Will or Free Will

[GrayPilgrim]

I figure it has to come in at some point. Do humans have free will? Is the term free will even helpful? (By the wording of the question you can probably tell my answer.)

[GrayPilgrim]

Obviously we have a will. The Puritans understood human beings to have three faculties: Affections, Intelelct and the Will. Affections correspond to our emotions, and the intellect, well to the intelelct. The issue at question is: what is the nature of our will.

I would say using a little Latin that there are four possibilities concerning the will: [list=1]
Passe peccare (It is possible to sin)
Non passe non peccare (It is not possible to not sin)
Passe non peccare (It is possible to not sin)
Non passe peccare (It is not possible to sin)
[/list=1]

Obviously we are dealing with the issue of total depravity, when we address this issue. I would say taht when Adam and Eve were created that they were in category one. That is it was possible for them to not sin and plunge creation into this mess. So in my opinion their will were free. However, after the Fall they switched into category 2. Sin so infeccted all of their faculties that it warped their ability to serve and glorify God. And so were we until God's grace awakened and regenerated us as part of the process of Salvation.

[GrayPilgrim]

Once we were redeemed we were then transfered into the third category, where are wills have freedom through God's grace to be a slave to righteousness. Then when we reach the eternal state we will be like Christ and it will no longer be possible to chose sin.

So I think that we have a will and that it is unhelpful to call it free as there are too many stimuli and conditions that prevent it from being truely free. The Bible says we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6).

GP

GP...you know better than to post back to back. This is a gentle reminder to you

[Blake Reas]

Free Will is not helpful in the libertarian sense. Because as even many OVers will admit that certain things are predetermined i.e. the events surrounding the crucifixtion. Classic Arminianism is stuck with the problem of God foreknowing before you do something. I.E. If God knows I will type on this keyboard I will do it I cannot do other wise, becasue he already knows.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Just my curious ramblings it is probably wrong! :rant:

[efta777]

I believe in free will over our actions and over our decisions. God can make anything happen that he wants, yet I believe what he wants is for us to have free will. God said that he desired Israel to be his people and follow him forever, yet they didn't. Saying that they didn't have free will is to me saying that God was lying when he said he wanted them to be His, because He could have easily just made them turn to Him forever if He wanted to. Instead, He tells all of us what He desires from us, and it is up to us to follow Him, yet as has been said before, there are certain things that we cannot change, because they have been prophecied to happen (The future ressurection and judgement)

[bar Jonah]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Once we were redeemed we were then transfered into the third category, where are wills have freedom through God's grace to be a slave to righteousness. Then when we reach the eternal state we will be like Christ and it will no longer be possible to chose sin.

So I think that we have a will and that it is unhelpful to call it free as there are too many stimuli and conditions that prevent it from being truely free. The Bible says we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6).

GP
Gray, you say that when we reach our sinless state after our earthly death, that it will be impossible to choose sin.

But Adam and Eve were sinless, yet they chose to sin. What will stop us from choosing sin? Lucifer was perfectly sinless, the greatest of all angels, outranking even Michael himself. And Lucifer chose sin. So did many other previously sinless angels.

Thoughts?

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by RightIdea
Gray, you say that when we reach our sinless state after our earthly death, that it will be impossible to choose sin.

But Adam and Eve were sinless, yet they chose to sin. What will stop us from choosing sin? Lucifer was perfectly sinless, the greatest of all angels, outranking even Michael himself. And Lucifer chose sin. So did many other previously sinless angels.

Thoughts?

Funny you should ask, I was asked this Sunday after my Genesis Study. I think it has to do with the difference between the first option and the fourth. Adam and Eve were created like innocent children. However, God created them in such a way that it was possible for them not to sin. He had so wired their procliviteis and faculties that they could choose to eat from the Tree of Life or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (note this is the only possible sin as it was the only prohibition). I would say that Lucifer and the fallen angels were created with this ability not to sin.

Now, why do I see a difference in the eternal state? As I see it after glorification when we receive our resurection bodies, we will be wired differently, We will be like Jesus and in that change is the difference, we will be transformed so that we will no longer desire sin. Our affections, will and intellect will desire to glorify the Father, Son and Spirit and we will not have the proclivities that would lead to sin. Moreover, Satan and his angels will be cast into outer darkness so that he will no longer be able to tempt the redeemed.

In conclusio, we will be wired in such a way that our wills wil only desire that which is good, upright and pure.

[Pate]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
In conclusio, we will be wired in such a way that our wills wil only desire that which is good, upright and pure.

Now the question arises:

Why didn't God create us this way in the first place?

I think that the answer is, heaven as a state of affairs is not actualizeable apart from this "earthly life", because people need to experience the consequences of morally evil choices and rebellion against God, and they need to experience what it's like to live with the absence of God's full presence in their lives, and need to be saved from that state, before they are able to appreciate God's perfect love and presence in such a way, that they'll never use their freedom for rebellion against God any more.

[Pate]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Adam and Eve were created like innocent children. However, God created them in such a way that it was possible for them not to sin. He had so wired their procliviteis and faculties that they could choose to eat from the Tree of Life or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (note this is the only possible sin as it was the only prohibition).

Hmm... I tend to disagree on this. Do you think that it would not have been a sin if, for example, Adam had murdered Eve?

I think that the Moral Law has its ontological foundation in God's essence, not just God's commands and prohibitions.

[Jaltus]

I think the entire concept of "not possible not to sin" begs the question of iterativeness and the definition of sin.

Does that mean one sins all the time, or occasionally, or just once?

Does "sinning" mean committing an act of rebellion against God, or is it just the attitude of defiance or is it just not being a Christian?

Besides, "libertarian free will" is in reference to individual choices, not to all of life. I did not choose to turn 27, it happened because of when I was born.

[Pate]

I believe that we have free will because:

1. I have a clear experience of being free in some sense.

and

2. The Bible seems to teach that we have free will.


But I'm not sure what would be a good definition of free will. What elements other than deterministic events and random events can there be, that are functioning in a free will? Neither randomness nor determinism would seem to provide a clear way to define free will. How does the concept of soul effect this problem and its possible solutions? It might provide some help to this, but I'm just not sure, how exactly?

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by Jaltus
I think the entire concept of "not possible not to sin" begs the question of iterativeness and the definition of sin.

Does that mean one sins all the time, or occasionally, or just once?

Does "sinning" mean committing an act of rebellion against God, or is it just the attitude of defiance or is it just not being a Christian?

Besides, "libertarian free will" is in reference to individual choices, not to all of life. I did not choose to turn 27, it happened because of when I was born.

Here we go again, for the umpteenth time. [And Jaltus, me thinks it will end the way it has all those other times, a draw].

Non Passe Non Peccare does not reffer to utter depravity, i.e. everything that the person does is wicked. What it refers to is a moral impairment to the will. That the will is tainted and unable to choose to serve God. It may be philanthropic in aparticular person, but the motives behind this philanthropy are not to bring glory to God or to enjoy him forever. So I would be a looney to say that everything the unregenerate does is bad, think of a Muslim charity that deeds the poor, it is a good act, but it is an attempt to buy off Allaha and balance the scales for judgment day.

Even if a person only sins once, according to James that is enough to bear the full weight of eternal condemnation.

GP

[bar Jonah]

Very true, Pilgrim. The difference between us is that while Free Willies agree man cannot come to God without being enabled (invited), we must meet Him halfway and allow Him to accomplish the work that completes our salvation.

I dare say everyone here agrees Man cannot attain salvation without God making it possible (available) before the man ever even considers accepting Christ. We all agree a man cannot do this alone, of his own "goodness," purely of his own free will.

[Jaltus]

Thie difference, GP, is that we (As and OVs) believe that God gave mankind the grace to overcome such a huge moral defecit.

It is not a problem of sin, I think, rather it is the definition of grace that is the dividing wall.

[bar Jonah]

Excellent way to describe it, Jaltus. Kudos!

[GrayPilgrim]

I concur, I have always known that Jaltus and I defined grace differently. Jaltus accuses me of two graces--I think of it rather that God's grace is always efficacious, so that his common grace of sunshine and rain are brought about as He desires. But that instead of giving a kind of hedgeing-the-bet grace to everyone that gives them the faculty to "meet him half way" is not taught Scripturally. God's grace is particular in its application to salvation/regeneration.


(In many ways Jaltus and I discussing this will only boost the post count as we have both used the same arguments against each other for three years, so to add the final twist on which we have usuallly ended these discussions--"Jaltus, at least my God knows the future" :p)

No Jaltus is not OV we just have a running joke.

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
I figure it has to come in at some point. Do humans have free will? Is the term free will even helpful? (By the wording of the question you can probably tell my answer.)

I have the free will and the obligation to take captive all law breakers and demand that they repent!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[Philemon]

I like how Max Herrera puts it from www.Battleforgod.org:

"Moderate Calvinist Compatiblist view
I hold to a compatiblist view, but not any of the above. Namely:

God determines all acts.
Man determines his own acts.
Thus, God and man determine man’s acts.

Metaphysically, this is through concurrence. (God’s power)
Volitionally, this is determined by God’s omniscience being one with His will. (That is to say, God is a simple being and His will never contravenes His intellect).

Necessarily, God knows all truth
God knows that you were going to read this today.
You cannot contravene what God knows
Therefore, it is necessary that you read this today.
(Therefore, from the perspective of the divine intellect this event is necessarily determined.)

However, though it is necessary that you read this today, you did not read this OUT OF NECESSITY. You chose to freely (self-determined) to read.

Thus, one and the same event is determined by God and determined by man (volitionally).

Futher, metaphysically, God is the primary efficient cause, and man is the secondary efficient cause. (i.e., God gives you the ability to act, and you act on the ability that God has given you.) Thus, man is responsible for his own acts (good or bad)."

[joelkaki]

I am much less concerned about us having free will than I am about retaining the sovereignty of God. People get all flustered if someone says we don't have completely free will, but it should bother us tons more to think that God is not completely sovereign.

Joel

[Solly]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
I have the free will and the obligation to take captive all law breakers and demand that they repent!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

If you have an "obligation" to do something, then your will is not free but determined. It may have been a free decision to take that obligation on board (although you might have been determined by your hatred of all law breakers), but you are determined by it now, and would do violence to your conscience to go against that choice.

As Batman, could you decide NOT to intervene? Yes, you might say, but then you would not be the Batman we know and love, and would no longer be as reliable; it would show that hatred of law breakers is not your overriding passion, and given the right motive, you would not step in to intervene.

Free Will, following the likes of Edwards, is the ability to choose. That's it. It is not causative of anything accept that which follows the choice; it is determined by prior states - mental and physical.

[Dark Knight]

I have been predestined for one purpose, and am free to find all guilty!

So that you may know that as long as you are under my jurisdiction, you have no hope!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!!

[Solly]

As long as you are under my jurisdiction, you have no hope!


There is therefore no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus.

Naa Naa Na Naa Nah

Never did like blokes who wore their underwear on the outside. :rofl:

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Solly
There is therefore no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus.


As long as you are in Him, you are free from me.

It is not the devil who is His corrival, but I am!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by Philemon
I like how Max Herrera puts it from www.Battleforgod.org:

"Moderate Calvinist Compatiblist view
I hold to a compatiblist view, but not any of the above. Namely:

God determines all acts.
Man determines his own acts.
Thus, God and man determine man’s acts.

Metaphysically, this is through concurrence. (God’s power)
Volitionally, this is determined by God’s omniscience being one with His will. (That is to say, God is a simple being and His will never contravenes His intellect).

Necessarily, God knows all truth
God knows that you were going to read this today.
You cannot contravene what God knows
Therefore, it is necessary that you read this today.
(Therefore, from the perspective of the divine intellect this event is necessarily determined.)

However, though it is necessary that you read this today, you did not read this OUT OF NECESSITY. You chose to freely (self-determined) to read.

Thus, one and the same event is determined by God and determined by man (volitionally).

Futher, metaphysically, God is the primary efficient cause, and man is the secondary efficient cause. (i.e., God gives you the ability to act, and you act on the ability that God has given you.) Thus, man is responsible for his own acts (good or bad)."

Philemon, thanks for this post it brings to the fore what I consider is the crux of the matter. It also explains why I can say that experientially I chose to do something, but later I can look back and see how God guided me and is sovereign over all my choices, and not be a Molinist or even teetering on Molinism as Jaltus somuch desires.

:yipee: :p

[Jaltus]

Jaltus accuses me of two graces--I think of it rather that God's grace is always efficacious, so that his common grace of sunshine and rain are brought about as He desires. But that instead of giving a kind of hedgeing-the-bet grace to everyone that gives them the faculty to "meet him half way" is not taught Scripturally. God's grace is particular in its application to salvation/regeneration.
Is sunshine grace or is it creation? You are changing the very definition of grace! It is God's mercy that allows rain on the just and unjust, but grace is a different animal altogether.

How can grace, which is given through the Sacraments, also be rain falling? Those do not seem to be the same thing at all.

What IS taught scripturally is that God sent His Son and we must respond. While that is not "half-way" (more like God does 99.9% and we tag along), Romans 10:9 clearly tells us that we do have to actually confess and believe. It is not meritorious to receive a gift, only to give one.

("Gp, at least my God is not evil.")

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus:
Is sunshine grace or is it creation? You are changing the very definition of grace! It is God's mercy that allows rain on the just and unjust, but grace is a different animal altogether.

How can grace, which is given through the Sacraments, also be rain falling? Those do not seem to be the same thing at all.

What IS taught scripturally is that God sent His Son and we must respond. While that is not "half-way" (more like God does 99.9% and we tag along), Romans 10:9 clearly tells us that we do have to actually confess and believe. It is not meritorious to receive a gift, only to give one.

(Our typical debate continues to unfold, [boy this is getting old ;)]) As I see it we define things differently and so that means that when I use certain terms to me they denote one thing but connote something completely different to you and vice versa (and yes I meant connote). As I see it what you define as mercy, to me is an overly sharp definition of general grace. So that there are different forms of grace as I see grace as being particularly given at particular times. And I agree that you are not teaching some form of semi-pelagianism (though if I want to get a rise out of you it can be fun :p)

("Gp, at least my God is not evil.")
I still lol when I hear that :rofl: :rofl:

[GrayPilgrim]

I'm currently reading Frame's Doctrine of God. He is making his argument for "God's Control: Its Efficacy and Universality" Using Jeremiah 1:5 he talks about how not only did God form him in the womb, but as he knew Jeremiah prior o conception he must have superintended the conception of each of his ancestors, here is the relevant quote on page 59:

So God is in control of all the "accidents" of history to create the precise person he seeks to employ as his prophet. God's foreknowledge of one individual implies comprehensive control over the entire human family. Paul says of all believers that God "chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world" (Eph 1:4).

I have two questions from this. [list=1]
Does God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah necessarily imply comprehensive control?
If God "chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world" does that require that God superintend all the "accidents" of history so that my great-great-great-great grandparents necessarily had to meet so that in 1975 I could be born?
[/list=1]

[Captain Ochre]

Blake Reas:
Classic Arminianism is stuck with the problem of God foreknowing before you do something. I.E. If God knows I will type on this keyboard I will do it I cannot do other wise, becasue he already knows.


That's not a problem, as I see it.
Quickly: The key term is "determined", which frequently leads to a fallacy of ambiguity. Things may be "determined" either in a causal sense or in an epistemic sense.
When care is taken not to fallaciously confuse the two in the course of a syllogism, epistemic determinism places no obvious stricture on causal freedom of the will.

[bar Jonah]

Ie. the difference between determining an event in the sense of causing the event... as opposed to to determining the event in the sense of observing it and gaining knowledge about the event.

I determined that I would eat a donut.

But then I determined that there were apparently no donuts left to eat.

[Captain Ochre]

RightIdea:
Ie. the difference between determining an event in the sense of causing the event... as opposed to to determining the event in the sense of observing it and gaining knowledge about the event.

I determined that I would eat a donut.

But then I determined that there were apparently no donuts left to eat.

Exactly; determining that there are no donuts left to eat does not mean that it could not have been otherwise (iow there *could* have been more donuts to eat).

I had meant to make clear in the earlier post that I am a philosophical and theological layman--but when I examine the arguments of most experts, they seem vulnerable on this point (and some flatly agree with me!!).

[Jaltus]

Does God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah necessarily imply comprehensive control?

If God "chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world" does that require that God superintend all the "accidents" of history so that my great-great-great-great grandparents necessarily had to meet so that in 1975 I could be born?


1. No.

2. Only if you eliminate EDF. God can choose us according to His knowledge. He does not in fact have to determine something causally precreation in order to ensure it works. That is where, IMHOFO, OVers are correct in saying that a God who does so is less glorious.

[smilax]

GrayPilgrim:
I'm currently reading Frame's Doctrine of God. He is making his argument for "God's Control: Its Efficacy and Universality" Using Jeremiah 1:5 he talks about how not only did God form him in the womb, but as he knew Jeremiah prior o conception he must have superintended the conception of each of his ancestors, here is the relevant quote on page 59:Frame's great, including that book in general, but he seems to be oblivious to the idea of corporate solidarity here, which is what is really in view rather than familial control.Does God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah necessarily imply comprehensive control?No, I agree with Sanders that God does not need to control every single event in order to perform His will. Even the choice to do nothing is sovereign.If God "chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world" does that require that God superintend all the "accidents" of history so that my great-great-great-great grandparents necessarily had to meet so that in 1975 I could be born?No, that would be a gross downplaying of God's wisdom if He needed "meticulous sovereignty" to get the job done. The account of Joseph's brothers, Habakkuk's dilemma, even David's census: God can use free will to achieve His purpose. Thus the goal may be set, (your birth,) but the means by which it happens may be up to us, (although I affirm that God already knows the outcome, which is precisely why He can use those free events.) You have free will to move about on the boat, but the destination is already set.

[John Powell]

RightIdea:
<snipped>
I dare say everyone here agrees Man cannot attain salvation without God making it possible (available) before the man ever even considers accepting Christ. We all agree a man cannot do this alone, of his own "goodness," purely of his own free will.


POWELL:
I no longer believe in Mormonism, but as a believer I would have disagreed with this statement. My beliefs were not necessarily orthodox Mormon beliefs.

I would have thought that it's probably not that no one could do it, but more likely that too few could do it. There were perfect people like Noah and Job and others who might have been able to gain exalted status and resurrected their own bodies even if Jesus had never been physically born.

I believed that the spirit of Jesus was fully human and He attained salvation without the need for Elohim giving Him unfair treatment. Jesus obtained the office of God, became a member of Elohim's Godhead, before He was physically born. It's true that the physical body of Jesus may have been better equipped to resist temptation because genetically he was half-God, but His spirit was as much a child of Elohim as the spirit of anyone else. Jesus showed us that a man could live a sinless life.

Most, if not all, the rest of the spirit brothers and sisters of Jesus

1) require the atonement of Jesus to attain spiritual salvation or exaltation, but they did not necessarily require the atonement to receive all possible lesser degrees of glory and

2) they might have required the resurrection of Jesus to attain physical salvation or resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus made it possible for all the rest of us to resurrect or at least to do so more efficiently. Good people like Adam, Eve, etc. might have been able to resurrect without the resurrection of Jesus, but they waited for His resurrection anyways.

If no one can gain exalted status or resurrect without the help of God then how did God do it Himself?

At least this is the way I thought when I believed in Mormonism.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now, an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
As far as defining "free will," I currently like the following:

The "freedom to will" meaning the "ability to decide to do a thing".

Someone can will or decide to do things they don't have the ability to succeed at doing. For example, someone might will to be God. They have the free will to do that, meaning they have the ability to try to be God, even if they don't have the ability to succeed at becoming God.

As another example, someone can will to do something, even will or wish that the undesirable consequences of some action do not occur, but that doesn't mean those wishes will occur.

Possible limitations on free will are knowledge and imagination. Someone probably can't will to do something they have never imagined.

Perhaps all conscious beings naturally have free will. Maybe it comes automatically when the entity becomes conscious and is only removed when consciousness ceases.

John Powell
An ath-eist or strong atheist

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Zombie threads. Gotta love em.

[Magister Matt]

I concur, I have always known that Jaltus and I defined grace differently. Jaltus accuses me of two graces--I think of it rather that God's grace is always efficacious, so that his common grace of sunshine and rain are brought about as He desires. But that instead of giving a kind of hedgeing-the-bet grace to everyone that gives them the faculty to "meet him half way" is not taught Scripturally. God's grace is particular in its application to salvation/regeneration.


(In many ways Jaltus and I discussing this will only boost the post count as we have both used the same arguments against each other for three years, so to add the final twist on which we have usuallly ended these discussions--"Jaltus, at least my God knows the future" :p)

No Jaltus is not OV we just have a running joke.
We already have a discussion about this in the Philosophy forum. Read both "Logical problems of Free Will" and also read Duder's interesting followup, "Another Logical Problem with Free Will".