Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[renniks]

A major part of the cause of evil deeds (and thoughts) is the fallen nature. This was indeed predestined by God, it is no mistake, but a necessary part of the producing of the Bride of Christ. You think that his use of means to produce his precise and specific results that are also in their place causes of further effects and on and on until evil deeds result, constitutes blame? Are you pretending that these "puppets" are not willed, and do not wholly indulge in the evil they commit?

Calvinism does not claim they are puppets, nor that they do not choose --that is the strawman that opponents prop up for beings that pretend to operate on the same level as God. Balderdash.

Lol, again you ask the obvious. "You think that his use of means to produce his precise and specific results that are also in their place causes of further effects and on and on until evil deeds result, constitutes blame?" Absolutely! If I use a bomb as the means to take out your house, yes, I'm still responsible. Puppets do not willfully wholly indulge in what they have been irresistibly caused to do, they have no free will to decide whether to indulge or not, they only jerk when their strings are pulled. Choosing is meaningless if every movement of my life, every blink of my eye, every word I ever speak has been chosen for me.

 

[renniks]

I fail to see a contradiction there. How can our choices NOT cause things? And how can they NOT be themselves the effects of antecedent causes?

Our choices cause nothing if they are already caused. If God is causing everything, we cause nothing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see just the opposite, first off. I say Calvinist's constantly pray like they are Arminians. They ask God to do things, when they claim to believe God has already set in stone everything that will ever happen. So, what point is there in asking God to move? God being the first cause doesn't equal God directly controlling literally everything. What you are are promoting is no different than athiesms determinism with God thrown in. You just said as much.
And now you are asking the classic Calvinist non question: Why do some believe and others not believe? The answer is free will. Undetermined, uncaused freedom to make undetermined choices. Yes, we all have influences, but influences don't make choices for us. Have you never chosen against your influences? Have you never followed your conscience, when every influence around you urged you to give in to what 'everyone else' was doing?

Wow. Calvinists do not claim "God has set in stone, so there's no point in praying". I say again, God uses means to accomplish his ends. This is a very ACTIVE work.

The main logical difference between Calvinism (or at least, what I believe) and "...atheisms determinism with God thrown in" is they blame God where I credit God. You also take what I believe to be worthy of blaming God. It is not. If we ask God to do things, it is not because we don't really believe he will do his whole will if we do not pray. We pray because we love to talk with him, and to learn and understand, and to interact, and express our thoughts and hope to learn his. If my tooth aches (or whatever I pray about) and I pray for relief, I don't know if he will or not provide that relief, and honestly, the relief is not the point of the prayer --God is the point of the prayer, and he has used the pain to draw me toward him.

Calvinists love the story about how God would have destroyed Israel, had not Moses gotten between God and Israel, as a result of God having raised Moses up for that very purpose! You want Calvinism to say there was no point in God raising Moses up for that purpose, nor for Moses to be concerned for Israel, nor for Moses to will anything, nor for Moses to pray. That's a caricature --that isn't Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lol, again you ask the obvious. "You think that his use of means to produce his precise and specific results that are also in their place causes of further effects and on and on until evil deeds result, constitutes blame?" Absolutely! If I use a bomb as the means to take out your house, yes, I'm still responsible. Puppets do not willfully wholly indulge in what they have been irresistibly caused to do, they have no free will to decide whether to indulge or not, they only jerk when their strings are pulled. Choosing is meaningless if every movement of my life, every blink of my eye, every word I ever speak has been chosen for me.

Again with the puppets. If you have some way to prove that true spontaneity in created beings doesn't depend upon chance, nor does it demonstrate that some people are better in and of themselves than others, and that there is no logical contradiction in true spontaneity being at all caused, I might listen to you. I think I've had enough.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Our choices cause nothing if they are already caused. If God is causing everything, we cause nothing.

There you demonstrate your preconception, your false notion of our ability. All effects, so far as I know, cause further effects, (sooner or later, if you wish to think of it that way). I don't mean to say that all effects are also causes, because I can't prove it to be so, but I think it is so, but perhaps there is something at the end that is only effect --I don't know. But we do know that all effects are caused. First cause is not an effect. This is why I say there are no little first causes running about the surface of the earth.

Our places in the chain of causality demonstrate exactly that God can cause, and we also cause, just as the wind that blows against a grain of sand also causes. Who, after all, do you think we are???

 

[Mark Quayle]

Choosing is meaningless if every movement of my life, every blink of my eye, every word I ever speak has been chosen for me.

Do dogs not choose? As another poster said, even the paramecium? Yet we boast the ability to reason as the difference between us and them.

You still have not provided me with a refutation of your appeal to chance or to moral superiority of one human over another, nor have you demonstrated there is no sloughing of terms nor illogic in saying that God in his sovereignty can grant absolute sovereignty to lesser beings.

 

[childeye 2]

Lol, again you ask the obvious. "You think that his use of means to produce his precise and specific results that are also in their place causes of further effects and on and on until evil deeds result, constitutes blame?" Absolutely! If I use a bomb as the means to take out your house, yes, I'm still responsible. Puppets do not willfully wholly indulge in what they have been irresistibly caused to do, they have no free will to decide whether to indulge or not, they only jerk when their strings are pulled. Choosing is meaningless if every movement of my life, every blink of my eye, every word I ever speak has been chosen for me.

For what it's worth, I think you guys don't always qualify your terms enough. The carnal mind is a puppet in subservience to the flesh, which is why there is a carnal will described in scripture as opposed to a spiritual will. I think you two could agree on that.

As such, bombing someone else's house should not be equated with God's plan to show that He is our Light that keeps us Holy.

 

[renniks]

Calvinists love the story about how God would have destroyed Israel, had not Moses gotten between God and Israel, as a result of God having raised Moses up for that very purpose! You want Calvinism to say there was no point in God raising Moses up for that purpose, nor for Moses to be concerned for Israel, nor for Moses to will anything, nor for Moses to pray. That's a caricature --that isn't Calvinism.

See, but here's the problem with that: in Calvinism, Israels sin was already rendered certain by God also. So whoever God raised up ( and there's no need to believe this raising is irresistible anyway) was only raised up to fix what God already caused to happen. So what you're left with is God playing both sides of the board in what must be a very boring game.

 

[renniks]

Again with the puppets. If you have some way to prove that true spontaneity in created beings doesn't depend upon chance, nor does it demonstrate that some people are better in and of themselves than others, and that there is no logical contradiction in true spontaneity being at all caused, I might listen to you. I think I've had enough.

Well, it's obvious you have no answers when asked the most basic questions about your beliefs. Chance? You don't believe in chance. It can't exist in your theology so I don't know what you are asking?

 

[renniks]

Do dogs not choose? As another poster said, even the paramecium? Yet we boast the ability to reason as the difference between us and them.

You still have not provided me with a refutation of your appeal to chance or to moral superiority of one human over another, nor have you demonstrated there is no sloughing of terms nor illogic in saying that God in his sovereignty can grant absolute sovereignty to lesser beings.

How could we be in any way sovereign if God has set in stone are every action for all eternity? Dogs choosing has nothing to do with the discussion, but of course in your system, the dogs every movement would have to be pre-decided also. One human doesn't have to be superior to another to make superior choices. Our choices determine things, not the other way around.

 

[renniks]

As such, bombing someone else's house should not be equated with God's plan to show that He is our Light that keeps us Holy.

I don't think they can have their cake and eat it too. If God is the cause of all, that includes every act of evil ever committed.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't think they can have their cake and eat it too. If God is the cause of all, that includes every act of evil ever committed.

First I am going to remove the label Calvinism from the equation so as to stipulate that I am not addressing "they". If one's theology inadvertently takes credit for righteousness by taking credit for sin, then it too is trying to have it's cake and eat it too.

God said that He forms the Light and creates darkness. I believe 'vanity' is the impetus of all evil, and I qualify that term by saying that the creature gradually takes God's providence for granted in some degree of un-thankfulness for the Light, which then manifests as carnal vanity. If we can establish that, then I believe it can be shown that there can be justification for anyone who exhibits mercy and understanding, rather than initially resorting to hypocritically appointing personal blame for sin. In other words, the circumstance of being created would account for why there is vanity in the creation. Hence we see judge not lest you be judged, and what measure you use to judge others will be used against you.

 

[renniks]

First I am going to remove the label Calvinism from the equation so as to stipulate that I am not addressing "they".

God said that He forms the Light and creates darkness. I believe vanity is the impetus of all evil, and I qualify that term by saying that the creature gradually takes God's providence for granted in some degree of un-thankfulness for the Light. If we can establish that, then I believe it can be shown that there can be justification for anyone who exhibits mercy and understanding rather than initially resorting to appointing personal blame. In other words, the circumstance of being created would account for why there is vanity in the creation.

Yeah, we call that circumstance " freedom".
God could have created beings unable to rebel but he did not. That however, is not how Calvinism sees it.
If you follow Calvin down the rabbit hole far enough, you realize there's not even room here for Lucifer to choose vanity. God would have to irresistibly cause lucifer to choose to become proud.
The basic problem is they misinterpret what sovereignty is. It's not causation or total control

 

[childeye 2]

Yeah, we call that circumstance " freedom".
That however, is not how Calvinism sees it.
If you follow Calvin down the rabbit hole far enough, you realize there's not even room here for Lucifer to choose vanity. God would have to irresistibly cause lucifer to choose to become proud.
The basic problem is they misinterpret what sovereignty is. It's not causation or total control

Again I'm not addressing Calvinism.

Since it's circumstantial, then God cannot change the fact that the creature/flesh is not God, for God is Spirit. Vanity is not a choice/decision to rebel in this scenario, but rather an issue of a lack of thankfulness to some degree. It would be vanity for me to presume I could choose to never be vain or to be vain. I'm thanking God I'm even thankful. It is the same reason as why a wise person does not think themselves wise. Being created corruptible doesn't even imply, much less infers freedom, while being transformed into the incorruptible does. Tell me what rationale concludes that freedom is found in rebelling against God?

Perhaps the lesson of the prodigal son would be helpful for this discussion. We're here arguing semantics, so we should qualify the term, since 'freedom' is a fluid term sometimes meaning it's opposite in sentiment.

 

[Jok]

My point is that whatever state in which you find yourself, seems to one's thinking to be the default, with no particular blame placed, normally speaking. But suddenly, the same One (God) who arranged your default, changes you from your default to Regenerated and you want to scream "unfair"?

I definitely believe in having your default settings shaken up by God via a conversion. But if we’re not talking about that, for a person to get fired up to the point of yelling out “unfair” it generally that takes a bit of momentum. From what I’ve seen life has to happen a bit to people before they start shaking their fists in the air at life. Although it can happen a lot faster for some, we can’t downplay childhood too much because getting picked on by other kids could be crippling.

So we get into the nurture versus nature predicament.

And I don’t know why so many people seem to treat it as an either/or question, it’s simply a mixture of both.

 

[renniks]

Again I'm not addressing Calvinism.

Since it's circumstantial, then God cannot change the fact that the creature/flesh is not God, for God is Spirit. Vanity is not a choice/decision to rebel in this scenario, but rather an issue of a lack of thankfulness to some degree. It would be vanity for me to presume I could choose to never be vain or to be vain. I'm thanking God I'm even thankful. It is the same reason as why a wise person does not think themselves wise. Being created corruptible doesn't even imply, much less infers freedom, while being transformed into the incorruptible does. Tell me what rationale concludes that freedom is found in rebelling against God?

Perhaps the lesson of the prodigal son would be helpful for this discussion. We're here arguing semantics, so we should qualify the term, since 'freedom' is a fluid term sometimes meaning it's opposite in sentiment.

Yes, pride is strongly related to ungratefulness. It's almost impossible for a grateful heart to be proud. The freedom of the unredeemed heart is within a smaller circle, IMO, but still exists. Obviously even an unredeemed person can choose to do many great and godly things. The most foul of men can be very self sacrificial in certain areas for example. But yes, there's always going to be corruption of Truth in the depths of that heart, unless he surrenders to God, which is also a choice. Free will doesn't imply unlimited freedom in any theology I know of. We can not decide to do something that is beyond the human ability on our own. I can't flap my arms and fly to China. But I could decide to build a flying machine. Free will under a deterministic system isn't free at all, it's actually an illusion.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, pride is strongly related to ungratefulness. It's almost impossible for a grateful heart to be proud. The freedom of the unredeemed heart is within a smaller circle, IMO, but still exists. Obviously even an unredeemed person can choose to do many great and godly things. The most foul of men can be very self sacrificial in certain areas for example. But yes, there's always going to be corruption of Truth in the depths of that heart, unless he surrenders to God, which is also a choice. Free will doesn't imply unlimited freedom in any theology I know of. We can not decide to do something that is beyond the human ability on our own. I can't flap my arms and fly to China. But I could decide to build a flying machine. Free will under a deterministic system isn't free at all, it's actually an illusion.

I understand your point of view. You're defining free will as an opposite to determinism. Moreover you're case is better made in that when the power through which all things were created enters the creation, then it has the ability to alter the original sequence of events from inside the creation. It does no good to argue that there are no sequences of events to alter, particularly since God said we would die if we ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

The problem is we're arguing the semantics of the term free in front of will. For example it's more reasonable to defend the term free will when defined as a will that reasons upon the sub sequential implications between serving the flesh and serving the Spirit of empathy. They're both servitude to different masters in the objective view of scripture, and realized as only free in their subjective views of freedom, and nor would this discount determinism. But any meaning of free will that forms a premise that neither of these two masters have power over us, is not a free will I would defend. Even Jesus said you can't serve two masters equally without being what I would call double minded.

Needless to say this becomes problematic when discussing free will to mean an opposite to determinism, particularly when the actual sentiment being pondered is being framed as taking responsibility for one's actions vs. blaming someone else. Both can only have a negative context either way in the objective view, because even if I chose to do righteousness and do not glorify God, but credit it to my decision making ability, it is vanity nonetheless in an un-thankfulness to God for the empathy and wisdom that informed the decision.

Given that we must serve one of two masters, and that the carnal mind cannot even be subject to God because it does not even discern spiritual things, what does free will mean to the carnal mind when it thinks it's taking responsibility for it's actions by not blaming someone else? It does not account for the fact that if God gave a person over to a reprobate mind then that person could not refuse the condition. Wherefore it's understandable why forbearance of the sin's of others on account of our weakness in the flesh, amounts to an excuse and is enabling sin to the carnal mind.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I understand your point of view. You're defining free will as an opposite to determinism. Moreover you're case is better made in that when the power through which all things were created enters the creation, then it has the ability to alter the original sequence of events from inside the creation. It does no good to argue that there are no sequences of events to alter, particularly since God said we would die if we ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

The problem is we're arguing the semantics of the term free in front of will. For example it's more reasonable to defend the term free will when defined as a will that reasons upon the sub sequential implications between serving the flesh and serving the Spirit of empathy. They're both servitude to different masters in the objective view of scripture, and realized as only free in their subjective views of freedom, and nor would this discount determinism. But any meaning of free will that forms a premise that neither of these two masters have power over us, is not a free will I would defend. Even Jesus said you can't serve two masters equally without being what I would call double minded.

Needless to say this becomes problematic when discussing free will to mean an opposite to determinism, particularly when the actual sentiment being pondered is being framed as taking responsibility for one's actions vs. blaming someone else. Both can only have a negative context either way in the objective view, because even if I chose to do righteousness and do not glorify God, but credit it to my decision making ability, it is vanity nonetheless in an un-thankfulness to God for the empathy and wisdom that informed the decision.

Given that we must serve one of two masters, and that the carnal mind cannot even be subject to God because it does not even discern spiritual things, what does free will mean to the carnal mind when it thinks it's taking responsibility for it's actions by not blaming someone else? It does not account for the fact that if God gave a person over to a reprobate mind then that person could not refuse the condition. Wherefore it's understandable why forbearance of the sin's of others on account of our weakness in the flesh, amounts to an excuse and is enabling sin to the carnal mind.

There is a sinful nature that believers need to crucify. This is not done by their own will power alone, but it is done with the free will cooperation with GOD and in asking for His help and in employing His Word in our lives. Much of this does have to do with our own will, but there is an aspect of this that involves GOD. We ask GOD to help us to overcome and to work in our lives. But we have to take the first step towards GOD. God is not going to force us to believe or have faith in His Word. We need to have faith first in His Word. Without faith, it is impossible to please GOD. Calvinists say that GOD gives us faith. But this is something that is man's responsibility. Sure, GOD can convict a believer of sin (i.e. the breaking of His holy words), but it is up to man to have faith and come to the LORD and seek His forgiveness, and believe in His death, burial, and resurrection. GOD is not going to do that for us. GOD cannot force us to believe. GOD is also not going to obey for us if we decide to later keep disobeying and fight against our instructions to obey His Word. Yes, again, GOD moves in our life to do good. For we cannot do any good. For only GOD alone is good. But we need to choose. We need to make that choice to abide in the Lord and His good ways. GOD is not going to force us to be a certain way. GOD is love; And we know that true love is never forced.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Dogs choosing has nothing to do with the discussion, but of course in your system, the dogs every movement would have to be pre-decided also. One human doesn't have to be superior to another to make superior choices. Our choices determine things, not the other way around.

I thought I was done, but here I go again. Why are you asking, "How could we be in any way sovereign if God has set in stone are every action for all eternity?"? That is my question! We are not in any way sovereign.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, it's obvious you have no answers when asked the most basic questions about your beliefs. Chance? You don't believe in chance. It can't exist in your theology so I don't know what you are asking?

Can you show me what basic questions I have no answers for? It isn't that obvious.

You don't know what I'm asking --no, I don't believe in chance, which is why I asked, does your supposed independence from God's causation not invoke chance, or superiority of some over others? WHY do some of their own ability (according to your supposition), choose God and others don't?