I Believe In Free Will

[Rey Reynoso]

For the sake of this discussion, I believe in complete free will. Luther was wrong. Edwards is wrong. They deny reality with philosophical constructs. Romans 9 is misinterpreted. John 6 is taken out of context. Ephesians 2 has nothing to do with it.

What say you?

Feel free to attack.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

My father used to say when it comes down to choice of either/or and there's only two given, better start looking for the third, 'cause someone is missing the big picture.

[Rey Reynoso]

mem said:

I think we must be using the same word different ways, Rey. I've been reading "fatalism" when you write "determinism." Is that what you mean? Because determinism by itself doesn't really imply no moral culpability, while I think fatalism would.

Hey mem, for the sake of the argument, this is how I’ll define my usage of the terminology and I think it’s fairly consistent with how it’s commonly used. I personally think that a compatibalistic model might be closer to right but I can't figure out how to make it logically consistent with my soteriology. Anyway :

Determinism I’d define as this: The system by which actions and events are predetermined. Nothing that occurs without it being predetermined to occur.

Compatibalism (or Soft-Determinism or Compatibalistic-Freedom I’d define as this: The system which accounts for Freedom of by saying it is compatible with determinism. Even if there was a deterministic over-structure then this freedom is still compatible with it. In other words, this is still Determinism but not rigid since it works with freedom.

Fatalism would include determinism and defeatism but not include freedom. Everything that happens has been dictated to happen and it doesn’t matter what we do: it’s going to happen. Incidentally, Fatalists would agree with Libertarians in this aspect: freedom of will and determinism are not compatible. In other words, this is still Determinism but the Harder or more rigid form of it which excludes Freedom

Libertarian Freedom will agree with Fatalism that Determinism and Free Will are not compatible. Within this argument I will be arguing for this last one. It is impossible to have true Freedom if it is Predetermined Freedom. Notice, this does not say it is impossible to have true Freedom if its foreknown—it states that True Freedom is only Freedom if it isn’t determined.

[Rey Reynoso]

mem said:

I am not a fatalist. I do think the fall made us less human, and that a part of that is a broken will. The issue is not whether or not the choices have changed, but that my chooser is broken.

Yeah most soft-determinists don't want to go there because they acknowledge that Freedom is real. I just can't figure out how to make that Rubik's cube work. Anyway, see that’s where this argument would differ (and I think I would differ from my own personal view here as well):

The fall didn’t make anyone less human. It made them a human without a master.

[Rey Reynoso]

mem said:

The first is how and to what extent the fall injured the human will…

Note that before the Fall, men and women could choose anything they wanted (any fruit, mastery over creatures, areas of exploration as in Gen 1 and 2). The big difference before the Fall is that they would talk things over with God—ask Him for guidance (God would be responsible for teaching the man about his needs but the Man would come to the conclusion of his needs in that tutelage: Gen 2).

Man (men and women) was God’s vice-gerant over the earth and could only properly do their job when they asked God.

Note (Gen 3) that before the Fall people could do the following: (1) think about things and the benefits thereof; (2) weigh options and note the result of said options; (3) argue their point that they think is right; (4) capitulate to a point which seemed to have logically disproven their own point. Before her eyes were opened, Eve's (and I think by extension Adam's since he seemed pretty nearby when she ate the fruit) eyes were already “open” to make choices.

A few things that she was told though that seemed like a good benefit: they would become like God. What does that mean? Well, it starts to become evident in the following sentence:

(A) When their eyes were opened they (B) noticed they were naked and (C) Hid.

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with being naked. Nothing wrong with being naked with your wife. It does suck though to do the one thing that God told you not to do and realize you just did it and you’re exposed and then try to cover it up (Now granted, the text says they noticed they were naked making an implication that they couldn't see it before. I don't know how many of us would argue that they didn't know what was right or wrong before the Fall based on the fact that God told them what was wrong so they knew at least one thing was Wrong. Whatever the passage does mean it implies that they've gone to a position where they See in a new light--and a light that even God sees since the text earlier says after they were created "and they were naked").

So this now means that not only do they (5) realize they have done wrong by disobeying God and removing Him as their Master in this aspect; they now (6) try to hide from God after they’ve done wrong so He doesn't have a say in their action and (7) recognize that He is now the only moral "peer" that can have a say in their action.

I expect this point will be a point of contention so...here goes:

Maybe this will clear this last bit up: their ability to make choices is now coupled with being personally accountable for them and judged on the same grounds that God would be judged. They’ve gone from a position they would not have had to worry about (since God was the final arbiter of all decisions and therefore guilt if something went wrong—which it wouldn’t have gone wrong) to a position of being personally responsible for their moral choices.

Their will was about Me before but it was about Me asking God for guidance in all things. So it was Me under Master. Now their will was about Me but it was Me as Master.

In other words: they have gone from will-driven creatures in subjection to a perfect and infinite master who would be ultimately responsible for any of their failures and victories; to will-driven creatures in subjection to themselves as master and thus ultimately responsible for any of their failures and victories and being judged on the same scale as the perfect and infinite God.

I was taught that the points you think are very important, you should repeat them. And when repeating doesn't work, restate them. And when restating doesn't work: repeat them louder. lol

[Rey Reynoso]

mem said:

and the second is how the will is redeemed eschatologically.

In the future the ability to choose will be still Free but now operating beyond the baby operation of the Garden (asking God for guidance) but actually being in God (via Christ) and operating as an Adult. A community of people who have the Mind of Christ and their Own Selves intact making it Me as an Ambassador of Master. Eschatologically I think this is even how determinists would put it.

Now, I imagine that although there will be choices to be made, that there may even be mistakes that can be made, the mistakes are not the mistakes of culpable-Me-singular-centered: they’re Me-in-Christ-centered (thus in effect for the entire corporate body as the Temple of God). I imagine actually trying stuff and failing, and learning and redoing. I don't imagine eternity as a static place where we all know good theology (at the very least we'll all be dispensationalistic non-Calvinists =) ) who are skilled at the harp.

I know it will be impossible to do things for the Glory of Me since we’ll be operating by the principle for the Glory of God reflected in the Corporate Body. That is made possible from a very real change. Just as it is impossible for a person to serve God without first being justified by God it is future impossible to Sin against God because then we’ll be fully In God.

Incidentally, the Future winds up being an equal problem for determinists (much worst for Hard Determinists) since it insists that that Future State is better because its Freedom with God. But then that doesn't make sense: why would God determine everything in the timefilled now and then toss up His hands and stop determining for the eternal Then? In other words, If everything Now is determined, there's no reason to think that everything Then isn't determined either.

[Anselm]

Rey,

I actually liked the way Roger Olson phrased it. We don't believe in "free Will" we believe in a "freed will." Man in his depravity is completely fallen and completely unable to will the good. But Christ freed us from the bondage of sin and enabled our wills to accept, by non-resistance, the gift of salvation.

So if you mean our wills, apart from God are free, I would disagree, If you mean that we are just sick and still have some good in us and are therefore able to will good, I would still disagree, But if you mean that we are completely and totally dead in our trespasses and sins and unable to will the good but that Christ has freed our will. Then I'm with you.

(Of course the mystery lies in why some people accept God and others don't if all people have a freed will and there is nothing in us that is good. But that is a mystery I'm willing to live with.)

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Ray, this is why the Fall of Man* is a misnomer at best. Man did not fall. He did not become lower in station than he was before. His eyes were opened, his intellect sharpened, and wisdom was granted to him whereas that was reserved for God (I'll not introduce plurality of elohim here for the sake of keeping it sane around here). This is not a Fall. This was an elevation of man from a creature of servitude, albeit willing, to a creature aware of his divine nature. This makes Adam (mankind) dangerous. Both the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life produced results that brought mankind equal with the level of God. This is explicit in Gen 3.22 when it is said that man has become like God, knowing good from evil and therefore should be expelled lest they suddenly eat of the other tree and find immortality. So immediately, right here, we see an explicit admission that mankind has one half of the qualities of God: the knowledge between good and evil. Again, call it what you want, but taking on one of the qualities of God as an inherent human quality is not a Fall but an elevation. But God cannot and will not tolerate competition. Refuse the Tree of Immortal Life and mankind dies like bugs on a regular basis.

The fact that Eve and Adam could make a free choice in regards to that very first all important Shakespearean question—to eat or not to eat—shows that free will was inherent in the original makeup of humanity. It also shows that if God is all knowing—past, present, future—and he wasn't interested in having mankind make choices with that free will that would upset the balance of creation, then putting these two little trees in the middle of the garden and saying, "Don't eat," was really dumb for a divine being to do**. When was the last time you told a two year old, "There are cookies in that jar but don't you touch those. Those are for dinner only and you'll surely get in trouble when you do"? Um, hello? Those cookies are history not because they're bad and horrible and obscene, but because you, daddy, said "Don't do that." Can God tempt? Yes. Can God lead us into temptation? You bet! Does God lead us into temptation on purpose? Was that really in question here?


*I mean, I know why it's called that and all from a theological perspective. My point is that the terminology is inaccurate even from a contextually accurate perspective.

**This is also how I know that the whole Jesus and Mary and children in France story is a load of garbage.

[Rey Reynoso]

Anselm said:

So if you mean our wills, apart from God are free, I would disagree, If you mean that we are just sick and still have some good in us and are therefore able to will good, I would still disagree, But if you mean that we are completely and totally dead in our trespasses and sins and unable to will the good but that Christ has freed our will. Then I'm with you. div>

There is none that seeks God, says Scripture. All we like sheep have gone astray—each one after his own way. Our wills are currently for ourselves. In other words, our wills are Sinful because they are not subject to God but subject to us. We are our own God. We decide in favor of Ourselves. Our desires are for ourselves not outside of ourselves.

This makes it an impossibility to choose something outside of ourselves apart from that Outside of Ourselves interacting with Ourselves. This would be the equivalent of trying to fly when we don’t have a means of flying. Throughout Time God graciously shows people what it is to be like God but People can’t do it because they're not equipped with the tools that matter. Not only are they finite, they choose in favor of themselves. So when God sees a violent world that’s trampling the image of God, after punishing it He equips Humanity with the responsibility of ruling themselves with governmental bodies and the means of punishment. A life for a life. When people increase in lawlessness, He equips them with a Law that shows How He Functions but People take the Law and make their Idolatry Of Self all the worst by doing the very things the Law says not to do.

Their position was already dead (since Adam). Their position was already dead in sins (since their selfishness). Their position was enhanced by trespasses against the Law. So people were positionally dead by their actions and Lawbreaking. There is no way to choose out of this position on our own.

So in other words, the discussion in this definition has to move from ascribing moral values to decisions. It’s not that people choose bad or can choose Good. It’s that people choose in their own favor and that entire scheme is in enmity against God. It’s focused on the natural/fleshy system; focused on the finite; empowered by self desires. People are damned on account of where they stand.

This would then allow people to see what is good (the Law) and break it, see what righteousness (grace) is and liberalize it, see what is God-honoring (Christ) and crucify it. This is People ruling, deciding in their own favor.

Now for a human to go from one category to another, determinists would say is only possible for those God has predetermined to be able to go to the other category. Some will add a regeneration before belief to make faith possible—in effect, a person is born again and then justified. I think this is an error of reading Kingdom theology into what Christ was doing. He wasn’t merely establishing the Kingdom, He was paying a price to allow population of the Kingdom.

So Yes, Christ does something to the Human that makes him different from before but I don't think it makes them less or more human--it just makes them a special type of humans and this is where I would say He works on two levels where pride and folly have to go their separate ways. I’ll flesh that out a bit later when I know I have to defend bits that I just said or said earlier. lol

[Rey Reynoso]

Don Quixote (bishop) said:

Ray, this is why the Fall of Man* is a misnomer at best. Man did not fall. He did not become lower in station than he was before. div>

Well, yes and no. You’re right that man’s station became “lower than the angels”. All of creation was “subjected to slavery to corruption” underneath the eroding influence of man but I think that can just mean that the vice-gerant over creation stopped caring for it in the sense of being a majordomo for His master. So when its all under Man’s care and Man doesn’t give a damn save for himself then it’s all going down the drain. So Yes, there was a change that made man better but it also made man worse.
So although in one sense Man has become wiser it’s in the completely wrong sense of doing things. Man became wiser by participation in activity unlike God who is wise on account of being above and over all activity. The fact that God would have the options available to them in the Garden actually even underscores the idea that there was roads of wisdom available to them: one road was didactinal and the other was experiential. The experiential one winds up being “a Fall” because Man is now culpable/responsible/accountable for all of his decisions on a scale compared to God without God’s infinitude.
Incidentally, even though the text says that People would have become Like God I don’t think it means they would have been exactly like God. Humans, although then eternal, would still have a finite starting point and a wisdom besmirched by experiential participation in active disobedience in the only relationship that was worth having. It would have been a catastrophe of incalculable proportions to have Eternal Beings that constantly focused on self and had no power but satisfaction of self (some might offer a counterpoint at what exactly is it God does but I would argue His Self is Self-less and constantly giving and sending and so forth—but that’s a whole ‘nutha topic).
I think one can actually be said that in each stage of God’s gracious revelation of Himself man has become both better (he’s got the governmental system, he’s got the Law of God, He’s got the Son of God) and worse (he now has something to rebel against).

(incidentally, i typed all this real quick while i finished mowing the lawn and i'm shaky and i don't know if i made sense and if i read everything correctly)

[Chen Yew Lin]

This sounds acceptable since with the 'freed will', men is still responsible and will be held accountable for accepting or rejecting God's plan for salvation in Christ.

Anselm said:

Rey,

I actually liked the way Roger Olson phrased it. We don't believe in "free Will" we believe in a "freed will." Man in his depravity is completely fallen and completely unable to will the good. But Christ freed us from the bondage of sin and enabled our wills to accept, by non-resistance, the gift of salvation.

So if you mean our wills, apart from God are free, I would disagree, If you mean that we are just sick and still have some good in us and are therefore able to will good, I would still disagree, But if you mean that we are completely and totally dead in our trespasses and sins and unable to will the good but that Christ has freed our will. Then I'm with you.

(Of course the mystery lies in why some people accept God and others don't if all people have a freed will and there is nothing in us that is good. But that is a mystery I'm willing to live with.)

[Anselm]

Rey,

I agree with your post. I would, and have always, emphasized the depravity of man as much as any Calvinist. But I would also argue that the scripture seems to imply that man has been given the ability to choose, or at least not resist God's drawing of people to himself.

The only way, it seems, to reconcile these views, without abolishing one, is with the Arminian concept of prevenient grace. Which, putting aside the big words, is in agreement with Calvinist that regeneration must take place before one can believe. However it is different than the Calvinist in that it doesn't cause one to believe, but rather "frees" ones will from the bondage of sin so that one is made able, by God, to not resist the call of God. but it doesn't mean that one looses his natural sinful ability to resist.

The Calvinist will now say, but what makes one man choose and another one not choose if they are both made able, there must logically be something in man that decides? This point I would concede as a mystery. We just don't know. But this mystery, to me (perhaps it's an east coast thing;-)), is far easier to accept than the mystery of a monergistic deity that gives people no ability to come to him, but then condemns them for not coming to him. I suppose, upon reflection, I could easily accept Calvinism if there was no hell and nihilism was true.

[Chen Yew Lin]

I think the fall does not affect our will but our doing as in Rom 7. Paul says, we agree that that Law is good but the doing is not there. When we try to do what we know is right, we just fail. That I believe should be a statement about an unregenerated state. When saved, our freedom should increase ie. sin should no longer have a hold on us anymore.

Jesus also said that those who want to do God's will, should be able to discern if His teachings are from God or not. Jn 7:17, 'If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.

Regarding freewill, the extent of our degeneration is in issue. Although we cannot exactly say for sure the extent of it, we are not broken beyond redemption. I believe 'dead in trespasses and sin' is a positional statement of the condemned condition and situation of sinners. However, we are not fallen beyond the work and hope of redemption, otherwise how is God to redeem us if we are unable to exercise choice. We can still discern true or false and right or wrong. So 1Cor 1:19-31, says that the gospel is made very simple so that even those who are not so clever and uneducated can still made lives' simple choices.