Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW
Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I
- Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible.
- But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices
- If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible.
My Response
Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose.
Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices, and not choices themselves.
Comments
Sometimes our bodies act without being preceded by a choice. Sneezing is an example.
God be with you,
Dan
“I see, I was thinking of actions like walking the dog and you are talking about involuntary stuff like breathing and blinking."”
Blinking is not always involuntary.
Magnus what is the difference between a wink and a blink, in terms of having and making a choice? Or put another way, how is a choice involved in one and not the other?
You have now on multiple occasions argued for determinism (given a certain set of factors only one outcome is possible) and against the libertarian view of free will.
Question: do we ever have a choice?
Robert
Like I say, they are at least consistent, though horribly wrong.
Can you imagine God predetermining a little girl being raped? How would God go about predetermining her rape, in eternity past, of course?
(1) God would have to have created the older man who was going to commit the atrocity, and also the little girl (God's victim).
(2) God would have to not only refuse to grace the man with regeneration/salvation, but also predetermine that the man sink to deep levels of depravity, that he would desire to rape a little girl.
(3) God would then have to set up the circumstances where the man and the little girl could be in the same city, and in the same town; planted there, of course, by God, so that the heinous act could take place.
(4) God would then have to set up the exact timing for the event to occur. And at just the right time, the man captures the little girl, by God's providence, and he takes her away to his place and commits the sin. Praise be to God.
REALLY? Is this where strict determinism leads? In this case, I agree with Ergun Caner, who suggested that THIS type of god is no better than the god of Islam!
Libertarian Free Will is the ONLY viable option for the problem of sin and evil, and also, as you have noted, for the case of responsibility. For how can God hold someone responsible for something which He had predetermined?
(BTW, Magnus and I had this discussion a little while ago, and I confess that the issue is difficult because God COULD HAVE intervened so that the little girl was not raped, but He chose not to. I still argue for Libertarian Freedom, since the man who commits the act does so by his own free will, and not by any predetermination of God.)
In Christ,
Billy
Perhaps you did not understand my question or point: if we blink it is an involuntary physical response, no choice is involved, it just happens. On the other hand, if we wink it is a voluntary action, not merely a physical response but a choice. Being a choice we decide when and if we are going to blink: we can choose to blink now or choose to not blink. We can choose not to blink now but to blink a couple of minutes from now. Magnus is blinking a voluntary action that involves having and making a choice?
“Yes, we have choices all the time and I readily admit that.”
How do **you** describe HAVING A CHOICE then?
“The only thing that I do not accept at this time is this idea of all things being the same, external and internal, and getting a different result.”
That is not a definition of free will, that is a belief that when we have a choice, all of the circumstances present do not necessitate one and only one action. When considering a dessert at a restaurant last night, I believe that I had a choice and that my choice involved certain possibilities (i.e., I could have chosen not to have a dessert at all, I could have chosen to have ice cream or I could have chosen pie). I did in fact go to a restaurant last night, Magnus did I have the choice between no dessert, ice cream, or pie?
“Now I have looked at different definitions of free will and not all have this unique definition as you seem to want me to have, so I still say that I have free will and makes choices all day long.”
I do not define free will in this way, I describe it simply as having and making choices. Now you explicitly say here that we **make** choices all day long. My question is: do we ever **have** a choice? I gave the example of picking or choosing which dessert that I would have last night: but the examples could be multiplied.
“If I am determined to do them it is only because I chose to do them.”
Again, do you ever **have** choices?
Robert
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.
This is your definition of FW that kindly gave me at our previous debate a few days ago, and i fully agree with it. That is pretty much LFW though, brother Mag, for sure.
However it seem to me,i am sorry if I'm misundertanding, that position doesnt quite agrees with some other things you say.I would squarely put the blame on myself for missing your point but please give some add. explanations.
See,the postion you expressed means that essentially we are capable to act against the sum of external + internal,(like education, hormonal levels, etc.)factors.THis is the only way you can hold to FW position, and is basically what "You could have done otherwise, even if in theory" argument was meant to prove.
You can do something different.
I study computer science, so all lab experiments are organized this way: sum of factors always give you the predictable result. We are dealing with machines and code, which have no free will.
Human free will means that in lab experiment, so to speak, it can not be predicted how he would act precisely. Because humans have will to do against the sum of influences.
BTW, good points Robert and Billy. Dan, thank you for hosting the debates.
God bless you,
Odeliya.
“Now if we make choices then I am inclined to believe that we have choices.”
Again, simple example from last night. After dinner I believed that I had a choice regarding dessert and that three options were available to me: (1) not have dessert, (2) have ice cream, or (3) have pie. You say that you are “inclined to believe that we have choices”. OK, could I have chosen any of those three options last night?
“Now how we go about making those choices is another matter.”
I am not talking about how we go about making choices, I want to know if we even HAVE CHOICES.
So last night, could I have chosen no dessert, ice cream or pie?
“Now you seem to be saying in your latest reply that free will is defined as simply having and making choices, I would not define it in this way.”
If you look at different proponents of libertarian free will, a common denominator with all of them is that they all maintain both that we HAVE and we MAKE choices. Simultaneously, a common denominator with all versions of determinism is that while we make choices, we do not have choices. You can define things any way you want, the key is whether or not what you describe as “free will” fits reality (which includes both our common daily experience as well as events described in the bible).
If you are a determinist then your position does not allow for us to ever **have** choices. No one has ever proven that we do not have choices, which is what a determinist would have to prove to prove his view. On the other hand, the available evidence that we in fact sometimes have choices is overwhelming.
Robert
Your postition is interesting. thanks for explaining.
I see, so you meant to say that our nature finally determines the outcome. Which means the nature we born with, so lets take 2 unregenerate men ,hypothetically, some are very wicked some are less wicked.Are you saying they are born that way, what " made "them have this particular, (different from each other's) nature? Where free will comes into play ?
And responsibility ? Cant they blame the nature they are born with that was a determining factor in their choices then?
O.
You seem to be saying: A) choosing otherwise is impossible and B) internal factors necessitate our choices.
Regarding A, doesn't choice require alternatives? Regarding B, there can't be an infinite number of internal factors. Don't they eventually connect to external causes? Why is this different than saying external causes determine our actions?
God be with you,
Dan
That's a great point about the source of sin.
The Calvinist questions regarding why God doesn't prevent it is a bit of a smoke screen. The question is why does He have to prevent it?
God be with you,
Dan
Your points are dead on! Have you been reading up on the subjects involved?
God be with you,
Dan
That's a great point about the difference between having and making a choice. But out of curiosity, do you think determinists can consistently claim they make choices? Seems to me that without alternatives what they make is not a choice.
God be with you,
Dan
Choosing otherwise is impossible in my mind once we made a choice.
What about b4 the choice?
About internal factors... Don't they come from external factors?
God be with you,
Dan
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
Based on your answer in anticipation of it, anyone, then did I or you choose to be born with that curse?
Further, here is what Zophar believes:
Job 11:7 "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?
Can you answer those questions?
Here is what Daniel believes:
Dan 2:21 He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;
Dan 2:22 he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.
Dan 2:23 To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king's matter."
Whose choice was that? Was this predetermined if you know?
Here is what the Angel of the Lord said:
Rev 2:24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden.
Rev 2:25 Only hold fast what you have until I come.
Who made the decision to not hold to that teaching and instead hold fast what was given to them to hold fast too?
Finally, let's see how Paul the Apostle understands these "deep" things of God:
1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
1Co 2:16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
So I assert, by my own choosing that this exercise here on responsibilities and LFW is really distracting from the main issue at hand!
And what is the matter at hand then for True Believers?
Here:
2Co 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
2Co 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Now God is in Christ Who is in me so therefore God is in me still reconciling the world to Himself.
Who chose that for me? Me? God? You?
Lastly explain this one if you can?
Pro 26:1 Like snow in summer or rain in harvest, so honor is not fitting for a fool.
Pro 26:2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight.
Before the choice you can choose whatever you want.
That’s not quite what I am asking. Let’s say we are going to choose A. Before the choice, can we choose B? If not, doesn’t choice require alternatives?
The reason I am asking is I want to address your concern about being in the same position twice. If the first time around we can choose otherwise, I suggest that in the second time around we can also choose otherwise. Here we need to distinguish between “would” and “can” (i.e. the difference between hypothetical and possible). Leaving aside the issue of what we would do for the moment, the issue for LFW is what we can do. And again, if the first time we can choose otherwise, then it seems that the second time around, we can choose otherwise as well. That’s why I am focused on the first time around. Can we choose either alternative?
You mean does our nature/heart/being/essence come from external factors?
Right. Aren't they hereditary or partly from our circumstances, upbringing... and ultimately creation?
God be with you,
Dan
Good to see you back. The passages you quote suggest He is sovereign. What an encouraging thought.
God be with you,
Dan
“That's a great point about the difference between having and making a choice. But out of curiosity, do you think determinists can consistently claim they make choices? Seems to me that without alternatives what they make is not a choice.”
A friend of mine is a famous philosopher in the free will/determinism discussion. I was pressing him on the fact that if everything is determined then we never have choices (we may believe that we have choices, that we can do otherwise, but in reality we cannot, we can only do what we are determined to do). He admitted that this was true and he then said that while determinism does not allow for us ever having choices, a determinist can still believe that we **make choices**. We discussed this further and he said that if we see making a choice as committing to a specific course of action, then the determinist could believe that we do this.
Here is an example that might make this distinction and point more clear. Say a guy goes into a room and he is sitting there reading the paper. Unknown to him, someone has locked the door to the room from the outside so that if the man at that time tried to leave the room he would be unable to do so. But the man sitting in the room reading the paper does not know the door is locked from the outside and he thinks since he was able to come into the room without a problem he also could leave the room without a problem as well. Now in his mind, he believes that he has a choice (that he could make the choice of staying in the room or that he could make the choice of leaving the room, note his belief that he has a choice involves at least two alternative possibilities; but also note that one may believe that he has a choice and the actual fact of the matter is that one does not have a choice; we only have a choice when we can access either possibility that we believe to be the choice). Say he makes the choice to remain in the room. According to my friend he has committed himself to a specific course of action (so he **makes** a choice). But if the door is locked and he is unable to leave the room, then in regards to staying in the room or leaving the room he does not **have** that choice. In order to have that choice he would be able to both stay in the room or leave the room (he would also have access to both possibilities meaning that he could do either one if he wanted to). But he cannot leave the room as the door is locked. So in this case he makes a choice but does not have the choice of leaving or staying in the room.
Or take last night, say I really wanted to have dessert, but then the waiter says they are completely out of both ice cream and pie (that in fact they have no desserts to offer as choices). So with respect to having and making a choice regarding what dessert I would have, at that restaurant at that time, I have no choice available to me.
I like to talk in terms of having and making a choice as it makes it very simple for anyone to discuss these issues, one need not be a professional philosopher and I want everyone to be able to discuss the issue of free will. By speaking of having and making choices I can also ferret out determinists even when they are playing the semantic word games often engaged in by compatibilists (i.e. they can talk about having free will, being a free agent, etc. but their view precludes us ever having a choice/being able to do otherwise, so once you discuss things in terms of having and making choices you quickly find out where people are at). I also try to learn from other folks and discussing the issue of having and making choices with my professional philosopher friend really helped me to see the issues more clearly and simply.
So in answer to your question Dan, the determinist can speak about us making choices, his big problem is that he cannot talk about us HAVING CHOICES. His determinism does not allow for the reality of us having choices.
And when most people discuss free will they mean that at least sometimes we do in fact **have choices**. If we are in a room that we easily entered and believe that we could just as easily leave, then our belief could be wrong, but likely is a true belief and so we can choose to stay in the room or leave. I believe that I chose to type this post, I also believe that I just as easily could have chosen not to type this post. We face innumerable choices like this each day: if the determinists are correct then our belief that we have free will in this way is wrong, on the other hand if our simple and common sense belief is true, then it is the determinist philosophers who are wrong.
Robert
you are in the room right now and the door is locked. You have no choice in the matter. You and I and all reading this now have been "appointed" once to die and then the judgment.
The question then is one of belief not choice.
You can choose what you chose or what God has already determined.
It's your choice.
Now for the mystery. No one believes Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God unless God chooses that for them and gives them the Faith Once Delivered To The Saints.
The rest of this argument is moot and a waste of time.
But seeing I have been sent to open eyes so that they might see, turn from their wickedness, I choose to type this to you and quote Paul:::>
Act 26:12 "In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests.
Act 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me.
Act 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Act 26:15 And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
Act 26:17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
One day I chose to follow Satan, now I choose to follow Christ and let God continue reconciling the world to Himself.
And by the way, that was all predetermined before the foundation of the world!
Dan, “Magnus” made some comments that may help me clarify things and show more clearly what I mean by the distinction between having and making choices. “Magnus” wrote:
“Choosing otherwise is impossible in my mind once we made a choice.”
Once we make a choice, do an action, the deed is done and the action is irreversible. That is the nature of voluntary actions, once we do them, we cannot undo them, you cannot unring the bell that you rung.
“We made the choice for a particular reason, it did not just spring up.”
Again, I have no problem with this as it is my stated position which I have said repeatedly, that when we do a voluntary action we do so for reasons (so voluntary actions are not random events or luck but are intentional acts involving reasons).
“So to me when someone says that if I were put in the same situation and ALL things are exactly the same except one thing- that being that I made another choice- then that just doesn’t compute to me.”
Perhaps here is “Magnus”’ problem, he is confusing having and making a choice, conflating the two. Having a choice **precedes** making a choice. So say I have the choice of which dessert I will have, ice cream, pie, whatever. I have the choice if each of those possibilities is available to me, accessible to me, so that I could pick any of them (though not simultaneously).
Let’s call the actual making of a choice an outcome. When you make a choice you produce an outcome. But prior to that outcome, prior to making that particular choice, could you have chosen differently? Could you have actualized a different outcome? The determinist says No, I say Yes. Now it is also true that once you make your choice, actualize a particular outcome, then that outcome becomes fixed the moment you make that choice. As soon as I tell the waiter I want pie, I have made a choice, that choice of pie is the outcome. But here is the key: could I have chosen say ice cream instead of choosing pie, actualized one outcome rather than another? That would be having a choice. Having a choice precedes making a choice (producing an outcome) in time. Having a choice means that I could actualize different possibilities.
We can all agree that once we make a choice, that outcome is irreversible. But having free will does not mean that if a vote were to come up and we signify our agreement by raising our hand and signify our rejection by keeping our hand down, faced with the choice of either raising our hand or not raising our hand and keeping it down, that we could both raise our hand or keep it down **simultaneously**! That would be impossible. I could not both raise my hand and do otherwise and keep my hand down at the same time! I think **that** is what some determinists think or wants to believe that free will is in the libertarian sense. But that is not what we mean. In fact that is an intentional misrepresentation that I have seen many determinists make (if you characterize libertarian free will as doing two opposite actions simultaneously, like raising and keeping your left hand down simultaneously then of course it looks absurd).
What we mean is that say I have two choices that I am considering, either to produce the outcome of raising my hand or producing the outcome of keeping my hand down when the time to vote comes. I could vacillate back and forth at first thinking I would vote for it, then I would vote against it, back and forth till the time when a choice must be made (I either vote for it with my hand raised or vote against it with my hand kept down). Having a choice means that before the actual outcome occurs, I really could do either one, both possibilities were accessible to me, both possibilities were options that I could pick (both possibilities were outcomes that I could actualize). It is absurd to believe that I could both raise my arm and vote for it and at the same time do otherwise and keep that same arm down and vote against it. I will either vote for it or against it (or abstain if that is an option). And when I vote for it or vote against it, whichever outcome is actualized is then irreversible. Doing otherwise does not mean that we can two opposite actions at the same time: rather, it means that **before** the actual outcome occurs, at least two different options could be actualized by a person.
It is interesting that in another post “Magnus” wrote:
“Before the choice you can choose whatever you want.”
He says before you make the choice (what I just got through calling the outcome, or making the choice) “you can choose whatever you want”. Does that mean that prior to making the choice and producing the outcome that I had a choice meaning I could choose any of the possibilities I was considering?
“In my mind though once you made that choice then if you were placed in exactly same situation you will always choose the same.”
“Once you made the choice”, you could not have done otherwise than to **have made that choice** (not because we do not have a choice but because the nature of choices means that once made they are irreversible). But free will, or having a choice if it exists, must exist before you make the choice/before you actualize a particular outcome. Up until the time when you **make a choice** you **have a choice** of which possibility you are going to pick or select. And having that choice before you make the choice is what most people mean by having free will, being able to do otherwise. Being able to do otherwise refers to the period of time before the outcome occurs, the actual choice is made. So if we teleported ourselves to a point before an outcome is actualized, we could actualize different options if we have a choice.
“Now if you were teleported back then those reasons and factors would still be in play. The only way you would make a different choice is if you acted on other reasons or factors or if something were missing or added.”
Before I choose say the pie, I have reasons for picking pie. At the same time I also have reasons for picking the ice cream. I then choose which possibility that I want to make actual, I make a choice, say I pick the pie. Now if I were teleported back to the same situation there would be the same reasons for picking the pie and the same reasons for picking the ice cream but prior to the outcome of picking the pie I could do otherwise and pick the ice cream. The outcome of say picking pie becomes irreversible once I make that choice/actualize that particular outcome. But before I actualize the outcome of picking pie, I could have actualized the outcome of picking the ice cream.
Recall Wares error here as well: Ware claimed that we have the same reasons for doing different and/or opposite actions (this is false as each action is associated with different reasons and they are not the same reasons). What would make for a different outcome, is if I made a different choice, instead of picking pie I picked ice cream instead. I could not both pick ice cream and not pick ice cream at the same time. The place where there is a choice, where free will as ordinarily understood exists, where we **have a choice** is before the outcome is actualized (i.e, **before we make the choice**).
Robert
nope, by choice! :) I don't have a blog.
And fyi, I would choose pie and ice cream and call you nuts if you did not! However, now that I think about it, pie, ice cream and some walnuts on top sound rather tastier than pie and ice cream or just pie or ice cream!
Agh, choices, choices!
You seem reluctant to say we cannot choose B (if we will choose A). That’s a good start. I do want to address your concern about what would or will happen, but first it’s important to understand what can happen.
If someone says a person cannot choose B, I would suggest that they can’t choose A either. Choice involves alternatives. A can’t be an alternative all by its lonesome. Alternatives come in pairs. So if someone eliminates B (i.e. we can’t choose B) then A isn’t within a pair. Thus A isn’t part of two or more alternatives. So we can’t choose A. We can do A, but not choose A.
In regard to your question, our nature defines the boundaries of what we can choose. As long as the unregenerate, without grace, have two or more sinful alternatives, they can choose. My problem with determinism is that one thing, all by itself isn’t part of a pair of alternatives. So logically we can’t make choices, since choice requires alternatives.
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks for the thoughtful posts.
that if we see making a choice as committing to a specific course of action, then the determinist could believe that we do this.
I wouldn't allow determinists to define choice that way. Computers commit to a specific course of action without choosing. Choice is committing to a specific course of action, out of alternative courses of action.
But that said I agree with an appreciate your distinction between having and making choices, It's quite helpful and down to earth. At some level I think we are saying the same thing.
God be with you,
Dan
thank you,I‘ve been reading,just materials what you kindly provide on the blog and also that review of N.Chomsky Robert told me about.
I agree with the points you gentlemen were discussing on having /making choice and can on my part confirm that in all my conversations with reformed folks their position in reality denies all choice, for determinism sees it as such:
If a man were to choose dessert or, let’s say, which girl to ask out on a date, he choses an ice-cream( over pie or cake) and asked out Jane (over Becky or Mary) thus bringing into reality the only possible solution which was a result of all influences combined at the time of choosing. There was no way he could have chosen another option – which renders pie, cake, Becky, Mary to be not real choices. In terms of potential actualization he never "had" those choices, they are as good of a choice as "sugared monkey brains" or Queen Elizabeth – options that never been offered at all.
Dear Mag, this is how i see your view about only one potential outcome being possible under the given set of circumstances/influences. That’s why I asked you to provide kind explanation where is free will in this?
May God bless you,
Odeliya.
Though you directed your comments at others, I want to comment on some things you brought up.
“I agree with the points you gentlemen were discussing on having /making choice and can on my part confirm that in all my conversations with reformed folks their position in reality denies all choice, for determinism sees it as such:”
Odeliya this is a very important observation. Reformed theology as it is deterministic wipes out the reality of us ever having choices. You are absolutely right that their position “in reality denies all choice”.
“If a man were to choose dessert or, let’s say, which girl to ask out on a date, he chooses an ice-cream( over pie or cake) and asked out Jane (over Becky or Mary) thus bringing into reality the only possible solution which was a result of all influences combined at the time of choosing. There was no way he could have chosen another option – which renders pie, cake, Becky, Mary to be not real choices. In terms of potential actualization he never "had" those choices, they are as good of a choice as "sugared monkey brains" or Queen Elizabeth – options that never been offered at all.”
You are correct, if some factor(s) necessitates the action that we do, then we do not have a choice in the matter. Now we ought to distinguish between (1) the belief that we have a choice regarding some possibilities and (2) actually having that choice.
At the restaurant we may believe that we have a choice of pie or ice cream, that is our belief. Now our belief either corresponds with reality or our belief is false. If the restaurant has both pie and ice cream available as dessert options, then our belief is true, it corresponds with reality. But if the restaurant is say, completely out of ice cream, so all that they have is pie, then the belief that you have that you could pick either pie or ice cream is false. The choice you have left would then be between choosing to have pie or instead choosing not to have pie. Now if further the restaurant was out of both pie and ice cream and had no desserts available to offer you, then you would have no choice with respect to having a dessert.
If we understand this distinction between (1) believing that we have a choice and (2) actually having a choice, we see a further problem with determinism. In all forms of determinism there is some necessitating factor that causes you to do a certain action so that you could not do otherwise, you could not do something else. And if your action is necessitated then you **have to do** that action and it is **impossible** that you could do any other action. So at the restaurant if my action is necessitated, by some factor(s) then, say that I have to pick pie when told the alternatives were pie and ice cream. Then I have no choice in that matter. Now if I believe that I have a choice and could pick either ice cream or pie, but the necessitating factors cause me to only pick pie, then my belief that I have a choice is FALSE.
If all of our actions are necessitated by some necessitating factor (and I don’t care if that factor is our genes, our background, external stimulus, our brain, the laws of nature, our nature, Who I am, etc. etc.) as the determinists want us to believe. Then we never have a choice and our belief that we have choices is ALWAYS FALSE. You might believe that you could pick pie or ice cream, but your belief is false if determinism is true. You might believe that you choose who you date: Jane, Becky or Mary, but your belief is false if determinism is true. Now think about what this means if everything is determined as the determinists want us to believe: that means that every time we think we have a choice our belief is false. That means that our experience in this world is completely illusory, we think we have choices but we never do.
Now I guess it is possible that God could have decided to create and maintain such a world, but I do not believe that he did so. If God said in the bible that we never have a choice and that we ought to live as if that is true, then that would be one thing. But in the bible God and everyone else, presents situations where the language presents things as if we really do have choices. Now if God knew that everything was predetermined and yet presented things in His revelation as if we have choices, that would be extremely misleading (but in fact if everything was determined and we never have a choice, then not only would our common belief that we have choices be false, but our common belief that the bible presents the reality of choices would also be false). Now I don’t believe our belief is false nor do I believe that God is misleading us intentionally in His Word. Take the other possibility, we really do have choices as we believe and the bible presents the reality of choices as well because we really do have choices. Those are the two alternatives: either our belief that we have choices is always false because everything is determined and God presents choices in the bible even though we never have these choices, OR we sometimes have choices and God presents us with choices because we really have those choices. Odeliya which one makes more sense to you? Which belief is true, which belief is false?
Another implication of this claim that everything is determined and so we never have choices, is consider what this does to the issue of responsibility. This would mean that God predetermines everything that occurs, He predetermines and controls us in such a way that we always and only do what He wants us to do (just like good little puppets who do what they do depending on what strings the puppet master pulls). But then he also holds us responsible for doing things that He controlled us to do, and he praises and blames us for doing the very things he caused us to do (he pulls the strings for us to go left and then gets upset at us for going left). That is like playing a game of solitaire, or setting dominoes up and then watching them fall in the ways and directions in which you set them up, but then holding them responsible for going the way you wanted them to. Or writing a novel where you determine everything that happens in the story, to the smallest detail, and then though you authored and planned the whole thing, you then condemn certain characters in your story for being the characters you decided for them to be. I believe that you have noted this in the past Odeliya, if we do not have choices, then the whole concept of responsibility, of praise and blame for the doing of actions, falls apart. On the other hand, if we do have choices, then praising someone for choosing to do something when they could have done otherwise, or blaming someone for choosing to do something when they could and should have done otherwise makes perfect sense.
“Dear Mag, this is how I see your view about only one potential outcome being possible under the given set of circumstances/influences. That’s why I asked you to provide kind explanation where is free will in this?”
First of all, if Magnus and his determinism is true, then we never have a choice, then free will as ordinarily understood does not and cannot exist. Second, if Magnus and other determinists were honest about things, then they would openly admit that our belief that we have choices is false. But they are reluctant to admit that, reluctant to put all of their cards on the table. Instead they will say things like: “as long as the person does what he wants to do, then he is acting freely.” This is deceptive if the issue is whether or not our belief that we have choices is true or not. Another person could completely control us and our wants and our bodies and cause us to do what He wants us to do, but then we would have no choice and our belief that we have a choice would be false. We would also be mere puppets as you have noted. It is significant that determinist calvinists will argue that God controls us and he chooses what choices we will make (which again means we never have a choice), which would lead to a world of Puppets whose every string is pulled by the puppet master, God. And yet when the noncalvinist brings up this point, they will then object that things are not really like that. Third, Odeliya you are correct in your interpretation of Magnus’ view, he presents a form of determinism in which the necessitating factor according to him is “our nature” or “Who I am”. And recall that it doesn’t matter what the necessitating factor is, whatever it is it necessitates one and only one action and so wipes out the reality of us ever having choices.
The determinists do not want to talk about the reality of choices because the dirty little secret is that if their view is true, then we ****never ever**** ****have*** a ****choice****. And if we never ever have a choice then our belief that we have choices is always false and God is misleading us in the bible when He presents things as if we do have choices when He knows full well that we never do.
Robert
You quoted my words: that if we see making a choice as committing to a specific course of action, then the determinist could believe that we do this.
And then responded:
“I wouldn't allow determinists to define choice that way. Computers commit to a specific course of action without choosing. Choice is committing to a specific course of action, out of alternative courses of action.”
You may be right here, perhaps I have been overly tolerant and hospitable to the determinists! :-) You are quite correct about “Choice is committing to a specific course of action, out of alternative courses of action.” This statement may also be a helpful simple statement to describe what libertarian free will involves. It then involves a choice, which is committing to a specific course of action, when alternative courses of action which you could do were present and available or accessible by you. If you only could commit to one and only one course of action, if you could do only one action and could not do any others, then you would not have a choice, a choice would not be present. In order to have a genuine choice, at least two different courses of action would need to be both present and available to you to commit to. This is helpful, thanks for the correction.
Robert
You said of “Magnus”
“You seem reluctant to say we cannot choose B (if we will choose A).”
I believe that I can partly explain this reluctance on the part of this determinist. I believe that he is reluctant because he understands that if we do in fact have choices then everything is not predetermined. And since he **wants to believe** that everything is controlled and predetermined by God he has to reject the reality of us ever having choices.
In the past I watched some calvinists respond to a friend of mine who made the same point that we have choices and so exhaustive determinism is false. It was interesting watching these determinists/calvinists attempting to evade this simple point. First they tried to redefine the word “choice” so that it no longer meant what we ordinarily mean by “choice” (they tried to say we have a choice when we do what we want), so that it would not involve having access to at least two different possibilities.. Then they tried to claim that my friend was begging the question against determinism when using the word “choice” (I wish that I had spoken up about this, I would have made the point that say we assume the ordinary meaning of “choice” then the question becomes does the available evidence support or contradict this concept?, if the evidence supports this phenomena then it is true, if the evidence disconfirms this phenomena then it is false). Redefining the word did not work, nor did claiming it was begging the question. Their next tactic was to downplay the concept of having choices and claim that having choices really does not mean much, what is important is how the choice is made (does this last one sound familiar? :-)). What all this **special pleading** convinced me of was that the calvinistic determinists could not handle the simple reality of us having choices.
Another time I also witnessed a discussion where an open theist (note –I personally believe their view that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge is false) was wiping out a group of calvinists including an Oxford trained guy by simply discussing having choices. He just kept discussing choices (he made his points simply and logically) and the calvinists could not handle it at all (they really had no answer). I took mental note of that discussion.
And this is not hard to understand because in fact if we have choices, then everything is not predetermined as the determinists want to believe. Or put another way, if the available evidence suggests that we in fact have choices then determinism is NECESSARILY (pun intended) false (incidentally I confirmed this with Alvin Plantinga, I spoke to him about this claim that evidence of having choices would refute exhaustive determinism and he agreed, I trust his judgment on this kind of thing much more than my own, :-)). I think the sharper determinists understand and know this so they squeal and then they try to use semantic tricks and evasions to downplay the reality of choices or try to change the subject since their view cannot handle it.
You went on to say:
“If someone says a person cannot choose B, I would suggest that they can’t choose A either. Choice involves alternatives. A can’t be an alternative all by its lonesome. Alternatives come in pairs. So if someone eliminates B (i.e. we can’t choose B) then A isn’t within a pair.”
Good points, choices involve contrasting pairs, where you can do one or the other, but not both. And by selecting one from the binary pair you simultaneously exclude the other possibility that makes up the pair.
“Thus A isn’t part of two or more alternatives. So we can’t choose A. We can do A, but not choose A.”
When you say here “we can do A, but not choose A” this is basically my distinction between having a choice and making a choice. To have a choice you need to have access to, be able to actualize or do either possibility that makes up the pair. If you cannot access and do both possibilities but must do one, then you do not have a choice.
“In regard to your question, our nature defines the boundaries of what we can choose. As long as the unregenerate, without grace, have two or more sinful alternatives, they can choose. My problem with determinism is that one thing, all by itself isn’t part of a pair of alternatives. So logically we can’t make choices, since choice requires alternatives.”
Again, assume that the unregenerate person can only do sinful actions (I don’t hold this assumption myself), because he has a “nature” that necessitates that he always sins. Even then he still has choices (e.g., when beating another person on the ground does he hit the person a few times or until he sees him stop breathing? That is a choice he makes.). And if he has any choices then determinism is false. A major problem with this whole way of thinking is that our “nature” does not make choices, WE DO. I have seen determinists try to argue that our nature in some way necessitates our choices. But this is false, we make choices, not our nature. Our “nature” is just a term we use to refer to our set of characteristics. But this set of characteristics never did an action and never will.
As you say Dan, our nature may set boundaries of what we can and cannot choose to do (e.g., I have sometimes seen determinists argue, and it really is a weak argument, that if people have free will then does that mean that they can fly? Obviously they cannot fly so they must not have free will. Our nature does not allow us to fly unaided, so that choice is not available to us. On the other hand there are different ways to fly if we are intent on doing so, take a plane, get shot out of a cannon, get dropped out of an airplane, put a jet pack on your back, get in a balloon, etc. etc. Actually while we cannot fly unaided, the fact that we have come up with other ways to do so again shows our normal capacity to have and make choices). It should also be remembered that human nature includes the ability to do our own actions and make our own choices. So human nature in fact involves the capacity to think about different possibilities and actualize the possibility that we end up choosing.
“But that said I agree with and appreciate your distinction between having and making choices, it’s quite helpful and down to earth. At some level I think we are saying the same thing.”
Yes, I think we are on the same page, we both understand that what free will in the libertarian sense involves is having and making choices. I want to keep the discussion “down to earth” so that everyone can participate (some of the determinists like to make things more complicated so that the everyday person cannot take part in their discussions: I want even the most ordinary person to be able to see the problems with determinism and so reject it). I also want people to be able to appeal to their own daily experience as well as be able to point at examples of it in the bible. If libertarian free will exists then we should expect to find evidence everywhere of its existence. And **in fact** we do find evidence of it everywhere because wherever we have and make choices we have libertarian free will.
This also goes to the matter of proof: we cannot prove the reality of having and making choices like we can prove a mathematical equation, with real life things like free will, all we can do is present the available evidence that supports it. Fortunately for us, this available evidence is literally everywhere and experienced by everyone in their experience of having and making choices. It’s like breathing can we prove that humans breath with a mathematically precise proof? No, but we can bring out the available evidence which includes that we all experience breathing daily and every where where there are humans there is breathing being done by them. Similarly, wherever you find humans you find humans having and making choices (unless of course as I was telling Odeliyah, if everything is predetermined, then our belief that we have and make choices is false, God is misleading us in the bible, and we live in a world of illusion where it seems as if we have choices but in reality we never do).
It is significant that “Magnus” doesn’t seem to (or does not want to) understand the importance of the reality or non-reality of us ever having choices as he writes:
“Putting all my chips on the table, I fail to see the relevance of choices? I mean we could have 100 or 1000 different choices available to us, but that tells us nothing.”
This is truly amazing, because he says he is willing to bet it all on the non-reality or in his case, the supposed irrelevance of choices (again, recall that Plantinga agrees that evidence of having choices would refute exhaustive determinism). So Magnus believes that the reality of choices is irrelevant to this discussion, when in fact the reality of choices refutes determinism. He even makes the statement that “we could have 100 or 1000 different choices available to us, but that tells us nothing.”
It tells us something alright; actually it tells us, all that we need to know that his determinism is false. If we even have one choice, then everything has not been predetermined, if we have lots of choices (“we could have 100 or 1000 different choices available to us”), then determinism is not only false it is falsified by tons of evidence right before everyone’s eyes. I would say that is pretty significant. The determinists appear to be in denial of something they experience daily. I think I might get angry if someone told me that the very thing I am in denial about I actually do and experience **every day** but I just don’t want to admit it. People often get very angry when they are experiencing self denial. It’s like the people described in Romans 1 who suppress the truth in unrighteousness: it is not that they do not know or understand the truth, it is that knowing the truth and understanding the truth, they nevertheless intentionally choose to reject the truth.
Robert
I would say Magnus this is the meat when one considers making choices both as a human unregenerate and a human born again by the Will of Our Father in Heaven:::>
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
Gal 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Choices matter.
God has so determined it that way that even Jesus could not escape suffering that led Him to make the "right" choices, which by the way was determined before the foundation of the world was laid!
Heb 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.
Heb 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
Heb 5:10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
What has been determined is that there. There is no other way to Heaven but by the means He provides.
Now the choice is yours. Obey Him or disobey Him. You will reap what you sow.
I just looked over some of “Magnus” comments and I want to be sure that you guys see some contradictions, especially those indicating someone whose mind is made up and they refuse to follow where the evidence leads.
He says at one place: “Perhaps it would help me if you could tell me how one can prove what is a “real” choice? Saying that one can choose otherwise seems to be vague.”
Note he asks Odeliya how you can prove “what is a ‘real’ choice”?
But in a later post he writes:
“There is no way to prove contrary choice and that is why we just go round and round in circles. Just saying “We have choices” does nothing to prove this definition of free will that is being imposed.”
So he asks you at first for “proof” of a real choice. But then later he says “there is no way to prove contrary choice”. So if it is impossible to prove, why is he asking you to prove it? I referred to proof of having choices in my previous post to Dan (I said that we cannot “prove” it with a mathematical kind of proof, what we can do is to provide available evidence for it, and that includes that we all have and make choices daily, the bible presents choices that we have, etc.).
In a previous post “Magnus” said that he believes we are completely controlled by God:
“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.”
If that is true, that “God controls everything” then our actions are necessitated and controlled by an ETERNAL AGENT, an EXTERNAL FACTOR. We would then only be doing what God, an external agent, in completely controlling us wants us to do. But then he says in another post where he presents his view that we supposedly have free will:
“Again, that is why it seems weird to me to focus on having and making choices. All the choices in the world mean little, what matters is HOW and WHY you make those choices. To me, as long as you are making those choices by your own volition and not because of some external factor than you are free.”
First he says here that “what matters is HOW and WHY you make those choices.” Then he says in the very next line that “as long as you are making those choices by your own volition AND NOT BECAUSE OF SOME EXTERNAL FACTOR THAN YOU ARE FREE (my emphasis).”
If God is controlling our every action and determining everything that we do, then wouldn’t God be SOME EXTERNAL FACTOR?
And wouldn’t God be an EXTERNAL FACTOR that makes us make the choices that we make?
In claiming that God controls our every move and determines what we do and at the same time “you are free” and choice is not necessitated by an external factor/God, “Magnus” is making irrational comments.
If God the ultimate EXTERNAL FACTOR were controlling our every action (as “Magnus” wants us to believe), then according to “Magnus” own words, we would not be free.
“Magnus” does not realize that his determinism means that an external factor, God, is determining our actions so we never have a choice and we are never free. So much for “Magnus” claims that we act freely when we act independent of external factors. All his talk about our nature (what he considers to be an internal factor) determining and necessitating our actions is the real “smoke screen” to cover the fact that he believes that God/an external factor completely makes us do what we do. But instead of being honest about this he wants us to believe it is our “natures” not God, that necessitates what we do and eliminates our ever having choices.
Just wanted you guys to note these rather clear inconsistencies in “Magnus” comments.
Odeliya and Dan, what do you think, do you see these little itty bitty inconsistencies? :-)
Robert
with all do respect, you are absurd to put it as politely as I can.
First, I don't think, I could be wrong, but, I don't think magnus is around anymore today based on his last comments, so, I would like to, in any event, respond to one of your thrusts into him, unwisely though, to thrust back into your reasonings herein.
You point out your objections, to those you are playing too in here, in your human spirit all the while bearing the fruit of variance, mind you and not any fruit by the Holy Ghost.
Robert, your question:
[So he asks you at first for “proof” of a real choice. But then later he says “there is no way to prove contrary choice”. So if it is impossible to prove, why is he asking you to prove it?]
Because I am saying that you are devoid of the Spirit, and so lacking in the "Fruit of the Spirit" and that being true, you have your own knowledge to draw from only. You yourself cannot answer the question you asked but magnus can.
If you are willing to learn, here is an interesting thing now, quoting Paul the Apostle from Romans 3 to underscore the difficulty I am pointing out about you that you will always have with those of us who indeed have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost:
Paul writes,
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
You put your knowledge forward to prove you are right while we put forth Truth to uncover our own shortcomings in nature, determined by God to "now" exist throughout all generations after Adam's fall.
You see, God never intended for any one of us to "attain" to the Law of Righteousness. That being said, don't you follow how odd it is then that the Apostle Paul would write such a thing as I quoted from Romans 3?
Only one devoid of the True Spirit of Grace would conclude that that is silly of Paul to write that if God never intended for any one of us to "attain" to that that we are called upon to establish, in the Name of the Lord, encouraging ourselves and others as Paul does there.
Secondly, why don't you just admit you have no intention of coming under the "Word" of God but rather you only want your reader to come under "your word", thus making yourself out to know more than God.
I will say this strongly about you, that I detect a "spirit of rebellion" against God in all that you write in here.
Here’s my thoughts on how prevenient grace works. There’s three basis stages: 1) man without grace, 2) man under the law and 3) man under the call of the Gospel.
Without any grace, man is unable to do anything good.
The first instrument of prevenient grace is oddly the law. The law points out that we are doing wrong. This aspect of prevenient grace is universal in that everyone, at some point in their life, figures out that they are sinning. They can either respond to this illumination given by God by either ignoring it, in which case they go back to their ignorant and hardened state (i.e. the without grace state described above), or they can respond by struggling. If they struggle, they may further be illuminated by God to realize they are failing miserably. Again, they can ignore it, but if not they may be further illuminated by God to realize they are under God’s just judgment, and they may come to fear God’s wrath. Further, they may realize they need a Savior. At this point, God’s instrument, the law, has done its part.
The next instrument that takes over is the Gospel. God calls those who, through the law, realize they need a Savior. They are illuminated by God to the truths about Christ and forgiveness and so forth… and God also enables them to believe.
At every stage, we can say two things: 1) man can’t make any progress to the next stage without God and 2) man is able to reject and go back.
Perhaps it would help me if you could tell me how one can prove what is a “real” choice?
Scripture. The bible teaches God has LFW (Genesis 1:1 demonstrates God’s choice was via agent, not event causation and Matthew 26:53 shows Christ was able to choose something He did not choose.
Further, the inconsistencies within compatiblism are a dead giveaway that it’s not biblical. It entails either the contradiction that A) we can choose something we cannot choose or B) something has an alternative without having an alternative.
As for why or how we choose, it always comes down to two factors: the agent and indeterministic causes. The indeterministic causes are the reason the agent choose, but the agent determines which indeterministic causes to act on.
God be with you,
Dan
it seems that regarding magnus' last comments, he'll be around after the weekend.
I am sitting here reading your response to him presumably because it is open for other comment from your readers?
You wrote this:::>
"...This aspect of prevenient grace is universal in that everyone, at some point in their life, figures out that they are sinning. They can either respond to this illumination given by God..."
I just don't understand your reasoning here.
Why put both man's efforts with God's? It seems to me this is the divider between where some sit from where others sit.
When I read the quote above, yours, responding to magnus, it makes no sense to me.
You first place the "figuring" it out on man. Why?
I accept and embrace the second part as the "Truth" while I cannot accept the first part.
So that we are clear on what I am pointing too, I will quote the first and second part now:::>
1st part:
""... at some point in their life, figures out that they are sinning....""
2nd part:
""...They can either respond to this illumination given by God...""
Can you help me understand why you make this distinction, man figuring it out and God illuminating it to the man?
It is as if you are placing some aspect of the illumination "ability" on yourself so that when you figure it out, you can get some credit for it. Is that the intent of writing this idea out like that?
Now let me quote you again and say that this is most powerful. I would whole heartedly embrace this understanding as it is clearly only by revelation that you could write this and have the meaning and understanding of it as solely coming from God Himself by His Own action and not the action of Elect Angels or fallen angels, [demons], the Elect or the reprobate human beings:::>
""....They are illuminated by God to the truths about Christ and forgiveness and so forth… and God also enables them to believe....""
Clearly God illuminates. Clearly God is the one solely responsible for anyone's Salvation understanding too given to the heart and mind of the receiver. This is clearly "a" and "the" sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost as Peter notes and I quote here:
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Now here is my reason for why Peter is being enabled to say that:
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
I am "extremely" careful, overly careful to emphasize the Work of Our Heavenly Father as the Holy Ghost made it a point throughout Scripture to make these sorts of distinctions.
If that is His Truth, shouldn't we, as vessels of the Holy Ghost go out of our way to bring Him Honor and Glory in every thought, word and deed establishing this as the Truth?
2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall establish you, and keep you from evil.
2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
2Th 3:5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
And for my final comment on yours, you wrote magnus this:
""....As for why or how we choose, it always comes down to two factors: the agent and indeterministic causes. The indeterministic causes are the reason the agent choose, but the agent determines which indeterministic causes to act on....""
Ok, huh?
Why is it so important to make the deterministic and indeterministic distinction?
Without God, by His Grace and Mercy, placing His "Faith" in one to "Believe" and "establish" in the Faith, it matters not what you or I do or think or say to anyone speaking the "Word". "Faith" comes by "Hearing" and "Hearing" by the "Word" of God.
God can speak directly audibly or indirectly through an "agent"; whether through a man or a woman, a boy or girl, a bird, a donkey, an angel, a demon or the wind blowing through the leaves. It is first and foremost God speaking directly Himself, Jesus Himself, the Holy Ghost Himself or through one of Their agents according to Their Will, not man's so that man's only boast is in the Lord.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
No one comes to the Father but by Jesus Christ. No one can "KNOW" Him but by the Will and Command of the Father.
So again, I cannot understand why you make these clear distinctions?
Can you assist me to understand this?
Thanks
michael
I see your point, gladly discuss it, but I ought to say that Robert’s and Dan’s replies /explanations are excellent.
It’s not really about that you could have chosen a different person to marry, but the fact that if your choice was a result of combined causes, and couldn’t have been different – then it was not free. This is what I tried to explain by example of computer lab experiments.
tell your spouse that if you were teleported back you would pick someone else and not marry them.
I am not married yet, but don’t think my hypothetical husband would have a problem with his wife choosing him on her own free will. I think. Well, the experiment is too tempting to pass on.... Curiosity, dead cat..:))
I heard of rent –a-husband handyman work but don’t know if I can rent one for theological reasons :) Dan- it's your blog, so would you kindly agree to provide help for me here? I am a decent jewish girl, and wish to rent you out with the sole purpose of getting some assistance in theological issues, and hope not to keep you for longer then 10 minutes max.
So what’s your counsel on this matter, Sir? Are you endorsing my viewpoint or would you have a problem with freewilled, non predetermined choice of your very highly (as i can tell), commendable self?
I honestly will try to think how to explain my position on FW better, Mag, tmrw or on Monday, with your permission. I need to think about it.
God Bless everybody and have a godly and good Sunday.
O.
“Robert, I will “choose” not to interact with you anymore and will just ignore you.”
Great, that is really, really, good news.
I just hope that is a **promise**, your false accusations against me and personal attacks and insults do nothing to advance your weak arguments nor do they do anything to show our arguments to be false. Now we can just focus on the arguments that you and we present for our views. And that is as it should be.
Robert
You brought up an example where Jesus himself SAYS that he could do otherwise than he actually ends up doing. Jesus says that he could call upon angels to deliver him, but what he actually does is not call for this rescue and instead ends up going to the cross. Now I assume that whatever Jesus says is absolutely correct.
“Magnus” responded to this with:
“Your point about Christ choosing, again I have to ask- yes he could’ve of chosen differently I suppose, but why did he choose this path?”
“Magnus” again does not get it (or intentionally chooses not to accept it). If Jesus could have done otherwise then what he ended up doing, then LFW was present in that situation. If LFW was present in that situation then everything is not predetermined and necessitated. And if everything is not predetermined and necessitated then “Magnus” determinism is false.
When “Magnus” admits that “yes he could’ve of chosen differently I suppose”, then his deterministic ship is sunk. Dan we have been focusing on whether or not people have and make choices. We have given arguments as to why we should accept the fact that we do have and make choices so LFW is real and supported by the available evidence. You gave a clear and explicit example where the bible presents a clear and explicit case of a person having a real choice (where he could do one thing, but could also choose another thing, and in fact did end up choosing the latter option).
“Was it not his very purpose and nature to choose as he did? What if he had prayed and received 12 legions of Angels, would that not go against his plan and his very nature? Also, what then would’ve happened to the cross?”
If he had chosen to be rescued then he would not have ended up on the cross. The issue is whether or not he had the ability to actualize both options (could he have actualized the option of calling on the angels and being rescued and so not ending up on the cross: or could he have actualized the option of not calling on the angels not being rescued and so being arrested and ending up on the cross?). If both possibilities were available to Him and accessible to Him, then LFW was present. We know that the second option is possible because that is what he in fact ended up choosing. But what about the other option: choosing to call on the angels to deliver him, could he have done that one? HE SAYS THAT HE COULD, so that ought to be sufficient to settle the issue.
“I’m asking this because do you think that was really a viable option for Christ?”
If Jesus says that he could have done so, then He could have done so. Was it a possible option which he could have actualized? Yes, according to his own words. Is it the option that he did in fact choose? NO, because we know that he ended up on the cross.
Next “Magnus” comes up with an example that shows some things we already know and believe: that when people do intentional and voluntary actions they experience LFW and they do their actions by choosing which reasons they will act upon.
“Let me try to come up with a very crude example of what I’m talking about. Say my daughter is playing in the street and I see a car coming, I could realistically choose to leave her in the streets, no? Instead I would run as fast as I could and grab her and pull her to safety. You could say that I was able to choose something that I did not choose, but I would tell you that I really had no choice. I had to do what I did in order to accomplish what needed to be accomplished.”
What does this example show?
First it shows that while he could have gone out into the street in order to save his daughter (that is one option he could and did actualize in his example), he also could have chosen not to save his daughter (that is one option that he could have actualized but did not in fact actualize in the story). “Magnus” notes this when he acknowledges and admits that: “I could realistically choose to leave her in the streets, no?” Yes you would have that possible choice before you (if you had the actual choice of going into the street or not going into the street). Lest he want to claim that a parent could not ever make this choice of not going out into the street under any circumstances, this only shows that he has no experience with abusive parents. My wife at one time was the children’s counselor at a shelter for abused women. She tells me the story of a guy who married someone and it was a second marriage for the women and she had a child that the man did not like and considered to be “in his way.” So what did this guy do? He sometimes allowed the child to do things that would endanger the child like wander out into the street where they could potentially be hit by a car. This guy made all sorts of choices like this, so we know some could make such a choice. We might consider the choice to be wrong and immoral. But that is not the issue here: the issue is still whether or not we have and make choices and so experience LFW in our daily life. So “Magnus”’ own example nicely illustrates the reality of LFW and that we do in fact have and make choices.
Second, he says that he would have gone out to protect the child. He would do this because he had reasons to do this. Reasons that he *****chose***** to act upon. These reasons do not necessitate our actions, though they are involved in our intentional actions. If reasons necessitated our actions then we would have to do what the reason caused us to do. But reasons do not cause us to do things, we as personal and free agents **choose which reasons we will or will not act upon**.
Going back to Jesus’ statement that he could have called upon the angels to rescue him. His statement is either true or false concerning the accessibility of that option at that time. If it if false, then Jesus is either mistaken about what he says, knows that it was not true but said it anyway which means he was lying or he sincerely thought he could do so but in reality could not and so was deluded. I believe that his statement was true. Now if his statement was true. This would be similar to “Magnus” admitting that he could choose to leave his child unprotected, though he also could choose to go out into the street. What this shows whether it is “Magnus”’ hypothetical claim, or Jesus’ actual claim, is that sometimes we could do otherwise though we actually end up doing something else (i.e., we actually have a choice, with different possibilities that we could choose to actualize).
Put simply if Jesus’ statement was true, then LFW was present. And if LFW was present in that situation then LFW is a real phenomena. And of course that is ONLY ONE EXAMPLE FROM SCRIPTURE, when in fact there are many others. And all of these cases of where a person could do one thing but ended up choosing to do another, clearly and strongly show the reality of us having choices. And in showing the reality of us having choices they simultaneously show determinism, such as that held by Magnus to be false.
Robert
“There are some people who mistake choice with LFW, but stating that man has a choice does not prove LFW.”
Actually, the vast majority of humanity agrees that LFW means having a free choice, being able to choose from among available and accessible alternative possibilities. Now you could argue that that vast majority is wrong, but it is not merely “some”.
Second, as has been shown (unless one intentionally ignores the arguments and the evidence), if we have choices (as ordinarily understood) then everything has not been predetermined. If the determinist wants to deny reality and instead inhabit an imaginary world where he never has a choice and God predetermined everything, that is his/her choice (a sad choice however as it leads to all sorts of unnecessary problems and leads them to be separated from the majority of bible believing Christians who understand and believe the truth and it leads them to contraditing the bible).
“The Bible is clear that we make choices for reasons and that our will is not independent of ourselves.”
Dan you and I believe that we make choices for reasons and that our will is not independent of ourselves. That is not saying anything.
“In the Scripture verse that you cited it is clear that Christ’s will is not independent of the Father’s plan, nor is it independent of his own desire. This verse speaks very forcefully and convincingly for my view of free will;”
This verse in no way shows Magnus’ view of determinism to be correct. If Jesus had a real choice, then LFW was present, and Magnus’ determinism is false. If Jesus’ actions were predetermined and necessitated then he could not have done otherwise (and if he knew he could not have done otherwise and still said that he could have done so, then he was lying and misleading us and we cannot trust His words). To ignore this and pretend that the verse supports determinism is to be in denial of reality.
“thank you for pointing me to it.”
Dan,you brought up a clear and unambiguous scripture showing the presence of LFW. If he is going to see this as evidence of his view, then that would mean no matter what bible verses that you brought up to show the existence of LFW he would simply ignore and reinterpret them as he does with this bible verse.
I have said for a while (and Magnus just proves it once again) that determinists are just like cultists in their interpretation of the bible (i.e., they do not interpret the bible as much as reinterpret it in line with their false system of theology; so, clear and unambiguous bible verses that present the truth are simply reinterpreted by them so that they somehow, like magic, end up saying exactly what the cultist wants to believe). If someone is going to reinterpret scripture in this way, it is useless presenting scripture to them.
Robert
I thought about you this weekend when I was talking to a friend about determinism. Odeliya as you understand that if God controls everything then we become mere puppets with him as the puppet master who pulls all of our strings and so whatever we do is exactly what He wants us to do. You will appreciate and understand the examples of my friend.
My friend said: imagine you went to a puppet show where there were puppets on a stage who were all completely controlled by the puppet master. Now what if one of those puppets killed someone in the audience? Would you see the puppet as a “bad” puppet? Would hold the puppet responsible for what it did when its strings were controlled by the puppet master? Who would you blame and hold responsible for the murder? Seems to me that you would not blame or hold the puppet responsible as it had no choice. Instead you would blame and hold the puppet master responsible because he did have a choice. And he chose to murder someone in the crowd.
I thought that was a great illustration of determinism. I will definitely be using that one again.
My friend pointed out another example as well. Imagine a person on trial for murder. And say the evidence shows that he was under the influence of, or even controlled by another person. You might hold him responsible for the murder, but you would hold the person who controlled him and influenced him even more. So if God predetermines it all and controls us, then he is the ultimate sinner, because he made us sin, we had no choice, but he did have a choice and his choice was to make us sin.
Again, another good illustration of the problems with determinism of all things.
What do you think of these illustrations Odeliya?
Robert
You have made some comments here and elsewhere that have made me very sad. I was shocked. It didn’t sound like you. I, being a terrible sinner, am the last person on earth fit to decide these matters. But I need this blog to honor Christ. I must ask that you either apologize to Robert and immediately discontinue speaking to him in this way or stop posting here.
God be with you,
Dan
I deleted your last post. Please consider not following Magnus' recent example. While debates about freewill/predestination are complex, the Gospel is very simple. Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved!!! While people disagree about tangential issues, we are united on the Gospel!
God be with you,
Dan
I response to your comments, God teaches, man learns.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
So yes, it's two part. Granted God is enabling us to learn and influencing us to learn, but "we", not God, learn.
God be with you,
Dan
if you indeed believe what you have just posted, then undelete my last post to robert and you and let the Holy Spirit bring the burning into the heart!
I am not sure how it came to be that I have come into your blogphere hereon, but square your action with my comments please.
And for the record, what is there that magnus needs to address regarding robert?
I am fair minded and open minded. I am spiritual and I too judge all things.
I have judged robert and his place.
Let my comment stand and let the Holy Ghost do His work:::>
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
I am sorry about what happened to you. I know God gives special favor in cases like this ( Psalm 27:10) and that even though in this life we have pain, in the next there will be no more tears. But I fear these topics may have become too intensely personal for you, and perhaps you have associated Robert’s actions with the pure evil done to you. If you had just asked Robert to leave you alone, this conversation would be quite different right now, but calling someone evil is a personal attack. Even theological disagreements must be held in a Christ honoring manor. I cannot allow personal attacks here for any reason. So I must ask you one final time, to either apologize to Robert or discontinue posting here.
God be with you,
Dan
let us take a step back, i am humbly begging you. "WWJD?" Of course saying offensive things is not good, but the offended party's reaction , if he is a Christ- like person, ought to be kind and gentle. Bible says it's "easy to love those who loves us...even worldly people do that"
Let us forgive each other wholeheartedly ,70X7.Love is patient and logsuffering... Robert - try to be extra careful with what you say to br. Mag. Criticize his view, be careful not to address his person.
And Mag, do forgive offenses, please. If you think he misunderstands your view- explain it again, find other ways to explain.
Just let's get back to debate as if nothing happen.
O.
yes, i surely appreciate the good example! Incidentally i myself just used a few days back a somewhat similar example in a forum i debate at :)))
http://forums.christianity.com/fb.aspx?m=3571056
Responsibility is something that is definitely a weak spot of C view. Usually the opponents say that " well, we are free witnin limits of our sinful nature" , but we dont have a free will to love God,etc. And preemptive grace is not accepted from what i know, by RefTheol.Of course such view has serious problems ..
God's blessings,
O.
Please don't post here anymore.
Dan
“yes, i surely appreciate the good example! Incidentally i myself just used a few days back a somewhat similar example in a forum i debate at :)))
http://forums.christianity.com/fb.aspx?m=3571056”
Glad you liked the example, feel free to use it and see how the calvinists respond. I tried to look up your post on the forum cited above but was unable to get to it. Is the address perhaps slightly different? I will gladly look it up if only I can find it.
“Responsibility is something that is definitely a weak spot of C view. Usually the opponents say that " well, we are free within limits of our sinful nature" , but we don’t have a free will to love God, etc. And preemptive grace is not accepted from what i know, by RefTheol.Of course such view has serious problems ..”
My same friend who shared the examples with me that I shared with you, believes that calvinism eliminates our responsibility, or at least it makes (like in the examples my friend shared) God **more responsible** for these sins and evils then us. The fact that determinism logically leads to that conclusion should be a big red light warning us that determinism is both unbiblical and false. When I look at the bible it is clear that God created us to be capable of doing our own actions (which means that we have the capacity for having and making choices) and that **because** these actions are **our** actions, we are held responsible for them.
Responsibility seems to involve two key elements: (1) a **choice by one person to hold another person (s) responsible** for their own actions [which goes to the fact that you are properly held responsible when it was your action, not another person working through you, or controlling you, or unduly influencing you], and (2) as **assessment of the action** for which you are held responsible. And it is in the assessment phase that considerations of what you did and did not do, become important. Determinism wipes out (1) because the person is not really doing their own actions freely, instead, they have to do what they do, because of some necessitating factor(s). Determinism also wipes out (2) because if we cannot do otherwise, if we had to do what we did, then in assessing the action we cannot say things like: “well you should be praised for doing that, because though you could have done otherwise, instead, you chose to do the right thing.” Or “well you should be blamed for doing that, because though you could and should have done otherwise than that, you chose to do the wrong thing, instead of what you should and could have done.”
Should have and could have become meaningless where everything is predetermined and necessitated. It is interesting that if you listen to the determinists, though they espouse that our actions are necessitated and can never be otherwise, if you listen to them you will hear them talks about how a person “should have” or “could have” done otherwise (when their own view does not allow for these things). If you listen to them you will also hear them speak of things they regret (and in having this regret they believe that they could and should have done otherwise than doing what they now regret). Regret makes no sense in a completely determined world. It is just further evidence that they live in the world that God created, a world where we do freely choose to do our own actions and where we will be held accountable for what we freely chose to do and not do.
Robert
I went back to look at what you posted which started this whole thread and saw again your words:
“While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose.”
I am convinced and the discussion has certainly strengthened my conviction on this: that determinists cannot handle the reality of having choices. They can and do talk about “free will” by carefully defining it so that it is compatible with determinism (hence the compatibilist position). But they are incapable of handling the reality of choices. They cannot redefine choices to be compatible with determinism. As you said at the beginning “actions can be predetermined, out choices cannot be.” And to reinforce this you wrote: “Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice.” Again, the determinist can and does speak of predetermination, but their concept of predetermination cannot handle this simple reality that we describe as having a choice. I have been saying for a while what you express as: “Predeterminism leaves us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e., more than one). When I bring this point up with determinists they refuse to acknowledge that their exhaustive determinism logically entails this reality.
Lastly, your statement that “A ‘predetermined choice’ is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose” is a really strong point against determinism. That is a real keeper that I will definitely be bringing that up in future discussions.
When I came to the conclusion that exhaustive determinism wipes out us ever having choice. I also saw that evidence of us ever having a choice refutes exhaustive determinism conclusively. It seemed like a logical and valid point to me, but I wanted further confirmation on this. So I discussed this with Alvin Plantinga (a source that I can trust), and he agreed. That was a very encouraging piece of confirmation. So I say, press the reality of us having choices both in our daily experience and in the bible because the determinists simply cannot handle it. They are ready for all sorts of discussions on “free will” (where they can redefine terms to fit their determinism) but they cannot do the same thing with this pesky little reality called having a choice.
Robert
Dan
Yes, I have presented the concept of puppets to C camp, but did not get an answer as of yet, outside of generic quote ”Who are you man to question God?”
Sorry the link probably doesn’t work, but basically I mentioned that I would be strange to blame a Ruger handgun for killing a person; and a fellow at the forum answered that “liberals pretty much done just that”.:))
I agree with your assessment of responsibility, and would appreciate someone from reformed side to address it, but haven’t seen an answer as of now.
I don’t have the level of knowledge that you and Dan have on the subject of Arm-sm and Free Will in general , namely I don’t quite understand some aspects of free will as of yet.To a degree it is mysterious – how does the choice come about, considering nothing absolutely determines it? But I do think that deterministic view ( Calvinism ) is wrong.
O.
“Yes, I have presented the concept of puppets to C camp, but did not get an answer as of yet, outside of generic quote ”Who are you man to question God?””
Share with us how they attempt to answer it, when they try.
“Sorry the link probably doesn’t work, but basically I mentioned that I would be strange to blame a Ruger handgun for killing a person; and a fellow at the forum answered that “liberals pretty much done just that”.:))”
Actually that Ruger analogy is not bad, it makes the same point that we should hold the agent who pulled the trigger more responsible than the gun from which the bullet came. Especially if the one controlled the other.
“I agree with your assessment of responsibility, and would appreciate someone from reformed side to address it, but haven’t seen an answer as of now.”
They can come up with various attempts at maintaining responsibility of human persons, but they all break down if the humans were completely controlled by the puppet master.
“I don’t have the level of knowledge that you and Dan have on the subject of Arm-sm and Free Will in general , namely I don’t quite understand some aspects of free will as of yet.”
Go ahead and ask your questions, I am sure we would love to be able to provide answers when we can.
“To a degree it is mysterious – how does the choice come about, considering nothing absolutely determines it? But I do think that deterministic view (Calvinism ) is wrong.”
Can we make a distinction in the two senses of the word “determines”? One sense of the word is synonymous with **causes** (e.g., “he determined that he would pull the trigger”, here “determined” means “caused”). A second sense of the word is synonymous with “necessitates” (e.g.. “he is a determinist”, here the word determine means the person believes that some causes necessitate certain effects).
So Odeliya when you say: “how does the choice come about, considering nothing absolutely determines it?” If you mean by the word “necessitates”, then you are correct, a choice is not necessitated (if it were necessitated and you had to do it and it was impossible for you to do otherwise then you would not have a genuine choice). However, if you mean by the word “determines”, **causes**, then what determines or causes the choice is the agent/the person/me. Take God for example when he created the world. We could say that God determined to create the world (we do not mean that he had to create the world, that his action was somehow necessitated so that he could not do otherwise; we mean in using the word “determined” that he caused his own actions which resulted in the creation of the world. So we need to be careful and consider which sense of the word determine we are using.
Now regarding the “mystery” element of libertarian free will, I think something should be said about this. One mistake made by determinists (i.e. those who believe that certain factors necessitate certain events) is to speak of human choosing in a mechanistic way. By this I mean they will try to explain a choice as this caused that and that caused. . . trying to explain choices as if they are like a chemical reaction (if this is present, then this has to occur, this cause must result in that effect, etc. etc.). I believe this is a mistake because it ignores two important and distinct categories.
Scientific study and research involves figuring out HOW things occur. So Science is about explanations of HOW something occurs or comes about. Science usually examines physical entities and so these objects can be located and described and done so in very mathematical and precise ways. Example – back to your gun example – science can explain the mechanics of how the gun fires, the speed and trajectory of the bullet and all of these things can be mathematically calculated and discussed. We can say a lot about HOW bullets are forced out of guns and why they go where they go and how fast they go there. And in all of this we are dealing with mechanistic HOW explanations. On the other hand, if we asked the person: WHY did you pull the trigger? Now we are dealing with WHY explanations. And WHY explanations are not mechanistic, not physical, not measurable, and science cannot deal with that kind of reality at all.
Now you spoke about ““how does the choice come about”. If you mean to ask for a completely mechanistic explanation for the person making the choice of pulling the trigger, we can only go so far and then our explanation ends in a mystery. Let me explain. In pulling the trigger we could explain not only the mechanics of the gun and bullet firing, we could also talk some about the muscle movements and nerve activity involved in the brain sending a message to the hand and fingers to pull the trigger. But that explanation would fall short of being complete because human persons (if you are a substance dualist like myself) are more than just our physical bodies. We are also souls, or spirits, or persons, or selves, that are not physical and do not have physical characteristics at all. When I pull the trigger, my body is involved, but so is my soul, me, my spirit. And frankly how our soul operates is a mystery. We know in fact that our souls act, because we make choices and do actions, and these proceed from our selves or soul. And though we know THAT our soul does things, we do not know HOW. A similar analogy is that we know THAT God acts in the world, acts on His creation. But we do not know precisely HOW, God who is a Spirit, who is immaterial, acts upon the physical world. So when it comes to some things, we know THAT they occur, but we do not (and probably cannot) know HOW those things occur.
So take the most mundane choice. I know I act for reasons, and I can also tell you what reason that I chose to act upon. But I cannot describe how the soul operates. Cannot tell you how the soul interacts with the brain resulting in me pulling the trigger. I know that I can pull the trigger, and I know that when I choose to that I can pull the trigger. But I really don’t know precisely how the soul acts through its body in doing actions. What this means is that we can give partial physical descriptions of our actions, and we can tell you what reasons we chose to act upon when we do an action. But we cannot fully describe or tell you about the mechanics of how we make a choice. Does that make sense? Do you understand what I am attempting to explain here?
I tend to categorize things by these two basic types of explanations. **How** explanations where we can explain and describe the mechanics involved (the area where science is so successful and useful). And **why** explanations which concern the reasons persons make the choices they make and do the intentional actions that they do. "Why" explanations will involve a bit of mystery. And I believe that the subject of having and making choices involves the actions of our immaterial soul, so there will be some mystery, some aspects that we know occur but may never know exactly how they occur.
When I get a bit more time, if you would like, I will quote the philosopher John Searle who speaks very clearly on these two types of explanation and why they are different and why they are both realities. And also why both types of explanation are sufficient for their purposes. But what I have said here should get you started.
Robert
Besides this excellent blog run by Dan, there is also another blog called ARMINIAN PERSPECTIVES, which is presenting Thomas Ralston’s views on freedom of the will. Right now, it is on part 7: “Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 7”. When you get a chance go to that blog and read the posts about Ralston’s view. Those posts contain very good points about free will from the libertarian free will perspective. Ralston makes some of the same points that Dan and I have been making. It is worth checking out.
Robert
You said: To a degree it is mysterious – how does the choice come about, considering nothing absolutely determines it? But I do think that deterministic view ( Calvinism ) is wrong.
I agree with Robert that asking "how" to an extent assumes there should be a sufficient cause. It's sort of like asking what comes before the first thing.
But ultimately, believing in LFW is a matter of faith. Since CFW is illogical, and the bible speaks of us choosing, we just take God's word for it that we have LFW.
God be with you,
Dan
No,I haven’t gotten anything close to an answer,sadly, just the quote about “who are you man to q-n God?”. Which I cant accept as answer for I am not questioning God, but Calv. view of God actions.
I greatly appreciate your explanation / breaking the issue down for me and fully comprehend the mechanics of predetermined choice, which is in essence "cause- effect", the principle that lab experiments are based on.
As for FW choice I do define it the same way you do. As for mystical part in it, I probably have to settle and agree on that mechanics of the soul and choice cannot be fully explained.
I would be interested in any excerpts from the philosopher’s materials that you mentioned, Robert, that you consider worthy to be presented, when you have time.
Surely will check Arminian Perspectives today, I see the link. Thank you dearly for help.
Dear Dan,
I didnt mean to ask "how choice comes about" in a way of “what causes it”,because yes, if we could point out one or combo of causes that would be determinism, not FW choice anymore. I think I made a confusing statement, maybe because my English is not native, or I was just sloppy.
What rather i am interested in is not “how” as much as “Why”? Giving people a freedom of choice and seeing them reap ,consequently, results of it ,is, biblically, sufficient grounds for salvation/damnation. That means to me that FW choice is truly a unique quality; giving the ability to exercise it was considerd by God worthy of risking eternal life and death.
Of course, being a puppet that is saved by God’s special arbitrary choice theology is not something I , owning a rational mind, pretty reasonable sense of fairness and understanding of God's nature, can accept.
I have been asked by C people and don’t quite understand the proper way to answer it: C obviously don’t believe in FW choice and say that it makes saved person “better” and thus his choice “ work”,.. well, you know.
To a degree the reasons for giving us ability to free choice are also mysterious, unless you gentlemen have some explanation to bring more light.
Yes, I agree that CFW is wrong, and iron clad proof to me is responsibility issue that makes no sense in CFW. And yes, there are logical mistakes in their rationale as well, outside of Biblical ones.
May God bless you.
While you addressed both Dan and I, I want to address points you brought up with both of us.
“As for FW choice I do define it the same way you do. As for mystical part in it, I probably have to settle and agree on that mechanics of the soul and choice cannot be fully explained.”
Actually, I said there is a bit of a **mystery** (meaning we cannot fully understand or comprehend it) regarding free will, not that it is **mystical**. Mystical experiences do not involve the mind, while when we do make choices we do so for reasons and our mind is definitely involved. So free will has some “Mystery”, not is “mystical.”
“I would be interested in any excerpts from the philosopher’s materials that you mentioned, Robert,that you consider worthy to be presented, when you have time.”
I will share some quotes from Searle another time (if you want to check out the book for yourself it is called RATIONALITY IN ACTION by John Searle).
“Surely will check Arminian Perspectives today, I see the link. Thank you dearly for help.”
Good, that material will be helpful for you, or anyone else interested in seeing a strong and logical presentation of the libertarian free will view.
“What rather I am interested in is not “how” as much as “Why”? Giving people a freedom of choice and seeing them reap ,consequently, results of it ,is, biblically, sufficient grounds for salvation/damnation. That means to me that FW choice is truly a unique quality; giving the ability to exercise it was considered by God worthy of risking eternal life and death.
Of course, being a puppet that is saved by God’s special arbitrary choice theology is not something I, owning a rational mind, pretty reasonable sense of fairness and understanding of God's nature, can accept.”
Let’s start with why would God not want to create us to be just puppets whose wills and minds and everything else is completely controlled by Him? I believe part of the explanation is God’s nature: He is a trinity meaning three persons yet one being. That means relationship and personality is God’s very nature. This also means that before He created the world, there was already love, relationship, and personality, on an ultimate level. The bible says that God created us in His image (which means that we are created to be similar to Him). If love, relationship, personality are intrinsic to who God is, and He wanted to create human PERSONS similar to him, then they would have to have the capacities that make love, relationship and personality possible. So for these reasons God is not going to create a puppet but a genuine person made in his image, capable of loving, worshipping and obeying Him.
Now you ask WHY create persons with free will, with the capacity to have and make choices? Well I believe that a genuine person is a person who chooses to do their own actions. I also believe that in order to worship God and recognize that he is God and worthy of praise and worship, a person would need to have certain capacities including being able to prioritize (i.e., to be able to treat one thing better than another, and be able to view one person as more important than others; in order to make these distinctions you would also need to be able to choose to treat some persons or things different than others including being able to choose to treat God as the one being that you worship). Being your own person means that even in some limited sense you make your own choices, decide what you want to do.
Take a child who is very young and cannot even write words or sentences yet, but does love their Father and wants to show love for that Father. As a Father, for Father’s Day, would I prefer a store bought card (already printed with letters and with a picture copied from some machine that does not know me or care about me). OR, would I prefer a self-made card from my child? A card where they made the colors on the card, they made the “picture”, it was all them and their personality, their choices of what to put on the card? If you can understand why an earthly Father prefers a self-made card over a store bought card, then you can also understand why our Heavenly Father wants actions on our part that were not automatic, machine like, impersonal, but came from us, were freely chosen by us.
Odeliya do you understand what I mean here?
“I have been asked by C people and don’t quite understand the proper way to answer it: C obviously don’t believe in FW choice and say that it makes saved person “better” and thus his choice “ work”,.. well, you know.”
This is a calvinist **trick**. Because they want to believe that God completely controls us, and that God predetermined and preselected only for some to be saved and the rest to go to Hell: they have developed some arguments against the noncalvinist position. The calvinists know that the bible teaches that “Salvation is of the Lord” meaning God is the one who saves us, we do not save ourselves. If you want another good English word for salvation, think of the word RESCUE. When God saves us he rescues us from sin, the world, the devil, death. Sin separates us from God, so the main rescue that God does is to come up with a plan of salvation where He can forgive our sins and have a personal relationship with us. He does that through the cross of Jesus.
Now the calvinist/determinist knows that the bible says that God saves us that we do not save ourselves, so in their thinking (or scheming actually, :-))if they can come up with an argument that shows that noncalvinism leads to us saving ourselves they have then proved noncalvinism to be false (if the bible says God saves us, and noncalvinism says that we save ourselves, then noncalvinism has to be wrong). So the calvinist is trying to set up the noncalvinist for failure. The calvinist is trying to put us in a position where our view contradicts the bible. Closely related to this argument, the calvinist knows that the bible also teaches that we are not saved by works. So they think if they can show that the noncalvinist view leads to salvation by works, again they have shown it to be false. Their next **trick** is to argue that if salvation involves anything you do, then what you do, must be a work that saves you.
Let me tell you how to easily get out of this trap and at the same time maintain the biblical truth that God saves us, that salvation is not by works but through faith alone. First a scripture and then an illustration.
Romans 3:27-28 says “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Note what these verses teach: (1) that we are not saved by works, (2) that we are saved through faith, (3) that this kind of faith that saves EXCLUDES BOASTING, (4) that this faith is contrasted with **works**, faith then according to the bible is not considered a work that saves you. The kind of faith that a person has when they are converted to Christianity involves humility not pride (we recognize that we are sinners, that we deserve the wrath of God and hell, that we did not deserve anything from God and yet He sent Jesus to die for our sins to die in our place, that we cannot save ourselves by any religious works, that we can only be saved when we put our trust in the Lord and HE SAVES US). So this passage wipes out much of what the calvinists are attempting to argue. Now for an illustration.
There was once a famous high wire walker (don’t remember his name), a man who could walk on the high wire at the circus and even have others on his back while he walked over the wire without falling. This same man once challenged people that he could walk across Niagara Falls with someone sitting on his back without falling. Now think about this man, he had a lot of skill and balance to be able to walk over the high wire without falling. That he could do so with a person on his back shows even more skill. Now here is the key of how this illustration illustrates the nature of faith. Suppose you Odeliya got on his back when he walked across the high wire at Niagara Falls. And suppose that he was able to get both you and him safely across the high wire to the other side. You should trust in getting on his back and believing that he could carry you across. Was it your skill that got you across? Was it because you are a good person that got you across? In fact, is it **anything about you** (your skills, abilities, character, what kind of person you are, etc. etc.), that got you across? NO. HE DID IT, you merely trusted Him to do it for you. In the same way God saves us, He walks across the wire, He does all of the work, all we do is trust Him to do what needs to be done. And our trust does not merit anything; our trust is not a work (according to the bible). And yet God chooses to save only those who trust Him, only those who get on his back and let him carry you over to the other side.
Sadly in trying so hard to argue against the noncalvinist, the calvinist makes an error in treating faith as a work. Recall they will claim that if our salvation involves anything we do, then what we do MUST BE A WORK THAT SAVES US. But faith is not a work, and your choosing to trust the high wire walker to be able to carry you across Niagara Falls, **is** something you do, but it is not a WORK, and it is not what really saves you. The high wire walker’s actions are what get you across, not your own actions. Similarly God rescues and saves us and he does this with people who trust Him. But that trust is not a work, and the power is not in the trust, the power is in the one walking across the wire with you on their back.
Odeliya does that help you see the problems with the calvinist arguments that we save ourselves if we have faith?
“To a degree the reasons for giving us ability to free choice are also mysterious, unless you gentlemen have some explanation to bring more light.”
Besides God wanting us to freely love, worship and obey Him, he also wanted us to love and have personal relationships with each other. Again, God is personal and loving and relational to the extreme, so He wants us to experience Him as well as experience love and caring in our relationships with each other.
Robert
I greatly appreciate your explanations and there is probably not much can be added, for they are very well written and inclusive.
It is indeed difficult to debate the issue with majority of Calvinists, for i generally cant get any of my opponenst agree on idea that we are capable of choosing to , using your fine example, be rescued , they say it's giving ourself glory,etc. even that our choice without actual rescuer would not result in being saved.
All glory goes to the one who saves, naturally, - as you and I understand it that is - but by opposing side it's usually seen and argued as: "good choice to want to be rescued" that we are incapable of doing for we are totally deprived.
Reformed view seem to be agreeing with idea of "free will of unsaved person"- in a sense of "choosing one sin over another" but not as in choosing to "want to be rescued", for desire seen as work,
..
Well, it's always convoluted. I guees i should quite worrying about advancing in the debates but rather study more of materials you gentlemen kindly point to.
May God bless you,
O.