Determinism & Paul

[RBerman]

I cannot see dominion manifested without the one{s} having dominion being able to exercise authority over their areas of dominion. Do you believe that God can exercise dominion over his creation without the ability to make freewill choices. He created us in his image and likeness. Do you believe that? If God exercises freewill, is it possible that he would create beings in his image and likeness with a "shadow" of that ability... What's a "non sequitur"?

"Non sequitur" is Latin for "it does not follow." In general parlance, it marks a statement which is not obviously connected to the statement preceding it. In this case, it refers to your conclusion regarding determinism and dominion, which are not obviously related to our previous discussion about free will allowing disobedience of God. You would have to show how the connection, rather than simply assuming it.

As to the other questions you ask me: God's attributes are typically divided into two categories: His "communicable attributes" such as holiness and knowledge, and his "incommunicable attributes" such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc. God shares some of his attributes with man, but not all of them. So it's not enough to show that God possesses an attribute and say, "Man is created in God's image, and therefore man possesses that attribute." Man's "God-imaging" does not make man omniscient, for instance. Rather, you would have to show biblical evidence that some attribute of man is possessed by man. Dominion is an easy one, since as you say the Bible does show God giving that to man, and indeed commanding it of man.

Free will is more complicated. As I have said a couple of times in this thread, we would have to agree what the term means before discussing whether man has such an attribute. Earlier in this thread, you said that free will meant that man could disobey God, and I agreed. But then you jumped from that topic to the topic of "determinism vs dominion" without clearly connecting either one to the topic of disobeying God. That was why I said "non sequitur." Perhaps you hold some assumptions on the relationship of disobedience to determinism, or of disobedience to dominion, or both, but I do not know what they are.

[dacristoy]

"Non sequitur" is Latin for "it does not follow." In general parlance, it marks a statement which is not obviously connected to the statement preceding it. In this case, it refers to your conclusion regarding determinism and dominion, which are not obviously related to our previous discussion about free will allowing disobedience of God. You would have to show how the connection, rather than simply assuming it.

As to the other questions you ask me: God's attributes are typically divided into two categories: His "communicable attributes" such as holiness and knowledge, and his "incommunicable attributes" such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc. God shares some of his attributes with man, but not all of them. So it's not enough to show that God possesses an attribute and say, "Man is created in God's image, and therefore man possesses that attribute." Man's "God-imaging" does not make man omniscient, for instance. Rather, you would have to show biblical evidence that some attribute of man is possessed by man. Dominion is an easy one, since as you say the Bible does show God giving that to man, and indeed commanding it of man.

Free will is more complicated. As I have said a couple of times in this thread, we would have to agree what the term means before discussing whether man has such an attribute. Earlier in this thread, you said that free will meant that man could disobey God, and I agreed. But then you jumped from that topic to the topic of "determinism vs dominion" without clearly connecting either one to the topic of disobeying God. That was why I said "non sequitur." Perhaps you hold some assumptions on the relationship of disobedience to determinism, or of disobedience to dominion, or both, but I do not know what they are.

[dacristoy]

Keyword search results
17 Results
1. Leviticus 22:18
Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering;
Leviticus 22:17-19 (in Context) Leviticus 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2. Leviticus 22:21
And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
Leviticus 22:20-22 (in Context) Leviticus 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
3. Leviticus 22:23
Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
Leviticus 22:22-24 (in Context) Leviticus 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
4. Leviticus 23:38
Beside the sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the Lord.
Leviticus 23:37-39 (in Context) Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
5. Numbers 15:3
And will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd or of the flock:
Numbers 15:2-4 (in Context) Numbers 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
6. Numbers 29:39
These things ye shall do unto the Lord in your set feasts, beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your meat offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings.
Numbers 29:38-40 (in Context) Numbers 29 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
7. Deuteronomy 12:6
And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:
Deuteronomy 12:5-7 (in Context) Deuteronomy 12 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
8. Deuteronomy 12:17
Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:
Deuteronomy 12:16-18 (in Context) Deuteronomy 12 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
9. Deuteronomy 16:10
And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the Lord thy God, according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 16:9-11 (in Context) Deuteronomy 16 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
10. Deuteronomy 23:23
That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.
Deuteronomy 23:22-24 (in Context) Deuteronomy 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
1. Leviticus 22:18
Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering;
Leviticus 22:17-19 (in Context) Leviticus 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2. Leviticus 22:21
And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
Leviticus 22:20-22 (in Context) Leviticus 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
3. Leviticus 22:23
Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
Leviticus 22:22-24 (in Context) Leviticus 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
4. Leviticus 23:38
Beside the sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the Lord.
Leviticus 23:37-39 (in Context) Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
5. Numbers 15:3
And will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd or of the flock:
Numbers 15:2-4 (in Context) Numbers 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
6. Numbers 29:39
These things ye shall do unto the Lord in your set feasts, beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your meat offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings.
Numbers 29:38-40 (in Context) Numbers 29 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
7. Deuteronomy 12:6
And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:
Deuteronomy 12:5-7 (in Context) Deuteronomy 12 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
8. Deuteronomy 12:17
Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:
Deuteronomy 12:16-18 (in Context) Deuteronomy 12 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
9. Deuteronomy 16:10
And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the Lord thy God, according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 16:9-11 (in Context) Deuteronomy 16 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
10. Deuteronomy 23:23
That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.
Deuteronomy 23:22-24 (in Context) Deuteronomy 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
11. 2 Chronicles 31:14
And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the porter toward the east, was over the freewill offerings of God, to distribute the oblations of the Lord, and the most holy things.
2 Chronicles 31:13-15 (in Context) 2 Chronicles 31 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

[phat8594]

[QUOTE=apostoli;26494]The NT makes it plain that the Mosaic Ordinances were total rubbish!!! For a start we have the failure of the judges. An invention of Jethro the Midian High Priest (Moses father-in-law). And that is attested adamentently by scripture!!!
QUOTE]

Actually, the NT makes it explicity clear that the Law was NOT rubbish...


Romans 7:12

12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

The problem was not that the Law was bad, or sinful, etc., but rather that it is spiritual, and we are fleshly:

Romans 7:14

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

IOW, how can something that is fleshly and sold under sin fulfill something that is Spiritual?

Answer: We can't. We need and intermediary...we need a kinsman redeemer. We need Jesus. We need the Holy Spirit.

[phat8594]

It certainly is a shocking passage for modern sensibilities. The ancients attributed everything to the divine will. Modern Westerners, for longstanding cultural reasons going back to the Renaissance at least, hold unbiblical notions about the importance of individual autonomy.

the Renaissance?

RB, you know full well that the early church completely upheld the 'importance of individual autonomy'.

In fact its one of the few things that they pretty much unanimously agreed upon.

[RBerman]

So, a couple of things, dacristoy.

1) Any phrase must be interpreted in context. Consider the two following examples:

A) Everyone else watched the fireworks from the roof of the post office. I preferred to sit on the bank.
B) Everyone else enjoyed swimming in the stream. I preferred to sit on the bank.

Even though these two examples both contain the same sentence, "I preferred to sit on the bank," we can tell from context that the word "bank" does not mean the same thing in both examples. In the first example it's a building where money is stored. In the second example, it's the edge of the stream.

When you look at all your Scripture examples that use the phrase "freewill," hopefully you noticed that it's a part of a stock phrase: "Freewill offerings." The word "freewill" in that phrase comes from Hebrew nadab, which means "willingly." It is referring to offerings given above and beyond the requirements of Levitical law. It could be translated, "extra offerings" or "bonus offerings." Notice how in Leviticus 22:18, the "freewill offering" is contrasted with the offering made in accordance with a vow. This definition of a freewill offering carries over into all the other appearances of that term in the Bible.

Not a single one of those Bible passages is addressing the group of ideas at stake in the question, "What is the relationship between the philosophical constructs of human free will and determinism?" It's simply a different sense of the term "free will." Note that "freewill" is combined into a single word in those texts, where as in philosophy discussions it's two words, "free will." Don't make the mistake of thinking that when you see butter fly, it means that you are seeing a butterfly.

2) However, it actually hasn't been a point of disagreement between us that there exists something called "free will" in the philosophical sense. You said that free will meant that we can disobey God, and I agreed with you. But then you asserted, as you do once again in your most recent post, that, "a degree of self-determination is required in order to exercise dominion." What I'm asking is how you came to that conclusion. It doesn't directly relate to our previous discussion that men can disobey God.

3) I agree with your observation that "created in the image of God" does not preclude freewill expression. You then speak of a "logical following" that you feel makes freewill more likely than not, but you don't elaborate as to the nature of the logic. It makes me wonder whether you've simply been taught that a certain view of free will implies certain other things, without actually being taught how the two are connected together. And again, the existence of "free will" is something about which we agree. What we may disagree about is the definition of "free will."

[RBerman]

the Renaissance? RB, you know full well that the early church completely upheld the 'importance of individual autonomy'. In fact its one of the few things that they pretty much unanimously agreed upon.

Well, there's this guy:



But what I was trying to say was not that the matter had not been discussed, but that it doesn't seem to have been a matter of frothing rage such that either side would anathematize the other.

[phat8594]

Well, there's this guy:



But what I was trying to say was not that the matter had not been discussed, but that it doesn't seem to have been a matter of frothing rage such that either side would anathematize the other.

Yes, I am aware of Augustine. I actually originally mentioned him in my original post, but then deleted it, since he is really post-nicene. And it is important to note, that he really didn't begin to believe in a more deterministic viewpoint until his dealings with certain gnostic groups.

The ante-nicene fathers, however, practically unanimously affirmed free will.



and yes, it is a shame today, that it seems more people are quick to anathematize those with differing view points.

[dacristoy]

3) I agree with your observation that "created in the image of God" does not preclude freewill expression. You then speak of a "logical following" that you feel makes freewill more likely than not, but you don't elaborate as to the nature of the logic. It makes me wonder whether you've simply been taught that a certain view of free will implies certain other things, without actually being taught how the two are connected together. And again, the existence of "free will" is something about which we agree. What we may disagree about is the definition of "free will."

What is your definition then?

[RBerman]

What is your definition then?

"Doing what you want to do." How about yours?

[apostoli]

The NT makes it plain that the Mosaic Ordinances were total rubbish!!! For a start we have the failure of the judges. An invention of Jethro the Midian High Priest (Moses father-in-law). And that is attested adamentently by scripture!!!

Actually, the NT makes it explicity clear that the Law was NOT rubbish...


Romans 7:12



The problem was not that the Law was bad, or sinful, etc., but rather that it is spiritual, and we are fleshly:

Romans 7:14


IOW, how can something that is fleshly and sold under sin fulfill something that is Spiritual?

Answer: We can't. We need and intermediary...we need a kinsman redeemer. We need Jesus. We need the Holy Spirit.

Which Law are you talking about, the one YHWH mandated to Moses, which Moses smashed to pieces, or the one in common practice by Jethro and the Midianites which Moses adopted (see Exodus 18).

[dacristoy]

"Doing what you want to do."

Mr. Berman, I think that we both know that this is a secular exaggeration of the concept of free will. Mother Nature and the laws of physics both adamantly deny this concept. This exaggeration is used mostly to deny the real and true concept of freewill. Ergo, I do not advocate it...

How about yours?

Initially in scripture freewill was expressed as well as manifested when A & E disobeyed a specific command of God. I have heard Reformers say that this disobedience was dictated by God under the auspices of determinism. For me, freewill is man's manifest ability to act in harmony or in opposition to the will of God. This concept does not enable man to save himself from damnation, but it does enable responses to God within the concept of his laws and commands.

John 3:16, For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God has given us the ability under freewill to believe or not believe, {to obey or disobey} he does not efficaciously cause one to believe and another to not believe. Exhaustive determinism is illogical as well as a dead duck...

[dacristoy]

Because I don't see any reason to connect determinism with dominion in the negative way you did. What was your rationale for doing that? At the moment your conclusion seems non sequitur.

Dominion essentially defines an area over which one has the right to rule, in order for one to rule they must have the ability to do so... If it is God's plan to rule exhaustively, determinism is manifested, dominion is excluded.... That's the connection...

[RBerman]

Mr. Berman, I think that we both know that this is a secular exaggeration of the concept of free will. Mother Nature and the laws of physics both adamantly deny this concept. This exaggeration is used mostly to deny the real and true concept of freewill. Ergo, I do not advocate it.

If I "knew" that my proposed definition was "a secular exaggeration of the concept of free will," I would not have offered it. Your explanation leaves me none the wiser as to why I am wrong. If you are not allowed to do what you want to do, then you are not acting freely. If you are allowed to do what you want to do, you are acting freely. Can you elaborate on your objection to this idea?

Initially in scripture freewill was expressed as well as manifested when A & E disobeyed a specific command of God. I have heard Reformers say that this disobedience was dictated by God under the auspices of determinism. For me, freewill is man's manifest ability to act in harmony or in opposition to the will of God. This concept does not enable man to save himself from damnation, but it does enable responses to God within the concept of his laws and commands.

It is not obvious to me how the various concepts you describe here are incompatible with each other. It seems more like saying that a man was killed because his heart stopped beating, but also because he lost too much blood, but also because a bullet entered his chest, but also because a gun was fired, but also because his brother pulled the trigger of a gun, but also because they had an argument, but also because they lost money in a bet. All of these can be true at the same time, at different levels of causation.

Source: John 3:16

For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

© Copyright Original Source

God has given us the ability under freewill to believe or not believe, {to obey or disobey} he does not efficaciously cause one to believe and another to not believe. Exhaustive determinism is illogical as well as a dead duck...

Under the definition I offered above, I can agree that we exercise "free will" when we choose to believe in Christ and gain everlasting life. That is, those who want to believe, do believe, and do gain everlasting life. Those who do not want to believe, do not do so. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that no one has ever chosen to believe something that he did not want to believe. Could you make yourself believe in the Easter Bunny, simply as an act of the will? I think not. Our beliefs arise from the evidence presented to us, as well as internal factors such as the influence of the Holy Spirit, which is precisely why we pray for God to work in the hearts of our unsaved family and friends, removing their hearts of stone and giving them hearts of flesh which will believe in Christ. There's nothing illogical about that, is there?

Dominion essentially defines an area over which one has the right to rule, in order for one to rule they must have the ability to do so... If it is God's plan to rule exhaustively, determinism is manifested, dominion is excluded.... That's the connection...

Why? God never intended man to exercise dominion apart from God. Man was (and is) to be God's representative, His viceroy, His ambassador, exercising God's will upon the earth. It was Satan's idea for man to try to sever his dominon from God. But that was not what God commanded.

[phat8594]

Which Law are you talking about, the one YHWH mandated to Moses, which Moses smashed to pieces, or the one in common practice by Jethro and the Midianites which Moses adopted (see Exodus 18).

What does Exodus 18 have to with the Law?


It seems to me that you are reading something into the text that is not there.



So to answer your question: I am talking about what the Jews (who Paul was talking to in Romans 7), would consider as 'the Law'...which was the Torah.