Presuppositions and Free Will

[maddog]

I would think it great for free-will to be valid, but in a naturalistic world (ie w/o devine intervention) I can find no basis to support it.

Is it required to have "devine intervention for people to think of a thought ?

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I might add, that its rather illogical for someone who believes in total determinism to argue with someone who supports free will since the free will believer is just predetermined to believe that way. Unless of course you perhaps are just predetermined to argue with them. Actually, in accepting determinism you yourself at some point in you're life exercised free will as most of us tend to see it. Your senses, your training, your experience, the environmental factors, all sorts of things may have come into play. But boil it all down and you made the conscious decision at some point that this was the correct path. Its that choice which we tend to believe you had the fully ability to either make or not make. That's what free will by definition actually is. Now does that violate anything sacred as far as science goes?

Paultr, I think you have hit the nail on the proverbial head as it were. Evident by the

lenght of these threads on Free Will. In fact it seems futile to discuss the

subject with people whose point of view is totally deterministic. I see it as people of

Determinism are limited that they can think of nothing else and so are bound by it.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

When I was stationed in Europe during my stay in the military, my favorite brew was Becks Dortmuender Beer. Whats you brand???

I've drank Dortmuender. It's great. In fact I had a friend I knew from college who

that was all he would drink. Myself I love Guinness. Best on tap in Ireland. If not in

Ireland then on tap. Second is Newcastle. Then all the other dark beers. Though I

really like trying out all the micro brews!

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Science as a process relies on objectivism. We must remain objective in light of the evidence. But as you say- without free will, there is no such thing as "objective." You will believe whatever it is you were fated to believe, simply because you are at the end of the casual chain. I think Linda would agree with that.

 

The problem is- objectivity thus ceases to exist. Objectivity requires freedom from that casual chain, and I would argue that objectivity cannot exist WITHOUT free wil for those reasons. If we can't choose to think apart from the system, then we cannot be objective within the system.

 

Facinating!

I fail to see how objectivity disapears without Free Will. What I see is subjectivity

would disapear. This without Free Will so would opinions. Without opinions so would

debates. Without debates so would this thread. Since I don't see the thread going

away, there goes determinism.

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

Paultr, I think you have hit the nail on the proverbial head as it were. Evident by the

lenght of these threads on Free Will. In fact it seems futile to discuss the

subject with people whose point of view is totally deterministic. I see it as people of

Determinism are limited that they can think of nothing else and so are bound by it.

 

Maddog

 

Yes. In fact, Christianity has its own internal argument from theology over free will/versus determinism. By rights if man is fallen then his free will that supposedly God created him with is limited somewhat by that fall and by his sinful nature. He cannot directly, according to my reading of the Bible will himself saved, so to speak. By the book it took an act of God. It requires God's spirit to change the heart of man. You might say, echoing something we've tried to say, that Biblically man's free will does not work contrary to the laws of God either as well as the laws of nature. Free will in either case has its limits and works within those limits.

[IrishEyes]

Yes. In fact, Christianity has its own internal argument from theology over free will/versus determinism. By rights if man is fallen then his free will that supposedly God created him with is limited somewhat by that fall and by his sinful nature. He cannot directly, according to my reading of the Bible will himself saved, so to speak. By the book it took an act of God. It requires God's spirit to change the heart of man. You might say, echoing something we've tried to say, that Biblically man's free will does not work contrary to the laws of God either as well as the laws of nature. Free will in either case has its limits and works within those limits.

OK. maybe it's lack of coffee, so please, Biochemist, pour me another one... BUT, I really don't understand what you are saying here. Can you please explain it again, and break it up a little? My brain is fried from lack of sleep, and too much blood in my caffeine system, no Red Bulls available in this little Pennsylvania town, and still NO BABY!

 

"If man is fallen" (which i believe he is), "then his free will...is limited by that fall and his sinful nature". I guess I'm not getting it. How does a fallen man equate to a limited free will?

 

"he cannot directly...will himself saved". What does this mean? Man does 'will himself saved'. He chooses to accept that we are all sinful (Romans 3:23), and that there are no righteous men (Romans 3:10), and that the payment of our sinful life is death/separation from God (Romans 6:23). But man can choose to believe in Jesus, and accept salvation (Acts 16:31). Salvation is that simple. You just believe that Jesus paid the price for your sins. You have the freedom to believe or not. I'm not sure how this indicates a lack of free will.

 

I'm not getting the 'limits' thing. Not trying to argue, I just would realy like to understand what you mean here. thanks!!

[C1ay]

OK. maybe it's lack of coffee, so please, Biochemist, pour me another one...

Are you sure one will be enough? You quoted paulrr and asked Biochemist to explain it :xx:

[IrishEyes]

Are you sure one will be enough? You quoted paulrr and asked Biochemist to explain it :xx:

No, I was thinking of Bio's sig, something about nothing being too confusing that another cup of coffee won't clear up...

 

Sorry, I'd like Bio to pour me some coffee, and paultrr to explain his post. Thanks!

[Fishteacher73]

To debate is to have a disagreement of opinion. Then I would say you do not

understand SR (Special Relativity). Two observers with rods and clocks where one is

moving in a constant velocity and direction from the other. Both are objective

observers with minimal bias. If one observer is moving significantly faster than the

other with also a sufficiently accurate clock. There clocks will not agree. Knowing

Relativity we would expect that. Yet you no objective decision could be debatable.

Until they reconcile knowledge or not they will have to analyze the results and figure

out why their clocks don't agree. Sounds like a flaw to me.

 

Maddog

 

You have two variant situations. Its like arguing about why a mile is longer than a foot.

[Biochemist]

Are you sure one will be enough? You quoted paulrr and asked Biochemist to explain it :xx:

I noticed that as well. I, of course, do not want to speak for Paultrr, but I would be happy to further confuse the issue. This discussion is strictly Christian theology, so I apologize in advance to those folks that are bored by this stuff.

..no Red Bulls available in this little Pennsylvania town, and still NO BABY!

Fist of all, you are waiting for a baby??? Precongrats. Yours? Or are you a a grandmom in waiting?

"If man is fallen" (which i believe he is), "then his free will...is limited by that fall and his sinful nature".

Biblically there are two issues here that are relevant. First, man is limited somewhat by his sinful nature. Your references in the first six chapters of Romans are relevant. The core thesis of Christianity is that Christ releases Christians from bondage to sin, and frees man to be what he was before sin showed up in the first place. Paul uses two metaphors in Romans to describe the Christian's relationship to sin. One is rebirth (end of chapter 6) through baptism, and the other is marriage to a spouse that has died (chapter 7). In both examples, Paul suggests that the power of sin is broken, and Christians are now free to be what they were in the original plan. The idea is not that we are obligated to behave according to a set of rules established by an omnipotent/threatening Creator. The idea is that we are now empowered to behave in a way that is consistent with the way we were designed in the first place.

"he cannot directly...will himself saved". What does this mean? Man does 'will himself saved'. He chooses to accept that we are all sinful (Romans 3:23), and that there are no righteous men (Romans 3:10), and that the payment of our sinful life is death/separation from God (Romans 6:23). But man can choose to believe in Jesus, and accept salvation (Acts 16:31). Salvation is that simple. You just believe that Jesus paid the price for your sins. You have the freedom to believe or not. I'm not sure how this indicates a lack of free will.

Now we get to the second issue. There are two main schools of thought (historically) in Christianity that relate to the freedom that Christians have to make the decision to believe in Christ. Some believe that God picked us (using verses like Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1,2) and that we were passive recipients of God's grace in the process. Those folks are usually called Calvinists, because one of John Calvins "five points" is "unconditional election", that Christians are chosen only by a desicion of God, not by a decision of man. This is a Biblically consistent position, but it is not held by the majority of Christians in the US (I don't know about the world). Most US Christians belief structure is closr to "Arminianism", a revision to Calvinism, named after Jacobis Arminius, circa 1600. Arminius believed that God chose us (using the same verses) based on His foreknowledge of our decisions. This view is also Biblically consistent, and is more broadly held in contemporary Christendom. Your text above leads me to believe you are closer to an Arminian position.

 

Link to discussion of Calvinism:

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

 

Link to discusison of Arminianism:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01740c.htm

[IrishEyes]

I'd love to have an off-line discussion with you, BioC, about this. It sounds like you may actually have a deeper grasp of things than most people that i encounter...

I'm studying for a Religious degree right now, so it's all very fascinating to me... :xx:

[IrishEyes]

Fist of all, you are waiting for a baby??? Precongrats. Yours? Or are you a a grandmom in waiting?

No, to both.

My best friend (the one that is NOT my husband!) is having a baby. Her third. Her husband is in Iraq. She was there when my oldest son was born, and I was there when her oldest daughter was born.

And I'm a doula, so here I am - waiting...and waiting...and waiting... I've been up here on and off for the last month. i've been going home on weekends, and back here during the week, so i can be here when baby comes... very tiring, but she needs me, so here i am...

[paultrr]

OK. maybe it's lack of coffee, so please, Biochemist, pour me another one... BUT, I really don't understand what you are saying here. Can you please explain it again, and break it up a little? My brain is fried from lack of sleep, and too much blood in my caffeine system, no Red Bulls available in this little Pennsylvania town, and still NO BABY!

 

"If man is fallen" (which i believe he is), "then his free will...is limited by that fall and his sinful nature". I guess I'm not getting it. How does a fallen man equate to a limited free will?

 

"he cannot directly...will himself saved". What does this mean? Man does 'will himself saved'. He chooses to accept that we are all sinful (Romans 3:23), and that there are no righteous men (Romans 3:10), and that the payment of our sinful life is death/separation from God (Romans 6:23). But man can choose to believe in Jesus, and accept salvation (Acts 16:31). Salvation is that simple. You just believe that Jesus paid the price for your sins. You have the freedom to believe or not. I'm not sure how this indicates a lack of free will.

 

I'm not getting the 'limits' thing. Not trying to argue, I just would realy like to understand what you mean here. thanks!!

 

According to the Bible its the Spirit of God that moves in the hearts of man so that they may respond. Yes, one believes by accepting Christ. But without the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts and minds they would not be capable of believing.

 

By the fall man fell out of not only possible fellowship with God. He also has a sinful nature. That sinful nature, sometimes called total depravity tends to make man incapable of coming to God on his own in any way. Again, by the Book, its God's Spirit that moves in the hearts of man, calling them to himself. The background of the theoelogical debate over free will can be found in the works of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. John Calvin held to what's sometimes terms "TULIP". Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited atonement, Irrestible Grace, and Predestination. Arminius held to totaly free will, unlimited atonement, etc. Between these two views lies most of the different modern denominations. Personally, I cannot think of a single group that holds to the full view John Calvin held. But one hall mark still commonly held is that of total depravity and unconditional election, except in that of certain Pentecostal and methodist groups which believe one can fall from grace as Arminius tended to believe also. With the Pentecostals a lot of the differences comes from the fact that during the early 20th century when most of their denominations first formed some of their original preachers came from Baptists backgrounds and some from the Methodist camp. By the book the Assemblies of God arose out of a Baptists background while the Holiness Pentecostal groups like say the United Pentecostals came more out of the Methodists camps with some Baptists background Ministers.

 

The general argument of why man's free will is limited since the fall is that he's under the power and dominion of Satan since the fall. Spiritual, without the grace of God he is dead spiritually and unable to come to God on his own without the work of God's Spirit in his heart and mind. If God's Spirit has to call them and work in their hearts and minds then that rather implies their free will is limited. If it was not limited then in theory God's Spirit calling them would not be needed in the first place.

 

Either way, at least by the common doctrinal position, the fall of man and his total depravity outside of the grace of God places its own limits on how free man really is. You're own Church, if you belong to one, may vary somewhat on its position and what it teaches. But the general evangelical position has always held to the total depravity of man with the result that he is totally fallen and requiring a work of God in his heart to believe in the first place.

[IrishEyes]

According to the Bible its the Spirit of God that moves in the hearts of man so that they may respond. Yes, one believes by accepting Christ. But without the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts and minds they would not be capable of believing.

...

Either way, at least by the common doctrinal position, the fall of man and his total depravity outside of the grace of God places its own limits on how free man really is. You're own Church, if you belong to one, may vary somewhat on its position and what it teaches. But the general evangelical position has always held to the total depravity of man with the result that he is totally fallen and requiring a work of God in his heart to believe in the first place.

I'm not disputing you. I'm interested to know what specific Biblical references support your claim though. I'd also be interested in a discussion with you...

[paultrr]

One passage, someone else mentioned elsewhere is "The natural man cannot recieve the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them for they are spiritually decerned".

 

Then, I John 4:10, James 3:15, Rom. 8:7, I Cor. 7:22, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him...” (John 6:44), John 3:19-21, Phil. 2:12, 13, Fallen man is free to act according to his depraved nature. He is free from righteousness and free to sin: “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness” (Rom. 6:20), “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin...” (II Peter 2:14), Matt. 12:43-45; II Peter 2:20-22, John 3:19-21, Rom. 5:6, John 1:29, John 3:19, 20 to name just a few.

 

Fallen man, apart from the work of God's Spirit is he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8, 34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2, 2; 2 Tim. 2, 26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him. 1 Cor. 1, 21, There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Rom. 3, 11. 12.

 

It is God that changes the hearts and makes it possible for man to believe. It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Phil. 2, 13, He worketh in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure, Phil. 2, 13. He gives repentance, Acts 5, 31; 2 Tim. 2, 25. He works faith, Phil. 1, 29: For unto you it is given, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him. Eph. 2, 8: It is the gift of God. John 6, 29: This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent. He gives an understanding heart, seeing eyes, and hearing ears, Deut. 29, 4; Matt. 13, 15. He is a Spirit of regeneration and renewal, Titus 3, 5. 6. He takes away the hard heart of stone, and gives a new tender heart of flesh, that we may walk in His commands, Ezek. 11, 19; Deut. 30, 6; Ps. 51, 10. He creates us in Christ Jesus to good works, Eph. 2, 10, and makes us new creatures, 2 Cor. 5, 17; Gal. 6, 15. And, in short, Every good gift is of God, Jas. 1, 17. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draw him, John 6, 44. No one knoweth the Father, save him to whom the Son will reveal Him, Matt. 11, 27. No one can call Christ Lord except by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12, 3. Without Me, says Christ, ye can do nothing, John 15, 5. All our sufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. 3, 5. What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? 1 Cor. 4, 7. 27.

 

Basically, unsaved man has the freedom to do everything within his nature which is a fallen nature according to the Bible. He cannot of his own save himself. That requires the work of God even when it comes to believing in the first place. Yes, it is faith(belief) that saves one. But even the ability to understand God's word and as such to believe is a work of God, not man.

 

By the way, I never implied that I personally subscribe to any of this. As a matter of fact, since I am an agnostic I do not actually subscribe to God in the first place. One decent example from Evangelical Teaching:

 

Is the Will Free by Nature or by Grace?

by John Hendryx

 

1. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit plays any role in the sinner coming to faith in Christ? (All true evangelicals will answer 'yes')

 

2. Do you believe that, apart from any supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner, by nature, desires to come to Christ?(All true evangelicals will answer 'no')

 

Thus you have, in two simple questions, completely disarmed any and all argument against the free will of man. Here is plain proof that all Christians, without exception, believe that no man is found NATURALLY willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ. The natural man, apart from the Holy Spirit, has no free will, because, of necessity, due to his fallen nature, he would never naturally submit to Christ. The Scripture describes men as those who love darkness (John 3:19), are in bondage to sin (Gal 4:3; 6:17, 20), and taken captive by Satan to do his will (2 Tim 2:25), until the Son sets them free (John 8:36). Why would the Son need to set them free from sin unless they were not free, i.e. slaves to sin?

[paultrr]

Basically, by the Bible itself, apart from the work of God we are only free to do what is our nature. Since that nature is a fallen one we have a limited free will. So the question might be asked how deterministic is fallen man himself. Also given that it is God's work in man that allows him to see, hear, and believe then how deterministic is saved man's will?

[paultrr]

I might add that Biologists is absolutly correct in that most American Christians do not all subscribe to John Calvins possition on all the rest. Strict Calvinists call them hodgepodge Arminians. My Father was an Evangelical Minister who trained at Dallas Theological Seminary. I myself, back when I was younger and a Believer was Pentecostal. I trained at one time through two different Bible Colleges. My Father was a Dispensationalists and a Fundamentalists. Many of the more known modern Evangelical Preachers are in this same general camp. Yes, I received ordination myself at one time and served at one time as not only a Youth Director, but, also later as a Pastor. Been there and done that, so to speak.

 

Generally speaking,by the Book, the job of all Christians is to preach God's word while its the Holy Spirit's job to do all the rest and bring people to Christ. Having been there and at one time having been a believer its folly to think that one can use logic or science to lead people to seeing God exists. Faith is not actually logical. It trancends logic and involves the spiritual to begin with. It goes beyond what the rational mind by definition can actually comprehend. What one does when one trys to admixture the two systems is one waters down the word of God and assumes that some power outside of God's Spirit is capable of bringing man to God. You end up preaching a Gospel radically different from the one Christ claimed to preach. Its no wonder modern evangelicals have tended to depart more and more from teaching the creation story. They are trying to prove faith is valid by using what we non-christians subscribe to fearing that science is undermining more and more what they believe. Its reactionary in the least. If one's faith can be challenged by anything discovered by science so much it requires a rethinking of weither God did not use some form of natural process like evolution then perhaps its time to wonder if one's whole faith is wrong. Basically, either the God you serve is correct or Science is correct. One cannot serve God and the world at the same time. You cannot have it both ways.

 

For one, there is no evidence out of science that God exists or does not exist. The only type of God that is possible to see from anything scientific would be the type of God who was the First cause and left everything else up to nature itself. That's more akin to the type of God Einstein spoke of. That's not the God of the Bible at all. Making Christianity's presentation into something intelectual is not the way to go at all. It literally is a forfillment of the prediction that in the last days they will have a form of Godliness, but deny the power therein. The Holy Spirit is the power from the Biblical point of view. It's his work to make it possible for people to believe. All he, by the Bible requires is for Christians to preach his word. Not fashion it into something everyone can see.

 

For those of us who do not believe the Bible is the word of God there is no reason to accept it and certainly no logic on this planet that says God actually exists apart from the belief of some. By the Bible's account that makes our minds and hearts closed to the truth to begin with. Logic will not lead us to belief unless that logic and our minds are altered by God himself.

 

I can testify from my own experience that the more I studied and applied logic, real human nature logic, the less and less faith actually began to matter. There was a time I did believe, I did trust only in God. But the more I saw, the more I studied, the more I was taught to keep everything in order, make sure all the docrtine was correct, etc the less and less faith mattered. With faith vanishing under all the loads of logic I turned to what I knew out of Science which was the primary background training and field I was in. It was out of Science that logic actually began to make better sence of life and I finially realized that faith was simply for the most part a construct of the human mind. I still will not deny that faith does have power in the lives of those who believe. I've seen too many examples of such in my own life. But when that power can be displayed by people of different faith I do question if that actually requires a God to be so. That and the fact that science shows us no real proof God exists is why I am an agnostic today. But its also taught me to recognize the dangers to believers and the rest when Christians try to make some intelectual system out of their faith. Faith is not designed to work that way at all. What you end up with is a powerless intelectual based faith which does no body any good.