OK, I think I am inclined to understand that.The Calvinist majority view is that the mind chooses according to its greatest inclinations at the moment it so chooses. This is commonly referred to as the liberty of spontaneity, or self-determined freedom. In other words, the mind’s desire always precedes the mind’s choosing.
That makes sense to me. Or at least I think it does.Thus there is an antecedent cause for every choice made. This antecedent cause is not the determinism spoke of when we speak of choices that are controlled by external forces. Instead we choose because we are caused to choose by the inclination of our will, i.e., self-determination, or the real essence of free will. Our own inclinations are the antecedent causes of all the choices we make.
So we can exercise genuine freedom in our choices, that is to choose according to our greatest inclinations, yet even when doing so there are still causal antecedent conditions (e.g., character, experiences, circumstances, etc.) which decisively incline our will to respond a certain way without indeed constraining it.
From this, one can state that a morally free agent is an agent that can make decisions, choosing according to his or her greatest desires (inclinations) at the moment he or she so chooses.
There's always a reason for every choice we make. Sounds reasonable to me.
Yet they are still freely choosing because they could choose to not sit and be killed. So they choose against their desire (desire to not sit) but not against their will? (I'm guessing you would agree with that right?)Now I am not claiming that all choices made by a morally free agent are genuinely free. Obviously, from the definition above, someone with a gun to their head being told to “sit down”, is not making a truly “free” choice when they are forced to comply with the demand. This is because their inclinations at the moment they comply were not really their own inclinations, but were immediately imposed upon them by the presence of a deadly weapon at their head.
I have heard open theists make this exact same argument and I think I have opposed it, albeit semantically. In that, I DO think there is a valid meaning when somebody says…. "he was being held against his will."
Anyway… I think I am still with you so far. :up:
Fair enough! Based on what you have typed above I'm not sure it would be any different from what most/all open theists would say. (semantic differences aside)To summarize, the majority view among Calvinists also holds that for every decision a person makes there are causal conditions playing upon that individual’s will so as to incline it decisively and sufficiently in one direction rather than another such that the agent could not have done otherwise, given the prevailing causal influences.
Now what? More beer? :noid:
Based on what you are saying could you compare our lives or the history of existence as similar to a intricate domino setup where one event triggers another event, which triggers yet another event, and so on all the way down the line?