Determinism, Compatibilism, Libertarian Free Will

[Apologetic_Warrior]

One possible objections in that in our tradition, Hebrews is not a book that can be used to establish doctrine, since it is antilegomena, a disputed book.

The way I would understand that verse, therefore, is that God has promised he will not lie and is trustworthy, not that he is incapable in his nature of lying. He has merely created a world in which lying to his creatures would not be part of his overall plan.

From what I understand, Dr. Luther was not fond of the book of James either, though both are considered part of the Protestant canon. So I am uncertain about the angle or approach described, and both letters, considered as Scripture fall under the "all Scripture" of 2 Tim 3:16, no?

On promises, if God is capable of lying, on what basis do we trust Him? Assuming He is omnipotent, it is more than possible He could easily deceive or trick us no? I am only asking the questions and framing them as such to follow a fallacious line of...reasoning. There are so many angles one could take on the thought of a God capable of lying, I do not see anything good that could possibly come out of it, and we agree that God is good.

I am not a doctor in my church, but I have read enough Lutheran theology to know that we believe there are many things about God which are not clearly revealed, that are not knowable with certainty through reason. What his nature is like, is one such example. There may be some Lutherans that are more Thomist in tone, but they are not really being faithful to Luther's theological method, I would argue.

Right right Reformed believers acknowledge mystery in theology as well. As to Dr. Luther's theological method, maybe I should be quoting from Dr. Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will" then. It's a beloved work among Calvinists.

I find it ironic you are taking a line of reasoning that would fit with Aquinas more than Scotus, and yet Scotus' philosophy and theology is what lead to the development of Protestant theology in general, as well as the natural sciences. I don't pretend to be an expert in Reformed theology, however.

If it's of any comfort, I've never read Aquinas, however I've listened to Dr. Sproul for many hours, and his view of Aquinas, is quite generous, favorable even. Perhaps some of Sproul rubbed off on me, it's quite possible. Scotus? Never heard of him, sorry.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

has EVERY right to impose Himself when and where He so desires

This naturally leads to the question, why doesn't He impose Himself whenever someone is about to sin?

I subscribe to what's called "the two wills of God theory", that within His one will is a permissive/prescriptive aspect, and a sovereign/decree aspect, what should be (and allows) and what shall be.

I find the "permissive/prescriptive" view difficult to reconcile with His love because if we see evil occur, we are responsible to either stop it or alert an authority. For example, I see someone being bashed in the street -- do I simply "allow" it and walk away? No, I will yell at the perpetrator and call the police. The "permissive" view of God seems to undermine His love and care for His creation, how do you reconcile these?

 

[FireDragon76]

I trust God because of his history of faithful covenants with humanity and his people Israel, culminating in the sending of his promised Messiah, who overcame sin, death, and the devil through his sacrificial death and resurrection. He has baptized me and gives me the forgiveness of sins every Sunday.

But I also recognize that God, as he has not chosen to reveal himself, is incomprehensible. He is the mysterium tremedum. He is the Divine Majesty, as we say. It is appropriate to approach God, in that context, with fear, even terror. There is a reason Old Testament saints are terrified when they see a vision of God or angels. He is "Totally Other".

In that sense, the genre of fiction known as horror has alot in common with that aspect of God, what theologian Rudolf Otto called "the Numinous".

 

[Tree of Life]

But if it's impossible for God to lie, in a philosophical sense, how exactly is he omnipotent?

God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do all that he pleases. Our children's catechism puts it like this:

Q - Can God do all things?
A - God can do all his holy will.

God does not desire to lie and to lie would contradict his very person and character because he is truth. The devil is the father of lies. So God cannot lie because he does not want to lie. If this contradicts our notion of "omnipotence" then we need to discard it in favor of a more biblical notion of "omnipotence".

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I note that you didn't cite your source.

For meditation:

Isa 64:6 "But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away."

Rom 14:23 "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."

Better?

 

[FireDragon76]

ToL, that sounds like a better explanation, thanks, and takes this discussion out of philosophy and into the realm of revelation. It would be closer to how we could reconcile what we as Lutherans know about God. God wills not to lie, this is true.

I am just objecting to this notion that somehow a person cannot act contrary to their nature. It is not logically impossible to conceive of that.

 

[Tree of Life]

ToL, that sounds like a better explanation, thanks, and takes this discussion out of philosophy and into the realm of revelation. It would be closer to how we could reconcile what we as Lutherans know about God. God wills not to lie, this is true.

I am just objecting to this notion that somehow a person cannot act contrary to their nature. It is not logically impossible to conceive of that.

God's power as presented in Scripture is never in the abstract philosophical realm. It's always in relation to human power and the power of creation. And the point is that God is always more powerful than anything in creation, any human army, any human ruler, any human person, any demonic force. Just think of Jesus casting out demons with a word! God is more powerful. He is SO more powerful that we might as well call him ALL powerful. I can't think of a single thing that God desires to do which he cannot accomplish.

 

[SkyWriting]

For meditation:

Isa 64:6 "But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away."

Rom 14:23 "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."

Better?

Those messages are for people who are already believers.
And they do not mention Jesus. So while you are claiming
all the unchurched are doomed, your passages are refining
believers in their faith, not screening out non-Christians
in the least.

 

[FireDragon76]

I do not deny that the Reformed have a high view of God's power. What I am questioning are statements about God's nature in a philosophical sense. How do we as Christians know about God, ultimately? I would argue it is through the character of Jesus Christ and what he testifies to.

The further we get from revelation, which in my church, is believed to be present in its fullness only in Jesus Christ, the further we are getting away from God as we could understand him, anyways.

 

[SkyWriting]

So I am uncertain about the angle or approach described, and both letters, considered as Scripture fall under the "all Scripture" of 2 Tim 3:16, no?

Both "all scripture" and "God breathed" are undefinable phrases.
Especially "God-Breathed" a one-off term that has no history.

 

[Tree of Life]

I do not deny that the Reformed have a high view of God's power. What I am questioning are statements about God's nature in a philosophical sense. How do we as Christians know about God, ultimately? I would argue it is through the character of Jesus Christ and what he testifies to.

The further we get from revelation, which in my church, is believed to be present in its fullness only in Jesus Christ, the further we are getting away from God as we could understand him, anyways.

Only Revelation - special and general. But especially special.

 

[SkyWriting]

whereas the non-Christian, cannot please God, as we read in the Word, whatever is not of faith [in Christ] is sin. Apart from Christ, all good deeds are as filthy rags before our righteous and Holy God.

That's not correct. Any person can hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and act accordingly.
If they act accordingly, they are listening to God's Holy Spirit.
Even scripture is secondary to God's Truth and Law.

 

[Halbhh]

I just read through that chapter recently. When I read that verse, this is what it meant to me, in paraphrase:

"You've been sacrificing children, yea, my children to other gods, who are no gods, and I the true God never commanded you to do such a thing, nor has it ever entered my mind to command you to do such a thing!"

(Notes: In Leviticus 18:21, we do see that Yahweh foresaw such a thing happening, and He outlawed it.

He mentions that they're His children in Ezekiel 23:37.

See how this might be a perversion of the firstborn sacrifice in Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:13-15, Exodus 22:29, Exodus 34:20, Numbers 3:12-13, Numbers 3:40-51, Numbers 8:15-18.)

That's the way I read it. The other interpretation didn't even enter my mind when I read Jeremiah. I don't have anything to add to the conversation at this time, I just wanted to answer your question.

This would contradict Deu 12:31, if I recall. I mean doesn't that rule out that way of construing Jer 7:31? It seems it would have to make it impossible to construe the original wording that way, but I will go ahead and read through that chapter to check more.

 

[redleghunter]

A number of giants of our faith have written at length on this topic, what can we glean from them?

Thanks for a well formed OP.

To support the discussion we can consider the following NT references:

Romans 6

And these references:

Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 6:6, Colossians 3:24, 1 Peter 2:16 - New American Standard Bible

 

[Halbhh]

I just read through that chapter recently. When I read that verse, this is what it meant to me, in paraphrase:

"You've been sacrificing children, yea, my children to other gods, who are no gods, and I the true God never commanded you to do such a thing, nor has it ever entered my mind to command you to do such a thing!"

(Notes: In Leviticus 18:21, we do see that Yahweh foresaw such a thing happening, and He outlawed it.

He mentions that they're His children in Ezekiel 23:37.

See how this might be a perversion of the firstborn sacrifice in Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:13-15, Exodus 22:29, Exodus 34:20, Numbers 3:12-13, Numbers 3:40-51, Numbers 8:15-18.)

That's the way I read it. The other interpretation didn't even enter my mind when I read Jeremiah. I don't have anything to add to the conversation at this time, I just wanted to answer your question.

Ok, I checked out the chapter (Jer 7) more carefully now. Don't miss verses 6, 9, and 18. And 30. See? They are worshiping idols. It turns out that the normal idol worship included sacrifice of their own children to the idols, burning them in fire. That's the reference, as in Deuteronomy 12:31 and many other places.

See? So, with those 4 verses (Jer 7:6,9,18, 30 and Deu 12:31) , now you should see Jer 7:31 with the wording "...nor did it come into my mind" to mean that this sacrificing their children to idols God did not expect them to do at that point in time. (note that 'high places' are typically places to worship/sacrifice to idols, and this is why you'll see over and over again in the OT various good kings tearing down the high places, such as for instance Asa in 2 Chron 14, only one instance of very many.)

People don't always know that the specific evil of sacrificing children to idols was not only another abomination, but it was "even the abomination", meaning the worst of them all, the greatest of the abominations. The most extreme evil. Consider the warning in Bible Gateway passage: Malachi 4:6 - English Standard Version. The punishment -- total destruction of the land -- is so extreme, because that evil is so extreme. God wants not only the end of the greatest evil, but also He wants us to turn fully to the opposite, and truly love our children. This was even one key part of the mission of John the Baptist(!) -- as told in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, verse 17. Once you read Bible Gateway passage: Malachi 4 - English Standard Version you see the high stakes. If we failed to respond to John and to Christ and increase our love-one-another, including to our children, we could even have been under Bible Gateway passage: Malachi 4:6 - English Standard Version it seems. See....? We really do have freedom of will.)

 

[Everybodyknows]

I understand, a lot of people don't like the idea of mixing the concepts of "free will" and "limited choices".

Of course we have limitations, that should be obvious to anyone. I'm not free to choose to fly or to live on saturn. The question is how free is our will within the limitations we are under.

The issue is that the "ability" to choose something in general, and the "desire" to choose a particular thing, are not the same thing.

Sure, I understand. Do we have the ability to choose against our desires? What about choices in mundane things where our desires are neutral?

 

[Everybodyknows]

It's a complicated question to be honest, for starters, Christians and non-Christians do not have the same freedoms. That we're bound by time, gravity, location, economies, biology, and just a whole host of external conditions, maybe I should be asking you the same question? The Christian set free from the bondage of sin has a choice not to do what he knows is sin, he can fight the good fight of faith, he can put on the whole armor of God, whereas the non-Christian, cannot please God, as we read in the Word, whatever is not of faith [in Christ] is sin. Apart from Christ, all good deeds are as filthy rags before our righteous and Holy God.

Is that the only thing Christians have freedom in, to not choose sin? Do non Christians have any freedom at all? What about everyday stuff like what color tie I'm going to wear today?

I would like to understand the compatabilist view a little better, as I haven't really explored the topic much. I think you need a more specific definition of free will and then demonstrate how that is compatible with determinism. We can make just about anything compatible if we keep our definitions vague.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

@Halbhh
I hope you don't think all those verses with the firstborn son in Exodus and Numbers are about them killing children on the altar! That's not the case!

If you read the context carefully in those chapters, you'll see that Yahweh is talking about redeeming the children, and that it was part of the ritual worship, and not like the animal sacrifices!

But that's what I'm suggesting may have been perverted into the idol worship they were practicing during Jeremiah's time, when they were actually killing their children.

What they were doing was explicitly outlawed in Deuteronomy 12:31 like you point out, and also in Leviticus 18:21, perhaps elsewhere also.

The point I was making is this: the fact that He outlawed such an activity hundreds of years before Jeremiah, shows us that it's not a surprise to Him that they would end up doing this. So it did enter His mind that they could do such a thing.

What He's saying in Jeremiah is that it never entered His mind to command them to do such a thing, even though they perhaps may have thought He did, somehow or another, by misreading the text, or simply because they were apostate.

The verse really doesn't relate in this discussion one way or another imho.

 

[GingerBeer]

Definitions are always helpful, especially in any sort of philosophical discussion. So to aid the discussion, here are basic definitions from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.)" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In another thread in response to another poster and before explaining my position, in response to the defintion they provided, I responded with the following, giving a few details on my position:

"...which unlike the entry you quoted does not include the extra biased baggage of "every cause, including our decisions, are pre-determined." Which is completely unnecessary because if you check out the link from the definition above, you will see there is history of compatibilism in philosophy and different types of compatibilism. I would probably be considered a "classic compatibilist". I do not like the term "free will" because it is extremely misleading. Free from what to what? I much prefer the term "FREEDOM" because it acknowledges choice. Compatibilists do not subscribe to what is known as "hard determinism", there are differences and I'll leave it to you to learn them. Compatibilists are "soft determinists". At this point, we can hardly discuss determinism without discussing causality, at least to a point. In an attempt for brevity and clarity, I recognize no less (angels, fallen and non?) than two chains of cause. God being the uncaused cause of everything first caused. Portions of His creation were created, especially humans made in His image, to be secondary chains of causality, such that humans could be given commands and actually choose to obey or not obey. However, the first humans by disobeying, brought curse to the choices of everyone after them. As secondary chains of cause, originating from the first Causer, there is of course a link, however the freedom given to secondary causers, shifts the responsibility of first cause to secondary cause. I feel this is terribly complicated and difficult, however, when studied most of life is complicated under a microscope, ask a Scientist. This did not all sink into me overnight, it is an accumulation of years of pondering of meditating and questioning. So to answer your loaded question, yes I believe everything is pre-determined, if in no other sense than permanently settled in the omniscience of God. Does that make God the direct cause of everything? NO, by NO means. It does not follow that secondary chains of causality necessarily (by necessity) be caused by the first Causer. Finally, this is an area where I am open to disagreement, where I do not feel one hundred percent certain, but confident enough to lay out a position, even if it may be lacking in presentation and fine details. I believe in determinism and true moral responsibility, I believe they are both presented in other terms in Scripture and are compatible and harmonious."

In response to their "free will in the Bible" claim, I posted the following:

"Might I suggest that for every passage where the word is "choose" or "choice" that non-Augustinians are reading "FREE" into the will of a choice? In other words there is a world of difference between making a choice and it being free from countless things including desires. The Scriptures are clear as a bell concerning the nature of fallen man. That fallen man can makes choices is a far cry from free will, that fallen man has freedom within the bounds of his completely sinful nature is also a far cry from what people think "free will" so commonly means."

In short, my reason for posting comes from looking over the Christian philosophy forum and seeing so little direct and obvious Christian philosophy (in the titles at least), so I thought maybe this could get a discussion going and minds turned onto this ongoing debate that has gone on for centuries. A number of giants of our faith have written at length on this topic, what can we glean from them?

It's obvious that people make choices and among the choices that people make is deciding to follow Jesus or not. It's true that scripture says that God desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. So why do you want all the complex web weaving and fanciful technical philosophical definitions to decide if people choose to follow Jesus or not and if God wants all men to be saved or not?

 

[SkyWriting]

Only Revelation - special and general. But especially special.

It's obvious that people make choices and among the choices that people make is deciding to follow Jesus or not. It's true that scripture says that God desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. So why do you want all the complex web weaving and fanciful technical philosophical definitions to decide if people choose to follow Jesus or not and if God wants all men to be saved or not?

How do we as Christians know about God, ultimately? I would argue it is through the character of Jesus Christ and what he testifies to.

Rom 1:19
For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.