Formal Debate Peanut Gallery Thread: "The Question of Free Will"

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Site Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
just a small point.
it would have been interesting had the participants come at this debate from the perspective of sequential time on man's part,
and the span of eternal time on God's part.
but that's probably food for a different debate.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So is there a particular item from those links that you would be interested in discussing with me here or not? After all this is a forum for people to have discussions, not a library.
You are being uncharitable.

You joined the thread about a debate and made an extensive post, ending with: "I'd love to discuss these things."

That's swell, I think to myself at the time. So, given your interest, I provided some more content that is related to your post assuming you would read the content as it is directly related to what you initially posted. My assumption was that since you like discussing "these things" you would read what others (like me) have already said about "these things". I also assumed you had read the entire debate that this particular discussion thread about that debate was set up for as well.

Your response was words to the effect 'what exactly should I read of the links provided'?

How would I even know? After all, you are the one wanting to discuss something related to man's will and God's sovereignty. I assumed that once you reviewed material that perhaps may have answered some questions or whatnot, you would return with specific questions, comments, etc. It never entered my mind that you would just question my motives for trying to be a wee bit helpful.

So, again, I humbly ask, after having read the linked content, the actual debate, and this discussion thread, what specifically from your these readings you have digested would you "love to discuss"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well if we both agree that God must intervene as to save man, then we both accept that before that point man desires not to follow God but to sin. After God intervenes he wishes to follow Him. That is describing what you seemingly have of regeneration there. You describe man prior to regeneration as something I have not described, when indeed I have. I am saying prior to regeneration man does not desire to follow God, that man does not have the ability to do so, and He must act as to change that.


Not entirely, no.
Friend, you need to go back and read my comments carefully:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-question-of-free-will.7907495/#post-68597289

Please make sure to expand the quoted portions of your debate post in which I am commenting upon. I even boldface the portions of your post for clarity. Your adding of the whole "free will being meddled with" , "when the Spirit comes to us we are not free because it forces us to do something we do not desire, to abstain from sin." is one bone I am picking at you about. Your infelicitous use of words is exactly why I noted:

Regeneration, as I understand it from Scripture, is an instantaneous singular act via the ordinary means of the hearing of the Good News by which the Holy Spirit replaces the heart of stone of the lost (Eze. 36:26) such that the lost is now morally capable of choosing the righteousness of God and in fact will do nothing but choose as such. Contrary to elopez, at the moment of regeneration, there is no forcing of the will for that will no longer is captive to its former state of inability to do anything but sin more or sin less. Elopez affirms a view that has God spiritually assaulting the lost in an overwhelming display of power of the Spirit versus affirming the view I see from Scripture that the lost, prior to regeneration...etc, etc,...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
just a small point.
it would have been interesting had the participants come at this debate from the perspective of sequential time on man's part,
and the span of eternal time on God's part.
but that's probably food for a different debate.
Are you suggesting the atemporality of God has some bearing on man's free will?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
58
✟8,011.00
Faith
Baptist
Well if we both agree that God must intervene as to save man, then we both accept that before that point man desires not to follow God but to sin. After God intervenes he wishes to follow Him. That is describing what you seemingly have of regeneration there. You describe man prior to regeneration as something I have not described, when indeed I have. I am saying prior to regeneration man does not desire to follow God, that man does not have the ability to do so, and He must act as to change that.


Not entirely, no.
elopez,

You make an interesting statement here. If it is true that prior to being saved, man desires not to follow God so that now God must intervene and change that desire, then how does it make sense that God would give man free will in the first place? According to this scenario, God just changes man's will, clearly by force (at least his base desire), to something different, and then man is saved.

Can you explain how it would make sense to give man free will and then do this?

This concept you describe also seems to go against the idea that God is always trying to reveal Himself to men, both as a host of beings and as individuals. We know He is constantly bringing people and circumstances into the lives of those He saves such that they begin to see God's handiwork and love for them. Why would God do this if man were not already in some basic sense already longing for exactly who and what God is?
 
Upvote 0

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Your adding of the whole "free will being meddled with" , "when the Spirit comes to us we are not free because it forces us to do something we do not desire, to abstain from sin." is one bone I am picking at you about.
I understand that but I am saying it should not be so for the reasons I already explained. You and I both agree man cannot savr himself and desires to only sin. Our will is enslaved to sin. The Holy Spirit literally changes that will to sin, does it not? Our will therefore is "meddled" with.
 
Upvote 0

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If it is true that prior to being saved, man desires not to follow God so that now God must intervene and change that desire, then how does it make sense that God would give man free will in the first place?
I think it really is important to note that man is not able to save himself and desires not to follow God is a Biblical fact. There is no "if" that's true, it is true.

It also depends on what you mean by "in the first place." Do you mean in regards to Adam and Eve, or more presently in regards to us?
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
elopez,

You make an interesting statement here. If it is true that prior to being saved, man desires not to follow God so that now God must intervene and change that desire, then how does it make sense that God would give man free will in the first place? According to this scenario, God just changes man's will, clearly by force (at least his base desire), to something different, and then man is saved.

Can you explain how it would make sense to give man free will and then do this?

This concept you describe also seems to go against the idea that God is always trying to reveal Himself to men, both as a host of beings and as individuals. We know He is constantly bringing people and circumstances into the lives of those He saves such that they begin to see God's handiwork and love for them. Why would God do this if man were not already in some basic sense already longing for exactly who and what God is?
"Free will in the first place" is the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. That is the only free will warranted in Scripture. The lost possesses the ability to sin more or less. The regenerated believer possesses the ability to sin or not to sin.

Regeneration is not a forcing of the will. The spiritually lost is quite spiritually dead, not wounded. By the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit the lost's heart of stone is replaced with one of flesh, such that they no possess the ability to choose to call upon the name of the Lord, and will in fact do nothing but call upon the name of the Lord. The will here is now morally, irrevocably inclined Godwards.

The circumstantials you describe are but the providence of God. God chooses His children without any consideration of the merit of the individual, but rather for His own glory and own purposes. He did so choose in eternity and set about all the secondary means by which that which He ordained would indeed happen to meet His ends.

Fallen man is incapable of wanting good. Walking the old lady across the road, giving to charity, etc., are morally good acts, but the lost always does them for the wrong motives, never for the glory of God. The lost is

The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Clearly from the above small sampling of the many teachings in Holy Writ about the total inability of the lost—Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14—it is clear that the lost have no moral ability to seek after the righteousness of God.

It is only when God the Holy Spirit regeneratively replaces their lost hearts of stone with one of flesh (Eze. 36:26) that the lost are given the moral ability to believe and then irrevocably evidence the first fruits of their regeneration—faith and repentance.

We should be in awe that God saves anyone, for all are born fallen in Adam and deserve no mercy from God. The miracle is that God mercifully saves even one person, and not the great many that cannot be numbered. Would that all give God all the glory (one-hundred percent) for their salvation rather than clinging on to some humanistic notion of their own wisdom, their supposed openness to being "wooed" by the Holy Spirit, choosing rightly while their neighbor chooses wrongly, etc.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I understand that but I am saying it should not be so for the reasons I already explained. You and I both agree man cannot savr himself and desires to only sin. Our will is enslaved to sin. The Holy Spirit literally changes that will to sin, does it not? Our will therefore is "meddled" with.
Your are speaking infelicitously. The word meddle means to interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.

Adam was born upright, but mutable. He disobeyed and plunged all his progeny into his sin. We are born sinners and sin because we are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. The image of God in man was marred, but not eradicated, by the Fall in the Garden. Hence, regeneration is but a beginning restoration of that marred image. The restoration continues during one's walk of faith, for it is God working and to will as we are HIs workmanship. The restoration is perfected when we come into our glory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Your are speaking infelicitously.
I don't think so...

The word meddle means to interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.
Yet the sinner sees it as not God's concern to impose on their life. The sinner does not want God in his life. Indeed, God is not wanted. That is my point, and all the more why meddle seems appropriate.
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
58
✟8,011.00
Faith
Baptist
I think it really is important to note that man is not able to save himself and desires not to follow God is a Biblical fact. There is no "if" that's true, it is true.

It also depends on what you mean by "in the first place." Do you mean in regards to Adam and Eve, or more presently in regards to us?
In light of what appears to be a contradiction between two Christian beliefs that are both based on interpreted scripture, how can we ever justify simply stating that one "is a Biblical fact" and leaving it there? As you are both interested and clearly skilled at carrying out public debates, surely you understand that you need to either invalidate the proposed, contradictory belief I brought up, or you need to show that the two beliefs are in fact not in contradiction.

So which is it?

Are you telling me that God does not impose on man's free will by changing his heart, and that God is not giving men opportunities to choose a relationship with Him by appealing to some innate desire man has which only God can fulfill? Or are you telling me that these ideas are true but not contradictory to your concept that at the most fundamental level men desire not to follow God?

By "in the first place", I mean even as a plan for man's salvation. I don't know exactly how God works, but by this phrase I only meant: in terms of the way an engineer designs a process before carrying it out. Why would the element of free will be at all a necessary part of the plan if it was only to be taken away "later" at the very moment the most important use of that free will was required? That's the crux of what appears to be a contradiction to me between two supposed "Biblical facts".
 
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Site Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Are you suggesting the atemporality of God has some bearing on man's free will?

no, simply that they are two sides of the same coin, not two different coins.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
In light of what appears to be a contradiction between two Christian beliefs that are both based on interpreted scripture, how can we ever justify simply stating that one "is a Biblical fact" and leaving it there?
Being that you are some what aware of the subject I thought you may likewise be aware of what Scriptures I would be referring to. As that is not the case I certainly can point out some Biblical references for you. Again, the idea is man is unable to come to God on his own. That he is a slave to sin and thus desires not to seek God.

  • John 8:34 - Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin."

  • Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

  • John 3:20 - "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."

  • Romans 3:10-12 - "no one seeks for God."

  • Romans 9:16 - So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

  • Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Are you familiar with any of these verses? Regardless, what are your thoughts?

Are you telling me that God does not impose on man's free will by changing his heart,
God does impose on man's free will. As outlined in Scripture. God hardens hearts. God changes hearts. Are you telling me God is not capable of these things?

and that God is not giving men opportunities to choose a relationship with Him by appealing to some innate desire man has which only God can fulfill?
No, man does not have "some" innate desire. Man's innate desire is to sin. God places within him a desire to do good and follow Him.

Or are you telling me that these ideas are true but not contradictory to your concept that at the most fundamental level men desire not to follow God?
According to the Bible said ideas are true. Man does not desire to follow God until he is regeneraed. That is a gift of God, and not from ourselves.

in terms of the way an engineer designs a process before carrying it out.
Yes, much like an a forethought. In God's case, it is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge and free will are not mutually exclusive. This is something I covered in the debate too.

Why would the element of free will be at all a necessary part of the plan if it was only to be taken away "later" at the very moment the most important use of that free will was required?
Free will is not taken away. Our will needs to be changed in order to follow God, and only He can do that. And are you saying that the mst important use of freee will is to choose to follow God? That would not be accurate according to the Bible. Free will is necessary as
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
58
✟8,011.00
Faith
Baptist
Being that you are some what aware of the subject I thought you may likewise be aware of what Scriptures I would be referring to. As that is not the case I certainly can point out some Biblical references for you. Again, the idea is man is unable to come to God on his own. That he is a slave to sin and thus desires not to seek God.

  • John 8:34 - Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin."

  • Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

  • John 3:20 - "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."

  • Romans 3:10-12 - "no one seeks for God."

  • Romans 9:16 - So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

  • Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Are you familiar with any of these verses? Regardless, what are your thoughts?


God does impose on man's free will. As outlined in Scripture. God hardens hearts. God changes hearts. Are you telling me God is not capable of these things?


No, man does not have "some" innate desire. Man's innate desire is to sin. God places within him a desire to do good and follow Him.


According to the Bible said ideas are true. Man does not desire to follow God until he is regeneraed. That is a gift of God, and not from ourselves.


Yes, much like an a forethought. In God's case, it is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge and free will are not mutually exclusive. This is something I covered in the debate too.


Free will is not taken away. Our will needs to be changed in order to follow God, and only He can do that. And are you saying that the mst important use of freee will is to choose to follow God? That would not be accurate according to the Bible. Free will is necessary as
elopez,

By "leaving it there", I did not mean leaving it without some kind of Biblical support. My very next statement makes it clear that what I meant was that you were leaving out an expected effort to deal with the apparent contradiction this view creates. Nonetheless, since you did attempt to address that contradiction in your most recent response, we can move on.

If you think about it, every one of your main ideas points more readily to the conclusion that man does not have free will than to the idea that he does. You say that man is unable to come to God on his own. Not much freedom to choose there. Then you say that he is a slave to sin. That state is diametrically opposed to the concept of being free in your choices! Finally you imply that man always seeks exactly one way: not the way of God, the way opposing God. Not much sign of real choosing going on there either.

So how do any of those statements support your claim that man has a will that is "free", when clearly they point to the opposite?

Your black and white interpretation of man's heart simply does not fit with reality. We see Jesus praise the old woman who, while yet not “saved” by the sacrifice of Jesus, gave “all that she had” even though she was very poor, and yet you would stand there and tell Jesus that she desired only sin in so doing. We hear Jesus say of Nathaniel that “in him is no guile” while Nathaniel new little more of Jesus than that He was from Nazareth – but you would correct Jesus and explain that there is nothing but guile in all men's hearts before salvation by the cross (remember: there is no other way but by Him, and the Holy Spirit had not yet come).

So scripture makes it clear that man sometimes does choose the way of God, while he has yet tasted of salvation. Your interpretation of those verses contradicts this.

In his essence, man does desire to find God and of course finds his fulfillment in Him. But having been corrupted by sin, and deceived by the lies of the evil one, man does not know God, nor does he trust in the unfathomable love which God has for him. So of course man looks to the things that merely appear to give him the acceptance and life-flowing energy that he needs. And he is sad when they are lost because the life man wants is eternal. So God finds man and presents Himself to man. And that ultimate expression which points to something only God can be and nothing else is Jesus (logos) the eternal expression of God. And what Jesus did on the cross and by His resurrection revealed who God truly is beyond doubt and beyond what any man would or could ever do.

The bottom line is: yes, what man is ultimately looking for is God, and it is God who made Himself known and opens man's eyes to see Him as He is and to trust in His perfect authority and His perfect love. But no, until that time, man is deceived, and lives as if the creations of the world can give him the eternal life that Jesus instead promises in earnest. Man does not know to seek God. And while the man who is “of His flock” still rejects God and seeks other things, it is always a vision of God that is not true. It is often based on a vision that fallen man and false religion presents to him. And it is good that man does not seek this thing.

God can indeed bring about circumstances which will have the effect of softening a man's heart – away from the protective walls which guard the prideful authority he gives to other things, especially to himself. Those walls may be broken down by life events which God orchestrates, as He is actively involved in man's story every day … He does not simply wait for the appointed day and then “zap” him into joyful submission.

Yet with all of this, none of what you believe about the process or what I believe about the process proves that man has free will. And only yours presents a major problem because according to you, man is free to choose his Corn Flakes for breakfast, but not which god he is going to follow until his death. This is as absurd as it sounds. If a choice to love is to have any meaning at all it must be made by the one you want -- and God wants us even before we are saved, not some different person with a "zap" changed set of desires. But rather one whose desires were lured and coaxed and sometimes made desperate to find their fulfillment in Him and in nothing else. It's as if your interpretation of Scripture doesn't understand the nature of love at all.

I am not questioning whether or not man has a will which directs his actions towards the fulfillment of his desires. But is he “free” to choose his desires? And what does a “freely made” choice mean anyway? These things need to be defined in order for you to justify your proposition that this “free choosing” thing is something man is doing in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
By "leaving it there", I did not mean leaving it without some kind of Biblical support.
Well you were saying how both views are based on Scriptures. I mentioned the idea is Biblical fact. So, what else is there aside from Scripture to start at?

If you think about it, every one of your main ideas points more readily to the conclusion that man does not have free will than to the idea that he does.
They are not my ideas, as if they originate from me - they are ideas based on Scripture. Inasked what you thought about the verses I provided to which no answer was given.

You say that man is unable to come to God on his own. Not much freedom to choose there.
Are you saying man is able to come to a belief of God on his own accord? Sereval verses I qouted, and many more I did not, seem to discredit that. Also, it would be on you in the first place to show freedom does have connotations with chooisng to believe in God.

Then you say that he is a slave to sin. That state is diametrically opposed to the concept of being free in your choices!
Are you saying man is not a slave to sin? Again, Scripture is vehemently opposed to the idea that man is not. The Bible says man is a slave to sin, not I. Also, sin is our choice. Man has the freedom to sin, of course.

So how do any of those statements support your claim that man has a will that is "free", when clearly they point to the opposite?
Did you read the deabte? This is something I covered. Being a slave to sin does not discredit fre will as we are responsible for our sins, and they are our choices we desire. I believe free will and determinism are compatible, so regardless of God coming to man and making a believer out of him, it does not mean his will ceases to exist.

Your black and white interpretation of man's heart simply does not fit with reality.
I think part of the issue is that you are evading the validity of these ideas, as they are plainly layed out in Scripture. Reality confirms only what the Bible says. To suggest otherwise is fallacious. Look around you. Sinners are habitual in their ways.

and yet you would stand there and tell Jesus that she desired only sin in so doing
Now you're simply putting words in my mouth. I think that is all that needs to be said here.

So scripture makes it clear that man sometimes does choose the way of God, while he has yet tasted of salvation. Your interpretation of those verses contradicts this.
So tell me then, since you seeminly want to interpret the verses I quoted different than I, what do they mean? I asked you before and like I said got no reply. If you are saying those verses don't mean what I said, please share what they do mean then...

He does not simply wait for the appointed day and then “zap” him into joyful submission.
I have not claimed He does. Simply a straw man here.

And only yours presents a major problem because according to you, man is free to choose his Corn Flakes for breakfast, but not which god he is going to follow until his death.
Yet another straw man. A misrepresentation of my view. Man is free to choose as he desires. It is a sin to follow some other god aside from the true God, and tha choice is capable of being made by man since it is sinful.

But is he “free” to choose his desires?
Yes of course. They are his desires. A desire is manifested into action if the agent so choose to actualize it.

And what does a “freely made” choice mean anyway?
Consicely, free from coercion, so long as he there is nothing preventing him to act as he wants or forcing him to act how he doesn't want to. That is the only type of freedom sensible, especially according to Scripture. I covered these issues as well in the debate. And whike I have no problem responding to you here, it may also be convenient for you to familiarize yourself with my position or what was said in the debate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
58
✟8,011.00
Faith
Baptist
elopez,

Since I normally have very little time each day to engage in this rather fun bit of intellectual puzzling, I admit to having simply assumed we were discussing the more classic definition of "free will" which naturally gives rise to contentious debate. Having now spent some time reading over the details of your debate (albeit rather quickly still) I see that there was no such discussion going on in the first place. In my opinion the debate should have been aborted as soon as your opponent saw that you had removed any concept of cause and effect and its relation to free will from your definition (although possibly some implications about man's accountability could still be discussed).

I wonder what the value is of proposing a debate about whether or not man can think about stuff and make decisions. In my over 30 years of discussing like this on various online forums, I've never heard of someone whittling down the definition that way. Why don't you just say that man has a will? Why call it a "free will" when you readily admit it is determinstic both inside and out, both beforehand (as caused) and afterward (as foreknowledge)? So we both agree that the more typically contentious definition of free will as your opponent naturally assumed you still somehow held, despite your definitions, does not exist and makes no sense. But now I disagree with you trying to call your version "free". You are just describing man's will in action, and admitting that it is deterministic. I challenge you to tell my why the term "free" belongs to it.

You think that simply because our man Bob is able to contemplate the parameters and effects of a particular decision to drink beer, and that when he goes to act on it nothing external or internal is preventing or coercing him, this amounts to an instance of his "free will" playing itself out. But then you readily admit that his choice was deterministic. You never actually reconcile the contradictory senses most people have of this "freedom" and this "determinism", you merely state: "Alas, Bob has the freedom to act regardless of deterministic factors A, C, and J.". Really? Why so? By your own definition an event is "determined" when there is sufficient cause. And what does that mean except that all other causes and influences were weaker and less sufficient to override it -- and therefore, in this case, they were unable to "prevent" Bob from choosing otherwise. That still leaves the "winning" event with the sufficient cause (Bob's choosing the beer) a determined one. And so you admit this. But again, how then and it what sense was Bob "free" to choose otherwise? Even his thought patterns in considering the action were deterministic. Free? Your average computerized chess software on your laptop can do this simple scanning of options and consequences, and weighing of better (more "desirable") outcomes. That doesn't make it "free".

What then IS free, you might ask? God alone, right? Why? He has no cause. Nothing external to Him or internal to Him compels His action forward because He IS forward-moving, He IS love in action, always and outside of time, right? He simply IS, and even identifies Himself this way (I AM). Since we are not God and can never be of the same essence we get to experience what feels like this freedom by his limiting our ability to comprehend it all. It is really a gift. But it is not true freedom. We do not have that. Nor do we need it.

In addition to the above, I see a problem with your definition of free will as given here. Perhaps it needs more clarity, but "free from coercion"? You mean if someone buckles under the pressure of coercion, they have lost their free will as an inate human capacity or attribute? Don't tell me you think this "free will" is somehow removed, diminished, or made less "free" in light of "coercion" ... I mean, like what, a death threat? That's what most people think of as a prime example of "coercion", but are we really arguing whether or not people feel more angst and inner conflict (feels less "free"?) when they can't readily get what they want or none of their preferred options are available? Nonsense. In terms of the nature of man's will they are just as "free" (if you can even call it that in light of determinism) to choose death in the face of this "coercion" as Bob is to choose that beer. They may like it less, there may be more internal struggle in making the decision, but that's hardly a factor describing the inate capacity and nature of the will itself which we are discussing. You said, "Force in this sense is physical or emotional coercion and the factors of J or C for example, do not coerce Bob into doing something he doesn't want to do." Great. So what if they did? Man (Bob) loses his "free will" every time he buckles to emotional coercion?

And physical? This I couldn't believe. Put a man in handcuffs and his "free will" is diminished? You have no idea how far off this is and sounds. This is the opposite of Christianity. Christ, the Apostle Paul (especially) and others confirm to us that whatever this "freedom" we experience really is (even if illusionary by our restricted knowledge of things, as I am sometimes inclined to argue), we have it regardless of our circumstances. I find these aspects of your definition to be absolutely baseless.

Furthermore, if sin is essentially caused by a lie propogated by Satan, namely that God does NOT love us enough to send His Son and die for us because we are unworthy ... how then is that lie NOT a form of coercion?!!! We want eternal life, or else Christ would not be promising it to us as a way to draw us to Him. If we were truly "free of coercion" we would be free to choose that immediately, but as you know sin and the presence of that lie within our psyche CAUSE us to reject it. Doesn't that sound like emotional coercion? So our will is not free from coercion, and by your own definition it is therefore not a free will. This is why the fact that we are indeed slaves to sin does in fact make it incompatible with the definition you gave me.

Anyway, I guess that's plenty to chew on. I need to go to bed. Looking forward to hearing from you. It is a very interesting discussion, in any case.
 
Upvote 0