God's permissive will?

[RDKirk]

When I say I believe in free will, I mean that I believe a person can choose (and in fact always does choose) to do what they want.

But, except for First Cause, ALL things are caused, being effects of First Cause. Your choices are caused.

You conflicted yourself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're applying a causal structure on the Bible that isn't found within it, and defining free will in a way that isn't actually free will. Essentially you are claiming that God is incapable of creating truly free beings, based on a philosophical construct you insist must be so.

Let's try this again, then. What does FREE WILL mean, to you? Is it uncaused choice or not? Are you denying that, except for first cause, all things are caused?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You conflicted yourself.

How so?

 

[Fervent]

Let's try this again, then. What does FREE WILL mean, to you? Is it uncaused choice or not? Are you denying that, except for first cause, all things are caused?

Uncaused choice is redundant, because if the selection is external then there is no choice. As for your second question, I see no reason to hold that everything has a prior cause. Certainly not on an a priori basis.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Uncaused choice is redundant, because if the selection is external then there is no choice. As for your second question, I see no reason to hold that everything has a prior cause. Certainly not on an a priori basis.

The selection is internal, caused by external and internal influences. Do you honestly think that anyone's choices are made in a vacuum?

 

[Fervent]

The selection is internal, caused by external and internal influences. Do you honestly think that anyone's choices are made in a vacuum?

Influence is not cause.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Define decree. And then define command.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Influence is not cause.

To what extent? Influence indeed does cause. Have you taken into account how many things influence your choices, to include influencing your mindset?

There are no little first causes running about the planet.

 

[Fervent]

To what extent? Influence indeed does cause. Have you taken into account how many things influence your choices, to include influencing your mindset?

There are no little first causes running about the planet.

Influence and cause may be related, but its sloppy to confuse the two. Influence inclines an action, but does not determine it. If something is a cause, then the effect follows by necessity. Influences can be overcome, causes cannot. So while there are many factors that go into a choice that are not always immediately known, a choice is necessarily uncaused or else it is not a choice.

 

[RDKirk]

How so?

You said people can choose to do what they want, then you said that all choices are caused.

 

[bling]

God as First Cause does not mean he does not interact daily! Maybe that is why some people like, "Uncaused Causer", better than, "First Cause". But "First Cause" is not a merely deistic notion. It is an indicator of position on a logical sequence —cause and effect— and no reference to time passage.

You say, "The question is: why can't God allow man to make or not make some of these "changes" which He allows to go either way with man making the free will choice." And I say, He does! In fact, he not only allows man to constantly make (or not make) these "changes" according to the free will choices of man, but man does so according to the decree of God.

You, as before, reinterpret what I say to mean something it does not. Logically, all things are caused, except First Cause.


BUT: Your words there, I agree to. Your use of them, not so much. You say, "...to go either way", by which you mean, "it is not pre-determined which way they go". But it most certainly is determined.

You can't show me any time that things have gone more than only the way that they have gone. Nor can you show, except by conjecture, that they ever will go more than only the way that they will go. So how can you say that they could have? You don't know that! All you know is that that is the way you think. You do choose, between what you take for possible paths/options. But your choice will always be whatever option God already decreed to come to pass.

And yes, don't even bother to go to the many many passages where God places the choice before man to make, and not only that, but names the contingencies as to what is going to happen, depending on which choice is made. That does not imply that God has not already determined what the choice will be. We've already been through that supposed evidence that God leaves anything up to chance.

There is no such thing as chance.

First you say: “man constantly make (or not make) these "changes" according to the free will choices of man,”

But then you add: “but man does so according to the decree of God.” Which means they are not man’s free will choices, but choices decreed by God.

You are contradicting yourself.

We agree that God is the uncaused causer of man, but that does not mean God could not miraculously make man to also in some limited choices be an uncaused causer.

You say: “But it most certainly is determined”, but give no explanation for why it must be predetermined.

If everything is predetermined than all the mistakes are God’s fault, everyone who goes to hell is God’s caused.

You ask: “So how can you say that they could have?” If God is holding us personally accountable, than to be just and fair we have to be personally responsible for the choice and it cannot be degreed by God.

 

[bling]

If it's "very limited," it's not "free."

Why? We are talking about choices some being predetermined and some being left to the free will choice of the individual.

I'm not a subscriber, btw, to "free will." I believe we are limited to a single choice that God permits.

How does that not make God responsible for all those who go to hell?

 

[RDKirk]

Why? We are talking about choices some being predetermined and some being left to the free will choice of the individual.

"Free" is an absolute term, like "unique."

If I can't choose any course of action with no coercion and no consequence imposed by another moral agent, then my action is not freely chosen, my will is not free. If there is some moral agent who coerces me to a certain action, or will punish me if I do not take one certain action or take a certain other action, then my action is not by free will because I'm acting in an effort to avoid pain induced by another moral agent.

If not because of the consequences imposed by nothing but that other moral agent, I would have freely chosen a different action.

How does that not make God responsible for all those who go to hell?

God gives us a single choice: To believe or not to believe. In fact, it's only through His grace in making His Spirit available to us that the single choice is even possible, because disbelief is our mechanistically determined choice by nature.

That is not "free will," that is a single permitted choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Influence and cause may be related, but its sloppy to confuse the two. Influence inclines an action, but does not determine it. If something is a cause, then the effect follows by necessity. Influences can be overcome, causes cannot. So while there are many factors that go into a choice that are not always immediately known, a choice is necessarily uncaused or else it is not a choice.

"Influence inclines an action, but does not determine it." There, you said it. And we all ALWAYS choose according to our inclinations. We choose, even if only for that moment of choice, what we are inclined to do/have/etc.

And, to repeat myself: If a choice by the creature is uncaused (which is itself a self-contradictory notion), then God is not First Cause, which is contra-Biblical, and which I will not accept.

 

[Fervent]

"Influence inclines an action, but does not determine it." There, you said it. And we all ALWAYS choose according to our inclinations. We choose, even if only for that moment of choice, what we are inclined to do/have/etc.

And, to repeat myself: If a choice by the creature is uncaused (which is itself a self-contradictory notion), then God is not First Cause, which is contra-Biblical, and which I will not accept.

First cause, and causal structures in general, are philosophical constructions. And I will repeat myself, if a "decision" is a necessary effect of a prior cause it is not a choice. Choice implies the ability to do otherwise.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I say I believe in free will, I mean that I believe a person can choose (and in fact always does choose) to do what they want.

But, except for First Cause, ALL things are caused, being effects of First Cause. Your choices are caused.

RDKirk said:
You conflicted yourself.

You said people can choose to do what they want, then you said that all choices are caused.

How do those two things conflict? You're going with, "It is not free if it is caused"? Is the choosing human creature not himself caused? Then how are his choices uncaused? And if the Creator knew the choices-to-come when he created, yet created what would result in those choices, how is that not causing those choices, and, in fact, INTENDING those choices?

 

[Mark Quayle]

First cause, and causal structures in general, are philosophical constructions. And I will repeat myself, if a "decision" is a necessary effect of a prior cause it is not a choice. Choice implies the ability to do otherwise.

Mere assertion. And logically self-contradictory.

Do you not assert that the choice comes from within the creature himself? Then how is it uncaused, if the creature making that choice is himself caused to exist?

 

[Fervent]

Mere assertion. And logically self-contradictory.

Do you not assert that the choice comes from within the creature himself? Then how is it uncaused, if the creature making that choice is himself caused to exist?

Not assertion, definition. Your whole premise relies on a mechanical understanding of causal structures which is entirely philosophical. You keep using the word "choice" but insist that there is only one possible outcome. Choice requires multiple possibilities, and so cannot exist in a fixed deterministic view. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

First you say: “man constantly make (or not make) these "changes" according to the free will choices of man,”

But then you add: “but man does so according to the decree of God.” Which means they are not man’s free will choices, but choices decreed by God.

You are contradicting yourself.

Assertion. It is your point of view that sees a contradiction. It is not logical fact that shows a contradiction. You are, in effect, meaning something different by "free" than what I mean (and what the Bible means) by free. In fact, we are all slaves —to sin or to Christ. But if the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.

We agree that God is the uncaused causer of man, but that does not mean God could not miraculously make man to also in some limited choices be an uncaused causer.

He either is caused or uncaused. There is logically no middle ground. You might pursue the use of words like, "genuine", but you won't find a word you can use to demonstrate that man/ man's choice/ man's choices is/are uncaused.

You say: “But it most certainly is determined”, but give no explanation for why it must be predetermined.

Indeed I have! Many times. Apparently it is so logically simple that you dismiss it out-of-hand. EVERYTHING except for First Cause, is caused by First Cause.

If everything is predetermined than all the mistakes are God’s fault, everyone who goes to hell is God’s caused.

Even if everything that goes to hell is caused by God to do so, it does not logically lead to the word, "fault", when applied to God. It is to God's credit that everything he decrees comes to pass. There is no fault on his part, as 'fault' implies wrongdoing against God, and logically God cannot act against his own will. Sin, whether caused or not, is the act of the sinner.

You ask: “So how can you say that they could have?” If God is holding us personally accountable, than to be just and fair we have to be personally responsible for the choice and it cannot be degreed by God.

Logical fallacy. We ARE personally responsible for our choices, which can ONLY be made if God decrees them. Try to understand just how we exist, and how only in him do we live and move and have our being. The WCF doesn't just say that God ordains all things whatsoever come to pass, and that by doing so he does not violate the will of man nor deny the contingencies of secondary causes —it also says that God's decree ESTABLISHES the will of man and the contingencies of secondary causes. God is not hands-off, in his creation, but is actively upholding very FACT.

WCF chapter 3: 1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not assertion, definition. Your whole premise relies on a mechanical understanding of causal structures which is entirely philosophical. You keep using the word "choice" but insist that there is only one possible outcome. Choice requires multiple possibilities, and so cannot exist in a fixed deterministic view. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Choice does not require multiple possibilities. At the most, it requires only perceived multiple possibilities —options. But empirically, it has been shown that only one of the options is possible. To assert otherwise is to merely speculate. The fact that we don't know, doesn't mean something is actually possible— it only means that we think that way.

It is the same with "chance", "random", "it just so happens" and such terms. "'Chance' is just a placeholder for, 'I don't know.'"