do we really have free will?

[dante'sComedy]

~ the serpent (the devil) tempted Eve. Not God.

~ God did not create the stimlus for the fall of mankind.
In genesis the serpent is noted with "cunning" and "temptation".
Those are not characteristics of the Almighty God. Never in scripture are temptation and deceiving if you will. Are mentioned in conjunction with describing the Trinity.

~ God gave a directive not to eat of it. Like a Father would instruct his child not to put his or her finger in a light socket.
~ It was the serpent that proposed the idea that God is keeping something from Eve and Adam. Surely God must be holding back?
~ Notice the progression of the temptation. the devil appealed to their appetites! where no reason lay within. Lust if you will.

~ Yes , the devil proved on Eve's appetite, then Adam followed after Eve. Where there was no sin. He (the devil) brought sin into you and i. By this method.
~ God is not the author of sin. He sent Jesus to destroy the works of the devil. I might also add , that in particular that its God's good pleasure to give us the kingdom through His Son "the only begotten of the Father." Jesus has disarmed those principality's and powers of darkness by His shed blood on the cross. God's own arm has brought salvation unto us! Yes, He alone removed the curse that was our's to bear. It is that cleansing power in the blood that our adversary hates.
~ It would be on your better part to remove your doubts about God's goodness and focus on the finished work of Christ.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Epiphoskel-

I learned about determinism by attending the classes the lecturer taught in the winter quarter of 1964. The first day that he lectured us he told us this: "By the time this quarter is over 1/3 of you will be agnostics, and another 1/3 will be atheists." He then proceeded to attack all religious belief systems, with particular vitriol for Christianity.

At the end of the quarter he stated that we were not to see anything as either good or evil. Since the individuals had absolutely no control over their actions, nothing they did could be classified in this manner. This was not a lecturer teaching what he himself had learned elsewhere. This was an evangelical atheist 'beating the drum' for his belief system.

And that isn't really determinism. Determinism is abused by many who'd like to find something exculpatory in it for whatever philosophical end, but classical deterministic authors, especially the Christian position typified by Edwards, do not necesarraly lead to these kinds of conclusions.

As for our not having free will, Paul states that it is ultimately up to us to decide how we will behave:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Free will or Libertarian Free Will? I understand that Hard Determinists by definition have to deny free will, but I consider that "denial" to be semantic only - all determinists believe in the same system of determination by which we make our choices, but Soft Determinists believe that system may be called "free will."

Scripture obviously states that we will, but proving that we will is not the same as proving why we will. And Paul's statement that choosing to not sin requires the Spirit in the very verse you quoted militates for a deterministic understanding of that passage.

 

[Harry3142]

Epiphoskel-

The lecturer I had also brought up 'soft determinism' in his lectures, only to 'shred' it. He was strictly a hard determinist.

I have never heard a definition of 'free will' versus 'libertarian free will'. You might enlighten me as to the differences.

At the time of Jesus' sojourn among us, the belief of some of the people, including the Pharisees, was that if we kept the Mosaic Law it would earn us admittance into heaven. We still see this taught today in some denominations. In some other denominations, it is New Testament Law that must be kept, and in still others it is Episcopal Law which must be kept. But salvation was never the intent of the Mosaic Law. The orginal 'contract' between God and the Hebrews was strictly a here-and-now agreement, as written in Deuteronomy 7:12-15. Rather than quote the entire passage I'll have you look it up.

Jesus himself considered the Mosaic Law to be only a start to attaining righteousness, rather than a 'yardstick' determining it. the keeping of the Mosaic Law was not nearly enough to entitle us to be deemed righteous. There was always that 'one more thing' that we had to do if we wanted to earn our own salvation. In Matthew 19:16-26, Jesus was approached by a rich man who asked how he could attain eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments (I have seen this used as an argument for our having to keep the Mosaic Law in order to be saved). When the man told him that he had indeed kept all the commandments, Jesus 'dropped the bomb' on him. If he wanted to be perfect, he had to sell all he had, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow Jesus. The 'one more thing' was too much for the rich man to accept.

Also Jesus Christ himself told us that we were to work on behalf of God's kingdom; we just were not to think of it as earning us any reward:

"Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' " (The Gospel of Luke 17:7-10.NIV)

We are to be childlike in our faith, but we are not to be childish in our attitude toward our own work. What we do, and to whatever extent we do it, is to be recognized by us as nothing more than what we were supposed to do. The only reward we are to look forward to is the successful completion of the tasks set before us.

But the passage which, as far as I am concerned, destroys any argument for our not having free will is this one:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all his angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (The Gospel of Matthew 25: 31-46)

We may be tempted by Satan to do evil. We may also be urged by God to do good. But it is ultimately our decision, for good or ill, that dictates the outcome.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Free will is the belief that everything we do is something we choose. Libertarian free will is the belief that what we choose cannot be determined by any reason, internal or external. The determinist thus believes in non-libertarian free will wherein internal and external factors determine what we choose, only the hard determinist, playing semantic games, refuses to accept the term.

As I've said before, the discussion revolves only around the matter of why we choose, not whether we choose. You can come with every verse in scripture which states that we make decisions, but it's not going to matter, because that's not in dispute.

 

[spidergains]

The very concept of free will demands an infinite number of possibilities.
Suppose that there are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of Lucifers.

If free will exists...

• some Lucifers did not rebel
• some Eves were not deceived
• some Adams did not eat the forbidden fruit

The list goes on and on.

Yet in our universe...

• Lucifer did rebel
• Eve was deceived
• Adam ate the forbidden fruit

Therefore, we are separated from God and our "free will" is severely compromised. The bridge to God consists of 2 boards and 3 nails, yet to walk this bridge, you must surrender to Christ the 1 thing that is truly yours and yours alone--your tainted, rebellious will. Some call this limited choice of options "life."

Matt. 10:37 If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. 38 If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. 39 If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it.

Our freedom is also compromised at the church level:

Rev. 3:15 “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16 But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth! 17 You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. 18 So I advise you to buy gold from me—gold that has been purified by fire. Then you will be rich. Also buy white garments from me so you will not be shamed by your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so you will be able to see. 19 I correct and discipline everyone I love. So be diligent and turn from your indifference.
20 “Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends. 21 Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.
22 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches.”

Why would Jesus have to knock on the door of his own church unless the door to heaven was shut from the inside?

 

[SUM]

The problem with "free will"

If a deity posse’s divine foreknowledge and that deity has designed an entity with predestination, how can that entity possible have freewill? I don't mean to offend anyone, it just isn’t sound reasoning.

 

[david_x]

The problem with "free will"

If a deity posse’s divine foreknowledge and that deity has designed an entity with predestination, how can that entity possible have freewill? I don't mean to offend anyone, it just isn’t sound reasoning.

This is old, and out of date. We all know that an all knowing being has no effect whatsoever on free will.

 

[SUM]

Perhaps you can explain to me why an omnipotent being does'nt effect freewill and how is it that an entity with freewill could have a predetermined destiny. I just don't follow, please help me understand.

 

[david_x]

Perhaps you can explain to me why an omnipotent being does'nt effect freewill and how is it that an entity with freewill could have a predetermined destiny. I just don't follow, please help me understand.

I would, but I do not understand were the discrepancy lies. Do explain.

 

[SUM]

I would, but I do not understand were the discrepancy lies. Do explain.

God knows what action a person does before that action happens.
God predetermines every action.
Therefore, God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Free will is defined as those actions which are done willingly.
God predetermines every action.
Therefore, either God does not predetermine actions or God does not exsit.

 

[david_x]

God knows what action a person does before that action happens.
God predetermines every action.
Therefore, God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Free will is defined as those actions which are done willingly.
God predetermines every action.
Therefore, either God does not predetermine actions or God does not exsit.

How does predetermining what will happen influence the outcome? If I scale it down a bit: Let's say that I determine that adding a certain chemical to another will cause the formation of a yellow precipitate. If I then combine the chemicals do I make them form the yellow precipitate?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Free will is defined as those actions which are done willingly.
God predetermines every action.
Therefore, either God does not predetermine actions or God does not exsit.

This is a non sequitur. Something is done willingly simply if it is the product of someone's will. What the will produces is predetermined by a group of factors, all of which are within God's control.

 

[SUM]

How does predetermining what will happen influence the outcome? If I scale it down a bit: Let's say that I determine that adding a certain chemical to another will cause the formation of a yellow precipitate. If I then combine the chemicals do I make them form the yellow precipitate?

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']David x you may have to dumb it down a bit more as I’m not an intelligent man. Please forgive me if I misunderstand. You determine that a certain chemical added to another will cause the formation of a yellow precipitate. It does form a yellow precipitate every time you add these two chemicals because you predetermined this outcome by adding these two chemicals right? Now, let’s just say for the sake of argument the two chemicals have free will and they no longer want to make a yellow precipitate they want to make a red precipitate. You have already predetermined the outcome of these two chemicals to produce a yellow precipitate. You have taken away free will. [/FONT]

 

[SUM]

This is a non sequitur. Something is done willingly simply if it is the product of someone's will. What the will produces is predetermined by a group of factors, all of which are within God's control.

As I stated in my last post, I’m not an intelligent man and I did not mean for that to be a joke nor a logical argument. It may appear absurd to you only because I am a simple man with little knowledge. Please help me understand this problem only if you can sift through my incoherent stream of fragmented thoughts. So what the will produces is predetermined by a group of factors all of which God controls. How is that free will?

 

[david_x]

David x you may have to dumb it down a bit more as I’m not an intelligent man. Please forgive me if I misunderstand. You determine that a certain chemical added to another will cause the formation of a yellow precipitate. It does form a yellow precipitate every time you add these two chemicals because you predetermined this outcome by adding these two chemicals right? Now, let’s just say for the sake of argument the two chemicals have free will and they no longer want to make a yellow precipitate they want to make a red precipitate. You have already predetermined the outcome of these two chemicals to produce a yellow precipitate. You have taken away free will.

The free will is already implied. They make the yellow precipitate. It's really more simple than complicated...kinda.

 

[Harry3142]

To predetermine that a person will perform a certain act is not the same as influencing him so that he has no alternative except to perform the act.

As an example, 40 years ago there was a double murder committed in this city. A man had robbed a convenience store and then murdered two teenagers who were working there. We found out who he was due to the fact that he had attempted to murder the manager, but failed.

This occurred on a Sunday night. He came into work the next morning as if nothing was amiss, only to hear that the manager was still alive and even then at the police station looking through 'mug' books in order to find out who he was. He left, and was 'on the lam' for about six months before he was caught.

As well as finding out who he was, the police had also performed a ballistics test on the bullets taken out of the bodies of the two teenagers. They found a match. About one month earlier this same firearm, wielded by the same person, had been used to murder four people execution-style in Cleveland. We all then realized that our former coworker had a modus operandi of robbing a person or place and then killing everybody there so that they could not identify him.

Based on this information we were able to predetermine that he would kill again. Sure enough, when the FBI finally caught him in Oklahoma they 'backtracked' and found that he had murdered a man in Chicago, plus at least one other person in the southwest USA. He has now been in prison since 1969.

Even though we, as well as law enforcement, knew that he would commit more murders, we had no power or control over the actual crimes. In the same way God can predict that a person will do a certain activity without controlling the actual performance of that activity.

We as Christians accept that God is The Author of Justice, and is therefore supremely just himself. In order to fairly reward those who do good as well as punish those who do evil there must of necessity be a prerequisite. Those being judged must have it within their power to do either good or evil. If the good is done due to preprogramming, or the evil is done due to preprogramming, then for God to judge on the basis of actions which those to be judged did not have complete control of would be in and of itself unjust. He could not fairly reward or punish anyone.

 

[SUM]

To predetermine that a person will perform a certain act is not the same as influencing him so that he has no alternative except to perform the act.

As an example, 40 years ago there was a double murder committed in this city. A man had robbed a convenience store and then murdered two teenagers who were working there. We found out who he was due to the fact that he had attempted to murder the manager, but failed.

This occurred on a Sunday night. He came into work the next morning as if nothing was amiss, only to hear that the manager was still alive and even then at the police station looking through 'mug' books in order to find out who he was. He left, and was 'on the lam' for about six months before he was caught.

As well as finding out who he was, the police had also performed a ballistics test on the bullets taken out of the bodies of the two teenagers. They found a match. About one month earlier this same firearm, wielded by the same person, had been used to murder four people execution-style in Cleveland. We all then realized that our former coworker had a modus operandi of robbing a person or place and then killing everybody there so that they could not identify him.

Based on this information we were able to predetermine that he would kill again. Sure enough, when the FBI finally caught him in Oklahoma they 'backtracked' and found that he had murdered a man in Chicago, plus at least one other person in the southwest USA. He has now been in prison since 1969.

Even though we, as well as law enforcement, knew that he would commit more murders, we had no power or control over the actual crimes. In the same way God can predict that a person will do a certain activity without controlling the actual performance of that activity.

We as Christians accept that God is The Author of Justice, and is therefore supremely just himself. In order to fairly reward those who do good as well as punish those who do evil there must of necessity be a prerequisite. Those being judged must have it within their power to do either good or evil. If the good is done due to preprogramming, or the evil is done due to preprogramming, then for God to judge on the basis of actions which those to be judged did not have complete control of would be in and of itself unjust. He could not fairly reward or punish anyone.

What a horrible person and a tragic story. I hope he never gets out of prison. Ok I concede to that argument. Just because God knows what a person is going to do before they do it does not necessarily mean that we don’t have free will. Although I do have issues with a benevolent deity allowing things such as what you wrote about happen but that’s for another post. However I still, even though I’ve been told it’s very simple by david x, can’t understand how a person can possibly have free will if the outcome of their action are part of some divine plan. According to the Judea/Christian belief God has put a person into existence for a purpose. Would that person have the ability to change the outcome of this divine purpose if that person had foreknowledge of their own life? That is, would a person have the freedom to change the outcome of an action which was already predetermined by God? If the answer is yes then God’s foreknowledge would be mistaken and that can not be. If the answer is no then we don’t have free will.

 

[Epiphoskei]

To predetermine that a person will perform a certain act is not the same as influencing him so that he has no alternative except to perform the act.

As an example, 40 years ago there was a double murder committed in this city. A man had robbed a convenience store and then murdered two teenagers who were working there. We found out who he was due to the fact that he had attempted to murder the manager, but failed.

This occurred on a Sunday night. He came into work the next morning as if nothing was amiss, only to hear that the manager was still alive and even then at the police station looking through 'mug' books in order to find out who he was. He left, and was 'on the lam' for about six months before he was caught.

As well as finding out who he was, the police had also performed a ballistics test on the bullets taken out of the bodies of the two teenagers. They found a match. About one month earlier this same firearm, wielded by the same person, had been used to murder four people execution-style in Cleveland. We all then realized that our former coworker had a modus operandi of robbing a person or place and then killing everybody there so that they could not identify him.

Based on this information we were able to predetermine that he would kill again. Sure enough, when the FBI finally caught him in Oklahoma they 'backtracked' and found that he had murdered a man in Chicago, plus at least one other person in the southwest USA. He has now been in prison since 1969.

Even though we, as well as law enforcement, knew that he would commit more murders, we had no power or control over the actual crimes. In the same way God can predict that a person will do a certain activity without controlling the actual performance of that activity.

We as Christians accept that God is The Author of Justice, and is therefore supremely just himself. In order to fairly reward those who do good as well as punish those who do evil there must of necessity be a prerequisite. Those being judged must have it within their power to do either good or evil. If the good is done due to preprogramming, or the evil is done due to preprogramming, then for God to judge on the basis of actions which those to be judged did not have complete control of would be in and of itself unjust. He could not fairly reward or punish anyone.

That use of "determine" is not the technical use, however. While in the vernacular "determine" can mean "conclude," in the technical language surrounding the will it essentially means to cause.

 

[Epiphoskei]

As I stated in my last post, I’m not an intelligent man and I did not mean for that to be a joke nor a logical argument. It may appear absurd to you only because I am a simple man with little knowledge. Please help me understand this problem only if you can sift through my incoherent stream of fragmented thoughts. So what the will produces is predetermined by a group of factors all of which God controls. How is that free will?

You presented what in logic are called syllogisms. You may not have intended to create them as logical arguments, but that's what they were, so I figured the best way to show you the problem was to dissect the syllogism.

It doesn't really work to start with determinsm and ask how it fits in with free will, because "free will" is simply a conventional term applied to the process of the will which we see in humans. If we believe that humans have Libertarian Freedom, i.e., we make causeless choices, by our convention, that automatically becomes our definition of "free will." Likewise, if we believe humans make determined choices, that by convention becomes our definition of "free will." So regardless of which one is true, both sides will believe their definition of free will is the only legitimate definition. The consequence of this is that when someone asks how the opposing view's system is compatable with our definition of free will, the answer is obviously: it isn't. To adapt determinism is to believe that determinism constitutes free will, not to believe that determinism is compatable with libertarian freedom, just as to adapt libertarianism is to believe that libertarianism constitutes free will, not that it is compatable with determinism. "Free will" itself is an intrinsically meaningless term, claimed by everyone, but having no universally accepted definition. More often than not, I prefer to avoid it, as it doesn't add substance to discussions on the matter, but just confusion.

 

[SUM]

You presented what in logic are called syllogisms. You may not have intended to create them as logical arguments, but that's what they were, so I figured the best way to show you the problem was to dissect the syllogism.

It doesn't really work to start with determinsm and ask how it fits in with free will, because "free will" is simply a conventional term applied to the process of the will which we see in humans. If we believe that humans have Libertarian Freedom, i.e., we make causeless choices, by our convention, that automatically becomes our definition of "free will." Likewise, if we believe humans make determined choices, that by convention becomes our definition of "free will." So regardless of which one is true, both sides will believe their definition of free will is the only legitimate definition. The consequence of this is that when someone asks how the opposing view's system is compatable with our definition of free will, the answer is obviously: it isn't. To adapt determinism is to believe that determinism constitutes free will, not to believe that determinism is compatable with libertarian freedom, just as to adapt libertarianism is to believe that libertarianism constitutes free will, not that it is compatable with determinism. "Free will" itself is an intrinsically meaningless term, claimed by everyone, but having no universally accepted definition. More often than not, I prefer to avoid it, as it doesn't add substance to discussions on the matter, but just confusion.

I thought you stated that it was a non sequitur. Now it’s a syllogism…I’m confused. All these philosophical terms frighten and confuse me. I understand now we should avoid topics of rational thought because they add no substance and only confusion. Thank you for clearing that up, I’ll back off now.