Determinism & Paul

[phat8594]

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?

Can I be honest? Although I know that you mean no malintent by defining free will this way...it truly is not helpful in any meaningful way.

I say this, because when people speak of 'free-will' they are not referring to the Jonathan Edwards type of idea of just merely doing what you want. They are referring to the idea of actually be able to freely will something -- not just freely do something that was already determined by nature.

The problem happens when you pretty much have to redefine the term in every discussion. Outside of limited Calvinist circles , everyone understands free will to be something that involves a degree of self-determination of the will. So to insist on using the term, and redefining it every time seems not to be helpful; rather it seems to only to muddy the waters.

And for what purpose? Just to be able to say 'I believe in free will'? -- only to be followed up with 'but it means something totally different from you understand it to mean.'

Perhaps this seems harsh...but I don't intend it to be, since I know you are a man of the utmost character, RB. I truly have a large amount of respect for you. You truly are an example of civil conversation & dialogue on these boards.

But really...what is the purpose of insisting that you believe in free will, only to insist that what you mean by 'free will' is something totally different than common understanding?

Wouldn't that be like someone claiming they are 'Christian' -- but then upon further discussion you find out that they are actually 'Jewish'?

IMO, redefining terms doesn't add to the clarity -- it only adds to the confusion. And that, IMO, is not a good thing.


So perhaps instead of insisting that you believe in free will, you should insist that you believe in a determined will with free action? (you are able to do what your nature determined that you would most want to do in any situation)

Blessings

[apostoli]

What does Exodus 18 have to with the Law?

Everything!!! Jethro instructed Moses to institute the Judges and to teach them (Ex 18:19-20). Simple fact: if Moses' ordinances are God ordained then we are obligated to obey them, Christians are not obligated to observe them and even modern Jews reject them.

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

It seems to me you have never read Exodus 18, the text is plain enough and requires no interpretation...

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.

Seems you are unaware that the Jews held to a written law and an oral law. Plus a whole heap of Rabbinic legalisms, that edged around the "Law". Have a read of the Talmud someday.

In Romans A.Paul is simply hedging his audience. Not a good idea to irritate those from whom you are enticing support and funding for a trip to Spain, with a lot of inconvenient facts...

Moses' Ordinances may have initially been devised as a spiritual tool (a punishment for the Jews wantoness), but it quickly became corrupted and therefore useless...

Now if you would care to actually read Romans 7 (rather than mine verses) you'll discover that A.Paul's argument in the opening verses is that believer's in Christ are dead to the law...or rather the law is as dead to the believer's in Christ as a widow's dead husband...which frees the widow to remarry (ie: for believers we forfeit one husbandry and take on another).

[RBerman]

Can I be honest? Although I know that you mean no malintent by defining free will this way...it truly is not helpful in any meaningful way. I say this, because when people speak of 'free-will' they are not referring to the Jonathan Edwards type of idea of just merely doing what you want. They are referring to the idea of actually be able to freely will something -- not just freely do something that was already determined by nature.

The problem happens when you pretty much have to redefine the term in every discussion. Outside of limited Calvinist circles , everyone understands free will to be something that involves a degree of self-determination of the will. So to insist on using the term, and redefining it every time seems not to be helpful; rather it seems to only to muddy the waters.

And for what purpose? Just to be able to say 'I believe in free will'? -- only to be followed up with 'but it means something totally different from you understand it to mean.' Perhaps this seems harsh...but I don't intend it to be, since I know you are a man of the utmost character, RB. I truly have a large amount of respect for you. You truly are an example of civil conversation & dialogue on these boards. But really...what is the purpose of insisting that you believe in free will, only to insist that what you mean by 'free will' is something totally different than common understanding? Wouldn't that be like someone claiming they are 'Christian' -- but then upon further discussion you find out that they are actually 'Jewish'?IMO, redefining terms doesn't add to the clarity -- it only adds to the confusion. And that, IMO, is not a good thing.

So perhaps instead of insisting that you believe in free will, you should insist that you believe in a determined will with free action? (you are able to do what your nature determined that you would most want to do in any situation)

"Do" can be an internal matter of the will as well as an external action. So you can will what you want to will. What you're getting at is that any term is helpful to the extent that its meaning is agreed upon. The way we define the terms of the debate exerts tremendous influence over the direction of the debate. The idea of a "compatiblist" definition of free will, capable of integration into Calvinism, is not some idiosyncratic thing that I made up myself. You can find many examples of people talking in such a way:

Source: Theopedia article on Free Will

In compatibilism, free will is affected by human nature and man will never choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man will always do what he desires most at any particular moment - even when there are competing desires. And man is not able to freely change the direction or the degree of his desires. God is the one who must turn his heart. (http://www.theopedia.com/Free_will)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Nature of Freewill

According to a widely held belief, free choice must be uncaused - meaning in effect "chosen for no reason" - nothing could be further from the truth. Surely, volitional choices are made for reasons, compelling reasons. Our deliberate choices are based on evidence and values, and on anticipating their consequences - nothing suggest non-logical, uncaused thinking. It is absurd to assume that freewill choices are not based on antecedent causes, that they are made for no reason; or that they are based on random factors or factors beyond conscious thought. How could such choices represent personal responsibility? It is the fact that we consciously weigh the pros and cons of each freewill choice that provides for accountability. Our choices are implicit or explicit conceptual calculations. (http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Free will article

Those who define free will otherwise, without reference to determinism, are called compatibilists, because they hold determinism to be compatible with free will. Some compatibilists hold even that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, a process that requires some sense of how choices will turn out. Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

© Copyright Original Source

And so on. The definition of "free will" is very much a live issue in both theological and philosophical circles. But I have found that many Christians walk in very narrow theological worlds, insulated from this broader debate, and are genuinely surprised to find that a case can be made for a different viewpoint than the one which has been inculcated in them from childhood. I myself had such an experience.

[phat8594]

Everything!!! Jethro instructed Moses to institute the Judges and to teach them (Ex 18:19-20). Simple fact: if Moses' ordinances are God ordained then we are obligated to obey them, Christians are not obligated to observe them and even modern Jews reject them.

It seems to me you have never read Exodus 18, the text is plain enough and requires no interpretation...

I have...and I don't see Jethro's own laws being put into place. Rather, I read that Jethro gives advice to Moses to appoint leaders to help in the demand of teaching people the statutes of God and His laws.

So yes, it seems you are still reading sometihng more into the text.

Seems you are unaware that the Jews held to a written law and an oral law. Plus a whole heap of Rabbinic legalisms, that edged around the "Law". Have a read of the Talmud someday.

I am aware of this. However, I don't believe Paul was affirming all the rabbinic add ons to the Law. In fact, when he quotes the Law, he quotes from the Ten Commandments 'You shall not covet'.

In Romans A.Paul is simply hedging his audience. Not a good idea to irritate those from whom you are enticing support and funding for a trip to Spain, with a lot of inconvenient facts...

Moses' Ordinances may have initially been devised as a spiritual tool (a punishment for the Jews wantoness), but it quickly became corrupted and therefore useless...

Now if you would care to actually read Romans 7 (rather than mine verses) you'll discover that A.Paul's argument in the opening verses is that believer's in Christ are dead to the law...or rather the law is as dead to the believer's in Christ as a widow's dead husband...which frees the widow to remarry (ie: for believers we forfeit one husbandry and take on another).

I am well aware of Romans 7, and I am not just 'proof-texting' as you seem to insinuate. The opening verses of Romans 7 are not to be read in a vacuum, but rather in the context of all of Romans, and especially in light of the verses before and after. Paul's point in Romans 7 is to show how the Law, although good (he affirms this), is unable to do what the Jews thought it would do (i.e. make them righteous through adherence to a set of fleshly commands).

So yes, of course Paul reminds the Christian believers that they are dead to the Law (i.e. it has no hold on them), because they have died to it through the body of Christ. Paul is showing them that they are not being 'unlawful' by putting Christ above the Law (thus he uses an idea from the law...death and remarriage).

[phat8594]

"Do" can be an internal matter of the will as well as an external action. So you can will what you want to will. What you're getting at is that any term is helpful to the extent that its meaning is agreed upon. The way we define the terms of the debate exerts tremendous influence over the direction of the debate. The idea of a "compatiblist" definition of free will, capable of integration into Calvinism, is not some idiosyncratic thing that I made up myself. You can find many examples of people talking in such a way:

Source: Theopedia article on Free Will

In compatibilism, free will is affected by human nature and man will never choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man will always do what he desires most at any particular moment - even when there are competing desires. And man is not able to freely change the direction or the degree of his desires. God is the one who must turn his heart. (http://www.theopedia.com/Free_will)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Nature of Freewill

According to a widely held belief, free choice must be uncaused - meaning in effect "chosen for no reason" - nothing could be further from the truth. Surely, volitional choices are made for reasons, compelling reasons. Our deliberate choices are based on evidence and values, and on anticipating their consequences - nothing suggest non-logical, uncaused thinking. It is absurd to assume that freewill choices are not based on antecedent causes, that they are made for no reason; or that they are based on random factors or factors beyond conscious thought. How could such choices represent personal responsibility? It is the fact that we consciously weigh the pros and cons of each freewill choice that provides for accountability. Our choices are implicit or explicit conceptual calculations. (http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Free will article

Those who define free will otherwise, without reference to determinism, are called compatibilists, because they hold determinism to be compatible with free will. Some compatibilists hold even that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, a process that requires some sense of how choices will turn out. Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

© Copyright Original Source

And so on. The definition of "free will" is very much a live issue in both theological and philosophical circles. But I have found that many Christians walk in very narrow theological worlds, insulated from this broader debate, and are genuinely surprised to find that a case can be made for a different viewpoint than the one which has been inculcated in them from childhood. I myself had such an experience.

Yes, I am aware that many people describe 'free will' as something else. I even noted how Jonathan Edwards was one that defined it in a way similar to you. However, I think it is one of the silly things about some debates...where we end up debating the meaning of a word, rather than just being ok with different terms and taking it from there.

So, yes, as you noted it has to do with terms losing meaning. And as you also noted, most people are outside of this debate on what free will means...so most people mean it in the libertarian sense. And that is my point.

However, feel free to continue to use it in the determinist sense. I just think that perhaps the debate should center around whether free will (as most people see it...i.e. libertarian) actually exists or not....rather than what 'free will' actually means.

[dacristoy]

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?

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.

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?

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 dominion from God. But that was not what God commanded.

[dacristoy]

Can I be honest? Although I know that you mean no malintent by defining free will this way...it truly is not helpful in any meaningful way.

I say this, because when people speak of 'free-will' they are not referring to the Jonathan Edwards type of idea of just merely doing what you want. They are referring to the idea of actually be able to freely will something -- not just freely do something that was already determined by nature.

The problem happens when you pretty much have to redefine the term in every discussion. Outside of limited Calvinist circles , everyone understands free will to be something that involves a degree of self-determination of the will. So to insist on using the term, and redefining it every time seems not to be helpful; rather it seems to only to muddy the waters.

And for what purpose? Just to be able to say 'I believe in free will'? -- only to be followed up with 'but it means something totally different from you understand it to mean.'

Perhaps this seems harsh...but I don't intend it to be, since I know you are a man of the utmost character, RB. I truly have a large amount of respect for you. You truly are an example of civil conversation & dialogue on these boards.

But really...what is the purpose of insisting that you believe in free will, only to insist that what you mean by 'free will' is something totally different than common understanding?

Wouldn't that be like someone claiming they are 'Christian' -- but then upon further discussion you find out that they are actually 'Jewish'?

IMO, redefining terms doesn't add to the clarity -- it only adds to the confusion. And that, IMO, is not a good thing.


So perhaps instead of insisting that you believe in free will, you should insist that you believe in a determined will with free action? (you are able to do what your nature determined that you would most want to do in any situation)

Blessings

Excellent.

[phat8594]

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?

The issue of faith is not just an intellectual belief but a decision to act upon that belief. But I would affirm that you can always decide to believe something or not. Really, it is more of deciding to 'be open to belief'.

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.

I agree that man was never intended to excercise dominion apart from God...and that man was (and is) to be God's representative, excercising God's will upon this earth....but under the auspices of determinism can we really ever say that man 'was never inteded to excercise dominion apart from God' if he actually did.

The problem is that man did exactly that...he listened to satan. So the question is whether that was intended or not?

[RBerman]

Yes, I am aware that many people describe 'free will' as something else. I even noted how Jonathan Edwards was one that defined it in a way similar to you. However, I think it is one of the silly things about some debates...where we end up debating the meaning of a word, rather than just being ok with different terms and taking it from there. So, yes, as you noted it has to do with terms losing meaning. And as you also noted, most people are outside of this debate on what free will means...so most people mean it in the libertarian sense. And that is my point. However, feel free to continue to use it in the determinist sense. I just think that perhaps the debate should center around whether free will (as most people see it...i.e. libertarian) actually exists or not....rather than what 'free will' actually means.

A debate about the meaning of words has the potential to be silly if the difference splits some hair. But then there are times where the debate over the meaning of the term is substantive, and indeed becomes a proxy for the main debate, so that if someone agreed with you about the definition, he would agree with everything else too. Most people functionally do believe in libertarian free will and are blissfully unaware of an alternative. Challenging the definition can be a way of cutting the Gordian Knot, reframing the question at a higher level. It's similar to how dispensationalists get all wrapped around the axle with their different paradigms of the rapture (pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib) without ever having been exposed to the possibility that their whole debate proceeds under some questionable assumptions about the nature of prophecy and the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Similarly, many people appear to have been raised to accept "God thinks human free will is super duper important, and without it we would be meaningless robots," unquestioningly. It can be a shock to see that maybe the Bible doesn't place such a premium on human autonomy as they have been led to believe.

[RBerman]

The only "biblical freewill" you have established so far is that it is permissible to offer sacrifices even when you have not previously made a specific vow to do so. That's what all the "freewill offering" passages are about which you cited. They are not about the philosophical questions you and I are discussing. What passages do you think define the areas in which God will not intervene in the affairs of men?

Source: Proverbs 16:1,9

The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord...
The heart of man plans his way,
but the Lord establishes his steps.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Proverbs 21:1

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;
he turns it wherever he will.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Ezekiel 36:26-27

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

© Copyright Original Source

We were not debating whether men should murder; of course they should not. However, you had made a claim that various things were incompatible, without actually showing how or why you thought so. It does not appear you intend to answer my question, so I guess we should just move on.

Certainly one cannot choose an option that one does not know exists. But I don't believe that God accepts ignorance as an excuse why people do not believe him him. Romans 1 and 2 teach us that everyone has a heart knowledge of God, even if they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

What do you make of that?

That depend on whether the sort of freewill you're talking about actually exists, which is what we are exploring.

[Truthseeker]

"Do" can be an internal matter of the will as well as an external action. So you can will what you want to will. What you're getting at is that any term is helpful to the extent that its meaning is agreed upon. The way we define the terms of the debate exerts tremendous influence over the direction of the debate. The idea of a "compatiblist" definition of free will, capable of integration into Calvinism, is not some idiosyncratic thing that I made up myself. You can find many examples of people talking in such a way:

Source: Theopedia article on Free Will

In compatibilism, free will is affected by human nature and man will never choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man will always do what he desires most at any particular moment - even when there are competing desires. And man is not able to freely change the direction or the degree of his desires. God is the one who must turn his heart. (http://www.theopedia.com/Free_will)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Nature of Freewill

According to a widely held belief, free choice must be uncaused - meaning in effect "chosen for no reason" - nothing could be further from the truth. Surely, volitional choices are made for reasons, compelling reasons. Our deliberate choices are based on evidence and values, and on anticipating their consequences - nothing suggest non-logical, uncaused thinking. It is absurd to assume that freewill choices are not based on antecedent causes, that they are made for no reason; or that they are based on random factors or factors beyond conscious thought. How could such choices represent personal responsibility? It is the fact that we consciously weigh the pros and cons of each freewill choice that provides for accountability. Our choices are implicit or explicit conceptual calculations. (http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Free will article

Those who define free will otherwise, without reference to determinism, are called compatibilists, because they hold determinism to be compatible with free will. Some compatibilists hold even that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, a process that requires some sense of how choices will turn out. Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

© Copyright Original Source

And so on. The definition of "free will" is very much a live issue in both theological and philosophical circles. But I have found that many Christians walk in very narrow theological worlds, insulated from this broader debate, and are genuinely surprised to find that a case can be made for a different viewpoint than the one which has been inculcated in them from childhood. I myself had such an experience.

For the sake of argument, assume that God will not change a person's desires. Suppose the person finds himself to be in a situation and sees several courses of action that he can undertake. Using his reason and his memory (including what I would call his world view or personal philosophy concerning the universe) he perhaps manages to eliminate all choices of action but 2. How, then will he choose between those remaining choices? Use his reason and memory as before? No. I do not know how, but the person somehow makes a choice. It's as though the brain possess a mechanism for choosing that is akin in some way to flipping a coin or casting lots.

Do I believe in freewill, at least in the sense shown above? No, at least not necessarily. I believe that God may control the decision-making mechanism or else what the person perceives to be his best courses of action.

[dacristoy]

The only "biblical freewill" you have established so far is that it is permissible to offer sacrifices even when you have not previously made a specific vow to do so. That's what all the "freewill offering" passages are about which you cited. They are not about the philosophical questions you and I are discussing. What passages do you think define the areas in which God will not intervene in the affairs of men?

Source: Proverbs 16:1,9

The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord...
The heart of man plans his way,
but the Lord establishes his steps.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Proverbs 21:1

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.

© Copyright Original Source

He can turn it, or allow it to continue unturned. Freewill.

Source: Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

© Copyright Original Source

We were not debating whether men should murder; of course they should not. However, you had made a claim that various things were incompatible, without actually showing how or why you thought so. It does not appear you intend to answer my question, so I guess we should just move on.

Certainly one cannot choose an option that one does not know exists. But I don't believe that God accepts ignorance as an excuse why people do not believe him him. Romans 1 and 2 teach us that everyone has a heart knowledge of God, even if they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

[RBerman]

It's not the same kind of free will, dacristoy. Go back and look at those OT passages you posted. A "freewill offering" free only in the sense of not being the result of a previously made oath. It has nothing to do with the kind of free will we have been discussing in this thread. You might as well appeal to a "Buy One, Get One Free" sign at a store somewhere.

I am sorry, dacristoy. I cannot make heads or tails of your explanations of these passages. But really I was hoping that you were going to at least try to answer my question: "What passages do you think define the areas in which God will not intervene in the affairs of men?" I showed you passages that say that God intervenes in men's hearts. Where are your passages which show areas of human life that God will never enter?

You have made that claim several times, but so far you have neither defined free will, nor defended that definition from Scripture. Until you do so, I don't know what else there is for us to talk about.

[dacristoy]

It's not the same kind of free will, dacristoy. Go back and look at those OT passages you posted. A "freewill offering" free only in the sense of not being the result of a previously made oath. It has nothing to do with the kind of free will we have been discussing in this thread. You might as well appeal to a "Buy One, Get One Free" sign at a store somewhere.


I am sorry, dacristoy. I cannot make heads or tails of your explanations of these passages. But really I was hoping that you were going to at least try to answer my question: "What passages do you think define the areas in which God will not intervene in the affairs of men?" I showed you passages that say that God intervenes in men's hearts. Where are your passages which show areas of human life that God will never enter?


You have made that claim several times, but so far you have neither defined free will, nor defended that definition from Scripture. Until you do so, I don't know what else there is for us to talk about.

Makes me wonder if we are on the same planet...

[dacristoy]

For the sake of argument, assume that God will not change a person's desires. Suppose the person finds himself to be in a situation and sees several courses of action that he can undertake. Using his reason and his memory (including what I would call his world view or personal philosophy concerning the universe) he perhaps manages to eliminate all choices of action but 2. How, then will he choose between those remaining choices? Use his reason and memory as before? No. I do not know how, but the person somehow makes a choice. It's as though the brain possess a mechanism for choosing that is akin in some way to flipping a coin or casting lots.

Do I believe in freewill, at least in the sense shown above? No, at least not necessarily. I believe that God may control the decision-making mechanism or else what the person perceives to be his best courses of action.