Free will and determinism

[Jo555]

Yeah...it's amazing how those arguing for determinism seem to know so much that is impossible for them to know. Why we keep entertaining their silliness by trying to get them to realize the self-refuting nature of it when they work with such sloppy thinking that doesn't clearly define what a "cause" is and instead encompass a everything from "preferences" to "influences" to things that are naturally seen as causes so long as they can deny genuine free will intention as effective...the question is why they are so dead set on denying their own willful actions and want to attribute it to something prior to themselves?

What I don't get is why you are arguing on a philosophical perspective. In a sense I know it is a philosophical discussion, but as Christians if we believe the truth is found in scripture, why not see it from that angle and see if it aligns with his premise.

This denial that freewill does not exist and therefore how can God judge us for our actions is what Paul would call just a human perspective. You've taken the bait.

You need only go into Romans and Galatians to see that there is no freewill, but we do have choices, our choices will just always be influenced by our desires or preferences, which ever rules the moment.

I'm serving, even if no one even sniffing.

The bible doesn't speak of freedom from all influences. It speaks of freedom from our carnal nature and the letter of the law that has no power to overcome the carnal nature. We are liberated from that to now follow in the new way, the Spirit.

The bible uses terms like slaves. A slave is not free. Yes, in Christ we are delivered from the bondage of sin so that we can now become willing love-slaves of God for his Spirit has worked in us the will and given us the power to walk in the Spirit. We are now under the greater influence of the Spirit driven by His love where prior we were under the greater influence of the flesh driven by the letter of the law. Even so, we can hinder the Spirit, for instance, by trying to live in the Spirit by the letter of the law. It is no longer our way

What I don't get is why you are arguing on a philosophical perspective. In a sense I know it is a philosophical discussion, but as Christians if we believe the truth is found in scripture, why not see it from that angle and see if it aligns with his premise.

This denial that freewill does not exist and therefore how can God judge us for our actions is what Paul would call just a human perspective. You've taken the bait.

You need only go into Romans and Galatians to see that there is no freewill, but we do have choices, our choices will just always be influenced by our desires or preferences, whichever rules the moment.

I'm serving, even if no one is even sniffing.

The bible doesn't speak of freedom from all influences. It speaks of freedom from our carnal nature and the letter of the law that has no power to overcome the carnal nature. We are liberated from that to now follow in the new way, the Spirit.

The bible uses terms like slaves. A slave is not free. Yes, in Christ we are delivered from the bondage of sin so that we can now become willing love-slaves of God for his Spirit has worked in us the will and given us the power to walk in the Spirit. We are now under the greater influence of the Spirit where prior we were under the greater influence of the flesh. Even so, we can hinder the Spirit, for instance, by trying to live in the Spirit by the letter of the law. It is no longer our way.

Did I let out my little secret. I'm not so dumb after all, but I do feel like Bill Murray in "The Man Who Knew Too Little" at times. Sometimes ignorance can be bliss, and even save the day

 

[Fervent]

What I don't get is why you are arguing on a philosophical perspective. In a sense I know it is a philosophical discussion, but as Christians if we believe the truth is found in scripture, why not see it from that angle and see if it aligns with his premise.

This denial that freewill does not exist and therefore how can God judge us for our actions is what Paul would call just a human perspective. You've taken the bait.

You need only go into Romans and Galatians to see that there is no freewill, but we do have choices, our choices will just always be influenced by our desires or preferences, whichever rules the moment.

I'm serving, even if no one is even sniffing.

The bible doesn't speak of freedom from all influences. It speaks of freedom from our carnal nature and the letter of the law that has no power to overcome the carnal nature. We are liberated from that to now follow in the new way, the Spirit.

The bible uses terms like slaves. A slave is not free. Yes, in Christ we are delivered from the bondage of sin so that we can now become willing love-slaves of God for his Spirit has worked in us the will and given us the power to walk in the Spirit. We are now under the greater influence of the Spirit where prior we were under the greater influence of the flesh. Even so, we can hinder the Spirit, for instance, by trying to live in the Spirit by the letter of the law. It is no longer our way.

There

No, Romans and Galatians do not deny free will. Though many interpreting them anachronistically believe as much. The debate is entirely philosophical in nature, though there is an included hermeneutic angle but ultimately it comes down to philosophical differences that some read into the texts of the Bible.

 

[Jo555]

No, Romans and Galatians do not deny free will. Though many interpreting them anachronistically believe as much. The debate is entirely philosophical in nature, though there is an included hermeneutic angle but ultimately it comes down to philosophical differences that some read into the texts of the Bible.

How are you defining freewill?

 

[Fervent]

How are you defining freewill?

The ability for our choices to be determined by our intentions. Imperfect self-determination.

 

[partinobodycular]

It was quite a specific example in the video. Proctor (played by Daniel Day-Lewis) wants to live. Desperately. But he prefers to die with his integrity intact. I thought that rather humdrum examples of wanting to go to the pub but preferring to go to the gym were sufficient, but let's crank it to the max and see someone who makes the ultimate choice.

Consider me extremely feeble minded, but you're going to have explain it a bit more clearly. Because to me it just looks like semantics. Proctor wants to live. Proctor also wants to keep his integrity. Seems like two wants to me.

What is it that's distinguishing one from the other?

 

[Bradskii]

Consider me extremely feeble minded, but you're going to have explain it a bit more clearly. Because to me it just looks like semantics. Proctor wants to live. Proctor also wants to keep his integrity. Seems like two wants to me.

What is it that's distinguishing one from the other?

To prefer something is to choose one option over all other options. That's the sense it's generally used and that's the sense in which it has been used throughout this thread. To want something is a desire to have it or if you have it, to keep it.

Proctor wanted to live. And he wanted to keep his integrity. He reasoned that he couldn't do both because to live he'd have to sign something that he knew to be a lie. So his choices were, as he saw them:

Sign the confession and lose his integrity.
Not sign the confession and hang.

He didn't want to die, but he chose the second option. It was the choice he preferred to make.

 

[partinobodycular]

Sign the confession and lose his integrity.
Not sign the confession and hang.

He didn't want to die, but he chose the second option. It was the choice he preferred to make.

Okay, I got that part. But what do you mean 'he chose the second option'?

 

[Jo555]

No, Romans and Galatians do not deny free will. Though many interpreting them anachronistically believe as much. The debate is entirely philosophical in nature, though there is an included hermeneutic angle but ultimately it comes down to philosophical differences that some read into the texts of the Bible.

How are you defining freewill

How are you defining freewill?

I don't have time for all the fancy words tonight so just give me a simple definition of freewill because if you can get beyond the minor details, you may see truth in what he is saying.

No offense Bradskii. By this thread I know you are a big boy that can handle quite a bit and me trying to cut to the chase.

On the angle of giving them a rope to hang themselves, me not too happy with you.

No more French lessons for you.

 

[Bradskii]

The ability for our choices to be determined by our intentions. Imperfect self-determination.

So the choice that you make will be determined by that which you prefer.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, I got that part. But what do you mean 'he chose the second option'?

Well, I listed two options. And he chose the second...

I don't have time for all the fancy words tonight so just give me a simple definition of freewill

It's in the OP.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well, I listed two options. And he chose the second...

On what basis?

 

[Jo555]

Well, I listed two options. And he chose the second...


It's in the OP.

I was asking him, or her, as I wanted to see if there was an issue with how he, or she, is defining it.

 

[Fervent]

So the choice that you make will be determined by that which you prefer.

Preferences are contemporaneous, not antecedent. Casting a net so wide that everything becomes a prior cause doesn't demonstrate the truth of determinism, it just renders the word meaningless.

 

[Jo555]

The ability for our choices to be determined by our intentions. Imperfect self-determination.

So our choices are influenced by our intentions. That is not freewill according to Bradskii who gets his definition from ...philosophy? Bradskii?

And even if he made up a definition he is defining it on a thread he started. He has laid out how he is defining it so on his definition, that freewill is the capacity to make a choice without prior influences, then i agree, freewill does not exist.

We don't really have to even dive into scripture to see that. We make choices for a reason. When have we ever made a choice for no reason?

The reason will be what our preferences and those preferences are predetermined.

We can take that as far back as the garden of Eden. Why did Adam and Eve choose to partake of the wrong tree? They were influenced by the snake who enticed their human nature.

After the fall we are influenced by our carnal nature. After faith in Christ we are influenced by the love of God alive in our hearts, although we don't walk the walk perfectly as we are still being perfected in his love, and we won't get their on our own.

When the bible speaks of being free, it speaks of being free from our carnal nature and the letter of the law so that we can serve in the new way, by God's love via his Spirit.

Once we were driven by lust fueled by the law (knowledge of good and evil). Now we are to be driven by the love of God fueled by his Spirit.

Am I repeating myself?

 

[Jo555]

So our choices are influenced by our intentions. That is not freewill according to Bradskii who gets his definition from ...philosophy? Bradskii?

And even if he made up a definition he is defining it on a thread he started. He has laid out how he is defining it so on his definition, that freewill is the capacity to make a choice without prior influences, then i agree, freewill does not exist.

We don't really have to even dive into scripture to see that. We make choices for a reason. When have we ever made a choice for no reason?

The reason will be what our preferences and those preferences are predetermined.

We can take that as far back as the garden of Eden. Why did Adam and Eve choose to partake of the wrong tree? They were influenced by the snake who enticed their human nature.

After the fall we are influenced by our carnal nature. After faith in Christ we are influenced by the love of God alive in our hearts, although we don't walk the walk perfectly as we are still being perfected in his love, and we won't get their on our own.

When the bible speaks of being free, it speaks of being free from our carnal nature and the letter of the law so that we can serve in the new way, by God's love via his Spirit.

Once we were driven by lust fueled by the law (knowledge of good and evil). Now we are to be driven by the love of God fueled by his Spirit.

Am I repeating myself?

Will be my last tonight as getting late, but i hope you can see that something is always influencing our choices, but that doesn't undermine the fact that we still have a choice. Not only that, it really helps us to see that apart from Christ, we can do nothing. It is literally, as I see it, pride, according to scripture, to think otherwise. Prideful ignorance, but pride.

And believers need to know this, especially here because there are quite a few believers that think otherwise and are walking in defeat, going around the same mountain over and over again.

See, i can do serious. Not much fun though, but tonight i thought it may help and that thinking influenced my choice. We'll see how good or poor of a choice it was.

If it was a failure, may have to bring back my alter ego.

 

[Jo555]

Will be my last tonight as getting late, but i hope you can see that something is always influencing our choices, but that doesn't undermine the fact that we still have a choice. Not only that, it really helps us to see that apart from Christ, we can do nothing. It is literally, as I see it, pride, according to scripture, to think otherwise. Prideful ignorance, but pride.

And believers need to know this, especially here because there are quite a few believers that think otherwise and are walking in defeat, going around the same mountain over and over again.

See, i can do serious. Not much fun though, but tonight i thought it may help and that thinking influenced my choice. We'll see how good or poor of a choice it was.

If it was a failure, may have to bring back my alter ego.

Shoo, one more. The human argument would be, why would God judge us for doing what we were incapable of overcoming on our own?

He has had a plan all along, for us to be like Him, not of ourselves, but as children embodied by his Spirit and totally reliant on Him to get us there.

Not of ourselves, as the snake deceived in the garden, but through Christ. That is the destination of every believer so that He can display his glory through us and draw the nations to Himself.

The end justifies the means.

That is the gospel as i know it and not claiming to know it all and have it all right, but where i am with Him on that right now.

 

[Jo555]

Want to say one more thing on the topic of ethics and morality as this thread is in that section, then i don't foresee myself saying much more, but who knows.

Now I've said this before, but considering the length of this thread it may be lost in the sea of posts and I don't have the time to go fishing for it so hopefully our astute host will pardon moi.

Ethics and morality are part of partaking of the knowledge of good and evil. That is forbidden fruit. Yet, we did partake to try and be like God, so now we have to contend with that.

It is still forbidden fruit, but we have yet to fully mature in the Spirit. Therefore, we can find ourselves partaking of it once again until we have fully matured in Christ by his Spirit. For the believer good is found in the heart of God, his Spirit. This is not some moral code developed by surface knowledge that influences our code of ethics and morality. It is a Spiritual force. Just like carnality is a spiritual force derived from the fallen human nature, so is the Spirit of God a Spiritual force able to overcome carnality as we follow in the footsteps of our forerunner, Christ.

An atheist does not believe in God, therefore, will credit our concept of goodness to a moral and ethical code.

Here is the thing I see. So many believers are still partaking of the knowledge of good and evil and that does apply to an ethical code and a sense of morality. If an atheist theory is correct, just understand they are applying it to morality which we are not supposed to be partaking of. It doesn't mean it is wrong in regards to what shapes our moral code. They may be more right than wrong than some of us in that regard. Just understand that is not where our lives are to be lived, and it never was. God only brought in the law to influence our choice of living out of the knowledge of good and evil; to show us its failure to attain Godlikeness of ourselves, and to police us until Christ was brought in to free us from the law and a moral code based on that. We are now to live in the new way, equipped with Goodness itself (his Heart / Spirit) who leads us by his love. When we have matured, we will have attained Godlikeness totally reliant on the Source, God Almighty

We can say morality is part of the study of human nature, but we have been called to live by His Spirit's indwelling in ours, leading us by his love.

 

[Jo555]

Merci beaucoup. I look forward to seeing what others treasures may arise in this section of this site.

And God sure can use an unbeliever to show us a thing or two, but only by his Spirit is the revelation of Himself and ourselves revealed.

I find that the more each side gets closer to the truth, the more they agree. As a believer we seek the scriptures by his Spirit, but God can sure show Himself to those not looking for Him (He's done it before). They can also find Him in life around us; the study of the natural life and its natural laws. They just need not harden their hearts when He comes around.

 

[Jo555]

I should say that I don't mean to flippantly disregard the study of morality and ethics. There are things we can take away from it regarding our human nature. To each as the Lord impresses. I'm just saying that morality is not from where we are to live our lives, and it never was.

 

[Bradskii]

On what basis?

Good grief, part. It was his preference. He decided he'd prefer to die with his integrity than live without it.