RightIdea - Which point is it?

[1Way]

RightIdea – Your profile says that you are a one point Calvinist. What is your point you hold in Calvinism? :huh:

I agree with the rest of your theology into, and I appreciate the Godisnowhere ministry. :thumb: However, I’m a 0 point Calvinist (and proud of it) and understand that Calvinism is an effort towards a systematic theology derived from the single precept of God's immutability. The foundation of Calvinism, "immutability", is wrong, :no: and so is all of it’s 5 resultant points. If you disagree, please explain. Thanks.

[GrayPilgrim]

The 5 points were a reaction to Jacob Arminus' Five Remonstrants by the Synod of Dort. There is more to it than holding forth immutability.

GP

[1Way]

GP – I am seeking RightIdea’s response. As to your “response”, so? ...

Who cares about the social trappings of who said what and when? Ideas can be concretely evaluated on their merits, or lack thereof, quite regardless of Synods and traditions. It’s not hard, drop the traditional pit of theological tripe and manmade history. Then just as swiftly, but respectfully, open bible and learn from God the truth unto freedom. :yipee:

The one single foundational idea that sprung TULIP together is immutability. And the one point of the five that arguably has the less to do with immutability is total depravity, but it remains fully consistent with closed theism, which necessarily leaves everything in God’s changeless care. You see, if man truly responds to God’s call to salvation, then God, in turn, should truly respond to man’s response to reward salvation or not, and therein we have a wonderful synergism of response happening between God and man that closed theism just can’t afford.

As I said, immutability is the foundation that TULIP stands on, and praise God, slowly but surely, the false foundation of immutability is being exposed for the anti-biblical teaching that it is. God repents from doing what He previously said and thought He was going to do, by altering His course of action. See the potter and the clay (Jer 18 1-10) for the general and consistent principle describing divine repentance, and Jonah 3:4,10 as one of many demonstrations of God not doing what He was previously going to do.

Jonah 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"
...
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

God says that He repents from what He had “said” AND/OR “thought” to do, AND demonstrates that He reverses His previous “intended” course of action. This exceedingly clear description and contextually explicit demonstration utterly denies the closed view. :thumb:

[yxboom]

I'm gonna throw this out there..............T = Total Depravity.

[1Way]

:hi: Why Y,,, I think you got it!

If man is “totally unable” to please God or to do good in His eyes, then of course the issue of who gets saved is determined in the mind of God, since it is the highest good to be one of God’s saved children. Then God supposedly grants these lucky few Irresistible grace (“I”), so that whosoever God enables to get saved, will actually get saved, they can not possibly turn God down because His grace is absolutely irresistible. Now, I wonder why it is that I keep missing that precious but elusive portion of scripture that teaches us that love and worship is a product of being forced into doing it, :whip: instead of that wimpy version :wink: that says that love and worship and trust and respect are voluntarily offered and received like a free gift. :thumb:

But back to the flower, TULIP is all tied together with the single reoccurring precept that God can not change, therefore all His decisions must eternally be closed to any uncertainty, therefore whoever gets saved was and always has been an eternal absolute unchanging fact, same with the list of people going to hell of course, there fate is not somehow any less certain from all eternity. So if you are foreknown to go to heaven, you have no option but to go to heaven, and if you are foreknown to go to hell, then you have no choice but to go there, this is classic fate and destiny where free will is merely illusionary. God can never respond to a “change” in life like we do all the time, God just timelessly acts with no alterations or options or change of intended course of action. Nothing we can ever do can ever alter God and His changelessness.

Posh on all that rubbish, God repents and does not do what He had previously intended on doing after His knowledge becomes certain, examine the bible for many examples and direct support. The closed view and God’s supposed immutability are false manmade doctrines. God’s word is true, God changes in significant ways. I wonder if GP will be defending TULIP?

[1Way]

And I wonder which point RightIdea holds. :hrm: An evangelical, inclusivist, pre-trib, Acts-9, 12-out, open dispy... (ie. I'm a one-point Calvinist and proud of it! LOL) If I was a one pointer, I'd say that it was that "TULIP" and it's unified foundational doctrine of "immutability" is wrong. :thumb:

[PuritanD]

03-15-2003 @ 01:48 PM
1Way:
Jonah 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!&quot

I don't even know if I should do this but ...

I find it fascinating that OV's are so willing to quote Jonah and yet not deal with how this book dents their idea of Libertarian Free Will.

This theological fallicy is mocked. If Jonah had Libertarian free will and stated, "No," which he basically did by going to Tarsus instead. God would be required to acknowledge Jonah's choice and let him do his own thing. God would then be stuck and had to find some other prophet to go, but is this the case? Did Jonah have a libertarian free will? If so, why did he go to Nineveh then?

By the way, is the book main character Jonah or Nineveh?

PuritanD

PS. It looks like, 1way, you have your own way with systematizing theology, though you may never acknowledge it.

[geebob]

1way, I'm pretty sure that rightIdea's 1 point is perseverance of the saints. He gave me the impression that that was typical in acts 9 dispensationalism.


Puritan, that in no way shape or form negates that we have libertarian free will. Libertarian free will requires that there are no antecedent conditions or causal laws that guarantee a choice. If the whale's swallowing of Jonah guaranteed that he would relent (though it's not necessarily the case that it would) then it's not a liberatarian free choice. And it truly is a fallacy to generalize from this that none of our choices are libertarian free. not everyone is swallowed up by a whale to get them to make the right choice.

God would then be stuck and had to find some other prophet to go,

which hardly qualifies him as being stuck. Was the omnipotent God dependent upon specifically Jonah to do his work? What's wrong with him using someone else in such a situtation.

[Ishmael]

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
PuritanD:



I don't even know if I should do this but ...

I find it fascinating that OV's are so willing to quote Jonah and yet not deal with how this book dents their idea of Libertarian Free Will.

This theological fallicy is mocked. If Jonah had Libertarian free will and stated, "No," which he basically did by going to Tarsus instead. God would be required to acknowledge Jonah's choice and let him do his own thing. God would then be stuck and had to find some other prophet to go, but is this the case? Did Jonah have a libertarian free will? If so, why did he go to Nineveh then?

By the way, is the book main character Jonah or Nineveh?

PuritanD

PS. It looks like, 1way, you have your own way with systematizing theology, though you may never acknowledge it.

What I find fascinating is how arogantly OVers push their false doctrine as if they were the new Reformation with their unOrthodox doctrine and historical revisionism. It's really quite odd. Go back and read 1Way's Bible thumping message to Pilgrim where he suggests to him to drop all "Tradition" and "History of Men" and read the Bible... for an example of their arogance.

[geebob]

alot of OV'ers place a high value on the tradition and seek to show that the open view resonates with the tradition in many areas.

They explicitly state this on the first page at www.opentheism.org

We want to develop an understanding of the triune God and God's relationship to the world that is Biblically faithful, finds consonance with the tradition, is theologically coherent and which enhances the way we live our Christian lives.

An example is the emphasis that many ov'ers place upon Thomas Acquinace's view on omnipotence insisting that it is the power to do everything that is logically possible and beyond that, there is nothing thus their is no real limit to say that the limit is logic.

The view of many open theists for some of the great minds is very much one of reverence. William Hasker for example believes that every Christian should read Augustine's Confessions next to the Bible. Interestingly, Hasker has a "deep love and admiration for Agustinian theology", inspite of the fact that in the rest of "[his] philosophical perspective rather little to sustain belief in Augustine's metaphysic." which of course is a major reason for why he rejects significant portions of Augustine's theology. (God, Time, and Knowledge p 183).

[PuritanD]

geebob,

So one overcomes the sin nature how in dealing with Libertarian free will???

Also if we are either a slave to Christ or a slave to sin how does that work?

[geebob]

So one overcomes the sin nature how in dealing with Libertarian free will???

God makes it possible.

Also if we are either a slave to Christ or a slave to sin how does that work?

Assuming the slavery metaphore means that absolutely everything you do is in accordance to the "master's" whims. This understanding of that metaphore hardly matches reality. Slaves can rebell and escape.

[Sozo]

Today @ 07:33 PM
geebob:



God makes it possible.



Assuming the slavery metaphore means that absolutely everything you do is in accordance to the "master's" whims. This understanding of that metaphore hardly matches reality. Slaves can rebell and escape.

We couldn't rebel and escape being slaves to sin, why can we as slaves of righteousness?

[geebob]

I think we could do both. I know you disagree, but let it suffice to say that you cannot prove it either way by the metaphore. If every single thing the slave of sin does is in accordance with sin, you couldn't prove it simply through the metaphore of slavery. In other words, it is not enough to say that we are slaves of righteousness or sin to prove that one can only sin or only do what is right.

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 08:33 PM
geebob:

God makes it possible.

Hmm, if it took God to make it possible then we were not able to do it on our own. Wouldn't this then negate a notion of Libertarian Free will since we would have to depend upon an outside identity to free us from this slavery to sin?

It seems odd to argue for such a will if it could not possible overcome the sin nature on its own. This would be the weakest form of libertarian freewill I have ever heard of.

Of course Paul's libertarian freewill was so strong that he was able to do what he wish and not succomb to the flesh, right? (Romans 7) It is another find example of the power of the libertarian freewill at work :argh:

[geebob]

Hmm, if it took God to make it possible then we were not able to do it on our own. Wouldn't this then negate a notion of Libertarian Free will since we would have to depend upon an outside identity to free us from this slavery to sin?

It negates that we have libertarian free will apart from God's enabling. It would negate libertarian free will if God's enabling didn't just make it possible but also made our submission necessary. The latter is not the case. Please see my thread on libertarian free will for a definition.

[yxboom]

That would be here :smile: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=22389#post22389)

[1Way]

Geebob – As to 1way, I'm pretty sure that rightIdea's 1 point is perseverance of the saints. He gave me the impression that that was typical in acts 9 dispensationalism. Oh, hmmmm, I see, thanks. I may have been wrong about which point he more likely held. Where is that RightIdea anyway?

So that point is OSAS right? If so, then what about his 12 out? I would think that that’s basically the same as saying that there were 2 gospels in the NT, and this second gospel is one of works plus faith, not just faith alone. That being the case, the people under that gospel (before and after this current dispensation) could lose their salvation(!), and if so, then perseverance would become rather invalidated. So I am not convinced that is the point he holds to. I understand many dispensationalists to hold to man’s total depravity, however inconsistently.

[geebob]

I don't know dispensationalism very well. I just know that several of the acts niner's I know hold to OSAS including yx and knight.

When you start a thread directed at someone, it's always a good idea to drop them a pmail or email and let them know that it's there

Rightidea was in the military. Maybe he's still a reservist and was called up.

[1Way]

ARRRRG ! ! ! I can not post a new post! Every time I try to post a new post on this thread, it always appends it to my last post instead! And I’ve rebooted, I’ve tried it over and over again, and I’ve posted thousands of posts online, and I check the characters readout, and it sees just my new post, but after I post, it just adds it to my previous post, as though I hit edit instead!

Geebob – If you are referring to "Knight" of TOL fame, then I beg to differ. We hold to OSAS only for this dispensation. TULIP is clearly not dispensational, those points apply towards all men and dispensations, not just those saved in the dispensation of Grace by faith alone.

I have a habit of searching for my handle twice, once in author and once in body searches, that way I can find out where I am being referenced and where I have been active, because it would be very difficult for this forgetful person to find such things otherwise. Thanks for the tip about pm’ing him.

Calvinist – As to Go back and read 1Way's Bible thumping message to Pilgrim where he suggests to him to drop all "Tradition" and "History of Men" and read the Bible... for an example of their arogance. Thanks for highlighting my point about honoring God’s word against manmade tradition and history. If he agreed with my point about the absolute authority of scripture over and against man’s traditions, then there shouldn’t be an offense, but rather agreement. And if he disagreed with that point, the point would be starting grounds for redeeming the time.

As for you and me, sure I was aggressive, in a mocking sort of way, but I’m not hoping to find fault with you. Please check yourself as to “seeing” problems that do not exist.

Sozo – As to We couldn't rebel and escape being slaves to sin, why can we as slaves of righteousness? I agree with Geebob that we can do both. The story of the good Samaritan shows that in contrast to the normally respected righteous person, the true believer was the national thought to be not right with God. How about God esteeming an evil person as knowing how to do good? Matthew 7:9 "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 "Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! Evil men’s giving is valued as good in the same way God’s giving is also considered good! “Mankind” has the ability to do good (in God’s estimation).

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 01:00 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41755#post41755)
geebob:

It negates that we have libertarian free will apart from God's enabling. It would negate libertarian free will if God's enabling didn't just make it possible but also made our submission necessary. The latter is not the case. Please see my thread on libertarian free will for a definition.

I did read your definition but it still does not answer my question. If we have LFW then our sin nature could not cause us to sin, yet it is due to this sinful nature that man rejects God (Rom 3:10-11). Paul also states that no one is righteous which would seem to imply a causul restriction on LFW since no one can choose righteousness by their own power.

Even the definition you give, if it is true, then we should be able to "save" ourselves by our own power. What then are we in need of Christ, if we have the LFW to obey rightly by our own power?

You still have to explain how we can choose freely without any causation of the sin nature. Also, Paul's argument in Romans 7 suggests that on his own, he did not have the "power" which you defined as needed for LFW to do what was right.

If we have LFW, then what is the purpose of the HS ability to empower us? Empower us to do what, without affecting our power of choice.

I believe that there are constraining and non constraing causes that influence and determine actions.

If someone was to threaten an individual to do A or be B. The person does not have the LFW to decided. He chooses A out of the constraining cause of the threat upon him.

Instead of saying that he is not free because he could/ could not have done otherwise has another possible definition.

As J. Feinberg notes 'could' can mean reasonable. "In this sense, to say someone can do something means it is reasonable to expect him to do so under the circumstances, and to say someone cannot do something means only that under the circumstances it is unreasonable to expect him to do it."

I do not think that your definition is the only one out there for free will, but is one in which Arminians generally cling to. I still do not think it explains how we can overcome our own sin nature so that we can freely seek after God which seems to contradict Scripture that indicates that none seek after God but that God is the one who has to do the seeking.

PuritanD

[1Way]

PuritanD – As to Of course Paul's libertarian freewill was so strong that he was able to do what he wish and not succomb to the flesh, right? (Romans 7) It is another find example of the power of the libertarian freewill at work What are you talking about? Paul established that he did not do what He wanted to do, he did succumb to the flesh. Paul had the freedom of will to do according to his free will. Two laws were at work in him, one to do good, and one to do evil, it was up to him and no one else what he would do.

[PuritanD]

Today @ 12:56 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42247#post42247)
1Way:

As to What are you talking about? Paul established that he did not do what He wanted to do, he did succumb to the flesh. Paul had the freedom of will to do according to his free will. Two laws were at work in him, one to do good, and one to do evil, it was up to him and no one else what he would do.

So if his succumbing was what he had decided freely, then why was he complaining?

[geebob]

I did read your definition but it still does not answer my question. If we have LFW then our sin nature could not cause us to sin, yet it is due to this sinful nature that man rejects God (Rom 3:10-11). Paul also states that no one is righteous which would seem to imply a causul restriction on LFW since no one can choose righteousness by their own power.

then apart from God we don't have lfw with regard to moral decisions. I don't argue otherwise.

but God makes it possible. Thus because God enables us, we have the possibility to obey him. Since that enabling isn't coercion we have the ability to disobey him. That is precisely lfw.

If we have LFW, then what is the purpose of the HS ability to empower us?

We don't have lfw apart from his enabling. his enabling does not coerce nor guarantee our obedience thus we may act or refrain and the libertarian state is established.

I still do not think it explains how we can overcome our own sin nature

neither do I. I don't argue such a position nor am I very interested in it.

I do not think that your definition is the only one out there for free will

It is the one I believe best satisfies the positive reasons given in the lfw thread and it is the one that arises most naturally out of the arguements given for it in that thread.

[PuritanD]

geebob,

Does this mean for you that LFW can only be had by Christians?

If not, then you do have to deal with the sin nature for as Paul points out in Eph 2:1-10, before Christ, we served the prince of the air by adhering to the desires of our flesh (vv. 1-3). This seems to be difficult for LFW to exist.

PuritanD

[1Way]

PuritanD – What are you talking about? You first said to geebob Of course Paul's libertarian freewill was so strong that he was able to do what he wish and not succomb to the flesh, right? (Romans 7) It is another find example of the power of the libertarian freewill at work to which you quoted me and then responded saying. Today @ 12:56 AM
1Way:

What are you talking about? Paul established that he did not do what He wanted to do, he did succumb to the flesh. Paul had the freedom of will to do according to his free will. Two laws were at work in him, one to do good, and one to do evil, it was up to him and no one else what he would do. So if his succumbing was what he had decided freely, then why was he complaining? He is not complaining that someone other than himself was responsible for his actions, he simply wished that the law unto sin would be taken away from himself.

Freedom of will has nothing to do with the nature of our existence as though we could make the laws of life differently if we wanted to. No, freedom of will means that we are free to choose to obey God or not, we are free to do good or not, etc. Freedom of will has no impact on whether or not we have different spiritual truths operating within us at the same time.

PuritanD – I saw your latest remark to geebob. Don’t neglect other scripture, harmonize scripture. Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.
16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 I thank God----through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. This shows that although Paul was saved, he had conflicting laws working within himself. Laws of reality and existence are not part of what comprises a free will. Free will does not mean that I should be able to fly like a bird just because that is according to my will. Same thing with the laws that exist in mankind. Apparently by your train of thought is that a free moral agent is not free to experience what Paul is talking about, you assume that somehow man does not have free will, yet Paul is clear that both laws are at work, and apparently neither always wins over the other, hence his personal will is the determining factor for how he will respond, not anyone or anything else.

[geebob]

Does this mean for you that LFW can only be had by Christians?

No. God makes it possible for all men to respond to Him. Apart from his enabling, that possibility does not exist. And that possibility is just that, a possibility and not a certainty.

If not, then you do have to deal with the sin nature for as Paul points out in Eph 2:1-10, before Christ, we served the prince of the air by adhering to the desires of our flesh (vv. 1-3). This seems to be difficult for LFW to exist.

before christ we serve the prince of the air. But God makes it possible for us to respond to him so that we may be released from that bondage. If we do not respond to the opportunities that are provided, we continue in bondage.

[1Way]

PD and geebob - A moral agent either has a free will, or he doesn't, this libertarian free will (LFW) stuff is a bit redundant and I think not helpful. So why are you two acting like it makes a difference?

[bar Jonah]

Well now! Someone threw a party in my name, and I never got the invitation. :brow: LOL If I'd known, I would have stopped by sooner.

I only jokingly call myself a 1-point Calvie. I do believe in OSAS, but not technically the Calvinist version, which is Perseverance of the Saints. Calvies believe a person is OSAS because said person is predestined to continue to be saved. I believe in OSAS for entirely different reasons than a Calvie does, because I believe it is not an issue of free will to begin with. I will get into that if someone wishes.

And yes, I don't believe in OSAS for all believers in all times. It is for the current dispensation. I believe it is clear that believers in other dispensations prior to this one had to persevere in their faith by expressing it through works, as described in the teachings of Jesus and the Twelve (Peter, James, John...)

As someone else noted, I do also obviously hold to the depravity of man, but not the total depravity. No, without God's help, we CANNOT choose Him. But His involvement only gives us the possibility of accepting Him, not the certainty. Hence the common use of the word "IF" when referring to a person's choice of accepting God.

[1Way]

RightIdea – Thanks for your response, and sorry for not directly notifying you earlier about this thread. As to (1) Calvies believe a person is OSAS because said person is predestined to continue to be saved. I believe in OSAS for entirely different reasons than a Calvie does, (2) because I believe it is not an issue of free will to begin with. I will get into that if someone wishes. 1 I believe that too, whosoever is saved in this dispensation of Grace is predestined to remain saved. God decided that before we were saved that our salvation is not conditional and is secure, so I don’t get your point.

2 I don’t understand, please explain. I understand that the Calvies also do not think that free will is involved in the Perseverance of the saints, it’s the work of God, so why present your view in contradiction to their view on the issue of “free will” since apparently you believe the same thing?

[geebob]

So why are you two acting like it makes a difference?

It does in terms of clarity. Because people do in fact mean different things when speaking of free will. Is one free because they do what they want to do? that's not enough for me for the purposes that are often discussed with regard to free will.

And I myself am not commited to the notion that all of our actions that might be described as free are indeed libertarian free but I still insist that we make choices that do qualify.

[PuritanD]

geebob,

I would like to know where you find that God provides us with an ability to overcome our own depravity to chose freely prior to coming to Christ, in the Scriptures. It seems that you are pointing towards previent Grace, which does not appear to be found anywhere in Scripture.

Thanks,
PuritanD

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 03:13 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43145#post43145)
1Way:

RightIdea – Thanks for your response, and sorry for not directly notifying you earlier about this thread. As to 1 I believe that too, whosoever is saved in this dispensation of Grace is predestined to remain saved. God decided that before we were saved that our salvation is not conditional and is secure, so I don’t get your point.

2 I don’t understand, please explain. I understand that the Calvies also do not think that free will is involved in the Perseverance of the saints, it’s the work of God, so why present your view in contradiction to their view on the issue of “free will” since apparently you believe the same thing?
I will try to clarify.

1. Ok, you believe in soteriological predestination. I don't. Where is the confusion? Calvinists believe in OSAS because they believe the person is predestined to remain saved. At least typically, an Acts 9 dispy believes in OSAS for entirely different reasons. (And there are a few who don't believe in OSAS because they apply the free will issue to the OSAS issue.)

2. You're missing my point. Calvinists believe there is an absence of free will, and this absence is the reason a person cannot lose their salvation. Their lack of free will is a result of their predestination. However, a typical X9 dispy believes free will has nothing to do with it, for or against. You see, if you're standing in front of a tree and you have normal vision, and you see the tree... you cannot choose via free will to believe the tree is not there. If you are saved, the Holy Spirit lives in you and is a constant and undeniable presence within you. He guides you and interacts with you in your daily life. The only way a person can reject such a thing is for a person to be delusional. And God will not hold a delusional person responsible for such a decision ... they aren't responsible for their own actions or thoughts. Just as with the tree. The only way you could believe the tree is not there is for you to be delusional. It's not a matter of having free will or not having it. Free will has nothing to do with it.

Does that help?

Also, another interesting correlary to this is the observation of Paul's use of the metaphor of adoption to describe the Body of Christ. You see, Paul knew he was writing to a primarily Greek audience. And he wanted to communicate to them in terms they understood. In Greek law, a person's child/offspring could be disowned. Such a son could lose his inheritance.

But guess what? If a son was adopted, Greek law said that son could not be disowned. Could not lose his inheritance. Paul uses the metaphor of adoption into the promise of Abraham, knowing this full well. And this exactly fits in with those saved under the apostolic church being able to lose their salvation, while members of the Body of Christ cannot because we are adopted.

Just another interesting parallel.

[1Way]

All - HELP - I can’t post a new post until someone else posts after my last one. If I try to post another post after my last one, then it just appends that post onto my last post, which is rather bothersome.

geebob – I (still) don’t understand what difference there is between LFW and FW, and if I don’t, then I’m quite sure that most other regular folk don’t either. If you know what the difference is, then please enlighten all of us so that everyone may benefit better from this otherwise exclusivist discussion. I use philosophical terms all the time, but I am careful to not use terms that I am not really familiar with. And many times folks hide behind sophisticated or exotic exclusivist terms to put on the appearance of being an upper class authority. I’ve been exposed to this term before, but I guess I have not incorporated it into my common vocabulary. Please explain the term and who it is different from free will.

PD – This is in response your question to geebob, although I trust he will do well in his own response. What about the good Samaritan and especially Matt 7:9 where God says that we should even more so expect God to give us good things just as evil men know how to give good things to his children. Unsaved people are evil too, so they qualify as those capable (in God’s sight) of doing good. Here’s a good one, the effectual call of the gospel message unto salvation! That sincere offer and call necessarily demands that unsaved man can respond right.

Grace? You throw out an alternative definition of grace to suggest that is what geebob is suggesting? How about no, it’s about free will such that unsaved man has the right and obligation to respond to the call of the gospel unto salvation.

RightIdea – As to I will try to clarify.

1. Ok, you believe in soteriological predestination. I don't. Where is the confusion? Calvinists believe in OSAS because they believe the person is predestined to remain saved. At least typically, an Acts 9 dispy believes in OSAS for entirely different reasons. (And there are a few who don't believe in OSAS because they apply the free will issue to the OSAS issue.) The confusion is that I don’t understand what your position is because you have not explained it yet, except to say that you don’t believe in a soteriological predestination and that I do. I have already responded to what you had previously said so that you know what I believe. And frankly, I don’t know what you mean by a soteriological predestination. So please explain about all these things.

As to (a) 2. You're missing my point. (b) Calvinists believe there is an absence of free will, and this absence is the reason a person cannot lose their salvation. Their lack of free will is a result of their predestination. (c) However, a typical X9 dispy believes free will has nothing to do with it, for or against. You see, if you're standing in front of a tree and you have normal vision, ... a - Thanks for telling me what I have been telling you.

b - I’ve never heard that explanation, do you have any sources to back that up. My understanding is that the reason why they believe in OSAS is found in TULIP and God’s immutability. Irresistible grace, perseverance, these are the primary reasons why the reformed think that they can not lose there salvation.

c - I agree that God is Lord of salvation, but disagree that the Calvinists think otherwise.

Here is what was said, please respond expounding what you believe. RightIdea – Thanks for your response, and sorry for not directly notifying you earlier about this thread. As to (1) Calvies believe a person is OSAS because said person is predestined to continue to be saved. I believe in OSAS for entirely different reasons than a Calvie does, (2) because I believe it is not an issue of free will to begin with. I will get into that if someone wishes. 1 I believe that too, whosoever is saved in this dispensation of Grace is predestined to remain saved. God decided that before we were saved that our salvation is not conditional and is secure, so I don’t get your point.

2 I don’t understand, please explain. I understand that the Calvies also do not think that free will is involved in the Perseverance of the saints, it’s the work of God, so why present your view in contradiction to their view on the issue of “free will” since apparently you believe the same thing? Thanks.

[geebob]

1way

I (still) don’t understand what difference there is between LFW and FW, and if I don’t, then I’m quite sure that most other regular folk don’t either.

There may not be a difference, but people define free will in different ways thus it is more clear to speak of libertarian free will.

The other thing is that I am not opposed to notions of free will that are even compatible with determinism. I make decisions all the time that looking back on them, I'd say that it may not be the case that I would have or could have choosen otherwise. But this doesn't always describe my actions and it is insufficient in and of itself when dealing with moral responsibility and a world in which some are ****ed though all have a truly accesible possibility for salvation , thus I speak of libertarian free will as well.

As for a difference between libertarian free will and free will, a free will action that is not also a libertarian free action is an action that is performed in accordance to our strongest desire, inclination, or most compelling reason and this comes from within our imeadiate mental state regardless of outside influences in the distant past. (now I wouldn't necessarily stick to that last part unyeildingly). With regard to a libertarian action, no reason, inclination, or desire is so strong that it absolutely cancels out the other options even though there may in fact be a most compelling inclination. It just doesn't necessarily have to be what I choose. With lfw there are 2 primary qualifications. One is that there must be no prior antecedent condition (such as a truth condition, which foreknowledge qualifies as) or cause that guarantees the outcome and secondly, there must be as I hinted at, several truly accessible possibilities and not just one.

An example of a choice that is not libertarian free though i'd consider it free would be for me a choice between banana cream pie and chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream if I am under a state of mind that is not prone to trying something different. In general, I can't stand banana's in any form other than the banana.

I’m quite sure that most other regular folk don’t either.

then I'll just have to bring them up to my level. If they can't come, that's okay, but there is a depth that can and ought to be explored regardless of whether everyone can follow along or not.



Puritan
I would like to know where you find that God provides us with an ability to overcome our own depravity to chose freely prior to coming to Christ, in the Scriptures.

Also, the passage in John 12 which jaltus discusses in the link below show that God has made it possible for all men.
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1582

1way
Matt 7:9 where God says that we should even more so expect God to give us good things just as evil men know how to give good things to his children.

that's a good point, I never thought of that one.

[1Way]

geebob – I like your posts, I’m glad your open view, I grant that you probably think you understand what you are talking about, , , , , BUT, , , , , although I am generally considered to be fairly sharp, I have practically no idea what you are getting at with the libertarian free will verses free will thing. Please try again explaining the difference between the two free wills in a more “understandable” way. Perhaps a pair of examples demonstrating and contrasting each concept would prove more helpful. I hope this challenge of using simple, common and easily understandable concepts isn’t too difficult of a task.

Your very welcome about the evil father (saved or not) knowing to do good as being an example of God doing good. Evil man does good, hence, end of question about man being able to overcome puritan’s supposed total depravity doubt. If man was totally depraved, then he could do NOTHING good in God’s eyes, yet God said that evil men doing good is analogous to God doing good, so obviously man’s depravity is not total since God teaches that evil men know how to do good. Many blessings.

[geebob]

I like your posts, I’m glad your open view, I grant that you probably think you understand what you are talking about, , , , , BUT, , , , , although I am generally considered to be fairly sharp, I have practically no idea what you are getting at with the libertarian free will verses free will thing.

for clarity's sake, I really wouldn't contrast freedom with libertarian freedom. libertarian free will is of course free will. So what if it is not libertarian free but still free? One possibility is that it is compatibilitistically free.

So here's two examples. accepting the grace of God is of course a libertarian free action. Why? because it is truly possible for you to accept and truly possible for you to reject God's grace.

So what is a compatibilistic choice like? I've already given the exaple of a choice for me between banana cream pie and chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream. In general when offered that choice, it is a guarantee that I will take the chocolate cookie dough. It is part of my character to choose that way and without special circumstances, the chance that I will choose the banana cream pie instead is zero percent. That just isn't a libertarian free choice because in a libertarian free choice, all the relevent choices are ones that we actually may choose. If there was a libertarian free choice between my choosing of the banana cream pie and the cocolate chip cookiedough, then the chance that I would choose the banana cream pie is higher than 0 but it is not 100 percent. If for example my Grandma came and made the banana cream pie and voiced some disappointment that no one was eating it, then I might go through a process of deliberation whereby It would be likely that I may eat it. but apart from that happening, my character and personal taste would dictate that I would not eat it.

another example of a compatible choice would be if you walked into the butchers shop and asked for him to sell you a slab of meat on display, under normal circumstances, it is not an accessable possibility for him to refuse to sell you when his very purpose there is to sell meat. Perhaps if we adjusted the circumstances a little, suppose he was a racist and you were of an ethnic background that he despised, there may be a chance that he would refuse to sell you the meat and a chance not to do so. If he there was a 100 percent chance that he would refuse to sell you the meat, then the choice at that moment was not libertarian free.

Of course you agree with me that libertarianism is necessary for moral responsibility, so in such a case like that where there is a 100 percent chance that he would refuse, I'd say that he already made his libertarian decisions with regard to the racism and now his heart has been hardened. Either that, or he is not personal responsible until he is confronted with the evil situation that he is playing a part in thus giving him a libertarian moment where he may break away from his custom of bigotry.

hope that helps.

[1Way]

geebob - I can see now that I will have to be more forceful in presenting my need to understand these ideas using common language and examples. Unfortunately for the time being, I just don't have the time for it right now, although I do print out such things and read them during rare moments of freetime.

If you wish to try again, please keep the following in mind.

Imagine that: I don't know what you know,
that I don't know words that are not common to everyday life,
that I am not well read in theology,
and that I really want to understand the difference between these two “different” sorts of free will.

I hope you don’t fault me for not catching on, but I really don’t understand what you are getting at. So far, I see you first using a term that I am not familiar with, and then when I ask for assistance in understanding that term, you use more scholarly (exclusionary) terms and loaded concepts, such that I am no better off understanding what is going on. Perhaps restating the question will help.

What does libertarian free will mean, as apposed to just regular free will?

Give examples of each if that would be helpful.

Thanks.

[yxboom]

1Way,

You have X (freewill) and Y (libertarian freewill).

Say Jim has X. He is goes to a Baskin-Robbins for ice cream. Jim LOVES plain Vanilla ice cream. So Jim goes to Baskin-Robbins and he has a total of 31 ice cream flavors he can choose from. Jim LOVES plain Vanilla ice cream and can taste the Vanilla ice cream in his mouth before he walks up to the counter. When asked at the counter what flavor of cream does he want. Jim will inherently choose Vanilla. The other 30 flavors are still available so he is "free" to choose any 1 of 30 flavors. But Jim chooses Vanilla. Jim has done X.

Now Jim has Y. Jim goes to Baskin-Robbins. He has 31 flavors to choose from. Jim has never eaten ice cream before. He is excited about what awaits. There is no conditioning in Jim's choice over to choose Vanilla or Chocolate or any one of the 31 flavors. The pull to chocolate is just as strong as the pull to Vanilla. Jim must decide and make a choice out of the 31 flavors apart from any conditioning or predisposition of wanting one flavor over another. He decides that he will have Vanilla. Jim has done Y, he has excerised X with a Y essence in that there was no real preceeding determining factors that drove him to Vanilla.

Jim was free to choose any 1 of 31 flavors in both instances. So he was for all intents and purposes free in his choosing. Jim could freely choose to eat Vanilla in both instances but in only one instance (Y) their was no predetermining factors over his decision to have Vanilla.

[PuritanD]

[i]Today @ 12:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50014#post50014)

Now Jim has Y. Jim goes to Baskin-Robbins. He has 31 flavors to choose from. Jim has never eaten ice cream before. He is excited about what awaits. There is no conditioning in Jim's choice over to choose Vanilla or Chocolate or any one of the 31 flavors. The pull to chocolate is just as strong as the pull to Vanilla. Jim must decide and make a choice out of the 31 flavors apart from any conditioning or predisposition of wanting one flavor over another. He decides that he will have Vanilla. Jim has done Y, he has excerised X with a Y essence in that there was no real preceeding determining factors that drove him to Vanilla.

Jim was free to choose any 1 of 31 flavors in both instances. So he was for all intents and purposes free in his choosing. Jim could freely choose to eat Vanilla in both instances but in only one instance (Y) their was no predetermining factors over his decision to have Vanilla.

Unfortunately, "Y" could never happen in the real world since something actually made Jim choose Vanilla. Maybe he liked the color better, or the way it was scooped or any number of other predeterming factors that affected his life before seeing ice cream. If in the supposed "y" case, someone was to ask Jim what made him decide for vanilla, he could give one of the above as a reason. If all pulls are equal, then Jim would never be able to make a decision, but be stuck.

It is an interesting theory but it is only that... a theory.

[geebob]

1way, I don't know if I can make it clearer and all complicated terms I could've sworn that I defined. you'll just have to interact with what I wrote and tell me whats confusing if I'm to make it any clearer.

yx, that's pretty good but I'd like to point out one thing. You mention that in the libertarian choice, the pull for several different types of flavor's are the same. This very well may make for a libertarian choice, but I don't want to give the impression that only when all choices are equal do we have a libertarian choice. When the pull that we have for different choices are at a varience, I believe that the effect that it has in general is in terms of what you will most likely choose.

But of course I admit that the influence may be so strong as to eliminate other choices as truly possible and in such a case, i'd be willing to call it a compatibilistic choice or a self determining choice that is not libertarian free. (the difference between a compatible choice and a self determining choice that is not libertarian free is that a compatible choice may be the gauranteed result of genetics or nurture in our past which we have no control over and a self determining choice that is not libertarian free is one that is gauranteed in light of libertarian choices that we've made in the past that contribute to the hardening or softening of the heart-we cannot be held morally responsible for compatible choices but we can for self determining choices that are not libertarian choices).

puritan

If in the supposed "y" case, someone was to ask Jim what made him decide for vanilla, he could give one of the above as a reason.

even if the choice was libertarian, he could still say that for a reason he was made to do it, so long as what the real case is that he made his choice for that reason but still could have choosen differently for other reasons. Also, I personally make choices where I could answer a question of what made me choose a certain way, but I would reject the meaning you place in the word "made" and I would insist that nothing made me choose one way though I went with the reasons of the choice that I did though I still could have done otherwise.

perhaps he may think that he couldn't have choosen otherwise in the case that he made the choice, but it still may be the case that he could have choosen otherwise since we don't always interpret our motives and desires accurately. I know people are like this as I work with mentally handicapped individuals who are not good at identifying their emotions and motives and we try to get them to recognize these things. I am sure that this can very often be the case even for those with normal mental capacities.

It is an interesting theory but it is only that... a theory.

well the posts I've placed in this thread and yx's post are not real attempts to show that it is in fact the case. But I believe the view stands on solid ground as I've argued for it in this thread
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=22389#post22389

[yxboom]

Puritan D,

2 Things.

1. Goes to show me to attempt at a analogous definition at a philisophical term. No analogy is bulletproof and by no means is it all encompassing of all possible uses and variables.

2. I disagree that he would be "stuck". Many drop-of-a-dime decisions are made without any preconditioning and a choice is made. Situations dictate decisions and having preconditioning will sway a decision but a true libertarian free choice must be truly possible for option A or -A.

Geebob

I had considered whether the analogy would muddy the waters but as to draw a stark contrast I had chosen that route. I agree that should Jim have a more inclination to the color white it would be LFW, but I think for the purpose in over simplifying it I refrained from approaching all the different angles and apparently in so doing I had hoped 1Way would get a better concept but than again I may have made matters worst.

All,

Carry on!

[1Way]

Y – Thanks for the assistance.

All – So the difference between LFW and FW has to do with preconditions and preferences and that some especially strong preferences can eliminate certain options.

To me, all that is confounding two separate issues. You either have free will, or you don’t, and, you either have a clear predisposition or preference, or you don’t, preferences and freedom of will are two separate issues.

So, why mix levels of influence which is a gradient issue from zero to 100% with a digital issue of free will which is either yes or no?

And what of this compatabalistic stuff?

Thanks.

Geebob – time is too short for normal proper responses, please continue as best as possible, thanks.

[geebob]

All – So the difference between LFW and FW

one more time, I'd like to point out that lfw is a subset of free will. I'd have to think really hard to define free will so that it covers all versions of free will that I think exist.

You either have free will, or you don’t, and, you either have a clear predisposition or preference, or you don’t, preferences and freedom of will are two separate issues.

If the issue of having more than one truly accesable possibilities open for us to choose is relevent to free will (and it is essential to the open view) and a predisposition can potentially cancel out all of those possibilities but one, it is extremely relevent. It negates free will unless we are willing to have a more complex view of free will.

So, why mix levels of influence which is a gradient issue from zero to 100% with a digital issue of free will which is either yes or no?

Many people would call a choice that we make that was 100 percent certain a free choice. I think this is intuitive but it's not the full picture. And when such a choice is made, it does not reflect free will as you recognize it where a yes or no is possible. So what do you do with the example I've given you where I'd certainly choose chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream over banana cream pie. I'm not willing to say that that isn't free though the chance I'd choose it is 100 percent.

[Blake Reas]

Geebob said:
alot of OV'ers place a high value on the tradition and seek to show that the open view resonates with the tradition in many areas.

Hey while your at it don't forget good old Faustus Socinius and his relative.:huh:

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[geebob]

Hey while your at it don't forget good old Faustus Socinius and his relative.

I imagine that he in fact has some major conflict with the tradition (I'm not familier with his heresy), and as such would have no bearing on the open view. If he held to an open future, well that simply isn't a major conflict in the tradition as no universally recognized creeds or council excludes it.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 03:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geebob:

I imagine that he in fact has some major conflict with the tradition (I'm not familier with his heresy), and as such would have no bearing on the open view. If he held to an open future, well that simply isn't a major conflict in the tradition as no universally recognized creeds or council excludes it.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't their denial of foreknowledge what led to their heresey? I am probably wrong but I think I heard that from someone I was discussing it with. I do not think that you are a heretic though, because Socinus was just to let you know.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake
:yipee:

[geebob]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't their denial of foreknowledge what led to their heresey?

I don't know see how that could be but I imagine that their method led to their heresy as well as a denial of foreknowledge. That method had to do with a rejection of mystery and emphasis on reason and scripture. You could find some consonence there with the open view in the rejection of contradictions, but then again you could find that in a lot of classical theologians as any theologian who asserted an answer to the question of foreknowledge of free will, including Aquinas and Augustine, rejects resorting to mystery. Realy, the open theist's adherence to reason could be more directly connected to the Weslyan quadrilateral, which Pinnock, Sanders and Hasker have all claimed in some form or another.

according to this site though,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm
the acceptance of simplicity, which was a standard in classical theism, was instrumental in the rejection of the trinity. Take note here that for rationality's sake, the open theist would reject simplicity in favor of the more sacred view of the trinity, so for that purpose, it is a distinctive of classical theism which is more responsible for the socinian heresy. The same is also claimed of the arians who saw a contradiction between the incarnation and some aspect or another of the classical conception of God, (I believe immutability was the specific reason).

I would like to admit that the link above pretty much provides most of my knowledge of socinianism.

I do not think that you are a heretic though, because Socinus was just to let you know.

Ah, bless your heart.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geebob:

I don't know see how that could be but I imagine that their method led to their heresy as well as a denial of foreknowledge. That method had to do with a rejection of mystery and emphasis on reason and scripture. You could find some consonence there with the open view in the rejection of contradictions, but then again you could find that in a lot of classical theologians as any theologian who asserted an answer to the question of foreknowledge of free will, including Aquinas and Augustine, rejects resorting to mystery. Realy, the open theist's adherence to reason could be more directly connected to the Weslyan quadrilateral, which Pinnock, Sanders and Hasker have all claimed in some form or another.

according to this site though,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm
the acceptance of simplicity, which was a standard in classical theism, was instrumental in the rejection of the trinity. Take note here that for rationality's sake, the open theist would reject simplicity in favor of the more sacred view of the trinity, so for that purpose, it is a distinctive of classical theism which is more responsible for the socinian heresy. The same is also claimed of the arians who saw a contradiction between the incarnation and some aspect or another of the classical conception of God, (I believe immutability was the specific reason).

I would like to admit that the link above pretty much provides most of my knowledge of socinianism.



Ah, bless your heart.


Thanks for the info.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[1Way]

Geebob – As to If the issue of having more than one truly accesable possibilities open for us to choose is relevent to free will (and it is essential to the open view) and a predisposition can potentially cancel out all of those possibilities but one, it is extremely relevent. It negates free will unless we are willing to have a more complex view of free will. I disagree. By definition, a freewill choice (i.e. between more than one real option) that is so disposed (influence or preference are fully free will operators) as to effectively cancel out all other possibilities, there, that last part is logically inconsistent as I point out in the parentheticals. You are walking down a train of thought, and first you establish free will choice in order to demonstrate that you have none. So that argument seems to defeat itself rather brutally. If you were to remain consistent, the person never had any free will to start with, or he had free will the entire way through, but to suggest that a person’s free will can be so free that it was not free at all, makes no sense and is immediately contradictory.

As to Many people would call a choice that we make that was 100 percent certain a free choice. I think this is intuitive but it's not the full picture. And when such a choice is made, it does not reflect free will as you recognize it where a yes or no is possible. So what do you do with the example I've given you where I'd certainly choose chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream over banana cream pie. I'm not willing to say that that isn't free though the chance I'd choose it is 100 percent. I would like to split up the issue into it’s separate considerations. One is freedom of will or not, the other concerns varying degrees of influence upon one’s free will. The issue of FW is digital, either you have it or you don’t. The issue of influence upon a free will is an analogue issue of variance along a continuum. That is what I meant by FW being either yes or no, it answers the question, do you have free will or not.

In your example, you are a free will moral agent who really does have options from which to choose from. Your personal opinion to effective disallow all other options is dubious. Here’s an argument to highlight it’s weakness. Suppose that another option was considered? This one is called ttbt-cccd:

ten times better tasting - chocolate chip cookie dough

So you have your old favorite option, and you have this new improved option. If you remain consistent, you should be tempted if not fully willing to try this new option. I could probably provide several other examples where you should reasonably and freely try another flavor of ice cream.

As to the issue of influence which effects our preferences, that is a completely separate issue and can not alter whether a moral agent has free will or not. It’s like saying that there is more than one kind of existence, and deny that things either exist or they don’t. There are things that exist that are physical and there are things that exist that are not physical, hence there are more than one kind of existence. That is simply wrong. In both cases, each kind of “thing” truly exists. Sure some things have physical properties and other things are conceptual and not physical, but these tangent issues have nothing to do with whether they exist or not.

A person may believe something is perfectly settled in their mind, they may claim that they are 100% certain that they would never choose any other choice, but, the bible says that man is unstable in his ways and that in this life, ultimately the issues of absolute certain knowledge will not happen until the next stage of our lives. So can any man (this side of eternity) truly say that he has absolute knowledge? More importantly, can any man say that his preference is so absolutely perfect that there is no possible way he would ever choose otherwise, begs the question of what it means to be human and subject to so much fallibility. It seems to me that only God can be absolutely certain about His own preferences and choices. And again, even if we could determine that man can be perfectly stable in absolutely discounting all other choices on some issue, that would not do away with the logical contradiction of first establishing a free will choice in order to demonstrate that the same choice was somehow absolutely not free.

So I hope you see that freedom of will is one issue, and the effects of influence is another separate (although connected) issue. If you disagree, please explain how and why.

[1Way]

YXboom - Any thoughts or comments? :hrm:

[geebob]

By definition, a freewill choice (i.e. between more than one real option) that is so disposed (influence or preference are fully free will operators) as to effectively cancel out all other possibilities, there, that last part is logically inconsistent as I point out in the parentheticals.[quote]

I don't have a definition of free will like that. I have a definition of libertarian free will, which resembles the first part of that definition and I have a definition of compatibilistic free will which resembles the last part. I don't mix them, except with self determining free will which is where your reasoning and desires that determine the current choice was determined by previous libertarian free choices.

[quote]You are walking down a train of thought, and first you establish free will choice in order to demonstrate that you have none.

I would never argue such a strange thing. I may argue that a libertarian free choice is not a compatibilistic one and vice versa, but that's not what you just described. When you are free in the libertarian sense, you are not free in the compatibilistic sense and vice versa.

That is what I meant by FW being either yes or no, it answers the question, do you have free will or not.

okay, either you have free will meaning you make a choice amongst several viable options or meaning you because although the other choices aren't viable, the choice you choose is what you want most and would not want the other options at all, or you don't have free will in either of those senses because you are forced to choose only one thing and you do not want to make that choice at all. That's fine with me.

In your example, you are a free will moral agent who really does have options from which to choose from.

morality did not play a part in that choice as I am not on weight watchers. My status as a moral agent is only relevent to moral choices.

So you have your old favorite option, and you have this new improved option. If you remain consistent, you should be tempted if not fully willing to try this new option. I could probably provide several other examples where you should reasonably and freely try another flavor of ice cream.

In your example, I'd say that i have libertarian free will. I believe in libertarian free will. That doesn't take away from the fact that I don't have libertarian free will with regard to the choice of banana cream pie versus chocolate chip cookie dough.

A person may believe something is perfectly settled in their mind, they may claim that they are 100% certain that they would never choose any other choice, but, the bible says that man is unstable in his ways and that in this life

I am not 100 percent certain that I every time I make a choice between banana cream pie and chocolate chip cookie dough, but if I am not deliberating over free will and I don't have grandma pushing banana cream pie on me because she made it, If I am just coasting through life and my tastes are exactly as they are right at this very moment, detesting banana's in all forms but the banana and loving chocolate chip cookie dough, then I dare say that I am a hundred percent certain that I will take the ice cream.

If the bible says what you think it does, then I'd say it was hyperbole. We aren't walking buckets of pure chaos.

It seems to me that only God can be absolutely certain about His own preferences and choices.

God knowing my tastes perfectly can know if the chance is 100 percent or not. And of course as our choices do not all fit this mold, we have the open view.

[1Way]

Geebob – 1of2 - As to I don't have a definition of free will like that. I have a definition of libertarian free will, which resembles the first part of that definition and I have a definition of compatibilistic free will which resembles the last part. I don't mix them, except with self determining free will which is where your reasoning and desires that determine the current choice was determined by previous libertarian free choices. Either you have free will, or you don’t. Free will is one logically discrete issue that I have been painstakingly trying to keep separate so as to allow our thoughts to become clear to each other. Please stop mixing up so many distinct issues at least long enough to deal with each separate issue one at a time.

If you are FREE to make a real choice according to YOUR OWN WILL, then by definition, you have a “free will”. That issue is not up for debate, it’s an either or situation. If you disagree, then please explain why.

You apparently want to confound the simple truth with so many complex formulations, but foundational issues matter, so please take one discrete step at a time. I don’t even trust myself with more complex issues if I can not demonstrate a mature competent logical understanding of simple more foundational matters, let alone you. So please stop regressing into the netherlands of complex pedantics long enough to demonstrate that you really understand the basics first.

Once again, here is what you said. If the issue of having more than one truly accesable possibilities open for us to choose is relevent to free will (and it is essential to the open view) and a predisposition can potentially cancel out all of those possibilities but one, it is extremely relevent. It negates free will unless we are willing to have a more complex view of free will. Put more simply,

A free will choice that has a strong predisposition can (potentially) cancel out all other possibilities, that would negate free will.

Put even more simply.

A free will choice can (potentially) negate it’s own free will.

That proposition is contradictory, just like the following. Can God make himself to have never existed? By definition, the first part establishes one’s existence; the second part tries to suggest that the same being could become something that had never existed. Can yes mean no, can good mean bad, can right mean wrong, can black mean white, and so on and so forth. So that question is based in a contradiction in terms. Same thing with your question.

Here’s my suggestion. No more words like compatabalistic and libertarian free will, UNTIL we get passed the more basic issue of what free will is. On that point, you quoted me saying. That is what I meant by FW being either yes or no, it answers the question, do you have free will or not. and then you said. okay, either you have free will meaning (1) you make a choice amongst several viable options or (2) meaning you because although the other choices aren't viable, the choice you choose is what you want most and would not want the other options at all, (3) or you don't have free will in either of those senses because you are forced to choose only one thing and you do not want to make that choice at all. That's fine with me. (1) That is (somewhat) insufficient because “viable choices” are not the central issue as to what constitutes a freewill, freedom of one’s will to choose according to one’s own will and not another’s will, is what makes one’s will free. A puppet chooses among three viable options, but his will is only pretend and is utterly dominated by another will, the controller of the puppet.

(2) Your example is difficult to understand even though you are using common language. Please explain the point you are almost making.

(3) When faced with a decision that you are not willing to make, you always have the option of not making the decision, which is a decision to not decide among the offered choices, so that is another example of a free will choice and does not do away with a free will choice like (I think) you suggested. Again, your description is hard to understand, I can’t tell if you mean that 3 is for or against free will, just that it is not free will according to the first two examples. Please be more careful to explain what you mean while at the same time, assuming that your audience is basically ignorant of what you understand. You assume way too much.

Not having freedom of will, is like being a puppet, where your will is fully controlled by another will. Such a situation completely eliminates free will completely.

continued next post.

[1Way]

Geebob – 2of2 - As to In your example, I'd say that i have libertarian free will. I believe in libertarian free will. That doesn't take away from the fact that I don't have libertarian free will with regard to the choice of banana cream pie versus chocolate chip cookie dough. :doh: You keep bending away from the original concepts involved. STOP sliding all over the place! Remain consistent on one point until that point is played out. I was using your example, you asked me to respond to it, so I did, now you are moving on as though what I said makes no consequence. Your example was supposed to demonstrate something about free will, and why you like to use the term libertarian or combatabalistic etc. etc. etc. I was trying to demonstrate the weakness in your logic by destroying one of your assumptions, AND YOU FULLY NEGLECTED MY POINT.

Your example was that you would never choose another flavor; my point was that you might and in fact, you very likely would choose another flavor as I demonstrated! So I blew apart your argument from it’s foundation, please deal with it.

As to I am not 100 percent certain that I every time I make a choice between banana cream pie and chocolate chip cookie dough, but if I am not deliberating over free will and I don't have grandma pushing banana cream pie on me because she made it, If I am just coasting through life and my tastes are exactly as they are right at this very moment, detesting banana's in all forms but the banana and loving chocolate chip cookie dough, then I dare say that I am a hundred percent certain that I will take the ice cream.

If the bible says what you think it does, then I'd say it was hyperbole. We aren't walking buckets of pure chaos. The bible is true and united in it’s entirety. The bible teaches that man is not absolutely certain, especially before the next life, but God alone is certainly trustworthy. This tells us that we should be humble enough to admit that if we there was a list of direct contradictions, man’s list would be nearly endless, and God’s list would be zilch.

Forgive me for taking your example in a different direction. I thought at one time we considered many choices of the same kind, like Baskin Robbins 31 flavor for example. You suggest that you would always choose cccd, and I suggest that you might not always do that as I have already demonstrated, so please respond accordingly.

As to God knowing my tastes perfectly can know if the chance is 100 percent or not. And of course as our choices do not all fit this mold, we have the open view. ? What ? We have the open view because God is not (classically) immutable, He changes and one of the largest theological ramifications of that biblical truth is that the future is not closed to options and contingency.

[1Way]

All – I have the feeling that I am not getting far with geebob although I am sincerely looking for straight answers to simplified questions and thinking.

Is there any among you who would take up the discussion and explain why libertarian free will is not an unnecessary redundancy, also why we should use terms like “compatabalistic” free will? Also, is there something wrong or insufficient with the terms “free will” and separating that issue from others like variance of “influence”? If so, what is wrong or insufficient with that concept?

***Warning*** Please start with simple discrete ideas. Do not proceed to subsequent/resultant ideas until the foundational preliminary issues have been covered by obvious mutual consent.

How can one argue against, either you have a free will, or you don’t? And after determining if you have a free will or not, isn’t it a subsequent/secondary issue about how factors “influence” free will decisions. And can anyone argue that the issue of “influence” is not one of variance along a continuum? Which makes the concepts of “influence” and “free will” into two very different kinds of issues, they are apples and oranges.

I suggest that the main reason a person would like to muddy the waters about what free will is all about by creating several nearly like terms (libertarian and compatabilistic), is because for some reason, they dislike the logical clarity that the concept “free will” naturally holds. No one has stated what group originated these terms and why. My best guess is that it would be outside of the camp that is most happy with the concept “free will”. Those most unhappy with “free will” are obviously the Reformed Calvinistic types who usually oppose the prevailing concept of man’s free will. Also, perhaps coincidentally, they have a long history of using verbose scholarly terms and exclusivist language in order to spare the concept from the harsh scrutiny of the masses that simplistic straightforward explanations would more easily afford.

Conversely, Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and that life. Believe in me and head my voice. It is the truth that sets us free, and I came to give you life, etc. etc. etc. God is not confusing, God predominantly uses stories of every day life and terms that everyone can understand on their face value to teach the most important issues of life. Since obviously the simpler more basic issues are naturally easier for people to understand and communicate, if you can’t easily demonstrate a simplistic understanding of the foundational issues that you propose to be educated or somewhat advanced in, then you are obviously .

Thanks for your time.

[1Way]

geebob ?


All ?

[geebob]

sorry 1way, but I can't say that I have the explanation you want. You would like a simple view of free will. I just don't think that a simple view is going to have the richness necessary to explain what we see in the world and in the Bible. You also have commitments that I don't see warrent in, particularly the view inclinations/reasons/desires never result in a gaurantee in terms of what one will choose.

[1Way]

Geebob – As to sorry 1way, but I can't say that I have the explanation you want. You would like a simple view of free will. I just don't think that a simple view is going to have the richness necessary to explain what we see in the world and in the Bible. Not in the least. I am taking a more in depth and clear approach, allowing each discreet kind of issue to be fully explored and without confounding unlike concepts. Please don’t pigeon hole me as presenting a personal problem, the grace “should” be more than sufficient to gain the understanding as to “why to use”, and “how best to understand”, the terms:

Free will (FW)

Libertarian free will (LFW)

Compatabalistic free will. (CFW)

And to see if the use of the latter two concepts are more or less helpful than keeping separate the unlike issues of “free will” and the nature of “influences” on a free will. You also have commitments that I don't see warrent in, particularly the view inclinations/reasons/desires never result in a guarantee in terms of what one will choose. Geebob, the truth of these matters lie outside our personal estimations, however, your statement is not clear to me. Did you mean,

The view that a person’s free will inclination/reasons/desires never results in a guarantee in terms of what one will choose.

If so, what in the world are you talking about!?!? I never said that there is a guarantee in terms of “what one will choose” or not, just that given free will, “one will choose according to their own free will and not according to someone else’s will”. And I don’t recall either of us bringing up this unspoken “guarantee of what we will choose” into the discussion.

What makes you presume that there apparently must be some guarantee over a particular free will choice?!? That seems totally against what it means to have free will, that includes that future choices are truly contingent and hold some level of uncertainty, that is part of the wonder and joy of human life, that our choices are not guaranteed, instead, they are free.

Again, as I have been pointing out, you seem to be trying to mix the separate and unlike issues of having a free will or not, with influence on a person who has free will. I acknowledge and want to add richness to these issues, only without pretending like they are the same kinds of issues, they are not. The former is a yes or no issue, either you have free will, or you don’t. The latter is an issue of graduation along a continuum, but it necessarily assumes that one has free will, otherwise it is not influence upon one’s will, it would be control of one’s will. Influence is indirect and optional; control is direct and not optional.

Please, once again become responsive to my points and questions and observations on this issue and discussion, and become less concerned with my happiness over your responses. I’m trying to deal with a few concepts and your “constructive” input is still requested. You know that I didn’t write those two recent detailed “at length” posts just to divert away from our discussion. So please, assist away.

Thanks.

[1Way]

All and Geebob – I’d like to highlight a concept that I fleshed out in my last post to geebob. And that is that the issue of free will, and the effects of influence on a free will can be restated as follows.

Free will is an issue of “direct control”, either you personally have freedom of direct control over your will, or you do not have that freedom and control.

However, (external) influences over a free will is NOT an issue “direct control” of a free will, it’s an issue of varying degrees of influence.

- Consider
If anything other than one’s own free will controlled one’s own will, then that will would not be free, it would be at least partially controlled by another, and any control of a will outside of your own control eliminates free will completely, since free will means that you alone have personal control over your own will.

- In summary
So, in a few words, this issue is about the differences between “direct control of a will”, and “influences that has no direct control over a will”. Put in single terms, it’s “control” vrs “influence”, two very different and opposing concepts.

Please relate to these distinctions and see if these unique terms are exclusive to each other even though they both can relate to a person’s will.

Thanks.

[geebob]

I never said that there is a guarantee in terms of “what one will choose” or not, just that given free will

I know. you disagree that there ever is one. I don't see that such a view covers the richness of our experience.

What makes you presume that there apparently must be some guarantee over a particular free will choice?!?

my experience says that some choices that I might make would be guaranteed. I gave you an example. you said your counterexample blow it apart but really it didn't because I believe that we do make choices for which no guarantee exists. My view encompases both.

That seems totally against what it means to have free will,

It is totally against what it means to have libertarian free choice. That's why I wouldn't call such a choice libertarian free. I would call some choices libertarian free, but not ones in which the outcome could be flawlessly predicted with a 100 percent accuracy.

That seems totally against what it means to have free will, that includes that future choices are truly contingent and hold some level of uncertainty, that is part of the wonder and joy of human life, that our choices are not guaranteed, instead, they are free.

excellent. This whole time, I have maintained that we do in fact make such choices. I just don't see the necessity in saying that all of our choices are like this, even all of the choices that could be called free.

Again, as I have been pointing out, you seem to be trying to mix the separate and unlike issues of having a free will or not, with influence on a person who has free will.

you yourself have just admitted that free choices are one's in which there is a degree of uncertainty. If influences can eliminate that uncertainty, then it isn't a couple of unrelated issues but one in which one is highly relevent to the other.

The former is a yes or no issue, either you have free will, or you don’t.

to which I agreed. either you have free will (compatibalistic, libertarian, or self determining) or you don't.

Free will is an issue of “direct control”, either you personally have freedom of direct control over your will, or you do not have that freedom and control.

when I choose between cccd and banana cream pie, I have direct control, yes no? And yet normally, what I will choose is guaranteed. You may deny that it's guaranteed for the reason you gave, but there simply is nothing that I could do to demontrate the truth of this nor you it's falsity. I see my experience as authoritative on this and I can't share my personal experience with you.

two very different and opposing concepts.

even opposites must have similarities in order to be opposites. For example, good and evil must share the common ground that they are both moral categories. hot and cold and pain and pleasure all share the similarity of being sensations. But I don't see that control and influence are opposites. In some contexts, they can be synonomous. Defiance can be the antonym For example, you can influence to a degree where it is said that they are under your control. In this sense, influence is at it's highest degree and here it negates that one has libertarian freedom at the occurance of this influence.

[geebob]

2nd post

1way, I suppose my general definition of free will that would encompass all the various forms of it that I believe exist would be this. One is free with regard to a decision if that decision is funnelled through the will without any determining contraints in the immeadiate temporal context outside of the will.

So when that free decision is compatibilistic, then there is no imeadiate constraint at the moment, but there may be genetic or environmental factors in the past that led to a gaurantee of that decision. Those factors have left a sufficient impression on the will that in the present condition considered, there is a foregone conclusion about what the will will choose.

When it is libertarian, not only is it the case that there are no immeadiate contrants on the will, there are also none at any time in the past. There are no genetic factors or environmental factors that led to a determination.

Now a self determined choice, someting that for simplicities sake I have not said much about though I've hinted at it, is further distinguished from these two. In a self determining choice, like the compatibilistic choice, although there is nothing in the imeadiate context which determines the choice there are circumstances in the past that leave impressions on the will such that the will will be gauranteed in how it chooses. unlike the compatibilistic choice, the person who makes the choice had controll over those circumstances in the distant past. In other words, that person made libertarian free choices in the past and those choices played a determing role in what one chooses now.

[1Way]

Geebob – As to my experience says that some choices that I might make would be guaranteed. I gave you an example. you said your counterexample blow it apart but really it didn't because I believe that we do make choices for which no guarantee exists. My view encompases both. Wrong and right, it was a counter point, but your response just now did not treat it as a counter point, you ignored the counter point and did not respond to my counterpoint. Your belief and my belief about our points effectiveness makes NO difference, so stop the personal estimations and get with it, deal with the argument that my counter point made against your point. Deal with the ten times better cccd deal.

As to It is totally against what it means to have libertarian free choice. That's why I wouldn't call such a choice libertarian free. I would call some choices libertarian free, but not ones in which the outcome could be flawlessly predicted with a 100 percent accuracy. This is where I attacked your view, using the bible no less (I thought you were a Christian man, aren’t you?). Man is unstable in all his ways. It is only fully our entire human experience that although we enjoy a great amount of regularity and predictability, man is fraught with subtle and even gross instability and fickleness. The one thing we can count on for sure, is that you can’t absolutely trust in man, but you can God. I really do get it that you think your view is full and rich and better than mine, but I think that my view is biblical and true. So lets not keep bringing up such subjective personal comments, they should not replace the discussion.

As to excellent. This whole time, I have maintained that we do in fact make such choices. I just don't see the necessity in saying that all of our choices are like this, even all of the choices that could be called free. If you have a free will, then all your choices are by definition free. And I see no reason for you to mix up varying degrees of influence with whether or not a being has a free will or not. Again, I already responded to your line of reasoning. I’ll do it again, if a person ever has any aspect of his will such that it is not free, then it is absolutely not free. Having a free will means that you alone control your will, any violation of that completely eliminates the free will claim.

Hint, if you disagree, instead of just stating that you think your right and I’m wrong, explain WHY so I might understand WHY and perhaps prepare a response accordingly.

As to you yourself have just admitted that free choices are one's in which there is a degree of uncertainty. If influences can eliminate that uncertainty, then it isn't a couple of unrelated issues but one in which one is highly relevent to the other. I hear you oh geebob, I know myself what I have been saying. I simply deny your contradictory statement that a free will choice can at the same time, be not free. Hence, any supposed free will choices that you seem to think are absolutely guaranteed and certain, are simply in my view, very sure, but not absolutely perfectly certain. Like 99.9 % certain, but not absolutely certain, even 99.999999% certain, but not absolutely certain.

As to when I choose between cccd and banana cream pie, I have direct control, yes no? And yet normally, what I will choose is guaranteed. You may deny that it's guaranteed for the reason you gave, but there simply is nothing that I could do to demontrate the truth of this nor you it's falsity. I see my experience as authoritative on this and I can't share my personal experience with you. Your not very consistent, nor very imaginative, nor very optimistic towards our abilities. You can demonstrate the truth of these things, so can I, it’s not up to so much personal opinion and preference, logic has not been lost, unless you refuse to use it. Given my example, you very well would choose the ten times better cccd instead of your supposed guaranteed choice of the plane old cccd, and since that is logically consistent, and even though it denies your view, you should respond to it, instead of simply expressing personal dissatisfaction.

And lastly, you forgot to deal with the contradiction matter, remember that? Where you said that a free will choice, at the same time, and in the same relationship, can be not free.

If you can’t relieve yourself from a self-created contradiction, then I know that I can’t deal with you. Please get thorough consistent and logical relief from “free” is “not free”.

[geebob]

I'm sorry 1way, I don't see that further discussion will be fruitful.

[1Way]

Geebob – You are evidently afraid of dealing with ideas that you claim you both understand and believe. Go figure that one. As everyone can see, I’m only happy to discuss and learn, although the teaching part has been disappointing, still, I wont give up until I have a clear understanding on these issues. I like learning what is true and what is not, the truth is liberating and at the heart of saving faith!

As to further discussion, is happens to be the only possible way towards fruitfulness; and your lack of responsiveness is the problem from fruitfulness. I am sorry to see you run away from a discussion based on your own terms and ideas. If my view was shown to be in error or contradictory, I would be ecstatic at the opportunity at standing corrected and greatly looking forward to standing on firmer ground. But evidently you need not bother with the observation that your example of libertarian free will is self-contradictory. I fully understand why you would not even entertain trying to have that little petty matter cleared up.

When your heart rejoices in the truth, then error exposed is a cool deal = opportunity to learn and grow and stand on the truth more firmly. Yahhhhhoooooo!

Go in peace, be warm and well fed.

[1Way]

Geebob’s contradiction via his example of what libertarian free will is.

Oh, and realize that this is his most significant concept he as left me (all of us) in search for understanding “libertarian free will”. And what has he presented in effort at straightening out this problem? Nothing, he hasn’t even alluded to this issue.

If the issue of having more than one truly accesable possibilities open for us to choose is relevent to free will (and it is essential to the open view) and a predisposition can potentially cancel out all of those possibilities but one, it is extremely relevent. It negates free will unless we are willing to have a more complex view of free will.
Here’s my response.

Put more simply,

A free will choice that has a strong predisposition can (potentially) cancel out all other possibilities, that would negate free will.

Put even more simply.

A free will choice can (potentially) negate it’s own free will.

That proposition is contradictory, just like the following. Can God make himself to have never existed? By definition, the first part establishes one’s existence; the second part tries to suggest that the same existent being could become something that had never existed. Can yes mean no, can good mean bad, can right mean wrong, can black mean white, can free will mean not free will?
Note, the last words amended.

I tend to think that contradictory claims are not true and they should not become part of our faith in God. I honestly can not (hardly) believe geebob said that. And what of that other guy he was discussing this with? Wouldn’t you think that he might be able to straighten this mess out? Wouldn’t someone who deals with these terms be able to explain correctly what they really mean without being contradictory?

[1Way]

Free will is a sufficient and unique term. The level of relative certainty of a free will choice along a continuum is a completely different matter, and if a will is truly free, then it can not possibly, at the same time and relationship, be not free. You don’t have to change the term “free will” in order to deal with varying levels of certainty of a free will choice. You simply grant that there are varying levels of certainty concerning a free will’s choice, and that such things are subjective issues of influence and personal preference, whereas having a free will or not is a matter of having sole control over your own will. They are manifestly two very different kinds of issues.

I’d be glad to discuss whether or not a free will human can be absolutely certain of a choice or not this side of eternity, but I will not beg the question as to whether or not the term “libertarian free will” is a useful term. That is the issue at hand, and I am sorry to see geebob run away from the issue, especially after giving a contradictory argument and being so unresponsive to so many observations and questions and points I’ve offered.

If anyone would like to assist in understanding the benefit and meaning of the term “libertarian free will”, then I encourage you to do so, as I am still interested in learning these things.

[1Way]

I’d be glad to discuss whether or not a free will human can be absolutely certain of a choice or not this side of eternity, but I will not beg the question as to whether or not the term “libertarian free will” is a useful term. That is the issue at hand, and I am sorry to see geebob run away from the issue, especially after giving a contradictory argument and being so unresponsive to so many observations and questions and points I’ve offered.

If anyone would like to assist in understanding the benefit and meaning of the term “libertarian free will”, then I encourage you to do so, as I am still interested in learning these things.

[geebob]

1way, I'm willing to inform you why it is that I have not continued this discussion but you seem satisfied with the answer you've come up with. once upon a time, I felt the compulsion to answer almost anything that disagreed with me but I have long since learned that not everything has to or even can be answered by myself and it isn't always productive to continue some conversations and it is not worth the stress and frustration. Since then, I have found internet discussions to be throughly enjoyable and fruitful.

[1Way]

Geebob – I’ve given you a reasonable and fair review, my discussion with you has been cordial and respectful and intelligent, but as for you, after faltering with offering a clear explanation, you have ended up giving me contradiction and a good deal of aversion, not the least of which is aversion to explaining the contradiction!

As to my being satisfied with my answer, , , as if you aren’t doing the exact same thing. You seem satisfied to pigeon hole me into a spot that I do not agree with, and you apparently did that in order to avoid my at length points and counter points and observations about your views. The difference between you and me is, I was more than willing to reasonably and rationally explain myself to you according to your own criticism. Why, because I am being sincere with you and I don’t want you to think ill of me as you keep doing. You suggested that I want to make things too simple, and I responded demonstrating that the opposite is more true. I just wanted to keep separate unlike terms separate as we go in depth on each issue ONE AT A TIME. You seem to think that my desire to do so is insufficient for some unknown reason; you claim that your view is more rich and my view is too simple. Hogwash, allowing each discrete concept to be fully explored implies no intellectual restrictions what so ever. I simple do not beg the question as to the validity of the term LFW. Only AFTER I understand it’s benefit, will I treat it as a valid term. Fair enough?

Sure, it’s a fact that we see things differently, SO WHAT? You can still present your views and I mine, we don’t have to agree on everything, but if understanding is to be part of the productive aspect of the discussion, then helping the other person understand what you mean is rather crucial, wouldn’t you agree?

You are really something. It was YOU who was using this fancy professional sounding word (LFW), it was ME who simply wanted to know why you felt it was beneficial to use that term over the more simple term FW. I was, and still am, sincere at wanting to understand why folks think that LFW is a helpful term. But after giving heed to a handful of your posts, I am not near educated as to why the term should be understood as valuable. In fact, you have given me reason to think that the term is fundamentally a contradiction by definition.

So you point your finger at me as being the problem about you not doing justice to the term, while conveniently forgetting that you presented the term in a contradictory way. That’s a fine example; blame others for your own (potential) shortcoming.

As to engaging in conversations with less stress and frustration, how about, we don’t have to agree on everything, and if they aren’t sincere, then move on, if they are sincere, then do the best you can to help. I am in charge of myself and no one else. I treat others on the internet just like I do in real life, person to person, or phone to phone, etc. I tend to think that consistency (no matter what the type of communication forum) is more important than whether or not my life is more or less troubled by others. Things like sincerity and honesty and integrity all win good points with me.

I’d be very happy if you would drop your false personal subjective judgments and pigeon holing against me, and enjoy a fruitful discussion of the topic at hand.

However, if you will not continue with the topic at hand, since I have been only clear and reasonable about my objections to what you have offered in that you were contradictory (and somewhat unhelpful), and since you have not provided amiable assistance to help me alleviate myself from that observation, it is only natural to assume that you are unable to deal with the issue and instead you seem willing to put the blame on me, the one who wants to know/understand in the first place.

A free will choice that is not a free will choice, now that is something else.

[1Way]

So, in the end, not only did the person who "seemed" so educated (geebob) in using words like

libertarian - and compatabilistic - free will

geebob has not only failed to give a rational explanation of what LFW means, he has chosen to falsely judge against me in order to conveniently excuse himself from responding to observations of these problems he has demonstrated concerning his supposed understanding of Libertarian Free Will. And the icing on the cake is that he ended up founding his explanation of LFW as fundamentally being

the sort of free will - - - that is not free at all.

That ,, is classic Christianity, it’s contradictory nonsense.

How you folks could tolerate such insolence and intellectual fraud, especially from a moderator, is beyond me. But then again, most Christians have grown very comfortable with irrational foolishness such as gross contradiction.

[geebob]

you know, I continue to link to this thread for the explanations I've given about freewill as it is easier than typing it all out again. :smile: (There's one particular post on the last page which I am almost certain you missed that is particularly good)

I'm almost tempted to archive it. :teeth:

[1Way]

geebob – Anything to throw attention off the messy contradiction bit, and nothing of tangle help for me. Score another point to your for consistency.

But, perhaps I did miss something, please point it out to me/us. :help:

BTW, you look so happy with your ear to ear grin, I must look like a confounded soul since my quest for helpful information from you has left me ignorant and aggravated because of your “It’s the sort of free will that can be not free at all.” :dunce:

I guess I’ll have to find the spare time (ya, lots of luck there! = OTR truck driver and still moving from two different places into two different places.) and track down whatever other locations you are discussing LFW, and if I find that someone understands your explanation, then I just might have a chance at getting them to explain it to me :dunce: in a way that is not contradictory. I’ve given you (geebob) post after post after post to help me with this, and as you have noticed, I am not appreciative of your unresponsiveness to my questions and observations and challenges, which have all been in thoughtful response to what you have said.

[1Way]

geebob – I often overlook some things to stay with the focus of the responses, but earlier (3-24-03) you quoted me and then responded.

(1Way) I (still) don’t understand what difference there is between LFW and FW, and if I don’t, then I’m quite sure that most other regular folk don’t either.
(geebob)
There may not be a difference, but people define free will in different ways thus it is more clear to speak of libertarian free will.
You have made numerous personal subjective points in place of critical objective comments. Who cares if some people might personally think that “free will” really means “chocolate ice cream bubble gum”, or whatever. We are not talking about personal idiosyncrasy and subjective opinion; we are talking about the truth of a matter and how to better understand a concept. And for the record, I’ve never heard anyone give an objective reasonable alternate definition for what free will essentially means. It means the individual person is in control of their own will, it’s a will free from another person’s control.

I hope you understand what I am saying, because, anyone who holds a contradiction to describe the truth in reality, you have to wonder about their "capabilities".


A free will choice, ... that is not free will at all. – geebob

The truth shall set you free ... – Jesus

Not the contradiction – 1Way

[1Way]

A free will choice, ... that is not free will at all. – geebob

The truth shall set you free ... – Jesus

Not the contradiction – 1Way

[1Way]

A free will choice, ... that is not free will at all. – geebob