here and hereafter. Regeneration is the birth of the new man inside us who fights against the flesh. I say this because many people "mix metaphors" on this issue and because you quoted two passages relating to regeneration and one related to eternal life, but they are separate topics.
As to your question, dead man can't fight. The fight in question requires God's gracious assistance. I view regeneration as a process, not a one time event. It starts before faith, but some of the essential parts of the process complete after faith when we are united to Christ.
God be with you,
Dan
I am not a Calvinist.
I am a Spirit filled Christian of over 50 years.
So, I think you, the first Robert have fallen prey to Satan's deception in making that conclusion about me. Just thought you would like to know.
As for the reference to Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2, you also missed the point and intent for my quoting those verses to Dan.
I am willing to open up my understanding of this matter having done my own exhaustive search in the Word these many years.
If you want to debate my position, fine with me.
Let me leave off with the "eternal" purpose as Paul describes it in Ephesians 3 and say that you must have been "already" "made alive" to enter into this sort of warfare:
Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
This matter opened up by revelation through Paul the Apostle is for "Christians" not unbelievers seeing unbelievers are just that, unbelieving human beings of Adam's race unaware of these sorts of rulers and authorities. I will say that God does not expect an unbeliever to become aware of these sorts of rulers and authorities. This knowledge is only for the Elect who represent Our Heavenly Father and His Will to these rulers and authorities and also to Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
The matter of being dead addresses Jude's declaration here:
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
And, yes, having preached at many funerals of literal dead persons, I am well aware of the difference between the two kinds of dead I make reference to.
regards
Michael
to this portion of your last response I want to address my comments now:
DAN:"It starts before faith, but some of the essential parts of the process complete after faith when we are united to Christ."
I would focus on this portion, "ARE UNITED TO CHRIST".
This phrase is precisely what I was getting at when I quoted those two verses. I believe if you consider what is meant here you will see where I am coming from.
And when I quoted the "definition" of ETERNAL LIFE, that is, "the knowing of these two Eternals" it was indeed me making the distinction as you have just made as well.
I see the two separate yet very related ideas too.
Now to your phrase. This is what I want to comment on.
In Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2, the Greek word suzoopoieo is used. It is used only twice and by Paul the Apostle, one at Eph. 2:5 and the other use is at Col. 2:13.
συζωοποιέω
suzōopoieō
sood-zo-op-oy-eh'-o
From G4862 and G2227; to reanimate conjointly with (figuratively): - quicken together with.
Now let me make a distinction between suzoopoieo and another Greek word: "zoopoieo".
Here is the definition of zoopoieo:
ζωοποιέω
zōopoieō
dzo-op-oy-eh'-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.
Here is one place this Greek word is used:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
This word "zoopoieo" is used several more times throughout the New Testament, some 12 times.
What is the significance of this?
Well, suzoopoieo is an "Act" of God's, Our Heavenly Father specifically for the "Bride" or "Church". The other word zoopoieo is used more generally. Let me cite just two verses also to show the significance of this word zoopoieo:
Gal 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
and
1Ti 6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
For anyone to "live" in this "life" one must live by the Law of Righteousness.
For any creation to come into being God must give it "life".
So my distinction is simply one of life for all things and specific "life" for those God elects and reanimates and conjoins to Christ Jesus. This "being", the Bride, the Church is that that we say is the "called out ones". These are those Paul exhorted to "lay hold" of Eternal Life, the verse I made reference to, 1 Ti. 6:12.
I know you are a thinking and reasoning man, so I will leave off for now and wait your reply before I go any further.
regards
Michael
Here are your words and my reply to them so that we are absolutely clear, ok?
Robert #1:"If you want an absolutely clear example of what spiritual death means in the New Testament look at what the father says in the Prodigal Son parable in Luke 15:24 where in describing his son who has left and so been separated from him: “for this son of mine WAS DEAD and has COME TO LIFE AGAIN; he was LOST, and has BEEN FOUND.” "
You have misinterpreted the Scripture. Here at Luke 15:24, an entirely different meaning is applied which you have missed and so mixed up what God's True intent is.
The Word you applied is not found in the verse.
Here is the Greek word used at Luke 15:24:
ἀναζάω
anazaō
an-ad-zah'-o
From G303 and G2198; to recover life (literally or figuratively): - (be a-) live again, revive.
You see there? This is quite powerful if you can understand it correctly and your misunderstanding of it rendering your intent moot because of your missing the mark of the intent of the verse and the story!
Just to apply things correctly. Whenever the word "life" is used with reference to "God", it is always this Greek Word:
ζάω
zaō
dzah'-o
A primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively): - life (-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.
So when we read this in Jude:
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
God is making it clear that after God/Zao gives life/zoopoieo, when one by their active choice separate from God's Life/Zao, they then are "twice dead".
Mysteries abound. Here then indeed is one of them.
The story in Luke is for those lost and found. To these God gives His Righteousness by Faith through Grace.
Here's one of those other famous stories where we see one receiving God's Righteousness when they were not even asking for it:
Mar 7:24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden.
Mar 7:25 But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet.
Mar 7:26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
Mar 7:27 And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
Mar 7:28 But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
Mar 7:29 And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter."
Mar 7:30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.
Thanks be to God that He is the giver of the Gift of Righteousness to wretches like me!!!
regards
Michael
“I am not a Calvinist.”
That’s good, from your comments you appeared to be taking the calvinist position on some things.
“As for the reference to Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2, you also missed the point and intent for my quoting those verses to Dan.”
We are in the midst of a discussion of free will and Edwards’ views on this subject. Calvinists often cite Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 as proof texts for their view of “total depravity”, so I thought that was what you were doing considering the context.
“Let me leave off with the "eternal" purpose as Paul describes it in Ephesians 3 and say that you must have been "already" "made alive" to enter into this sort of warfare:”
So Michael seeing as you are not a calvinist, do you view spiritual warfare as something that is evidence for the reality of libertarian free will?
“The matter of being dead addresses Jude's declaration here:
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.”
So you take Jude to be talking about the meaning of “spiritual death”?
“And, yes, having preached at many funerals of literal dead persons, I am well aware of the difference between the two kinds of dead I make reference to.”
So you believe that physical death is separation of the body and spirit while spiritual death is separation of the sinner from God because of his sins (with the “second death”/Rev.20:14-15, then being permanent separation from God)?
I was talking about the meaning of “spiritual death” and made the point that the Luke 15:24 passage speaks of “death” as separation, I had written:
“Robert #1:"If you want an absolutely clear example of what spiritual death means in the New Testament look at what the father says in the Prodigal Son parable in Luke 15:24 where in describing his son who has left and so been separated from him: “for this son of mine WAS DEAD and has COME TO LIFE AGAIN; he was LOST, and has BEEN FOUND.” "”
You responded:
“You have misinterpreted the Scripture. Here at Luke 15:24, an entirely different meaning is applied which you have missed and so mixed up what God's True intent is.”
I disagree. Tell me, what does the “Father” in the prodigal son story, who represents our Heavenly Father mean when he says of his son that “this son of mine WAS DEAD and has COME TO LIFE AGAIN.” In what sense was this son “dead”? In what sense did he “come to life again”?
“So when we read this in Jude:
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;”
What does Jude 1:12 have to do with Luke 15:24? Jude is referring to false teachers and using multiple metaphors for them, while Luke 15 is discussing persons out of relationship with God. What connection do you see in these verses? And in your opinion what does the “second death” of Rev. 20:14-15 mean?
Robert
Thanks for the encouraging words and excellent description of the Ware error. You are right. When we have choices, we have reasons to do either alternative. Paul explains this in Philippians 1, when he talks about either departing or staying. He says both press him
God be with you,
Dan
“Thanks for the encouraging words and excellent description of the Ware error. You are right. When we have choices, we have reasons to do either alternative.”
In my work with inmates, I have spoken with people who **literally** pulled the trigger and shot people and had different reasons for both pulling the trigger and not pulling the trigger, so I **know** in fact that Ware is dead wrong in his claim about libertarian free will. What is a bit surprising though is that both Ware and other calvinists (your friend Turretin fan brings up the same argument on his blog) repeatedly keep bringing up this same argument against LFW. This suggests that they are not dealing honestly with the LFW position. If they have to resort to such an obvious misrepresentation and straw man that suggests they are desperately throwing out anything that possibly could undermine the LFW view.
“Paul explains this in Philippians 1, when he talks about either departing or staying. He says both press him”
I am not sure that was within Paul’s control of which possibility would become actual. Rather, he says he has different reasons for desiring to stay and different reasons for desiring to go. But the fact that he has different reasons associated with different desires does support my claim that when we make choices we have different reasons associated with each alternative. That is the key, that the inmate had certain reasons for pulling the trigger and other reasons for not pulling the trigger. Those who genuinely regret pulling the trigger, believe that they could have done otherwise and had reasons to do otherwise, and **should** have done otherwise.
Of course if everything is predetermined as the calvinists mistakenly claim, then the regret of the inmates is based upon a false belief, that they could have chosen to not pull the trigger. I talk to these inmates about choices all the time and either these choices were real or we live in a world of illusion in which we never ever have a choice and in which we can never do otherwise than what God predetermined for us to do. If you held that false calvinistic belief, you would not have much to say to these inmates about the reality of their choices (because they never really had a choice, every evil thing they ever did was exactly what God predetermined for them to do and it was impossible for them to do otherwise).
And again Dan I am enjoying your blog, you are just absolutely wiping out first Owens’ calvinistic arguments and now Edwards’ arguments, keep up the good work.
Robert
I ask myself why this particular outcome “happened”? It seems to me that this particular outcome “happened” because in that moment all factors combined played a role in determining the action. If placed in exactly the same situation those factors would always combine resulting in the same outcome/action. The only way it could be different is if something were different, but that then goes against the definition of LFW.
I look at it like this, I love Notre Dame Football and last year was really hard to be a fan. If ND could replay the entire season and all things were exactly the same I have no doubt that they would still have the worst season in school history. The only way the season would be different is if “something, anything” were different. Yet most LFW advocates will say that all things being equal the outcome/result would/could have been otherwise.
I have no idea how this all happens or plays out. I read my bible and see that God controls everything and that I am free to choose what I want. If someone were to ask me if I believed that I had free will I would say yes, if someone were to ask me if I thought God controlled everything I would say yes. I am comfortable at this stage in my growth to appear to be contradictory in my views, but I believe that both things are taught in the bible. Maybe one day I will understand how it works, but right now I am happy that I am a child of God and thank him everyday for all that he has/is/will do for me.
“The premise was or would be that all things being equal and exactly the same the outcome would have/could have been different. So in the example of pulling the trigger it would look like this- all things are exactly the same (circumstances, environment, thoughts, feelings, etc.) yet given all that- the outcome (or action in this scenario) would/could be different.”
Let’s stay with the pulling the trigger example. I was talking to “Angel” about how he pulled the trigger and shot “Alberto” from the rival gang. Angel’s wife had just given birth to a beautiful baby boy. So you would think that Angel had some reasons to not pull the trigger and shoot Alberto, (including wanting to be there when his son grew up, being with his wife, even being with his other gang members, etc. etc.) I asked Angel specifically about what reasons he had for pulling the trigger and what reasons he had for not pulling the trigger (contrary to Ware the reasons associated with each choice were very different, they were not the same). To keep it simple let’s call the reasons for pulling the trigger to be [Importance set PULL THE TRIGGER/A], or the reasons why it was important to Angel to pull the trigger. Let’s call the reasons for not pulling the trigger to be [Importance set NOT PULL THE TRIGGER/not-A].
Let’s also add that Angel now regrets having pulled the trigger. This means that before Angel made the choice to pull the trigger (A), he believes that he also could have made the choice not to pull the trigger (not-A). Unless Angel could in fact have chosen not to pull the trigger, his belief that he could have done otherwise is a false belief. Further, his belief that he could have done otherwise is either a true or false belief. If prior to (A) “all things are exactly the same (circumstances, environment, thoughts, feelings, etc.)” the question becomes: are all of these things factors that necessitate Angel’s action? Or put another way, if those things were in place before he pulled the trigger, did these things necessitate his pulling the trigger so that it was impossible for him not to pull the trigger? This is the determinist’s assumption and claim, that given the same things, then the same outcome had to occur.
But prior to the outcome (his pulling the trigger), did he have the ability and opportunity to either (A) or (not-A)? The libertarian says Yes, that he could have actualized either possibility, he had within his power to actualize either possibility. The libertarian further argues that if he did not have the ability and opportunity to actualize either possibility, then he did not HAVE A CHOICE. And it is having a choice which is the heart of libertarian free will. If we have a choice, then that means that while Angel did in fact end up pulling the trigger, he could have done otherwise.
The determinist assumes and believes that circumstances necessitate our actions. If we carefully examine our own as well as other people’s actions we see that there are no necessitating factors that necessitate what we end up doing. We also see that the factor which determines which possibility is actualized is **us** (given the two possibilities of (A) and (not-A) Angel chose to actualize (A) which is why he is now in prison and separated from his wife and child. Angel believes (and the determinist must say his belief is mistaken and false/while the libertarian will say that his belief is true) that he could have chosen not to pull the trigger.
Magnus like other determinists wants to believe, and assumes, that the “set of factors” that are present before an outcome occurs necessitate what outcome does in fact occur. But where and when have any determinists ever proved or shown this assumption to be true? Take desires as an example. Some attempt to argue that our desires necessitate our actions. But any Christian knows that while he has the desire to please and obey God, he still sometimes sins. If our desire necessitated our actions then since as believers we presumably have this desire to please and obey God, then we would never sin. What this suggests is the reality that the believer may have different reasons for doing different things in his mind and that he/she chooses which desire or belief he/she will act upon.
The human person has a spirit and his/her spirit is both conscious and it is this spirit that has the ability to make choices from differing possibilities. The human spirit is not necessitated in our actions; rather, we choose which possibility to actualize (when there are multiple possibilities in a situation). Angel like any other human being has a spirit, and it is in his spirit that he makes his choices. This spirit is not a thing but is a person and this person has the capacity to think about and consider and deliberate between different possibilities. In Angel’s case his spirit, He himself, made the decision to pull the trigger. What determinists seem to leave out (and this is especially troubling coming from calvinists who are professing Christians) is the human spirit. The spirit is **not a thing** that operates by the same **physical causal principles** and laws of other physical objects say a rock. The human spirit is conscious, the spirit is personal, the spirit has a mind that thinks about things, and the spirit is not a physical entity. Since we are a spirit/body composite, our spirit and body tend to act in unison. When Angel decides to pull the trigger, his body, his fingers do the actual physical pulling of the trigger though this choice has its source in the nonphysical spirit of Angel.
Magnus wants to claim that if the circumstances are identical the same outcome must occur. Well do those circumstances include Angel’s spirit? Do those circumstances include a human spirit that does not operate by the physical laws of nature? Do those circumstances include a human spirit capable of making choices from different possibilities that can be actualized in those circumstances? Do those circumstances include different choices each with different reasons for doing the particular choice? It seems to me that determinists make a major, major error of treating human choices as if the ordinary physical laws of nature alone can explain our having and making of choices? Determinists attempt to use or develop mechanistic explanations for how the human spirit functions when that Spirit does not function mechanistically at all. Theological determinists are like the behaviorists were in psychology analyzing everything as if it is just stimulus and response, without considering the human spirit in our actions.
Magnus further writes:
“I ask myself why this particular outcome “happened”? It seems to me that this particular outcome “happened” because in that moment all factors combined played a role in determining the action.”
“All factors combined played a role in determining the action”; where is the role of Angel’s spirit in this analysis? His spirit is left out of this “set of factors”. When **we** make a choice it is **our spirit** that does so, not a set of external to self factors that combine and necessitate our action.
“If placed in exactly the same situation those factors would always combine resulting in the same outcome/action.”
Again, “those factors” did it! How impersonal, as if **our** actions result merely from some unspecified “set of factors”.
When I speak to Angel about his actual pulling of the trigger, I speak to him as a person. HE DID IT. Not some abstract “set of factors”. And in the bible the perspective is the same: we are held responsible for our actions because WE DID THEM (there is no reference to a “set of factors combining” and then resulting in an action with us just being carried along for the ride).
“The only way it could be different is if something were different, but that then goes against the definition of LFW.”
The way it could have been different for Angel is if HE had instead of choosing to actualize the possibility of pulling the trigger had actualized the possibility of not pulling the trigger instead by choosing not to pull the trigger. And since Angel knows that to be the truth he has regret about what he did in fact do. And he has thought many many times about how he could have and should have done differently and chosen not to pull the trigger.
Now Magnus and other determinists can have their theoretical discussions of the “set of factors” that combined resulting in the pulling of the trigger, but try presenting their theories to someone like Angel who knows that in the real world of choices things are quite different. If Magnus shared his deterministic sentiments with someone like Angel he would probably be messed up a bit (and if exhaustive determinism were true, then of course we know that since everything is necessitated when he gets messed up for presenting his determinism to Angel, denying that Angel could have done otherwise, than of course his getting messed up was also necessitated and could not have been otherwise as well, it’s just all necessitated). Determinism is a nice safe discussion as long as it is kept on a computer screen, but just try presenting this stuff to real world people who know about having real choices that have consequences that can last for years. Sometimes I think if we got some of these theoretical determinists with their theories about human actions in some of the prisons that I visit I don’t think some of these guys would last five minutes. The reality of choices in the real world would have a definite impact (pun intended) on the theoretical claims of the determinists.
Robert
You must have not read my post and from what you write about me I know that you know nothing about me.
When I wrote that ALL things played a factor in our decisions I include our spirit in that. I also know that our nature and heart is wicked and deceitful, it is with this kind of spirit that an unbeliever makes choices.
Now what has never been shown to me is why the outcome would be different if everything is exactly the same, yes including our spirit. There was a reason that “Angel” pulled the trigger, while he had some reasons for not pulling the trigger they were not strong enough for him not too have done it. This tells me that everything that went into him pulling the trigger was stronger in some way than the reasons for him not to pull the trigger. My point is that IF he were to go back into time and had the same opportunity and all things were exactly the same, including his spirit, then he would always pull the trigger. That does not mean that external factors alone played a role in his act, he is still responsible for what he did. Now I am happy to say that ALL factors played a role, some more and some less, but the factors that “won out” were stronger in some sense. If instead he went back and did not pull the trigger than that speaks more to arbitrariness and then we would be faced with the same dilemma, how can we be held accountable? I have no doubt that “Angel” regrets his decision and that he wishes he would have done it different, but if the same “Angel” were put into the same situation with all things being exactly the same, including his spirit, then “Angel” would always pull the trigger. I am sure that if you asked “Angel” and worded it exactly like that he would say yes.
Furthermore Robert, I have been in prison, both as a prisoner and as a visitor, I’ve had these types of conversations and would you know that not one time did I worry about getting messed up. Real world people know that if all things are exactly the same then you will get the same result. What people need is a new spirit with a new heart and new desires. When I read my bible that is what I get, I do not get some theoretical theology that says you have the power of contrary choice. Furthermore, as I stated I am perfectly content to say that we have free will and that God controls everything. I do not want to speculate on a theory that can never be proven. Perhaps if you invent a time machine and prove your theory, maybe then you have something, until then I will stick to what the bible says and nothing more.
“When I wrote that ALL things played a factor in our decisions I include our spirit in that. I also know that our nature and heart is wicked and deceitful, it is with this kind of spirit that an unbeliever makes choices.”
You appear to be one of those folks that believes that “total depravity” means that people are evil and as bad as they can be. That is not the real world, in the real world, there are some nonbelievers who have better character and do more good than those calvinists who want to claim that they are incapable of doing any good. The fact is that nonbelievers can, and do, all sorts of good things (unless you want to redefine away the good things they do and turn them into evil actions to maintain your theory). The bible never says people are as bad as they can be, nor does it say that the nonbeliever never ever does any good. What it does say is that doing good is not what saves, only faith in Christ saves people.
“Now what has never been shown to me is why the outcome would be different if everything is exactly the same, yes including our spirit.”
It is hard to believe that you actually make this statement. What would be different is that the person makes a different choice. Now seeing that you don’t believe that we ever have choices I can see why you would miss this point.
“There was a reason that “Angel” pulled the trigger, while he had some reasons for not pulling the trigger they were not strong enough for him not too have done it. This tells me that everything that went into him pulling the trigger was stronger in some way than the reasons for him not to pull the trigger.”
You mention and use the word “stronger” here repeatedly. You make the error of talking about choices as if they are **weighted**, as if it were a mechanistic process (given certain weights certain results will follow). Again as a determinist you treat our choices as if their source is not a person, but as if it were physical like a chemical reaction, where the “heaviest” reason necessitates the outcome.
“My point is that IF he were to go back into time and had the same opportunity and all things were exactly the same, including his spirit, then he would always pull the trigger.”
You don’t know that, how could you, unless we could go back in a time machine and verify it by getting a do-over.
“That does not mean that external factors alone played a role in his act, he is still responsible for what he did.”
Right we are responsible for our actions because WE did them, not some “set of factors” combining as you claim.
“Now I am happy to say that ALL factors played a role, some more and some less, but the factors that “won out” were stronger in some sense.”
There you go again with your mechanistic explanation of events, certain factors **”were stronger”**. What physical law makes one “stronger” than another? What makes one heavier, weightier than another?
“If instead he went back and did not pull the trigger than that speaks more to arbitrariness and then we would be faced with the same dilemma, how can we be held accountable?”
Not arbitrary as if he chose to not pull the trigger then he acted upon definite reasons for not pulling the trigger. As long as someone does their action for reasons it is not arbitrary nor is it luck (that is a common and intentional misrepresentation by determinists like yourself). And you ought to know better, calvinists claim that in eternity God supposedly chose who would be saved and who would be damned. Was that “arbitrary”? Not if it was done for reasons. So assuming the calvinist position were true, then this doctrine of unconditional election does not involve arbitrariness if God made his choices for reasons. But Angel chooses not to pull the trigger for definite reasons and you want to claim **that** is arbitrary? If that is arbitrary so is unconditional election.
But I disagree with your claim and would claim that if an action is done for reasons then it is not luck nor is it arbitrary. So if Angel had reasons for not pulling the trigger and acted upon those reasons when he makes the choice not to pull the trigger then his action is not arbitrary at all.
“I have no doubt that “Angel” regrets his decision and that he wishes he would have done it different, but if the same “Angel” were put into the same situation with all things being exactly the same, including his spirit, then “Angel” would always pull the trigger.”
Again, you simply assume your determinism here: given the same circumstances the outcome has to be the same. You acknowledge that Angel really experiences regret. And the regret is based upon the belief that he could have and should have done otherwise.
Have you ever experienced regret and thought that you could have and should have done otherwise?
Do you really believe that in each and every case in which we experience regret in this way that we never ever could have done otherwise? That our belief that we could have done otherwise than we did in fact do, was always false? I don’t think so. The experience of regret is strong evidence against your determinism. Or you can choose to take your determinism and claim that regret of this kind is always based upon false beliefs.
“I am sure that if you asked “Angel” and worded it exactly like that he would say yes.”
Actually I did word it exactly like that (with him and others) and he answered and believes that before he actually pulled the trigger he could have chosen both to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger. Angel also believes that his regret is based upon a true belief, that he could have and should have done otherwise.
“Furthermore Robert, I have been in prison, both as a prisoner and as a visitor, I’ve had these types of conversations and would you know that not one time did I worry about getting messed up.”
So you went in there and told them that they never have any choices that whatever happens has to happen? I doubt it. The inmates who believe that, in my experience are the Muslims, who, like calvinists, believe it’s all predetermined and that every thing they do is necessitated by the will of Allah. So those crimes they committed were all the will of Allah and necessitated by him. At least the Muslims are honest that their views make God the author of sin, calvinists are not as honest.
“Real world people know that if all things are exactly the same then you will get the same result.”
Actually you are completely mistaken here. If you talk to most people on the streets and in the churches they believe in what would be called libertarian free will (that given the same circumstances they could have done otherwise). Talk to people about regrets they have and you will find (in my experience the only exceptions are determinists like you who are committed to your false ideas) they all believe that they could and should have done otherwise than they in fact did. Regret as commonly understood makes no sense unless you believe you could and should have done otherwise. Most people do believe that they could have done otherwise even if the circumstances were exactly the same. Now you would claim that belief to be false, but that is what they believe.
“When I read my bible that is what I get, I do not get some theoretical theology that says you have the power of contrary choice.”
Perhaps before we go any further, why don’t you share precisely what you mean by “the power of contrary choice?” You may be operating on typical calvinist
misrepresentations and caricatures of free will.
“Furthermore, as I stated I am perfectly content to say that we have free will and that God controls everything.”
If God controls **everything** (and that would include our wills, our minds, our bodies, and directing them all to do what He wants to have occur and predetermines everything then we do **not have free will** as ordinarily understood. Those child molesters in prison only did what God controlling their wills and bodies caused them to do. The same goes for the rapists, murderers, in fact every evil action is directly controlled and caused by God. And so according to you we should hold God responsible for every evil action. That may be your determinism, but that is not the bible.
Of course, people like yourself will then appeal to a different definition of free will in which a person can do what he wants to do, he just cannot ever do otherwise than he in fact chooses to do. You can play semantic games and define free will as something different than what most folks mean by it, and most determinists do precisely this kind of thing in order to maintain their deterministic beliefs.
“I do not want to speculate on a theory that can never be proven.”
Your view of exhaustive determinism has never been proven, not even close. The bible and common everyday experience presents overwhelming evidence against your view. But you suppress it all in order to hold onto your view at all costs.
Besides if your view were true then you make God a deceiver and a liar (I may take some time in the future to prove that). I prefer to take God at his word that when he says we have choices we really have those choices/and when Jesus said he had choices he really did have choices. God does not mislead us and talk about it as if we have choices when in fact we never do. That is both misleading and deceitful and God’s character is not like that. But then the character of a person who does the things the calvinist god does, now that is a different story.
“Perhaps if you invent a time machine and prove your theory, maybe then you have something, until then I will stick to what the bible says and nothing more.”
First, there is no time machine so we cannot do that.
Second, what would in fact **prove** to you that free will as ordinarily understood and experienced actually exists?
If your own daily experience does not convince you, what will do so?
Lastly, I don’t need a time machine to provide evidence of my view. The evidence is all around us, experienced by us all everyday. This evidence is both present in our experience and in the bible. If you really “stick to what the bible says and nothing more” than you would believe in the reality of us both having and making choices because the bible abounds in just such situations. You have to be in major league denial not to see it. But then someone who holds that everything is determined and that he never has a choice has to be in major league denial. But every now and then if you listen to him or his words you see that since he lives in reality, in the real world, he has to have choices and make choices, just like the rest of us, and these experiences testify against his deterministic beliefs.
Robert
I see why people do not like interacting with you. How you get that I believe that people are as evil as they can be escapes me. It seems that you have a score to settle with Calvinists and you come out guns blazing.
We make decisions based on a number of variables and one of those is our nature or spirit. The idea that you would consider an unbeliever to do good works in the sight of God is directly counter to what the bible says. Don’t even try to play the well we are not talking about what is good to God, but what is considered good by man. I don’t give a rip about what some people call good. The only things that matters are the good with God, if not then I consider them dung.
When I say “stronger” I am not talking about weight or measuring them. Common sense tells me that I base my decisions at times on things that I perceive to value more. In fact, most decisions that we make come down to simple preference. We prefer to do one act over another therefore we choose it. So in that respect some factors are “stronger” than others.
In the example of pulling the trigger, “Angel” had multiple reasons not to pull the trigger and multiple reasons to pull the trigger. We know for a fact that the reasons to pull the trigger won out. Now let us assume for a moment that “Angel” had no reason to pull or not to pull, the only thing he had was himself. So nothing else played any deciding role in the act, the reason he did it was because that was his essence/spirit at that very moment. Now if “Angel” had a mulligan and could do it again if his essence/spirit at that very moment is exactly the same then he would pull the trigger.
The reason that “Angel” has regret is that he knows what he did was wrong. He was not forced to do it, perhaps if circumstances were different things would turn out differently. In some ways he is a product of his upbringing, environment, training, desire, etc. All of those played a role in shaping “Angel”, but he still chose his own path. He picked his friends to hang out with, he picked what he read and watched, and he is the one that could have made different choices. To simply discount all that and say that he has the power of contrary choice and that those factors do not play a significant role in his choices and actions seems naïve.
Why would I tell people that they never ever have a choice and that what happens will happen no matter what??? Instead what I tell them is if they want to make better choices then they need to change things in their life. We all know that we could or could not pull the trigger, but if we do not change our environment, our mind set, our values, and other things than we will do the same thing again. Surely you have come across people in prison for doing the same things when they got out. Why do they do it? Simple, they did not change anything, so when they got out they went right back to what they always did.
The idea that I am a Calvinist is astounding, I go to a very liberal Methodist Church and would not consider myself a Calvinist in the slightest. My bible tells me that God controls everything and that I am free to choose what I want. Do I understand how it works, absolutely not and I could care less about reconciling them. This is what the bible teaches and this is what I believe. I am called to tell everyone to repent and believe in the gospel, not tell them about some philosophical theory of the will that can never be proven. I will stick to the simple gospel message and let people like you stick to the philosophical discussions. I pray that you have shared with “Angel” the simple gospel message, in the end that is the only thing that matters.
“The idea that you would consider an unbeliever to do good works in the sight of God is directly counter to what the bible says.”
And where does the bible say that nonbelievers never do any good, or are incapable of doing any good?
“Don’t even try to play the well we are not talking about what is good to God, but what is considered good by man. I don’t give a rip about what some people call good. The only things that matters are the good with God, if not then I consider them dung.”
I think we all recognize what good actions look like. And I have no doubt, your special pleading to the contrary, that the nonbelieving policeman and fireman and social workers and judges and relief workers and people who work with disabled vets and people who work with people with mental and physical disabilities, nonbelieving people that I know personally, are doing some very good things for people. Now if Magnus wants to deny all of that, and reinterpret all of those good actions as sinful actions or "dung", that is his choice, a choice not based upon the bible at all.
“In the example of pulling the trigger, “Angel” had multiple reasons not to pull the trigger and multiple reasons to pull the trigger. We know for a fact that the reasons to pull the trigger won out.”
Actually the reasons did not “win out”, rather, Angel chose what reasons he wanted to act upon. “Reasons” have no causal force, but we have the ability to choose to act upon reasons or to choose not to act upon reasons.
“Now let us assume for a moment that “Angel” had no reason to pull or not to pull, the only thing he had was himself. So nothing else played any deciding role in the act, the reason he did it was because that was his essence/spirit at that very moment.”
I reject this assumption as completely out of touch with reality. The reality is that when we do intentional actions, we always do so for reasons.
“The reason that “Angel” has regret is that he knows what he did was wrong.”
No, the reason he has regrets, and he would tell you this himself, is that he honestly believes that he could and should have done otherwise.
“He was not forced to do it, perhaps if circumstances were different things would turn out differently. In some ways he is a product of his upbringing, environment, training, desire, etc. All of those played a role in shaping “Angel”, but he still chose his own path.”
So despite all of these things you mention here, “he still chose his own path”? Isn’t that what you call “the power of contrary choice”?
I had said in my previous email that if you watch and listen to determinists sooner or later they slip up, they talk and act as if we (and they) **really do have choices**. But exhaustive determinism wipes out the possibility of us ever having a choice. But the determinist since he or she lives in the world that God created, reality, he will in fact have and make choices. Now look at what Magnus says, and note carefully how he talks as if we really do have choices after all:
“He picked his friends to hang out with, he picked what he read and watched, and he is the one that could have made different choices. To simply discount all that and say that he has the power of contrary choice and that those factors do not play a significant role in his choices and actions seems naïve.”
**Picked** his friends? Isn’t that having and making a choice? Isn’t that speaking of how we decide who will and will not be our friends? But if everything is predetermined by the set of factors that determine our actions then we don’t have a choice about who our friends are.
**Picked what he read and watched**? Again, isn’t that having and making choices? Isn’t that speaking of how we decide what we will or will not read and watch? But if everything is predetermined by the set of factors that determines our actions then we don’t have a choice about what we read or watch.
“and he is the one that could have made different choices.” How is that possible if the set of factors that determine our actions causes us to do one thing and only one thing so we never could have made different choices?
Magnus writes:
“Why would I tell people that they never ever have a choice and that what happens will happen no matter what???”
If Magnus really believed that a set of factors determine our every action so that we must do what these factors determine for us to do, then he cannot believe that we ever have a choice. He may believe that we make choices, but he could not then believe that we ever **have** choices. I have never met a **consistent** determinist yet, who actually tells people that they never ever have a choice (or lives as if he himself never has a choice). Now that is what their belief logically entails. But why can’t they stomach their own belief? Why can’t they live as if we never have and make choices? They cannot do it because they, like the rest of us live in reality. A reality where in fact we do have and make choices. This reality is so inescapable that the most committed determinists still talk about having choices, picking things, making selections, choosing one possibility rather than another.
And every time they make statements like this, they betray their own deterministic position, and usually they are quite oblivious to what is happening. It’s like the guy who argues that he does not exist, and then when you ignore him he gets mad and says “why aren’t you listening to ME!”
And here it is again:
“We all know that we could or could not pull the trigger, but if we do not change our environment, our mind set, our values, and other things than we will do the same thing again.”
“We all know that we could or could not pull the trigger”, what is Magnus talking about here? That is my line, that is what I believe. But I am not a determinist. A determinist cannot hold to that belief and yet Magnus who argues for determinism says that my belief that “we could or could not pull the trigger” is true.
“The idea that I am a Calvinist is astounding, I go to a very liberal Methodist Church and would not consider myself a Calvinist in the slightest.”
If you are not a calvinist then why do you make the same arguments for determinism and against libertarian free will that they do?
I asked him some direct questions, and Magnus ignored them all. He claims that I have a false view of free will and yet when I ask him directly what he means by “the power of contrary choice” he refuses to answer. So how can we intelligently discuss things if he won’t even define his own terms?
“I am called to tell everyone to repent and believe in the gospel, not tell them about some philosophical theory of the will that can never be proven.”
I had asked him: “Second, what would in fact **prove** to you that free will as ordinarily understood and experienced actually exists?” Note I said the free will view as ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD. That is not sophisticated philosophical theory, it is what the everyday person with common sense means by having and making choices. My view is very, very simple: we sometimes have and make choices. While I am aware of the philosophical discussions, I do not hold some sort of philosophical theory of the will. I hold the view that the vast majority of people hold now and have always held: that when we have a choice we can actualize either of two different possibilities/we have a choice and then pick which possibility we want to actualize. This “theory” is so simple that sophisticated philosophers and other determinists like to mock it as “folk psychology” (meaning it is the mistaken notion of the common everyday person and not the truth as espoused by the sophisticated determinist philosophers :-)). I said in my previous post, I asked Magnus directly what would prove my simple “folk theory” (the view of free will as ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD) to be true for him? Magnus refused to answer this question because his mind is set against the common sense and ordinary view of free will. The evidence for this simple view of free will as having and making choices is everywhere, but he intentionally refuses to accept it.
“I will stick to the simple gospel message and let people like you stick to the philosophical discussions.”
Most of the time I am presenting the simple gospel message. But then people like Magnus come along with their deterministic theories that wipe out free will as commonly understood and makes a mockery of both the bible and our common daily experience. If anything I am about defending common sense and common experience against the deterministic theories and speculations of folks like Magnus. It is Magnus’ determinism that attacks biblical Christianity not any simple view of free will that I and the vast majority of other persons believe in.
I also find it a bit inconsistent on Magnus’ part to chide me for being involved with “the philosophical discussions” when this thread on Dan’s blog **is itself** a “philosophical discussion”. If he contents himself with “the simple gospel message” alone, then why is he posting here in the midst of a thread discussing the highly technical and philosophical views of Jonathan Edwards?
Robert
Forgive me for not being clear, when I say do “good” I mean in the spiritual sense that would be pleasing to God. So while a policemen, firemen, and teachers can do “good” acts they are not good in that they do not please God unless the person is a believer. That is why I said all the “good” acts in the world will get you nowhere and what good is it for a fireman to pull thousand’s of people out of the fire and save millions of homes from destruction if he is an unbeliever? None of those “good” acts will do anything for him on the day of judgment.
Now you say that when we do intentional actions, we always do so for reasons. then you would seem to be saying that reasons do have a “causal force”. Yet I agree with your earlier comment that reasons do not have causal force, in fact most of the time we give the reason after we acted.
I said that the reason “Angel” has regret is because he knew what he did was wrong and you said no that he honestly believes that he could and should have done otherwise. Does that mean that “Angel” does not think that what he did was wrong? Seems that you are splitting hairs here, perhaps you could put the guns down for a moment.
What I mean when I say “contrary choice” is that if all things both internal and external were the same and one were placed in the same situation than a different outcome would transpire. I find that wrong on all levels. Instead what I see when I talk about free will is that WE have the power to make free CHOICES that are unconstrained by external circumstances. Meaning WE are the ones that decide, not chance nor fate. When I talk to people, whether on the outside or in prison this is how I define free will. Would you know that to this very day not one person has said “Mag’s you are wrong, what free will means is that if I could do it all over again with nothing at all being changed I would do the opposite.” Usually I hear the “if I only knew then what I know now I would do things differently.” I can tell you from first hand experience that no one would define free will as all things both internal and external being the same I would choose the opposite of what I chose. Instead most would define it as I have above in that we are free to choose what we want and most of the time no one forces us to do anything that we don’t want to do.
I do not make a mockery out of the bible and if you and I were face to face then I know for certain that you would never say that to my face. Now I am trying real hard to keep my cool, but people like you really get on my nerves. Your holier than though attitude and your condescending tone leave me to question how you talk to prisoners. You accuse the Calvinist of all kinds of things, but your behavior and comments are worse than any Calvinist I have spoken too. I can tell you that if you said these things to me while I was in prison, you would be the one worrying about getting messed up. Now I rarely comment on blogs and when I do it is usually to try to understand or learn, but I have seen you in different sites comment and most of the time they are usually all the same. This makes me question whether you just simply cut and paste and what your real motivations are in doing it.
Rather than say or do something that I will regret I will bow out of this discussion.
I appreciate reading your debate ,gentlemen, and do agree that both of you are logically consistent in your arguments.
Please elaborate here:
So far I see your point as such- all our choices, including probably even the ones that appear "random", are the direct result of a decision that we were considered right based on all the influencing factors at that moment. Yes, we could have chosen differently, but that's only theoretically so. We could have - but we didnt. Additional knowledge of the potential result, or possible danger, some life experience was needed to actualize the different choice. We didnt have that knowledge back then.
If i got you right, may i ask in addition then- Accountability. That is what nags me about Calv. view, even i know you are not Calvinist. If all the choices are the combo of determining factors, then we are nothing, well, then a doll on strings, a puppet. They made us "do" it, essentially.
Thank you, dear, in advance.
Lastly, i dont think Robert is a fellow of a mean character.He has a kind and helpful heart, and went thru trouble of providing extra links and explanations when asked, for many people. Maybe he is a bit harsh and can use little extra tolerance and love to those who dont have his level of knowledge yet. But if i were offered a trade - my logs for his speck :) - i would have done it in an instant and with gladness.
I love you brothers.
Odeliya.
You wrote:
“If i got you right, may i ask in addition then- Accountability. That is what nags me about Calv. view, even i know you are not Calvinist. If all the choices are the combo of determining factors, then we are nothing, well, then a doll on strings, a puppet. They made us "do" it, essentially.”
What you talk about here is one of my biggest problems with calvinism and all other views that claim that EVERYTHING IS CONTROLLED AND DETERMINED by some person or factor outside of us. If we are not in control of our actions, then it is not right to hold us responsible for our actions.
And as you correctly observe: “then we [are] nothing, well, then a doll on strings, a puppet. They made us “do” it, essentially.”
When you bring this problem up to determinists they try to evade this problem by claiming: well the puppet is not conscious does not have a will so we are not like puppets. But that ignores, intentionally leaves out that if another person controls my body, mind and WILL, then I do not make my own decisions and do not do my own actions. Rather, that other person is simply using me to do what they want to have done. Satanic Spirits will attempt to control a human person in this way, the Holy Spirit does not do this kind of thing. Even with believers the Holy Spirit guides and leads us, He does not control us or take over our bodies and possess us to do what He wants.
The calvinists will sometimes say: “well you have free will if you are doing what you WANT TO DO”. That is not good enough, if a person outside of us controls our wills and determines what we want, then they are literally pulling the strings and they are the puppet master and we are just puppets. Odeliya you are right to see this problem with calvinism and determinism.
Robert
When it comes to “accountability” we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are the ones that made the choice and while externals factors played some role, they did not play the decisive role. It is not necessarily that all external factors converged to make it to where we had no other choice, but rather since the decision came from within us we have no one else to blame. Now when I make a bad choice I never say you know if I had it all to do over again and nothing was different I would make the opposite choice. That goes against my common sense and my experience. When it comes to Christianity I know that I need to rely on Christ for everything, everything! I know that I need him to give me a new heart and new insights. I know that if I stop relying on him than I will become a slave again to my sinful desire and that my heart will become hard again to where I will make foolish decisions again.
Now I am a rough around the edges guy, most people are not comfortable when they see me. That is not to brag, but to show where I am coming from. When I interact I want to be treated with some respect and the way that Robert comes across is very arrogant and self righteous. Like he knows all the answers and if you think that you can talk to him about this stuff than you better agree 100% with him or he will let you have it both barrels blazing. I have no problem if you disagree with me, but don’t put words in my mouth or accuse me of things, which is a sure way to get me worked up. What I have learned is that there will always be people like that, but I can’t go bashing in their skull anymore so I just need to walk away and try to grow and learn elsewhere.
Thanks for your question and hopefully I answered it in an understandable way.
“Forgive me for not being clear, when I say do “good” I mean in the spiritual sense that would be pleasing to God. So while a policemen, firemen, and teachers can do “good” acts they are not good in that they do not please God unless the person is a believer.”
I don’t buy your distinction, there are not two forms of good, the form of good done by believers and the form of good done by unbelievers (instead what is a good action is a good action whether it is done by a believer or an unbeliever).
“That is why I said all the “good” acts in the world will get you nowhere and what good is it for a fireman to pull thousand’s of people out of the fire and save millions of homes from destruction if he is an unbeliever? None of those “good” acts will do anything for him on the day of judgment.”
In terms of justifying us before God, our good actions cannot accomplish that. But that is not what we were talking about, we were talking about in daily life whether or not the nonbeliever can do good actions. I say Yes, you said No. In fact your no was a bit stronger you said the good actions by the nonbeliever according to you were “dung.”
“Now you say that when we do intentional actions, we always do so for reasons. then you would seem to be saying that reasons do have a “causal force”. Yet I agree with your earlier comment that reasons do not have causal force, in fact most of the time we give the reason after we acted.”
The reasons in our minds do not cause our actions. We consider different reasons for different actions, then we choose which action we want to do. We do this action then for reasons, but these reasons do not cause the action, or necessitate the action, we choose to do the action.
“I said that the reason “Angel” has regret is because he knew what he did was wrong and you said no that he honestly believes that he could and should have done otherwise. Does that mean that “Angel” does not think that what he did was wrong? Seems that you are splitting hairs here, perhaps you could put the guns down for a moment.”
Not splitting hairs just wanted to make sure to get in the point which you intentionally leave out and avoid: namely, Angel honestly believes that he could and should have done otherwise. I talked a bit about regret and you did not say anything about how regret functions if everything is determined as you believe. A lot of the guys I talk to have regrets. And in every case they honestly believe, with regard to some action they regret, that they could and should have done otherwise.
“What I mean when I say “contrary choice” is that if all things both internal and external were the same and one were placed in the same situation than a different outcome would transpire. I find that wrong on all levels.”
Thanks for giving more of an explanation of what you mean. Now if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if we put a person in the same circumstances as what was true before when they did something, that they would have to do that very same thing. My problem with that is that I look at God Himself as my example of what it means to have free will, to have and make choices. God does things and when He does His actions His actions are not necessitated, nor are His actions arbitrary (they are always done for reasons) nor are they unintentional (He has intentions and desires)and while He chooses to do one thing He also could have done otherwise.
Take creation for example, God chose to create this world. But say we put God back in the same exact circumstances that were present just before he chose to create the world: could God have chosen not to create the world? I would say Yes, apparently according to your thinking as the circumstances were identical then God would always create the world and had no choice. If you come back and say that God did have a choice, that he could choose to create the world and also choose to not create the world, then you are admitting that my conception of free will as having and making choices not only is coherent and possible it is real because we know it to be true because it is true that God has it. I also believe that God created us in His image so that we in a way similar to him do our own actions for reasons.
“Instead what I see when I talk about free will is that WE have the power to make free CHOICES that are unconstrained by external circumstances. Meaning WE are the ones that decide, not chance nor fate.”
I would agree with this. You say that WE decide not chance or fate, but you left out something. A major problem though, you claim that God controls everything. If he does control our minds and wills and bodies, **everything**, then we do not make our own decisions, he uses our bodies, minds, wills to make the decisions that He wants made. He makes our choices and we just go along for the ride. Sort of like a puppet master controlling his puppet by pulling all of their strings. Or like a finger puppet.
“When I talk to people, whether on the outside or in prison this is how I define free will. Would you know that to this very day not one person has said “Mag’s you are wrong, what free will means is that if I could do it all over again with nothing at all being changed I would do the opposite.””
And do you tell these same people that God controls their minds, bodies, wills so that they only choose to do what He wants them to choose to do? That when they committed their crimes God was controlling them to do exactly what He wanted them to do?
“Usually I hear the “if I only knew then what I know now I would do things differently.” I can tell you from first hand experience that no one would define free will as all things both internal and external being the same I would choose the opposite of what I chose.”
Again take the example of God in creating the world, do your words still apply that: no one would define free will as all things both internal and external being the same I would choose the opposite of what I chose”? According to your own logic God HAD TO CREATE THE WORLD HE HAD NO CHOICE. Given those circumstances God had to create the world, he had no choice, his action was necessitated.
“Instead most would define it as I have above in that we are free to choose what we want and most of the time no one forces us to do anything that we don’t want to do.”
It is not enough to merely choose what we want to do and make choices that are not forced or coerced: the puppet chooses to do what the puppet master wants him to do, but it is not coerced as the puppet master controls and pulls all the strings. If God controls us and has us make a certain choice no coercion would be involved because he controls our wills.
“I do not make a mockery out of the bible and if you and I were face to face then I know for certain that you would never say that to my face.”
You argue for determinism which eliminates us ever having a choice. Eliminating the reality of having choices makes a mockery of both the bible and our daily experience.
You said some things at the end that have nothing to do with this discussion so I will not respond to them.
Robert
I clearly stated that I know that God controls everything and that we have free will and that I have no idea how to reconcile them. I have never thought of free will as you do, that is why I said that it is wrong on all levels for me. We choose because WE want too and usually we are not coerced by external factors. I agree that we do choices for reasons and that is why if all things were the same we would make the same choice because the reasons that we made the choice would still be valid. The only way it makes sense is if we acted on OTHER reasons, but that means then something is different which you apparently deny.
I also believe that if one is an unbeliever than all the “good” that they do is dung. Our whole nature has been corrupted by the fall and any “good” that we do as an unbeliever is done with that corrupt nature. I forgot where I read it but the example was a glass of pure water that has 1 drop of the deadliest poison in existence, this is our nature after the fall. At times we can look “good” and do “good”, just like the glass of water looks “good”, but we have that deadly poison in our very nature and it corrupts all that we do.
Now when I read the bible I see it this way. I see that WE make choices based on ourselves. Since we have a corrupt nature and heart it makes sense that we will bear bad fruit. I never ever see in the bible where it says that if all things are the same, external and internal, then we would make a different choice. Instead I see that we make choices based on reasons that we favor over others. I also know that when we sin it is because it comes from our heart. That is why the Lord has told us that he will give his people a new heart.
Now I know that we will never agree on this. One reason is because we seem to have two different definitions of free will. I am content with my definition because I see it in the bible, I have never seen your definition of free will in the bible, either explicitly or inferred. If we agree that we need to tell all people the simple message of the gospel and that Christ is the only way then I have no problem with you.