Determinism, Compatibilism, Libertarian Free Will

Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?
 

RC1970

post tenebras lux
Jul 7, 2015
1,903
1,558
✟80,684.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
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?
I agree that this is one of the sticking points for people concerning "free will". People do not seem to be able to distinguish between the ability to freely choose and the limitation of the desire for any particular choice.

To love Christ is an option for everyone to freely choose, but they will only do so if their heart desires to do so, and the heart that has not been converted to desire Him, by the Holy Spirit, will never desire Him.

I think the other sticking point is that when the Holy Spirit changes a persons heart, He does it in such a way that they do not realize that it was He who did it, and some may think it was something they did themselves. But, the Scriptures tell us that it was not our doing, but the Spirits doing.
 
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that this is one of the sticking points for people concerning "free will". People do not seem to be able to distinguish between the ability to freely choose and the limitation of the desire for any particular choice.

To love Christ is an option for everyone to freely choose, but they will only do so if their heart desires to do so, and the heart that has not been converted to desire Him, by the Holy Spirit, will never desire Him.

I think the other sticking point is that when the Holy Spirit changes a persons heart, He does it in such a way that they do not realize that it was He who did it, and some may think it was something they did themselves. But, the Scriptures tell us that it was not our doing, but the Spirits doing.
At what point does our freedom of choice come into it? Does the Holy Spirit change our hearts to desire him and then we can choose to act on that desire, or does our desiring him mean we inevitably choose him?
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe in determinism and true moral responsibility,
yes

There are things which at the practical level are directly controlled by past events. However, a human can at any time choose to not be controlled by certain past events, but can decide if and how he or she is effected by past events.

But one's nature can have a lot to do with what choice he or she is capable of making.

Also, God is in and through it all, to effect which ways things go. He can manage what an event is, so then a human is going to be effected by it the way that person will choose. For example, if God wants someone to go out for fresh air, but He knows the person will stay in during rain, He is able to keep it from raining so the person will choose to go out :)

But, deeper, how much does God also control what the person will will? This is a major issue, since ones do not want to think we are God's puppets.

In any case, God is kind and caring and creative. And in His love's creativity, He is causing a lot of things to go a lot better than evil would have done things, by now. With God, we can make His good use of even evil things . . . like how Joseph used his horrible situation > Genesis 37-50 < his brothers chose to do their evil, but God used it for His good. So, then, evil people might have some sort of free will, but they can not determine what will become of it.

And this we have experienced > how we do not control what will come from our choices. There can be more or less what we hope, or much worse, or it is possible that God will bring it to His good end.

Also, "God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, humans in pride do not have as much control as ones might boast and argue, because they have God Himself resisting them. And, I now understand, this is for their own good; if it were not for God's resistance, they would get into much worse trouble than they do.

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."
It seems that there are people who actually believe that an evil person at any time is capable of getting himself or herself to choose what is good. But even free will believers think that a sinner who refuses Jesus can get a more and more hardened heart so he or she later becomes much less capable of choosing Jesus.

So - - - I think - - - there can be a mix of what free will believers understand from theory and what they have actually experienced. In theory, they believe anyone is capable of choosing Jesus; yet, experience has shown them how a person of a hardening heart is less and less able to choose Jesus.

I think the other sticking point is that when the Holy Spirit changes a persons heart, He does it in such a way that they do not realize that it was He who did it, and some may think it was something they did themselves. But, the Scriptures tell us that it was not our doing, but the Spirits doing.
I would consider this to be correct > at first, the person just gets started; so in one's experience one is not obviously experiencing the Holy Spirit effecting that person . . . at least not so much as later after the person has grown in Jesus with His deep sensing.

The Holy Spirit is gentle and quiet; so our natural noisy stuff in us might keep us from noticing the Holy Spirit, deeper . . . until God has made us more spiritual in His love so that noisy stuff more and more clears.

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

In His gentle and quiet love, more and more we experience His quiet rest with Heaven's own quality and personal and intimate sharing with Him . . . in His own love "in our hearts" > Romans 5:5 > 1 John 4:17. I would say a number of us have not actively chosen this, but with God's correction (Hebrews 12:4-11) we have grown to this :)

Plus, how many of us make a point of choosing to seek God for His correction?

At what point does our freedom of choice come into it? Does the Holy Spirit change our hearts to desire him and then we can choose to act on that desire, or does our desiring him mean we inevitably choose him?
I now think our character is more or less our dictator of what we can choose and what we will choose. So, we need how God first draws us to Jesus, changing us so then it is our nature to do the wise thing > John 6:44, Romans 11:36, Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19.

The last three references above quote Jesus to say that only God is good. With this, I offer how only God in His own self has the goodness to make a truly good choice. So we need, then, how God in us makes the difference so we will what is good. And you can consider Philippians 2:13.

But there is a sound barrier argument, which dictates that if God is the One causing people to choose Jesus, then humans are just puppets. Well, in Satan's kingdom, yes people are puppets . . . love-dead > subject to "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). People in sin are ravaged and dominated by many sorts of driving lusts for different pleasures, along with all sorts of cruel and abusing and violating things about not getting that pleasure and security of it. Boredom, loneliness, depression, nasty raging anger, bitterness, ongoing unhealed hurts, unforgiveness, pride, and frustration are ongoing . . . not making a person sensible to make good choices. But ones are ragged and in a swim in vomit of stuff about seeking pleasure and excitement in order to feel alive, while being messed with all the nasty stuff about how they are not getting it . . . or fear and worry about not getting it. This torment and confusion does not make for making truly free choices.

However > > > as much as God in us effects our nature and our choices, we become more and more alive and capable of personal and intimate and kind and tender sharing with God and with other humans who are in Jesus love. And we can be examples to reach to those who are not able to be sweetly and tenderly personal and caring and sharing with us. So, God does not make anyone a puppet, but more and more alive in His love, sharing with us how He is free and tenderly caring and personal.

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

As much as we each become "one spirit with Him", we become sharing with God in His freedom and good sense and personal way of loving and caring and sharing as His family. But ones whose wills and nature are more free from God's love are the ones who can not be personal in love, but tend to use people and love the ones they can use.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RC1970

post tenebras lux
Jul 7, 2015
1,903
1,558
✟80,684.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
At what point does our freedom of choice come into it? Does the Holy Spirit change our hearts to desire him and then we can choose to act on that desire, or does our desiring him mean we inevitably choose him?
We always choose according to what our greatest desire is at the moment of choosing. Since it is the Spirits job to conform those whom the Father has chosen to give to Christ, the Spirit must conform the persons desire toward Christ.

The ability to choose is free, but the desire to make any particular choice is naturally determined. Without the intervening action of God, the natural desire will never choose Christ. This is what the Scripture teaches.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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?


God controls the destination of each electron in the Cosmos.
And gives us Free Will.
There is no human mind able to reconcile the two.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God controls the destination of each electron in the Cosmos.
And gives us Free Will.
There is no human mind able to reconcile the two.

Doesn't this make more sense:

1. God controls the destination of each electron in the Cosmos.
2. And gives us Free Will.
3. Contradiction, therefore either (1) or (2) is false.

I would argue that (1) is false based on the existence of evil. If (1) is true, every evil is literally caused by God.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God controls the destination of each electron in the Cosmos. And gives us Free Will. There is no human mind able to reconcile the two.

I disagree, God neither controls each electron, nor is the will of a sinner free in the libertarian sense, and while there is tension between the sovereignty of God and the limited freedom within a will, it is not so great of a tension as to throw one's hands up in the air and declare it a useless pursuit in gaining understanding. Part of reconciling the two, requires a major examination of a major portion of Scripture. We can reconcile the tension to an extent, and I thank God for it, and the peace of Christ that surpasses understanding.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Doesn't this make more sense:

1. God controls the destination of each electron in the Cosmos.
2. And gives us Free Will.
3. Contradiction, therefore either (1) or (2) is false.

I would argue that (1) is false based on the existence of evil. If (1) is true, every evil is literally caused by God.

1 and 2 are false so far as they go, I mean I cannot assume when someone mentions "free will" that they mean what I mean if I use the phrase, which is why I prefer the term freedom, we have a certain amount of it, but not without restrictions. The first premise seems to assume a "hard determinsim" the second "libertarian free will" in an attempt to make contradiction out of compatibilism, which is neither of those positions.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't necessarily think the Reformed, when talking about God's sovereign decrees, are necessarily asserting a notion of meticulous control. Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1 and 2 are false so far as they go, I mean I cannot assume when someone mentions "free will" that they mean what I mean if I use the phrase, which is why I prefer the term freedom, we have a certain amount of it, but not without restrictions. The first premise seems to assume a "hard determinsim" the second "libertarian free will" in an attempt to make contradiction out of compatibilism, which is neither of those positions.

In the OP with regard to free will you ask, "Free from what, to what?" The answer is, free from determination, to choose. But what I want to know is, how do you argue that "libertarian free will" is false?
 
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We always choose according to what our greatest desire is at the moment of choosing.

The ability to choose is free, but the desire to make any particular choice is naturally determined
Sorry, I find these two statements contradictory. If we are just victims to our desires how is the ability to chose free?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
Good thread. It's not clear to me what exactly you mean by freedom and why that is less misleading than free will, or what the difference is at all for that matter. Freedom still has me asking free from what?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Is it really true that our choices are determined by our desires? That seems like it is stretching the meaning of desire to an unreasonable degree.

Look at Jesus prayer, "not my will, but thine be done". Clearly, he did not desire to die, but he was willing to die.

I'd say its safer and more reasonable to state, "desires influence our choices".
 
Upvote 0

RC1970

post tenebras lux
Jul 7, 2015
1,903
1,558
✟80,684.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, I find these two statements contradictory. If we are just victims to our desires how is the ability to chose free?
I understand, a lot of people don't like the idea of mixing the concepts of "free will" and "limited choices". The issue is that the "ability" to choose something in general, and the "desire" to choose a particular thing, are not the same thing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God neither controls each electron, nor is the will of a sinner free in the libertarian sense, and while there is tension between the sovereignty of God and the limited freedom within a will, it is not so great of a tension as to throw one's hands up in the air and declare it a useless pursuit in gaining understanding. Part of reconciling the two, requires a major examination of a major portion of Scripture.

I agree and have done that. I've concluded that God actually is holding each electron in it's orbit and preventing the Cosmos from releasing it's energy as happens in a nuclear bomb. The bombs that leveled two Japanese cities "used up" the amount of matter comparable to a dime coin.

MPKt8G7F4loOJoscK3vfC4SpTjhsfVeX1fvSFejTGnnZe5bVgweo_DC26LE715ZFRvT5TA=s120



Col 1:16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

"All things" - pas: all, every:
3956 /pás ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." The emphasis of the total picture then is on "one piece at a time." 365 (ananeóō) then focuses on the part(s) making up the whole – viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts.

"hold together" -
4921 synistáō (from 4862 /sýn, "union, together with" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand") – properly, "stand together," referring to facts "lining up" with each other to support (commend) something.


Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word.

Rom1:19
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't necessarily think the Reformed, when talking about God's sovereign decrees, are necessarily asserting a notion of meticulous control. Is that correct?

Hmm...first thought is correct, but seems any discussion of decrees among the Reformed, historically would go into details about infralapsarian and supralapsarian views among the Reformed. I have no idea which would be the majority view, historically that is. From all of what I have read and studied though, it does appear that most Reformed folk have held a compatibilist view concerning the sovereignty of God and human responsibility. Sorry for long winded response, had hopes for a simple short answer.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In the OP with regard to free will you ask, "Free from what, to what?" The answer is, free from determination, to choose. But what I want to know is, how do you argue that "libertarian free will" is false?

Thank you for asking. Last night I stumbled onto an answer, before you posted even, just browsing for more information from other resources. I think the following quote from an article makes relevant points...

"1) Causality — If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

2) Responsibility — Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn't cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?

3) God's Freedom — Some have maintained libertarian freedom on the basis that all things done of necessity are not worthy of praise or blame. But what are we to think of God's actions? We believe that God does good, and that God cannot do evil. Does God's moral inability to do evil make His good actions unpraiseworthy? If God must do good, is He then unpraiseworthy? Some have said that God must do good because God's nature determines His choices. God is still free, some say, because God can act in accordance with His choices, but God's choices are determined by His nature. If God's choices are determined, and God is worthy of praise, this is a clear case, some say, of actions that are determined and thus necessary while also being morally praiseworthy." SOURCE: Theopedia
 
  • Informative
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The line of thinking from the Theopedia article led me into another thought. We maintain as the Scriptures tell us, that it is impossible for God to lie. The reasoning is that God is pure and Holy, that is His nature, and to lie would contradict His own nature. So based on that line of thinking, it makes no sense that a man created in the image of God, could choose contrary to his nature.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Good thread. It's not clear to me what exactly you mean by freedom and why that is less misleading than free will, or what the difference is at all for that matter. Freedom still has me asking free from what?

Thank you, it's an area I've thought about off and on as long as I can remember. It is more of a preference, I prefer it to give pause, to make distinctions between the different positions, to also explain how one (such as I) can hold to free will and total inability at the same time. On the surface, it sounds absurd, but when going through the Scriptures, especially those touching on the nature of man, both are expressed mostly in other terms.
 
Upvote 0