I don't believe making a choice establishes free will when free will is being defined as in opposition to determinism. Many definitions of determinism include choices being made.
Okay, I’ll bite, because I appreciate the time and thought you put into this response.
The "will" when defined as the faculty by which we reason and decide, already denotes the ability to make decisions without the addition of the descriptive term "free".
Free denotes a division from Determinist rhetoric... as you specified Determinism of some less stringent forms denotes choice.
I would assume no one will debate that we all reason and choose so long as we are alive, sentient, and must be doing something at all times. If I'm sitting, I'm not standing. If I'm walking, I'm not running. If I am not moving I'm being still. In the sense of simply existing, every action or inaction can be construed as a choice being acted upon.
You would hope so, but there are veracious determinists out there that literally believe it’s all puppets on strings.
But I follow your logic and find it well articulated, thus far.
What is always debated, is what does "free" imply. Is the will free, and free from what? And are there degrees of this freedom, or is it absolute? Do all people have a free will or just some do and others have enslaved wills in the moral sense?
That’s an issue of debate from Determinist stance. One is free or they aren’t. It’s binary. Most varying levels get lost in the ridiculous examples of free meaning able to Will matter into existence as God, thus free is false, because we can’t will matter into existence. Obviously that’s a distraction technique because no idiot outside of a straight jacket would claim they can will matter into existence, like God.
To me free will God and sin is strictly about the moral/immoral paradigm and culpability, while Molinism is contemplating reconciling God's foreknowledge of events with human freedom. Let us consider this definition of determinism:
Following your logic thus far...
de·ter·min·ism
/dəˈtərməˌnizəm/
noun
Philosophy
noun:
determinism
- the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
Right... and that extreme where humanity doesn’t claim responsibility for their actions, is flat opposed to what repentance genuinely is. If I’m not responsible for my sin, what would I have to change my mind about? What I’m saying is... what need is there to turn to Jesus, if I have zero culpability in the first place that would show my need for Christ?
When we define free will in opposition to determinism, free will moral/immoral actions can not be caused by something external. As we can see above, the term "choice" is not used, but human "action" is used. I believe the reason for this is because the term "choice" has two separate meanings.
Hmmmm... interesting train of thought.
One is choice/option which is external, circumstantial, and has nothing to do with the will. And the other is choice/decision which does pertain to the will. So for example when the circumstance of a choice/option confronts the person, they must choose/decide between the options before acting. Determinism helps draw a distinction so as to not conflate the two meanings of choice.
Determinism conflates it all, IMO. It doesn’t release discussion from confusion, but binds it all to God’s Will... and as is obvious... we don’t do God’s will, Perfectly. The Hard Determinist stance goes so far as to make Satan, God’s Proxy for Evil.
Determinism does not claim that the will does not choose, but rather that the choice made and it's subsequent action is not made without an external cause.
Jesus Christ specifies the HEART which is a very internal cause. In this light, I see an attempt to “soften” the term determinism, by many determinists, but no amount of determination can remove the “predetermined” connotation from the theological term “Determination”.
Whether the external cause being alluded to is the actual circumstance of necessarily having to navigate a choice/option, is not elaborated upon in the supplied definition.
The idea that external influences internal is flawed, IMO, because the Will is Internal and it remains free to choose a response to the external. Example: I can’t control the world around me, but I can control how I respond to it. There’s no complexity there.
This rigid attempt to redefine the word determinism as Choice friendly is brilliant on your part... but it’s missing the fact that this complicates the overall simplicity of the matter.... (bear with me, as I may be misunderstanding you)
But the commentary provided with the definition does denote that the choice/decision is contemplated when evaluating moral responsibility. It also states that some philosophers claim that determinism means mankind cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. It does not stipulate whether these philosophers are determinists or those who believe in free will, but most authoritative books on the subject indicate that free will is a philosophical construct meant to prove culpability. Why this definition excludes any mention of immorality is unclear. Perhaps it's redundant to state that mankind is immorally irresponsible. So I assume that immoral actions are to be considered included.
Agree
The term "will" has two meanings also. There is of course the faculty through which we reason and choose, but then there also is the "desire". For example scripture describes the desires or "will" of the flesh of a person, as in conflict with the desire/will of the spirit of a person. Two opposing wills that can only truly be discerned by the spiritually minded who are informed by God's Word. The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I’m skeptical at the direction here, but you just quoted one of my favorite verses, so I’m excited to see where you’re going with this.
I do see the dynamic tension you are speaking of, but don’t see it as two conflicting Wills, but instead an ability to fixate the will in Moral direction as morality doesn’t save, I’m certain you follow my implication.
Hence the carnal mind reasons differently with a different set of standards than the spiritual mind, and with a contrary motive which is blind to spiritual things.
True
This complicates the issue of culpability since the will/desire of the flesh is hardwired to seeks it's own comfort and avoid discomfort. And while the spirit or "Word of God" in mankind inclines us to seek the comfort and avoidance of discomfort for others in Lieu of ourselves, I do not believe it can be claimed that Godly love manifests according to each and every individuals personal discretion. As scripture says, there is nothing good in the flesh.
This is Romans 7 and the tension between the “Old man” and “The Spirit Of Christ Within” the Saved.
As pertains to sin, scripture indicates that the children of the devil sin in servitude to the flesh while the children of God do not. Therefore, in the moral/immoral paradigm, where there are two spiritual higher powers to choose between, who are in opposition, then the term "free will' becomes an equivocation between two masters, never fully free from either one.
Free to choose is free to choose. Narrow it down to 2 choices or 1,000, but as long as a choice can be made, there is freedom. As long as the chooser is doing the choosing, the chooser is culpable.
Tell the chooser they only have one option and no choice to make... and freedom is gone.
I imagine such a will as being free in something of a 50/50 percentage split down the middle. So when Jesus says a person cannot serve two masters, I am compelled to believe that he is referring to the human will being in this type of circumstance. However, this would make such a free will a temporary situation, which would more accurately be described as being double-minded than being a free will.
It would only be double minded if half a choice is made. IOW, you say I can have an apple or a banana... but I want half of each.
I imagine that we all start out more in servitude to our flesh before being enlightened through the Holy Spirit. We then progress to become more spiritually led as we continue to grow in Christ. Therefore in regards to culpability for our actions, it makes sense to me that after being enlightened, we are to be judged by what measure we use to judge others.
I’m hoping this isn’t headed towards the disabled will of man argument.
I believe each living thing has it's own unique will, which desires and reasons according to what it has been designed to accomplish. I even imagine that a Paramecium would qualify concerning this. But when it comes to the moral/immoral decision, I truly believe we are only moral due to God's Word in us. I know I can not do what I know God would have me do, but that does not mean I am not serving a different master when doing so. And in Light of God's Truth, the lies of His counterpart are made apparent as unprofitable.
None of this is outside the realm of free Will.... as the tension comes in when we discuss the obvious selfish response to Privation that we all experience before and after Salvation.
As for the lies of the enemy being exposed... amidst privation and Christ... we do see the Devils works as worthless.
I was driving on the freeway when this car cuts in front of me forcing me to brake and slow down. I immediately thought how rude this driver was and I was greatly annoyed by the tiny imposition. But then I heard a different thought in my head, Whom I assume to be the Holy Spirit. The voice said, " But you have done the same thing before. This person had to cut in because they have to get off on this next exit. Love is patience, how do you know this person just isn't as good of a driver as you and they're doing their best to get where they need to go?"
The car then exited the highway and as I turned to look at the driver, it was this little old lady in thick glasses leaned forward with both hands gripping the wheel as if her life depended on it. I immediately was convicted in my heart and I felt like a big jerk. Nonetheless I was glad that the Holy Spirit convicted me, because without His guidance I would have thought and felt otherwise, and remained a jerk.
This is an excellent example of spiritually discerning the hearts struggle in relation to external stimuli!
The point is that I believe the devil and the Holy Spirit do contend in our thoughts. If I were asked, I would not characterize this change of heart as my choosing to believe the Holy Spirit over my first inclination, but rather that I was convicted through the revealing of the undeniable Truth exposing my own hypocrisy which was error.
This is an excellent example of how we are free to listen to the still small voice and honestly apply His utterances to our experiential evaluation and response to many different circumstances. This is 1 John 2:27 in play. Still, conviction is the result of choosing to acknowledge the Holy Spirit. If one resists conviction... which one can, there are resulting consequences that make it harder to hear the Holy Spirit, next time around.
But what if God is the very best dictator? After all, politics are inevitable. What if we fare far better under His dictatorship than when left to our own counsel? Consider the lesson of the prodigal son. There are positive and negative forces. You can't beat someone into loving you. But you can be forced to love someone through other means. In fact I would say that sincere worship is drawn out of a person by the object of worship rather than it being accredited to the volition of the worshipper. Same with being truly thankful. If God did not give us bellies that know hunger, we would probably never be thankful for our daily bread.
This is a hard no for me. To attribute the word Dictator towards God is against the face of all scripture. God facilitates, corrects and responds. 2 Peter 3:9 is where that idea collapses as we know God desires a thing, but is willing to be denied His Desire. That’s called self control, and God is the MASTER of Controlling Himself.
Earlier you pointed to how Adam and Eve were forbidden by God to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil lest they die. However you described it as a choice being given to them by God.
Yes. All fruit, but don’t eat that because you will die.
Respectfully I don't see any such commandment given by God as a choice. And scripture implies that so long as Adam and Eve trusted God concerning this, they indeed were obedient and did not eat of that tree.
Sincerely, we don’t have to pay taxes. It’s pretty much a commandment, but I can choose to not pay them. Guess what? If I don’t pay them, there’s Consequences. That denotes Free Will, as will that is free to choose will see consequences. Infact, in a world without consequences, the Will is pointless. This is to say that to say there are no consequences would be to say that eating an apple might taste like a banana or a carrot, because consequences are what denote reactions that respond to actions.
It was actually Satan who presented the choice/option to disobey in the suggestion that God was lying to them so as to deprive them of acquiring a knowledge that God knew would make them like unto God.
Satan didn’t give Eve a choice, but enticed and deceived her to sway her free Will towards embracing that which God had said would cause death.
God gave choice, with expression of due consequence... while Satan Enslaved and Dictated Eves decision through lies, deceit and persuasion... just as a dictator does.
Faith is the pre-requisite for righteousness, and is not dependent upon the ability to choose a lie contrary to God, (which I would count as a disability). According to scripture we cannot please God without faith in Him.
Only God pleases God. Faith in Christ is response to the Fathers draw of the Son Who Reconciled the world unto God and Died for the Jew’s Sins... and not just the Jews, but the entire world’s Sins. Jesus set forth two choices again, where which one brings forth death and the other life.
Again, man can choose Jesus Christ (Our Tree Of Life)... or choose to reject the Gospel and depend on attempting to please God in the flesh.... or even flat out reject God. God is the Granter of Choice and Will that is free, while Satan is ever attempting to lie to us, that we haven’t been granted Autonomy by God.
Satan wants us to toil in the soil of our flesh, feel enslaved and dictate our failure to us, while God is shining forth that if we “Surrender our Will” to Him, He will repair the damage Satan has done and restore us to freedom of Soul... as in we will feel true liberation from the Dictated Slavery, Of Satan’s Lies.
If we are freed by Christ, we are Freed indeed!
Excellent Post! This really forces me to mull over matters even more carefully! The wording you chose was logical, well laid out and built upon itself. I chose to offer differing perspectives at times for the sake of contrast and to possibly receive more response from you, as I thoroughly enjoyed reading and processing your entire post!
Much appreciated Child Eye!
