Decision VS Free-Will

[Jpark]

Which do humans have only decision making abilities or true free-will?

The question is, what is the difference?

Our free will is limited, constrained to decisions, making a choice.

 

[randall jones]

Everytime you decide not to do a sin, you are overcoming your proclivity of man to sin. You create false dilemna in order to establish man has no free will. Any antecedent or direct cause of manipulating man's will takes all responsibility away from man. There is no text in all of scripture that says man is not liable for his sin.

We have commandments, exhortations all through scripture to not do what we do so easily do, sin. If we have no moral responsibility, then we could just as well murder anyone we wanted to, since it would not be our responsibility. I'm not sure where you would place it, except whoever programmed the cause, or antecedent cause of that action. Murder would only be a civil law, not a moral law.

People go on hunder strikes. They need to consciously and willfully change their desire from eating which their body is demanding, to not eat. That is a willful, conscious, deliberative decision of not eating. Animals cannot do this. Neither can computers.

We are commanded to align our wills with God's will. It is why He gave us His revelation and both showed us and gave us the commandments of how to live within His Will. This would be all nonsense if man is not responsible for his own decision making and what he does. We would not need His revelation of how to live IN HIM if He was the programmer, the direct cause, and antecedent cause of all of man's actions. It is absurd to think so.

There surely would be no need for a judgement.

Your interpretation voids most of scripture as irrelevant. Why do you need scripture, why would you need to know what God wants of you?

Consider when a sergeant or other high ranking military official orders a soldier to do something whether it be good or evil (kill the enemy or save the innocent). Because the sergeant ordered the soldier, does that make the soldier devoid of any accountability?

Or when a crime boss orders a hitman to assassinate somebody? Does that make the hitman devoid of any accountability?

You might argue that the soldier would have a free will choice to follow or disobey the order. But man's orders are not absolute. God's are...meaning what he says will undoubtedly come to be.

Also, my pug is a very picky eater and decides what she wants to eat and what she doesn't...

 

[Rightglory]

randall jones,

Consider when a sergeant or other high ranking military official orders a soldier to do something whether it be good or evil (kill the enemy or save the innocent). Because the sergeant ordered the soldier, does that make the soldier devoid of any accountability?

Or when a crime boss orders a hitman to assassinate somebody? Does that make the hitman devoid of any accountability?

You might argue that the soldier would have a free will choice to follow or disobey the order. But man's orders are not absolute. God's are...meaning what he says will undoubtedly come to be.

Also, my pug is a very picky eater and decides what she wants to eat and what she doesn't...

these are all false dilemnas. God and man is not the same as a sergeant and soldier, nor a crime boss and a hit man. The accountablity goes directly to the soldier and or the hitman. If he does not obey the order there is judgment.

God does the same thing. He commands us to live according to His will. If we do not, we are held accountable. The crime boss did not coerce the hit man, did not propgram him, did not cause him in any way to do the hit.

And speaking of your pug, Withhold food from him until he is very hungry and see if he will eat whatever you place in front of him or continue to starve to death. Also a false dilemna.

by your false dilemna you really do not understand the concept of man's free will and why it cannot be otherwise.

Can you answer the questions I posed?

 

[randall jones]

these are all false dilemnas. God and man is not the same as a sergeant and soldier, nor a crime boss and a hit man. The accountablity goes directly to the soldier and or the hitman. If he does not obey the order there is judgment.

God does the same thing. He commands us to live according to His will. If we do not, we are held accountable. The crime boss did not coerce the hit man, did not propgram him, did not cause him in any way to do the hit.

And speaking of your pug, Withhold food from him until he is very hungry and see if he will eat whatever you place in front of him or continue to starve to death. Also a false dilemna.

by your false dilemna you really do not understand the concept of man's free will and why it cannot be otherwise.

Can you answer the questions I posed?

False dilemnas? If false dilemnas exist, it started with you. I simply used your reasoning and replaced the subjects.

You say that if God predestined man's actions, then man cannot be held accountable.

With that reasoning, if a crime boss ordered a hit man's actions, then the hit man cannot be held accountable.

Keep in mind these are hypotheticals that I bring up for consideration. I'm just trying to understand your view.

You said "People go on hunger strikes. They need to consciously and willfully change their desire from eating which their body is demanding, to not eat. That is a willful, conscious, deliberative decision of not eating. Animals cannot do this. Neither can computers."

I then mention my pug can refuse to eat what I feed her. That is a willful, conscious, deliberative decision of not eating according to your reasoning, is it not?

You replied "And speaking of your pug, Withhold food from him until he is very hungry and see if he will eat whatever you place in front of him or continue to starve to death. Also a false dilemna."

You think the outcome would be different with humans? I highly doubt people on hunger strikes would starve themselves to the point of death.

Finally, I would try to answer the questions you posed to the best of my ability, but I cannot find any questions from your posts.

 

[depthdeception]

How are we not like this?

Your robot analogy fails (badly, BTW) because central to orthodox, Christian belief is that humans are created with possession of the imago dei, the image of their creator. From sexuality, to emotion, to the possession of self-awareness, to the understanding of self-will--these are all marks of our "imaging" of God. And even though it is acknowledged within most theological systems that this image is obscured through human sinfulness, it is hardly acceptable to suggest that the imago dei is destroyed or rendered null.

Robots, on the other hand, are not created in the image of man for, despite their potential resemblance to us physically (depending on the robot, of course), and even their ability to execute predetermined actions based on calculated circumstances, they are only mechanistic extensions of our own thinking and are not imbued with anything that we would argue makes us distinctly human (e.g., sexuality, emotion, self-awareness, the ability to love, etc.). In some ways, one could argue that the ability of humans to create such extensions of thinking and rationalization is itself an indication of the meaningfulness of human self-will...but I digress...

So I suppose the analogy of the robot works in re: humanity's relationship to God; however, in order to accept it, you would have to decisively negate any pretense of the imago dei, a proposition which, IMO, is far worse (and heretical) than whatever one's conclusion about human self-will might be.

 

[Rightglory]

randall jones,

You say that if God predestined man's actions, then man cannot be held accountable.

never stated it since I do not believe man's actions are predestined. Far from it. It was a reply against man's free will. It is why the free will of man is the only logical option in scripture, even if you did not understand it.

With that reasoning, if a crime boss ordered a hit man's actions, then the hit man cannot be held accountable.

Keep in mind these are hypotheticals that I bring up for consideration. I'm just trying to understand your view.

that why it was a false dilemna since I don't believe in predestination of man's actions.

I then mention my pug can refuse to eat what I feed her. That is a willful, conscious, deliberative decision of not eating according to your reasoning, is it not?

doesn't even follow even though a false dilemna. She didn't reason one bit. She is acting on instinct of having only eaten certain foods. You trained her to eat a couple of things rather than all things. Withhold food from her and she will eat.

You think the outcome would be different with humans? I highly doubt people on hunger strikes would starve themselves to the point of death.

It has been done so that others rescure them after they become unconcious.

the questions were in the previous post which obviously you never read, then assume incorrectly what I stated.

 

[randall jones]

never stated it since I do not believe man's actions are predestined. Far from it. It was a reply against man's free will. It is why the free will of man is the only logical option in scripture, even if you did not understand it.

I know you don't believe man's actions are predestined. I didn't say you believed that. However you did say "Any antecedent or direct cause of manipulating man's will takes all responsibility away from man." Did you not? How is that any different than from what I understood you to mean when I said "You say that if God predestined man's actions, then man cannot be held accountable."

that why it was a false dilemna since I don't believe in predestination of man's actions.

Same as above...I never said you believe in predestination of man's actions. Once again, the false dilemma started with you.

doesn't even follow even though a false dilemna. She didn't reason one bit. She is acting on instinct of having only eaten certain foods. You trained her to eat a couple of things rather than all things. Withhold food from her and she will eat.

Once again, the same goes for humans. Your animal analogy was flawed.

It has been done so that others rescure them after they become unconcious.

the questions were in the previous post which obviously you never read, then assume incorrectly what I stated.

yeah, OBVIOUSLY I never read them

Why do you need scripture, why would you need to know what God wants of you?

Was that the question you were referring to? I was under the impression that was directed to bibleblevr.

 

[Rightglory]

randall jones,

I know you don't believe man's actions are predestined. I didn't say you believed that. However you did say "Any antecedent or direct cause of manipulating man's will takes all responsibility away from man." Did you not? How is that any different than from what I understood you to mean when I said "You say that if God predestined man's actions, then man cannot be held accountable."

because it was based on your statements. They do not follow at all which is why they are false dilemnas.

Why do you need scripture, why would you need to know what God wants of you?

Was that the question you were referring to? I was under the impression that was directed to bibleblevr.

that it was, but to anyone who wished to respond. Since you responded ,how come not answering the questions?

 

[depthdeception]

You say that if God predestined man's actions, then man cannot be held accountable.

With that reasoning, if a crime boss ordered a hit man's actions, then the hit man cannot be held accountable.

How does this reasoning hold? The entire concept of predestination has nothing to do with "ordering." The fundamental doctrine of predestination requires that not only does God decree that something should come to pass, but more to the point is necessarily the power and cause by which the same object of will is brought to pass.

 

[bibleblevr]

Your robot analogy fails (badly, BTW) because central to orthodox, Christian belief is that humans are created with possession of the imago dei, the image of their creator. From sexuality, to emotion, to the possession of self-awareness, to the understanding of self-will--these are all marks of our "imaging" of God. And even though it is acknowledged within most theological systems that this image is obscured through human sinfulness, it is hardly acceptable to suggest that the imago dei is destroyed or rendered null.

Robots, on the other hand, are not created in the image of man for, despite their potential resemblance to us physically (depending on the robot, of course), and even their ability to execute predetermined actions based on calculated circumstances, they are only mechanistic extensions of our own thinking and are not imbued with anything that we would argue makes us distinctly human (e.g., sexuality, emotion, self-awareness, the ability to love, etc.). In some ways, one could argue that the ability of humans to create such extensions of thinking and rationalization is itself an indication of the meaningfulness of human self-will...but I digress...

So I suppose the analogy of the robot works in re: humanity's relationship to God; however, in order to accept it, you would have to decisively negate any pretense of the imago dei, a proposition which, IMO, is far worse (and heretical) than whatever one's conclusion about human self-will might be.

We are in the image of God. So are we all powerful? do we know everything? are we everywhere? can we create something from nothing?
Of course not! we only resemble him in some ways, what is your proof that free-will is one of them, and not just an attribute unique to God like all the others I mentioned?

 

[depthdeception]

We are in the image of God. So are we all powerful? do we know everything? are we everywhere? can we create something from nothing?

This is a straw man. The meaningfulness of the imago dei is not that we mirror God's attributes in essence; rather, the significance is that in our imaging of God, we are constituted in such a way that a relational existence with God is possible.

So while we are not all-powerful (whatever that means), we do have capabilities. While we are not omniscient (again, definition?), we do have epistemology. And while we cannot create ex nihilo, we are capable of creative activity. We are not "love," but we are capable of love. We are not "justice," but we are capable of living justly. The point, again, is not that we are equal to God, but that in our imaging we bear the marks and reflection of the nature of the divine.

Of course not! we only resemble him in some ways, what is your proof that free-will is one of them, and not just an attribute unique to God like all the others I mentioned?

First, I never said "free will." That's a loaded term that has no agreed-upon definition. I did say "self-will," and I think this is an important aspect of the imago dei, in that relationality requires, in its very essence, the interplay of persons in a cycle of gift-gifting-gifted. In that the 3 persons of God exist in perfect relationship, so humans bear the mark of the relationality of the Godhead in the imago dei which imbues our very nature and ontology. If self-will in humans is illusory, so is the possibility of relationship with God beyond the level of bare objectivity.

 

[bibleblevr]

First, I never said "free will." That's a loaded term that has no agreed-upon definition. I did say "self-will," and I think this is an important aspect of the imago dei, in that relationality requires, in its very essence, the interplay of persons in a cycle of gift-gifting-gifted. In that the 3 persons of God exist in perfect relationship, so humans bear the mark of the relationality of the Godhead in the imago dei which imbues our very nature and ontology. If self-will in humans is illusory, so is the possibility of relationship with God beyond the level of bare objectivity.

We are also made of three parts forming one being. we have a soul, spirit and a body (some say a mind body and spirit) If God needs "self-will" to have a perfect relationship with his three parts, then wouldn't it follow that the "self-will" which you believe we have, is to have a relationship between our three parts? Isn't that a much more accurate microcosm then saying God uses "self-will" to relate to his three parts and therefore we use "self-will" to relate to God. However, using self-will to relate to the three parts of one's self makes no sense, so again, I have no idea how self-will can fit with the rest of scripture and logic.

I understand your point about how we only have a small replica of what God has. But couldn't the replica of his free-will (or self-will if you prefer) be our understanding of right and wrong and our capacity to make informed and logical decisions based on our own interests? If God has free-will like he does, then it would follow that we have a smaller version, We can see that few, if any of his other attributes are of the same magnitude as ours. what makes us believe that we have the same free-will as God?

 

[depthdeception]

We are also made of three parts forming one being. we have a soul, spirit and a body (some say a mind body and spirit)

We may, or we may not. I'm a monist, so I don't really incorporate this rationale into the argument I'm making. But even if I did, the analogy is not valid. The interelationality of the Trinity is that of the 3 persons of the Godhead in perfect communion one with the others. The ontological distinction in the stratification of the human person that you mention has absolutely no equivalence. The human "spirit, body, and soul" are not understood in any theologies as mirroring the nature of the Godhead.

If God needs "self-will" to have a perfect relationship with his three parts,

God doesn't have "parts"--that's a heretical position long denounced by the ecumenical church.

then wouldn't it follow that the "self-will" which you believe we have, is to have a relationship between our three parts? Isn't that a much more accurate microcosm then saying God uses "self-will" to relate to his three parts and therefore we use "self-will" to relate to God. However, using self-will to relate to the three parts of one's self makes no sense, so again, I have no idea how self-will can fit with the rest of scripture and logic.

I agree that it makes no sense, but then again, I'm not the one who suggested it, nor the correlation of this suggestion to the relationality of the persons of the Godhead.

But couldn't the replica of his free-will (or self-will if you prefer) be our understanding of right and wrong and our capacity to make informed and logical decisions based on our own interests?

I would agree that the moral nature of human existence, and the ability to interact with one's environment is part of the imaging of the self-will of God. But I think what is more important to the nature of God's self-will is the way in which it facilitates the relationality of the Godhead, not only to the persons of the Godhead, but to the creation as well. Understood correctly, the basis of morality is relationality--without this faculty, morality has no substance whatsoever. Relationality is the primal ground and substantial essence of morality.

If God has free-will like he does, then it would follow that we have a smaller version,

I don't think "smaller" is the right word. God is not God (and not something else) because God is "bigger" or has "more" of something than everything else. God is God because God is God. Therefore, for those that image the divine, the qualification of the divine attributes is rooted in their derivation from the source of all. That is, our will-ing is not "less" than God's; it's qualified (notice I didn't say "limited") by the fact that we are not God.

We can see that few, if any of his other attributes are of the same magnitude as ours. what makes us believe that we have the same free-will as God?

I'm not arguing that we have the same self-will as God. As I mentioned earlier, our self-will is qualified by its derivation; we self-will insofar as we are not God. That human self-will is not essentially identical to God's, however, is by no means the grounds to conclude that the one annihilates the other, or, at the very least, that the two are somehow in opposition to each other.

To the contrary, I would argue that the fact that human nature is, per the imago dei, a derivative of the divine nature (insofar as we are like God but not God) substantiates the thesis that humans--as created by God to exist in relationship with God--possess that fundamental essence of the divine nature that is expressed in the eternal union and inter-relationship of the three persons of the Godhead. Contrarily, if our conception of human self-will annihilates the potential for relationality between God and creation, we have fundamentally obfuscated the imago dei and substituted in its place another image of our own making.

 

[cygnusx1]

We are in the image of God. So are we all powerful? do we know everything? are we everywhere? can we create something from nothing?
Of course not! we only resemble him in some ways, what is your proof that free-will is one of them, and not just an attribute unique to God like all the others I mentioned?

plus the fact God cannot sin ; He acts only in accordance with His nature .

 

[bibleblevr]

So Depthdeception, correct me if I'm wrong,
you believe that one must have self-will to relate to God ?

firstly, I have no idea how self-will would be a nessisary ingredient for a relationship. Take my dog's relationship with me for example. He loves me but he is not made in the image of God and even by the Armenian standard, does not have free-will. My dog understands me much more than a human can understand God He also is very loyal, and would die in my place if need be. That seems to me to be a perfectly happy relationship, and I never say to my self, "I wish my dog had free-will so that he could freely disobey me and do what ever he likes, even play in the road. his love is meaningless because his will is not completely free" I love my dog because I chose him not because he chose me.

One thing that bugs me about the imago dei lines of argument, is that there is very little scripture to use because the scripture never outlines what we received in the curse v. what we got being in the image of God v. what we inherited from sinning v. what the original differences between us and God were. It is never fully explained in the Bible so arguing from it first requires an agreed upon definition which is subject to interruption based on the interpreter's previous theology and our systems of theology depend on our interptetation of the imago dei concept, so round and round we go.

What is clear from the scripture is predestination. The Scripture uses the word many times along with words like elect and foreknowledge, and their definitions are agreed upon. this is a line of argument that is much less hazy and up for interpretation. There are whole chapters dedicated it it.

 

[depthdeception]

plus the fact God cannot sin ; He acts only in accordance with His nature .

This is a tuatological statement. God cannot sin, not because God is incapable of acting in a way "other" than God's nature, but precisely because "holy" is defined by how God acts. As I've already established without the possibility of contention, the worth or morality of God's actions are not based on their alignment with a particular standard. That which God does is holy/love/justice/___--so to say that God cannot behave in a way that is contrary to the nature of God is not a statement about the reality of God, but is only a metaphor for human morality in its understanding of the divine. If it were a statement about the eternal nature of God, it would be as meaningful as saying that God cannot cease to exist...philosophically, it's nonsensical.

 

[depthdeception]

So Depthdeception, correct me if I'm wrong,
you believe that one must have self-will to relate to God ?

My argument is that self-will is key to the relationality of the Godhead, as well as divine/human relationships.

Take my dog's relationship with me for example. He loves me but he is not made in the image of God and even by the Armenian standard, does not have free-will.

This analogy is pointless. Your dog is not created in your image, so the nature of relationality which I am advocating is not applicable to this scenario.

My dog understands me much more than a human can understand God

And you know this how? Given that your dog is not created in your image, and only shares in the smallest level of biology with you, it's questionable whether your dog can actually "understand" you in the way that humans understand God.

Perhaps when you incarnate yourself as a dog, then this analogy will have some weight. Until then, it's not even close to being applicable.

He also is very loyal, and would die in my place if need be.

He would also eat you if you were dead and he was starving. The kind of "loyalty" which you project upon your dog is not actual.

That seems to me to be a perfectly happy relationship, and I never say to my self, "I wish my dog had free-will so that he could freely disobey me and do what ever he likes, even play in the road. his love is meaningless because his will is not completely free" I love my dog because I chose him not because he chose me.

I'm glad you love your dog. However, as I mentioned earlier, this "relationship" (which is not really a relationship at all, but a project of one which you create in your own mind) is not meaningfully related to divine/human relationships whatsoever. Your dog is not created in your image and, until your dog is, the analogy has no bearing on the points I have been making.

One thing that bugs me about the imago dei lines of argument, is that there is very little scripture to use because the scripture never outlines what we received in the curse v. what we got being in the image of God v. what we inherited from sinning v. what the original differences between us and God were.

C'mon, the exact same argument can be made for several of the theological assumptions you make. As with all theology, the conclusions are the result of studying the Scriptures, listening to the historical voices of the church, and finally trying to bring the two together in our theology, our "thinking after God." There is no doctrine of theology that is immune from such a process, so the doctrines that you espouse are intrinsically infused with the same "lack."

It is never fully explained in the Bible so arguing from it first requires an agreed upon definition which is subject to interruption based on the interpreter's previous theology and our systems of theology depend on our interptetation of the imago dei concept, so round and round we go.

And Reformed theology is different...how, exactly? You assume that these doctrines are "fully explained" in the Scriptures; however, as I have consistently shown on these boards (based on the inability of the Reformed here to seriously challenge my contentions), the assumed "totality" of Reformed theology is hardly discoverable within the Scriptures alone. Rather, it additionally requires the philosophical prejudices of those who already want to find these tenets.

What is clear from the scripture is predestination.

Oh please. I could (and have) drive a Mac truck through "biblical clearness" of Reformed theology's conception of predestination. And I could also do it from the perspective of historical theology. And from philosophy. Take your pick, your argument "from Scripture" is hardly as iron-clad and "clear" as you assume.

The Scripture uses the word many times along with words like elect and foreknowledge, and their definitions are agreed upon.

Hahahahahaha! It used the word many times! And the definitions are "agreed upon!" Oh, that is too much!

Interesting how the Reformed never give the predominance of particular words or ideas any credence when they do not align with their philosophical prejudices, and how the "agreement" about certain words are cast aside when the contradict the end goal of reformed theology...

this is a line of argument that is much less hazy and up for interpretation. There are whole chapters dedicated it it.

Sure, it's open for interpretation, but so is everything else in the Scriptures, outside of the orthodox tenets of Christian faith. The "doctrines of grace", so-called, are hardly self-evident, nor should they be immune from serious textual, philosophical, and theological challenge.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnusx1,

plus the fact God cannot sin ; He acts only in accordance with His nature .

A theological blunder relative to scripture, but it is quite consistant with other definitions within reformed theology.

If this is so, then God cannot be a Trinity of Three Persons. He is of necessity thus making God without a will at all. It fits the predestined theory as well. Man then also sinned of necessity through his nature, His nature before the fall was no different than after the fall. If man is sin, then he cannot even DO sin since he IS sin.
Eliminates the need for an Incarnated Christ since it cannot be corrected.

First Christ cannot assume man's nature for the purpose to correct that nature which would make Christ sin

Secondly, Christ's human nature would be in conflict with the Divine which also aligns with reformed theology. In conflict of necessity, Christ could NEVER live a perfect life free of sin, since He is sin. He becomes totally meaningless to man.

Christ could not have a will by which He lived that perfect life and became our example. His Prayer in the Garden debunks this whole theory and did so as well almost 1700 years ago in the 6th Ecumenical Council which declared that Christ had two wills, one Divine and one Human will.

Which is why man has a nature but he is also a person. We are consubstantial with each other in our natures, it is what makes us human beings. But we do not live or act through our natures, but through our Persons. It is what distinquishes each of us from the other. Which is why the will is an essential part of man's existance. Why we can have a relationship with another Being, namely God Himself.

 

[Rightglory]

Sorry, Double.

 

[cygnusx1]

This is a tuatological statement. God cannot sin, not because God is incapable of acting in a way "other" than God's nature, but precisely because "holy" is defined by how God acts. As I've already established without the possibility of contention, the worth or morality of God's actions are not based on their alignment with a particular standard. That which God does is holy/love/justice/___--so to say that God cannot behave in a way that is contrary to the nature of God is not a statement about the reality of God, but is only a metaphor for human morality in its understanding of the divine. If it were a statement about the eternal nature of God, it would be as meaningful as saying that God cannot cease to exist...philosophically, it's nonsensical.

I already said God acts only in accordance with His nature , ie, Holy in all He does .

scripture affirms God cannot lie , I don't believe that is nonesensical based upon an arguement of transcendent Holiness .