What is Free Will?

[docrob57]

So how is it deterministic of the value of why can have more than one value regardless of the variables in the equation?

I'm glad you asked that! This gets us part of the way to resolving some of the semantic problems that have fettered our discussions. From my perspective, which is roughly a scientific one, a "deterministic process" is one whose causal antecedents can be specified. The opposite of "deterministic" would be "random."

The implication is that if we had knowledge of ALL the causal factors and their values at any point in time (1's or 0's in the simple example), then we could predict with perfect accuracy the outcome (whether or not I go to bed).

 

[Clete]

I'm glad you asked that! This gets us part of the way to resolving some of the semantic problems that have fettered our discussions. From my perspective, which is roughly a scientific one, a "deterministic process" is one whose causal antecedents can be specified. The opposite of "deterministic" would be "random."

The implication is that if we had knowledge of ALL the causal factors and their values at any point in time (1's or 0's in the simple example), then we could predict with perfect accuracy the outcome (whether or not I go to bed).

If so then it would not fit within my given definition and I would not accept it as free will.

 

[docrob57]

If so then it would not fit within my given definition and I would not accept it as free will.

But you already have! See your post #32. How does labeling it "deterministic" change things?

 

[insolafide]

As there are numerous discussions/arguments going around these days on whether or not God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge, and, if so, whether or not that negates the possibility of free will, I thought it might be helpful if we could step back and examine the question of what the various parties to the discussion mean by "free will."

yeah, so many are confused by that concept. Ill be glad to give what I think is a proper definition.

My definition would be that a free will choice or behavior is one that is done without being forced by an external entity. For example, the decision whether or not to vote. In some countries, voting is required by law. Even in these circumstances, some choose not to vote, so some degree of free will is involved, however, if is much less a free choice than in the U.S. where no such legal requirement exists.

I would say that this definition has some flaws that would likely taken advantage of by some opponents of free will of the libertarian variety. (Sorry if I repeat anything that anyone has already said, i skimmed the thread but did not read the whole thing...)

The specification "by an external entity" - This leaves open possibilities that, to me, would remove free will. (1) Internal entities. a malfunctioning mind, for example. (2) Necessity of Nature. Compatibilists say that man has a particular nature which can only choose one course of action. So, say they are faced with a particular choice, they choose or not choose it by the nature that they have. This does not seem to be free will, since the word "free" denotes a non-compulsion at least, but following a definition of free will close to your own they say it is still free because nothing "external" forces their behavior.

Note, that by my definition, a free will decision is not uncaused. A variety of factors go into free will decisions including, but not limited to, our relationship with God, our personality and psycholgical makeup, external circumstances, etc.

Indeed, I would make the same caveat. An uncaused event is at least generally metaphysically troubling. We want to say that a free will decision is determined by the agent, and only the agent - this would not rule out influencing underdetermining factors (like beliefs, desires, God, etc).

How does this compare to other views of free will?

My view of free will:

An Agent, S, has free will in some set of circumstances C, just in case when S is in C, S has the causal power to choose some action (or choice) X, or to not choose it(~X). I do not think it is required that S in C be able to choose some other alternative Y, it is enough that S has the power to simply not choose X. Notice, this is the power of contrary choice (X or ~X). I would also clarify that "causal power" above does not exclude the working of divine graces on the will, only that the agent, when faced with the choice has the power to choose it or not choose it (however that power is attained).

This seems to be the kind of free will that the libertarian is after, since it leaves the agent responsible for their choice of the action. And lastly, this kind of free will is clearly implied by Paul in 1 Cor 10:13:

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God Ris faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." (NAS)

This is to say that a person when being tempted has the power to give into temptation, or take God's appointed way of escape and to not give into the temptation (X or ~X). Thus, this type of free will is a necessary feature of any Christian theological system.

peace,
jd

 

[shadrach]

Am i allowed to make rather long posts, like posting a sermon that I foudn that regards this exact topic?

 

[insolafide]

I'm glad you asked that! This gets us part of the way to resolving some of the semantic problems that have fettered our discussions. From my perspective, which is roughly a scientific one, a "deterministic process" is one whose causal antecedents can be specified. The opposite of "deterministic" would be "random."

I think this is untrue. The opposite of "deterministic" is "indeterministic" not "randomness". We do not want free will to be random, because an agent would not be responsible for any choice that was merely random.

I would suggest that agent causation is a unique kind of indeterministic event. It is not like the randomness we find in other kinds of indeterminism.

The implication is that if we had knowledge of ALL the causal factors and their values at any point in time (1's or 0's in the simple example), then we could predict with perfect accuracy the outcome (whether or not I go to bed).

This is not true if there are truly random or indeterministic outcomes or the agent-causation variety in the Universe. Quantum theory seems to suggest the first, and morality and ethics seem to suggest the second.

peace,
jd

 

[insolafide]

Am i allowed to make rather long posts, like posting a sermon that I foudn that regards this exact topic?

I, for one, would prefer you didnt (but I'm not a Mod so what do I know?). How about you just put it into your own words and link the article? It will leave the thread much cleaner. Im a neat person

peace,
jd

 

[shadrach]

Well, its a sermon by Spurgeon regarding free will, that ive just read and was kida floored by

<a href="http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/chspur8.htm">Spurgeon Sermon</a>

 

[Clete]

The implication is that if we had knowledge of ALL the causal factors and their values at any point in time (1's or 0's in the simple example), then we could predict with perfect accuracy the outcome (whether or not I go to bed).

It isnt't the label that would make it not free it is what you've said in the above quotation. This is causal determinism and it is incompatible with free will UNLESS all of the causes of one performing a particular action are fully compatible with having not performed that action.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[insolafide]

Well, its a sermon by Spurgeon regarding free will, that ive just read and was kida floored by

<a href="http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/chspur8.htm">Spurgeon Sermon</a>

youve got to use UBB code on these forums, not HTML. Its hard to learn all the ins and outs. The UBB code for linking something is (link name here) [close tag with / and then URL]

What was the general idea that Spurgeon was getting at in the Sermon (I have an idea, since He is Calvinist... but?), its nice to hear people explain things in their own words,

peace,
jd

AND as an aside, i think it is kind of silly that newbies cannot edit their posts. It seems to me that newbies are the ones who need this more than anybody. But luckily i just got the ability to edit, yay!

 

[Clete]

Am i allowed to make rather long posts, like posting a sermon that I foudn that regards this exact topic?

It's not unheard of for people to do such things but the admin's encourage people to make their own argument and keep the cutting and pasting to a minimum. This is not an iron clad rule or anything, it's not like they are going to ban you if you copy and paste but posting a link is better. Generally no one reads long posts anyway.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

It isnt't the label that would make it not free it is what you've said in the above quotation. This is causal determinism and it is incompatible with free will UNLESS all of the causes of one performing a particular action are fully compatible with having not performed that action.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sadly I must go for now. Hopefully we can pick this up again on Monday. Have a great weekend! Tell Pastor Bob and the gang "hi" for me.

Rob

 

[shadrach]

Yeah, i was kinda unhappy I couldnt edit that...Im on so many forums it sometimes gets hard to remember what kind of code is used where.
Well I will quote a few parts of the sermon that I feel are rather pertinent:

It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing.

Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, `If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is `Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men.

This is from the introduction to this sermon, and it actually kind fo sets me straight on some things. That actual free will cannot be true, because then our salvation ultimately would be of our own device.

You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, `Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - that is the difference between me and them.'

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out.

I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said `I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?' If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, `My dear sir, I quite believe it - and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.' Do I hear one Christian man saying, `I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me'? No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say -
`Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes o'erflow;
`Twas grace that kept me of this day,
And will not let me go.'

Is there one here - a solitary one - man or woman, young or old, who can say, `I sought God before he sought me'? No; even you who are a little Arminian, will sing -
`O yes! I do love Jesus -
Because he first loved me.'

Then, one more question. Do we not find, even after we have come to Christ, our soul is not free, but is kept by Christ? do we not find times, even now, when to will is not present with us. There is a law in our members, warring against the law of our minds. Now, if those who are spiritually alive feel that their will is contrary to God, what shall we say of the man who is dead in trespasses and sins? It would be a marvelous absurdity to put the two on a level; and it would be still more absurd to put the dead before the living. No; the text is true, experience has branded it into our hearts, `Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life.'

Quite honestly, for me, that rather makes the entire concept a bit more palateable, and logical.

 

[Litebeam]

Clete




" ... I have created the waster to destroy." (Isa. 54:16).

"The LORD hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4).

" ... I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction." (Jer. 4:6).

" ... Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people ... " (Jer. 6:19).

"And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." " ... And He [God] said, ... go forth, and do so." (I Kg. 22:22).

"He [God] turned their heart to hate his people ... " (Psa. 105:25).

" ... Thus said the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you ... " (Jer. 18:11).

" ... For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all." (Rom. 11:32).

"O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?" (Isa. 63:17).

" ... so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things, until He have destroyed you from off this good land ... " (Josh. 23:15).

" ... shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord has not done it?" (Am. 3:6).

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace [good], and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isa. 45:7).

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lam 3:38).

" ... an experience of evil hath God given to the sons of man to humble him thereby" (Ecc. 1:13).

" ... I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives..." (II Sam. 12:11).

"That which is molded will not protest to the molder, 'Why do you make me thus?' Or has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet, one for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:19-25).





"That they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that I am the Lord, and there is none else, I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I THE LORD DO ALL THESE THINGS Woe to him that striveth with his Maker! Shall the clay [that's mankind] say to him that fashioneth it, what makest thou" (Isa. 45:6 -9).




John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.






God is The Absolute Sovereign Lord Of All Creation, past, present and future. The Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end. He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. All of human history is transpiring according to His will. Everything.



" ... an experience of evil hath God given to the sons of man to humble him thereby" (Ecc. 1:13).






What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these things come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ (Mark 7:20-23)


Our hearts are being tested. We will all be shown the truth of all scripture.


We will be shown that without God, we make very poor choices indeed.



GOD ISN’T EVIL, WE ARE.




He created each and every one of us and knows us so intimately that He knows what we will “choose” every single time.







CHOICE:

God is the author and creator of every single event, every circumstance that allows men to “choose”. He knows what we will choose every time. He created our hearts. He created every single thing. Every circumstance, cause and event.



FREE WILL:

Free will assumes we can actually supersede God's will and do what we want. That we can thwart His plans and He must respond to us.




God has free will, we have choice.

 

[Litebeam]

shadrach

You are on the right track. Free will is a delusion. The religious majority believe they chose God and are clothed in their own self righteousness.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

 

[Clete]

Lightbeam,

Repeating you position does nothing to establish it and you can proof text till you're blue in the face but that won't help you either because your take on all your proof texts (most of which DO NOT speak to free will in the first place) is colored by your theology (theology being the 'logos of the theos' - the logic of or about God). And it is this logic about God that you have wrong.

There are two options.

1. God is righteous, just and holy and your theology is therefore wrong.

2. Your theology is correct and God is unjust and therefore unrighteous and not holy.

The basic objection you (and shadrach) are raising to the idea of free will is the notion that if I chose to believe in God that I have somehow saved myself. The two of you voiced it this way...

First shadrach quoted Spurgeon who himself quoted Luther...

`If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.'​

and then you said the following in the post immediately previous to this post...

Free will is a delusion. The religious majority believe they chose God and are [therefore] clothed in their own self righteousness.​

The error you are both making is the confusion of a condition of salvation with a cause of salvation.

My belief is not the cause of my salvation it is a condition of it, a condition imposed by God (who has the authority to impose such conditions, by the way). Thus I do not save myself but it God and God alone who saves when the conditions that He has stipulated have been met. I do not go to God and say "you will save me because I believe but quite the contrary, it is He who comes to me and says I will save you IF you repent and believe. Thus free will is not destructive to grace.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This particular issue is one of my very favorites and so I find it almost impossible to resist responding to it when it comes up but I would really recommend that you guys start another thread. Perhaps you could call it "The Consequences of a Free Will" or something along those lines. The doc started this thread to explore the various possibilities of what people mean when they talk about having a "free will" not about what the ramifications of it's existence are. So can we respect the intent of the thread and take this part of the discussion somewhere else?

Thanks and God bless you both!

 

[Litebeam]

Clete

I do not believe I am in error.


Jeremiah 10:23
I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.


I just agree with God's word.


Option # 3
God is Just, Holy and Righteous. WE ARE EVIL. Just like His word says.


I will bow out of this discussion and look forward to continuing it on another thread. Please pardon my interruption.

God bless!

 

[Clete]

Clete

I do not believe I am in error.


Jeremiah 10:23
I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.


I just agree with God's word.

No one disagrees with God's word, Litebeam! That's just the point. You say that I am reading the text wrong and I say that you are and so we will not get anywhere by proof texting each other to death. There is more to it than simply the words on the page. The interpretation of Scripture is both and art and a science and single verses taken out of the context turn immediately into pretexts and so do nothing to bolster your case. This Jeremaih passage is a perfect example. While in general terms a person doesn't have maticulous control over the things that happen in his life, it cannot be construde from this passage that man has no ability to choose anything at all. Your theology says and so this verse leaps off the page at you but if you didn't have the preconcieved notion in your head you would have to read a whole lot that isn't in the text to get it say that man has no free will.
Now in response to this you would no doubt say that I am committing the opposite error and perhaps mound more proof texts on top of this one which could be explained just as easily which is exactly my point. You simply will never convince me that God controls our every action and then still considers us to be evil. That would be unjust and it is therefore incorrect and even a blasphemous theology.

Option # 3
God is Just, Holy and Righteous. WE ARE EVIL. Just like His word says.

Impossible if God is the source of all our actions. God cannot be in complete control and then just punish someone for actions that He made them do. That would be the very definition if injustice.

I will bow out of this discussion and look forward to continuing it on another thread. Please pardon my interruption.

God bless!

Send me a link to the thread you start and I'll happily continue the discussion there. :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Litebeam]

Clete

We have choice, we make poor choices without God.
punishment = chastisement or discipline.

I will be glad to continue discussing this topic. I started a thread called "Created Beings." I don't know how to send a link, I'm sure you'll find it though.

 

[seekinganswers]

Though I am new to this forum I just found the topic to be interesting, so I am making this post having been away from the discussion, and hopefully I can connect to the discussion despite my having been away from it. The debate of this forum seems to be, to me, a question as to weather one is able to exercise a "free-will choice," that is, weather one has the opption not only to do an action, but also to decline the action, despite any external factors. It would also seem that this is a question of weather world events are deterministic or not.

And this is what I have to add: in order for a "free-will choice" to be made, one must be a free-agent. In other words, one must have authority to make such a decision. It is my understanding that humans are not free agents, in as much as they are contingent beings(contingency for me is dealing with dependance; humans are contingent because their life is not their own but dependent upon God in the Spirit). Thus, humanity is always wrapped up in a deterministic realm, in which their decisions are always locked into time, as time passes our decisions are made, and our fate is set according to those actions. We are locked into time at this point, and the end of our decisions is always death. In the flesh we are quite contingent, ergo humans cannot make "free-will decisions."

When the 'adam and when the woman eat from the tree in the garden, they attempt to make a free-will decision, but the Lord had cut that off from them by the command. They are not free-agents, but are rather vasals of the Lord. When they take of the tree in the garden they are immediately faced with judgment, i.e. the death penalty, which is the language being used in the scripture when God says "you will surely die." And the tree they eat from is the tree for "determining what is right." In a lot of ways these scriptures have been misread due to ignorance. The tree of "knowledge of good and evil" is not talking about the ability to suddenly see what the evil is and what the good is. "Evil" is not an ontological reality, but rather a distortion of what is good. So it would be impossible to "see" both good and evil, seeing how the only ontological reality is God and the Creation, and the Creation as it is contingent on God for life. So the "knowing" here of the tree is actually much more forceful. It is not a passive knowledge that comes to humanity, it is rather to set or determine what is right, what is pleasing. Up to this point God has been looked to to set what is right. Only when the humans eat from this tree in direct violation of God's command do they try to be free-agents, being like gods and setting for themselves what is right and pleasing. What is fascinating is that this only results in slavery and distortion, as the man and the woman have something to hide from one another and from God. Their "free-agency" leads to shame, and only reveals their utter frailty before God and before others, and thus making them slaves to the supposed agency (i.e. they try to pass the blame to others in order to remain hidden, to be sure that their "nakedness" is not exposed). And the Creator points the slavery out later on in the text as Cain comes into the picture, and God tells Cain not to let sin master him, but rather, master the sin.

In this story there is only one who has free-agency, and that is the Creator. Notice, the death penalty is not enforced by the Creator. Though the sentance on the 'adam and the woman should have been immediate death (as any death penalty would have been), the Lord witholds judgment, and thereby extends grace to the humans. The penalty reverts to more of consequences, as God reveals the true end of "human-agency": from dust you have been drawn and to dust you will return. And this becomes the defining reality of the Creator, that the Creator is a free-agent, able to pass judgment or withhold it, and humans, though like gods, will return to the dust showing their utter contingency, in their need for life in the Creator.

Humans are locked within time and thus are subject to decay and will never be "free-agents." Their agency can only reveal their frailty before others and becomes a means of hiding rather than a means to exercise an authority they do not have. Humans are beings of the earth, and will return to that earth if they remain in themselves. The scriptures declare that in "human free-agency" the end is deterministic: you will die.

Thus, free-agency must remain in the Creator, not a Creator who is locked into the deterministic events of human history, or even into the deterministic choices that the Creator makes. Notice how "Calvinism" becomes a distortion of the free-agency of God. "Calvinists" try to picture the God of Creation as the one who passively knows what will become of the Creation and thus bases his decision upon that passive knowledge. It is the God of Liebnitz, which is a monad "in-charge" of all others, and yet just as determined as any other monad. What is revealed in the scriptures is much more active, and I think Calvin was much closer to an understanding of God's agency as he saw the Creator using a preventative grace, God saves humanity from hell, for Calvin, thus overturning his own judgment (for Calvin this is simply not universal). In summation, the work of the Creator is not passive but rather active. Free-agency is not simly about passive knowledge, but rather, actively determining what is right, setting it and revoking it. And humans are incapable of this, thus are nothing more than deterministic beings that will end in death.

So the qualm I have with the discussion up till now is that the decision to go to bed or not at 10:00pm is not one that expresses free-agency. Whether you go to bed or not does not take away from your deterministic end. You will die whether you go to bed at 10:00pm or not. The flesh cannot do anything but return to what it was drawn from. The good still remains out of your reach. You cannot set what is right, for you cannot change the fact that you need sleep. You might be able to delay that for a while, but in the end if you do not sleep, you will die, in the same way that you must breath and you must eat. We are locked into this. The real question of free-agency is whether we can set what is right, whether we can judge, and what we find is that it remains outside of our reach, even as we try to bring it about. Jesus reveals the true nature of man in man's self, i.e. death. So do not talk to me about "free-will decision" unless that decision can overthrough judgment and our contingency on the Creator.

Grace and Peace,
Michael