Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

"Free will" not only doesn't make sense to me (both from logic and from experience), but I don't find it Scriptural, though I tried to earlier in life.

Let's be on the same page here. Generally I haven't been discussing freedom's role, if any, in conversion. Rather my focus is on what basis does God pronounce all men guilty.

He certainly cannot take Adam as our representative because that amounts to injustice and thus dishonesty (by my definition). That's why I formed my own theory of Adam consistent with Romans 5.

 

[JAL]

More patience, bro.

So rather than address what appears to be blatant contradictions in Reformed theology, you're going to give the church 2,000 more years? Meanwhile billions are perhaps going to hell needlessly because we're probably not walking correctly?

Look, all exegetical conclusions are TENTATIVE because we are fallible. Therefore, I'm not asking you to make an irrevocable commitment. All I'm saying is that, since we have to embrace one questionable stance or another, let's pick one, for the moment, that seems to make sense! And then later, if we decide it was a mistake, we can always go back and try again. Like you said - reformed but always reforming. Right? The truth is, the Reformed theologians have NOT been reforming. They have NOT been forthcoming about the various problems in their theology, such as those I've named on this thread (and believe me, there are plenty more that I didn't touch on due to being off-topic).

I currently hold to a theology that, as far as I can see, has no apparent logical contradictions. That's because I built it with that goal in mind. Unfortunately all theologians, from what I've seen, honor the law of non-contradiction only to a point - the point where it conflicts with a set of assumptions presumed non-negotiable such as the claim that God is infinite, omnipresent, impassible, incorruptible, immutable, immaterial (etc. etc. etc.).

 

[Mark Quayle]

To some degree? There are no exceptions to the rule, so let's not talk about degrees.

Against it? Again, there are no exceptions to the rule.

What do you mean by reliable? You are OBLIGATED to rely on it, even when it is mistaken, because there are no exceptions to the rule.

I think I can clear up your confusion. The system works like this:
(1) When faced with several choices, I must go with the one belief that I currently feel MOST certain about.
(2) Even so, if my certainty is less than 100%, I recognize that this one belief might be a misconception (albeit still obligatory due to #1).
(3) Which means I have an ongoing obligation to keep seeking more direct revelation from God, concerning that belief, until I reach 100% certainty.

To summarize: I'm not ignoring the implications of a corrupt or confused conscience.

"I heed my conscience to some degree" meaning that I don't always heed my conscience.

Is your certainty ever 100%? (Just curious what you would answer --not that it is endemic to the discussion at hand.)

What I am obligated to is obedience (maybe that's unfair --you probably mean I am logically obligated to rely on conscience, as in, it is unavoidable). Nevertheless, obedience to God necessarily trumps obedience to conscience. You may say that obedience to God logically always works out to obedience to conscience in practical use, since our conscience drives us to obey God. But, as mentioned, the conscience can be mistaken, and even mistaken by something worse than ignorance.

It is possible to obey conscience, yet be disobeying God. (I am reminded, not that I agree with them, that some Jewish Christians insist on necessary celebrations/"feasts" and on eschewing Easter, Christmas, I don't remember what else, and the use of the name, "Jesus", since they are all of Pagan origin. If my conscience doesn't convict me and they are right and it is as important as they claim, then I have been disobeying God). God does indeed look upon the heart (and I don't doubt the conscience is related to the matter), to judge our deeds. Yet that doesn't absolve me of my sin --my disobedience.

 

[JAL]

Maybe I need to hear your definition of "libertarian freedom", and who it necessarily applies to in your thinking.

Free will is behavior that is not fully predeterminate. Thus, even though my current disposition might tend to gravitate me toward a particular inclination, free will is the ability to move in a direction opposite to that inclination.

Do you believe that God has any real freedom? Did He freely chose to make this world, or was that decision beyond His control? Did He freely choose to die on the cross?

 

[JAL]

I heed my conscience to some degree" meaning that I don't always heed my conscience.

True. We all sin.

Is your certainty ever 100%? (Just curious what you would answer --not that it is endemic to the discussion at hand.)

When certainty is at the level of 100%, I'd classify it as a prophetic experience or prophetic revelation. No, I haven't had that experience (although think I may have experienced something close to 100% one time, many years ago).

What I am obligated to is obedience (maybe that's unfair --you probably mean I am logically obligated to rely on conscience, as in, it is unavoidable). Nevertheless, obedience to God necessarily trumps obedience to conscience. You may say that obedience to God logically always works out to obedience to conscience in practical use, since our conscience drives us to obey God. But, as mentioned, the conscience can be mistaken, and even mistaken by something worse than ignorance.

All these statements are misleading, irrelevant, and already addressed at posts 203, 205, 212, 214, 217, 224 (etc,etc,etc).

It is possible to obey conscience, yet be disobeying God.

Obedience to conscience DEFINES obedience. Therefore it CANNOT be construed as disobedience to God. You already admitted there's no exceptions to the rule. Here it is again - this is what defines obedience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with B".

We have been over this so many times it's not even funny. For starters you can review the same posts listed above (203, 205, 212, 214, 217, 224) but there are plenty more.

You might disagree on the TERMINOLOGY of course (no argument there), meaning that you object to the rubric "rule of conscience". Call it whatever you want - if you don't like 'conscience' find another term - but the fact remains that compliance to feelings of certainty defines obedience/righteousness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So rather than address what appears to be blatant contradictions in Reformed theology, you're going to give the church 2,000 more years? Meanwhile billions are perhaps going to hell needlessly because we're probably not walking correctly?

Look, all exegetical conclusions are TENTATIVE because we are fallible. Therefore, I'm not asking you to make an irrevocable commitment. All I'm saying is that, since we have to embrace one questionable stance or another, let's pick one, for the moment, that seems to make sense! And then later, if we decide it was a mistake, we can always go back and try again. Like you said - reformed but always reforming. Right? The truth is, the Reformed theologians have NOT been reforming. They have NOT been forthcoming about the various problems in their theology, such as those I've named on this thread (and believe me, there are plenty more that I didn't touch on due to being off-topic).

I currently hold to a theology that, as far as I can see, has no apparent logical contradictions. That's because I built it with that goal in mind. Unfortunately all theologians, from what I've seen, honor the law of non-contradiction only to a point - the point where it conflicts with a set of assumptions presumed non-negotiable such as the claim that God is infinite, omnipresent, impassible, incorruptible, immutable, immaterial (etc. etc. etc.).

I think you know that is not what I am saying. By "patience" I am talking about simply not jumping to conclusions, and not trusting my own wisdom and understanding, nor even entirely trusting my conscience.

You might be surprised at the flexibility in Reformed circles. They are generally adamant about the Sovereignty of God, and the Gospel being the work of God alone, but there are all sorts of flavors and points of view, all sorts of definitions and reasonings even about those two (sovereignty and the gospel), all sorts of degrees of adhering to the old tenets.

My Uncle may have held the two (Predestination and Free Will) in tension, because he was satisfied there, I don't really know, but he admitted to an intellectual impasse --not intellectual contradiction. God knows.

I hold as fact that God "dwells" on a higher or different plain of being than we his creation are, and that this makes our Free Will a necessary subset of his predestination, not a contention against the theory of predestination. I also hold (though this may only be a support of the first sentence here) that our dignity of being, or our selves, are not whole beings, on any level in God's economy. God need not dignify us at all, if he doesn't wish to. One place in Scripture goes so far as to call us worms. He can (and will) do as he decides and is not sinning nor unjust in doing so.

I also reason that if we can claim free will (and most of us do, blaming the person for wrong doing when he does wrong) in the face of influences and our individual natures, that it makes sense that if those things (which we admit to) are under God's control, it is no different --the person who does wrong still does wrong.

Also, I might have said to you before, theoretically eliminating God from control of our hearts implies absolute CHANCE, if Free Will reigns, as we admit that one person is no better than another, nobody ABLE to come to God above another person's ability to do so. And CHANCE is a logical non-starter. There is no such thing; it is self-contradictory to say chance controls anything --nevermind free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

True. We all sin.


When certainty is at the level of 100%, I'd classify it as a prophetic experience or prophetic revelation. No, I haven't had that experience (although think I may have experienced something close to 100% one time, many years ago).

All these statements are misleading, irrelevant, and already addressed at posts 203, 205, 212, 214, 217, 224 (etc,etc,etc).

Obedience to conscience DEFINES obedience. Therefore it CANNOT be construed as disobedience to God. You already admitted there's no exceptions to the rule. Here it is again - this is what defines obedience:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with B".

We have been over this so many times it's not even funny. For starters you can review the same posts listed above (203, 205, 212, 214, 217, 224) but there are plenty more.

You might disagree on the TERMINOLOGY of course (no argument there), meaning that you object to the rubric "rule of conscience". Call it whatever you want - if you don't like 'conscience' find another term - but the fact remains that compliance to feelings of certainty defines obedience/righteousness.

Rather than to say once again that I disagree, I will leave it at this --I am unable to see what you are saying the way you see it. I don't even see the necessity to make an issue of this "Authority of Conscience". I was this whole time just trying to see what you meant by it, and when you would say this or that, I would have to disagree with the words, because the more you explained, the more convinced I was that your thinking was not Scriptural. At this point I just don't know why you think it is important to make an issue of it --do not most people already acknowledge the fact that we live with regard to conscience, either opposing or obeying it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Free will is behavior that is not fully predeterminate. Thus, even though my current disposition might tend to gravitate me toward a particular inclination, free will is the ability to move in a direction opposite to that inclination.

Do you believe that God has any real freedom? Did He freely chose to make this world, or was that decision beyond His control? Did He freely choose to die on the cross?

Where do you get the idea free will is not fully predeterminate? What is implied if you actually CAN do either one? What makes one choose right and another choose wrong?

You seem to be attempting to imply something with this line of questioning. What is your point? ONLY God has total sovereignty. There is no decision beyond his control, and yes he freely chose to die on the cross.

 

[JAL]

I think you know that is not what I am saying. By "patience" I am talking about simply not jumping to conclusions, and not trusting my own wisdom and understanding, nor even entirely trusting my conscience.

Jumping? The Reformed theologians reviewed 1500 years of church teaching. And now here we are 500 years later. That means it is the product of 2,000 years of "patience" - and they still never resolved the issues raised on this thread. You know what that means, right? It means that those issues CANNOT be resolved on Reformed assumptions.

I think you know that is not what I am saying.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. Given that some of the world's most brilliant men have operated on assumptions that, for 2,000 years, have utterly failed to produce a consistent theology, a reform of those assumptions would hardly constitute a wrecklessly wild, unwarranted "jumping to conclusions". If you hire someone to do a job and, 2,000 years later, the job still isn't done right, I don't think what is called for is more "patience".

You might be surprised at the flexibility in Reformed circles. They are generally adamant about the Sovereignty of God, and the Gospel being the work of God alone, but there are all sorts of flavors and points of view, all sorts of definitions and reasonings even about those two (sovereignty and the gospel), all sorts of degrees of adhering to the old tenets.

I don't believe that's true. There is plenty of variety on minor issues, but it's rare that an evangelical Christian, such as myself, is willing to question the big issues such as Sola Scriptura itself.

I hold as fact that God "dwells" on a higher or different plain of being than we his creation are, and that this makes our Free Will a necessary subset of his predestination, not a contention against the theory of predestination. I also hold (though this may only be a support of the first sentence here) that our dignity of being, or our selves, are not whole beings, on any level in God's economy. God need not dignify us at all, if he doesn't wish to. One place in Scripture goes so far as to call us worms. He can (and will) do as he decides and is not sinning nor unjust in doing so.

(Sigh). We've been over this a hundred times. Any theory of reality could turn out to be true. The question is whether such obscure theories are consistent with hope. When I say I have hope, I'm not muddled in some obscure, nebulous haze. Rather I have a CLEAR definition of kindness,honesty, fairness, justice, and so on, and a confidence that God has chosen to so behave. Double predestination doesn't fit here.

I also reason that if we can claim free will (and most of us do, blaming the person for wrong doing when he does wrong) in the face of influences and our individual natures, that it makes sense that if those things (which we admit to) are under God's control, it is no different --the person who does wrong still does wrong.

But to reach this conclusion, you had to postulate a God who violates our definitions of virtue, contrary to hope.

 

[JAL]

What makes one choose right and another choose wrong?

Let's make sure we're on the same page. The sinful nature is an addiction to sin. To keep this discussion simple, let's just talk about the angels for a moment.

What makes one choose right and another choose wrong?

As for an angel who chose to disobey God, what caused it? What determined his decision and action? He did, via his freedom. His freedom enabled him to determine the outcome of his situation.

You seem to be attempting to imply something with this line of questioning. What is your point? ONLY God has total sovereignty. There is no decision beyond his control, and yes he freely chose to die on the cross.

So you're inconsistent.
(1) With respect to the question whether men have real libertarian freedom, you want to dismiss it as a non-starter that doesn't make sense.
(2) When I ask the same question about God, suddenly you want to say that God has real freedom, that He DOES have the ability to dictate His outcome. You claim that God has "sovereignty" over His decisions, thus conceding that reality doesn't somehow predetermine them.

 

[JAL]

Where do you get the idea free will is not fully predeterminate?

Without this assumption, hell makes no sense. Do you ever punish your children? Suppose someone spiked your kid's food with a drug, causing inappropriate behavior. Would you punish your child for something beyond his ability to control or change? I don't think so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jumping? The Reformed theologians reviewed 1500 years of church teaching. And now here we are 500 years later. That means it is the product of 2,000 years of "patience" - and they still never resolved the issues raised on this thread. You know what that means, right? It means that those issues CANNOT be resolved on Reformed assumptions.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. Given that some of the world's most brilliant men have operated on assumptions that, for 2,000 years, have utterly failed to produce a consistent theology, a reform of those assumptions would hardly constitute a wrecklessly wild, unwarranted "jumping to conclusions". If you hire someone to do a job and, 2,000 years later, the job still isn't done right, I don't think what is called for is more "patience".

I don't believe that's true. There is plenty of variety on minor issues, but it's rare that an evangelical Christian, such as myself, is willing to question the big issues such as Sola Scriptura itself.

(Sigh). We've been over this a hundred times. Any theory of reality could turn out to be true. The question is whether such obscure theories are consistent with hope. When I say I have hope, I'm not muddled in some obscure, nebulous haze. Rather I have a CLEAR definition of kindness,honesty, fairness, justice, and so on, and a confidence that God has chosen to so behave. Double predestination doesn't fit here.




But to reach this conclusion, you had to postulate a God who violates our definitions of virtue, contrary to hope.

Not our definitions. Yours. Or your assessments of what he has done.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Without this assumption, hell makes no sense. Do you ever punish your children? Suppose someone spiked your kid's food with a drug, causing inappropriate behavior. Would you punish your child for something beyond his ability to control or change? I don't think so.

We already dealt with this in your question about someone drugging someone else. I am not God. He has the absolute right to do whatever he chooses without doing wrong in doing it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let's make sure we're on the same page. The sinful nature is an addiction to sin. To keep this discussion simple, let's just talk about the angels for a moment.

As for an angel who chose to disobey God, what caused it? What determined his decision and action? He did, via his freedom. His freedom enabled him to determine the outcome of his situation.

So you're inconsistent.
(1) With respect to the question whether men have real libertarian freedom, you want to dismiss it as a non-starter that doesn't make sense.
(2) When I ask the same question about God, suddenly you want to say that God has real freedom, that He DOES have the ability to dictate His outcome. You claim that God has "sovereignty" over His decisions, thus conceding that reality doesn't somehow predetermine them.

The sinful nature is the ingrained enmity with God. The predilection to sin. Corruption at the core of one's being.

The Angel was not ignorant as Adam was. Yet both had plenty to recognize rebellion, I think. Both had influences arranged by God, for God's own purposes --Satan had pride, Adam had temptation. However, I too insist their decisions were real, and that with real eternal results. (Side issue, though perhaps relevant: At one point, apparently Angels were given choice. I don't think the fallen angels are any longer given the option of repentance and restoration, nor for those who are not fallen, does it appear they are able to rebel or be unfaithful.)

If I agree with your words that the angel's decision determined the outcome of his situation, does that imply to you that God did not?

 

[JAL]

[God] has the absolute right to do whatever he chooses without doing wrong in doing it.

Addressed in post 210. I'm not clear where you responded to that.

 

[JAL]

Not our definitions. Yours. Or your assessments of what he has done.

No. YOUR definitions. You wouldn't punish your kid for events he had no control over. The Reformed God contradicts YOUR definition of justice, YOUR assessment of righteousness, thus undermining hope. You try to cover it up by saying, "Whatever God does is good."

As mentioned earlier, once you regard God's definitions as diverging from ours, biblical ethics becomes unintelligible, because the Bible says to model our behavior after His behavior. Thus if HIS justice entails indicting men who are not "sovereign" over their decisions, then apparently we should do the same - we should put men in prison for circumstances beyond their control. I mentioned this objection earlier, I don't see that you've resolved it yet.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you're inconsistent.
(1) With respect to the question whether men have real libertarian freedom, you want to dismiss it as a non-starter that doesn't make sense.
(2) When I ask the same question about God, suddenly you want to say that God has real freedom, that He DOES have the ability to dictate His outcome. You claim that God has "sovereignty" over His decisions, thus conceding that reality doesn't somehow predetermine them.

Huh?

1. If "real libertarian freedom" means absolute free will, yeah, it's a non-starter. None but God has that.

2. God has the ability to dictate "his outcome"? What does that mean? You mean he can change himself, or his circumstances, or are you saying he determines his creation? He determines his creation, if that is the outcome you are talking about. I would like you to find again where I said he has sovereignty over his decisions. I perhaps could be taken to say he has sovereign decisions, though I don't remember saying that. I think I only said he is absolutely sovereign. Meanwhile, your intimation that what you say I said implies that I am conceding that reality doesn't somehow predetermine them, isn't even cogent to my thinking. What does that mean --"reality doesn't somehow predetermine" what God does? When did I ever say reality predetermines what God does, or concede the opposite? What does that even mean?

 

[JAL]

The sinful nature is the ingrained enmity with God. The predilection to sin. Corruption at the core of one's being.

Correct.

(Side issue, though perhaps relevant: At one point, apparently Angels were given choice. I don't think the fallen angels are any longer given the option of repentance and restoration, nor for those who are not fallen, does it appear they are able to rebel or be unfaithful.)

Agreed.

If I agree with your words that the angel's decision determined the outcome of his situation, does that imply to you that God did not?

Huh? Decision? Please stay on topic. The issue is whether the angel had a libertarian free will that determined the outcome of his battles with temptation. And whether God has any libertarian freedom at all. You said that God has "sovereignty" over His decisions. Thus libertarian free will is a valid concept, contrary to your earlier insinuation that it reduces to random CHANCE. There's nothing wrong with the concept, then, it's just that you want to limit it to God. But this leads to an incoherent jurisprudence - people without real freedom being punished for so-called "sins" beyond their ability to control.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. YOUR definitions. You wouldn't punish your kid for events he had no control over. The Reformed God contradicts YOUR definition of justice, YOUR assessment of righteousness, thus undermining hope. You try to cover it up by saying, "Whatever God does is good."

As mentioned earlier, once you regard God's definitions as diverging from ours, biblical ethics becomes unintelligible, because the Bible says to model our behavior after His behavior. Thus if HIS justice entails indicting men who are not "sovereign" over their decisions, then apparently we should do the same - we should put men in prison for circumstances beyond their control. I mentioned this objection earlier, I don't see that you've resolved it yet.

You mean, Thus if HIS justice entails indicting men who sin, we should too? No, sir, we should not put men in prison for being unable to control their circumstances. We put them in prison for their wrongdoing. You slough one statement (which already itself ignores a huge fact --that they sinned) into another statement, as if they are one and the same.

I'm sorry, but no, I disagree completely. Do you have no concept of the huge difference between God and us? He isn't even like us, nevermind in dynamics but in kind, in type of thing. He is creator, we are created. HOW, please, is God unjust for creating creatures who are bound over in sin, and having them pay for their sin? Do they sin? Would you say a creature who always acts according to his sin nature is innocent?

It is our definitions that diverge from his. Not the other way around. Particularly noticeable in this regard is when we try to apply his laws for us to live by, to him. We see things backwards, when we try to describe God.

 

[JAL]

Huh?

1. If "real libertarian freedom" means absolute free will, yeah, it's a non-starter. None but God has that.

2. God has the ability to dictate "his outcome"? What does that mean? You mean he can change himself, or his circumstances, or are you saying he determines his creation? He determines his creation, if that is the outcome you are talking about. I would like you to find again where I said he has sovereignty over his decisions. I perhaps could be taken to say he has sovereign decisions, though I don't remember saying that. I think I only said he is absolutely sovereign. Meanwhile, your intimation that what you say I said implies that I am conceding that reality doesn't somehow predetermine them, isn't even cogent to my thinking. What does that mean --"reality doesn't somehow predetermine" what God does? When did I ever say reality predetermines what God does, or concede the opposite? What does that even mean?

We're talking past each other. I agree with you that God has at least some degree of real freedom. In this sense He is sovereign over His decisions. There is no reality, neither inside God, or outside Him, that fully predetermines His decisions. His freedom itself can determine His decisions.

What I was objecting to is the earlier insinuation that, with respect to men, libertarian free will boils down to RANDOM CHANCE and thus, as such, isn't a valid concept. My argument, then, is that:
(1) God is a person. Libertarian freedom is a coherent concept for him.
(2) Therefore, since a man is a person, libertarian freedom is a coherent concept for him as well. (Or use an angel here).

That was my point.