🤔 Free “Will” Or Free will… can you tell the difference in a theological discussion? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[makesends]

This is why it's Open Theism in Sheep's Clothing...

It doesn't matter if Professor Flowers denies it or not. This is about Categories and Category Mistakes...

If you dress a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, the Category remains; it's still a Wolf. If you dress Open Theism in Determinism's Clothing; it's still Open Theism. If you dress Learning up as Omniscience; it's still Learning...

I have a relative (professor of philosophy) that refuses to debate or even to describe Open Theism to me, but holds proudly to it. He recommended instead that I read the book, The Openness of God. For his sake I bought the book and, to me, it is just one statement built on another to that same effect. The assumption is that man's ability to make real choices MUST BE explained without contradicting God's ability to create and the logic of that creation having caused all subsequent fact. As with all of them, Self-Determinism of the creature trumps all good sense.

 

[ReverendRV]

I have a relative (professor of philosophy) that refuses to debate or even to describe Open Theism to me, but holds proudly to it. He recommended instead that I read the book, The Openness of God. For his sake I bought the book and, to me, it is just one statement built on another to that same effect. The assumption is that man's ability to make real choices MUST BE explained without contradicting God's ability to create and the logic of that creation having caused all subsequent fact. As with all of them, Self-Determinism of the creature trumps all good sense.

All errors of Theology have one thing in common; IE depending on only part of the Bible, instead of depending on All parts of the Bible...

The Core issue with Open Theism, is Open Theism not letting the Bible twist it's arm. We have our Being in God...

 

[CCShorts]

Imagine discovering a perspective that shares a familiar term with your own, but carries an entirely distinct meaning. Consider the notion that this term holds a significance completely divergent from your understanding. You might respond by saying, "That's not surprising; I'm already aware of the differing interpretations." But what if I told you that its true meaning goes beyond your expectations? Allow me to introduce you to an intriguing understanding of free “Will" that you may have never contemplated, despite it being right in front of you all along:

In theological discourse, various perspectives have been proposed to reconcile the concepts of free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. One intriguing view presents a distinctive understanding where free “Will” is portrayed as a transcendent entity, operating alongside God's determinations. This perspective draws upon analogies such as a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and the experience of watching a movie. By carefully integrating these elements, a coherent and thought-provoking understanding emerges.

The Chess Game Analogy:
Imagine a chess game where two transcendent beings engage in a strategic competition. God, as one player, determines certain moves on the chessboard, representing events and circumstances within creation. On the other hand, "Will" represents the second player, making independent choices that shape other events and circumstances. The chess pieces symbolize individuals within creation, subject to the influence of both God's and "Will's" determinations.

The Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Book Analogy:
In a similar vein, consider a choose-your-own-adventure book where God serves as the author. God has written all possible paths and endings, establishing the overarching narrative of the story. However, "Will" is the active participant, determining the specific choices, actions, and paths that the character will take within the story. The character in the book represents the individual influenced by the decisions made by "Will" – decisions that shape the character's journey within the predetermined framework.

Foreknowledge as Informed Revelation:
Within this view, "Will" possesses the ability to inform God of the determinations that will be made for the chess pieces or the storybook characters before the game or story begins. This communication allows God to have foreknowledge of the specific moves, choices, and paths that will be taken. Thus, God's foreknowledge is not passive but actively acquired through the revelation provided by "Will."

The Movie Analogy:
To further illustrate this concept, consider the analogy of watching a movie. God is depicted as watching a movie for the first time, yet possessing complete foreknowledge of every action and the ending. But how? This foreknowledge is attributed to the fact that God has already read the book that serves as the source material for the movie, a book authored by "Will". God's foreknowledge stems from having already encountered the predetermined narrative structure and outcomes outlined in the book by “Will”.

Coherently Combining the Elements:
By merging these analogies, a comprehensive view emerges. God, as the transcendent creator, shares a cooperative relationship with "Will," a separate transcendent entity. Both entities possess active roles in determining events and outcomes for creation. God's determinations intertwine with those made by "Will," reflecting a shared authority and power.

While God's foreknowledge encompasses all possibilities within the determined framework, certainty regarding the specific determinations made by "Will" is not known until they are communicated. "Will" actively informs God of the choices and actions that will be made, enabling God to possess foreknowledge of their outcomes. The cooperative narrative between God and "Will" allows for the harmonious interplay of free “Will” and divine omniscience.

Conclusion:
The perspective presented here offers a not so unique lens through which to understand the relationship between free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. Drawing upon analogies of a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and watching a movie, this view posits a cooperative narrative where God and "Will" play distinct yet interdependent roles. God's foreknowledge is acquired through the informed revelations provided by "Will." By embracing this perspective, we deepen our understanding for the duality of God’s sovereignty and “Will’s” agency, and the intricate transcendent interplay between them to bring about the grand tapestry of a creation.

Now you might not believe me that this view is a real view but don’t take my word for it, click here to hear it for yourself. (Use the gear icon in the video to slow it down to .75 if it’s to fast for you)

…

Just so you can see it for yourself here is an actual proponent of Provisionism arguing against the doctrine of Concurrance because it denies that the transcendent third party "Will" is the direct cause of "Mario's" actions. Mario representing created man:

Two transcendent entities determine all of Mario's existance and actions.

...

 

[ReverendRV]

Just so you can see it for yourself here is an actual proponent of Provisionism arguing against the doctrine of Concurrance because it denies that the transcendent third party "Will" is the direct cause of "Mario's" actions. Mario representing created man: View attachment 21

Two transcendent entities determine all of Mario's existance and actions.

...

Right; like the Euthyphro Dilemma...

It postulates the existence of a Transcendent God, and the Existence of a Morality that's Transcendent; a Morality that also Transcends the God being Postulated...

In the Euthyphro Dilemma, Morality and God are both Transcendent, yet both are Deterministic...

 

[Rufus]

And illusion it is.

The starting point to arrive at the theory and analogy is deeply flawed and so everything that follows is a bucket full of holes.

There is no such thing as an entity called will. And there is only one transcendent entity and that is God. Transcendent being defined as surpassing others; preeminent or supreme; exceeding usual limits; exceeding or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience and knowledge; being beyond comprehension; transcending the universe or material existence.

Our will is a part of us, it is not a free floating entity that independently makes choices and decisions. It is always acted upon by internal or external pressures. It is not free.

The entire philosophy (and that is all it is) places the will of man on equal footing if not superior footing with the will of God as well as putting them in constant conflict, and producing utter chaos. God is not omniscient because he read a book or watched a movie. He knows all because He created all and governs all. It is not two transcendent entities, will and God's determinations, operating alongside each other. It is God's sovereignty and man's responsibility working alongside each other.

 

[Rufus]

Not entirely true. While man's will is in bondage to his sin nature, nonetheless the will is free to act in accordance with that nature. After all, God's will, too, is in "bondage" -- to his holy nature, which is why he cannot sin. Yet, would we say of God that his will isn't free because he cannot sin? Likewise, we cannot say that man's will isn't free simply because he cannot not sin.

 

[Arial]

Not entirely true. While man's will is in bondage to his sin nature, nonetheless the will is free to act in accordance with that nature. After all, God's will, too, is in "bondage" -- to his holy nature, which is why he cannot sin. Yet, would we say of God that his will isn't free because he cannot sin? Likewise, we cannot say that man's will isn't free simply because he cannot not sin.

There is an element of truth to most of what you say and is a matter of perspective. But the Bible tells us that we are in bondage to sin. And it is for this reason that we do sin, never being able to obtain perfect righteousness. We are in bondage to always act according to our nature. And our will reponds/moves according the greatest pressure applied to it. Our greatest desire in any given situation. And our desires are for both good (what we perceive as good for us for whatever reason, but unredeemed, ourselves and not God is the always motivator)and evil. We freely sin because we freely want to.

When it comes to what you said about God being in bondage to His holy nature. Holiness is not bondage. It is freedom. So if holiness is freedom and sin is bondage, the fact that we cannot not sin, is indeed bondage. That he freely makes choices is not the same thing as a will that is free.

And if that were not so then why did it take Holiness Himself to break our chains, by coming as one of us and dying on Calvary to take the punishment of our sins upon Himself and to send the Holy Spirit to rebirth us a new man in Him and not Adam?

 

[Rufus]

There is an element of truth to most of what you say and is a matter of perspective. But the Bible tells us that we are in bondage to sin. And it is for this reason that we do sin, never being able to obtain perfect righteousness. We are in bondage to always act according to our nature. And our will reponds/moves according the greatest pressure applied to it. Our greatest desire in any given situation. And our desires are for both good (what we perceive as good for us for whatever reason, but unredeemed, ourselves and not God is the always motivator)and evil. We freely sin because we freely want to.

When it comes to what you said about God being in bondage to His holy nature. Holiness is not bondage. It is freedom. So if holiness is freedom and sin is bondage, the fact that we cannot not sin, is indeed bondage. That he freely makes choices is not the same thing as a will that is free.

And if that were not so then why did it take Holiness Himself to break our chains, by coming as one of us and dying on Calvary to take the punishment of our sins upon Himself and to send the Holy Spirit to rebirth us a new man in Him and not Adam?

 

[Arial]

@Rufus Post 29.??

 

[Rufus]

That's why I put put quotes around bondage relative to God's holiness. Yes, God's holiness makes him free from sin, which is why he cannot sin. Whereas man's bondage to his corrupt nature makes him free from righteousness. Likewise, one a man has been set free from his bondage to sin, he's still a slave -- this time a slave to righteousness. Paul talks about this concept in Romans 6 and 7. Freedom and slavery is quite the paradox.

The point to looking at the will of the Creator and his image-bearers from this perspective is that in neither case is the will autonomous. The will is always subservient to the nature of the Creator and his created image-bearers. The will does not determine who or what God is or who we are either; rather the moral/spiritual nature does.

 

[Arial]

That's why I put put quotes around bondage relative to God's holiness. Yes, God's holiness makes him free from sin, which is why he cannot sin. Whereas man's bondage to his corrupt nature makes him free from righteousness. Likewise, one a man has been set free from his bondage to sin, he's still a slave -- this time a slave to righteousness. Paul talks about this concept in Romans 6 and 7. Freedom and slavery is quite the paradox.

The point to looking at the will of the Creator and his image-bearers from this perspective is that in neither case is the will autonomous. The will is always subservient to the nature of the Creator and his created image-bearers. The will does not determine who or what God is or who we are either; rather the moral/spiritual nature does.

I agree but just to a bit farther down the trail: Righteousness is man's created condition and duty to his Creator. This duty was violated from the get go thus that nature to dismiss our duty came to all. Anything that is contrary to who God created us to be as His image bearers is sin---a violation of holiness. We are to be holy as He is holy. Man is not free from righteousness, he is still duty bound to it, he is simply not free in desire or will or ability because, as you said, we are morally corrupt. It is a moral inability.

I have to disagree that God's will is not autonomous, though I see what you are saying. I would just never word it as His will not being autonomous. God is who He is and His will follows suit of necessity. To say His will is not autonomous, to me, suggests that it is possible for His will to even encounter the suggestion of less than holy but is subservient to holy. Though I am sure that is not what you mean.

 

[Rufus]

I agree but just to a bit farther down the trail: Righteousness is man's created condition and duty to his Creator. This duty was violated from the get go thus that nature to dismiss our duty came to all. Anything that is contrary to who God created us to be as His image bearers is sin---a violation of holiness. We are to be holy as He is holy. Man is not free from righteousness, he is still duty bound to it, he is simply not free in desire or will or ability because, as you said, we are morally corrupt. It is a moral inability.

I have to disagree that God's will is not autonomous, though I see what you are saying. I would just never word it as His will not being autonomous. God is who He is and His will follows suit of necessity. To say His will is not autonomous, to me, suggests that it is possible for His will to even encounter the suggestion of less than holy but is subservient to holy. Though I am sure that is not what you mean.

 

[Rufus]

That is correct. It's not what I meant. You said it best: "His will follows suit of necessity." Perhaps the better way of expressing free will is that the will is free in the sense that's its free from external coercion but it is never free from being acted upon by our other faculties. In the case of man, all our faculties have become corrupt with sin, which is the reason we cannot not sin. Conversely, God's faculties are pure and holy, which is why he cannot sin. This is why scripture places such great emphasis on the heart rather on just the will. It's our heart that drives our decisions. And God's heart, as well, drives his. It's in this sense, then, that it can certainly be said that the heart of God and man is not autonomous. If it were, we'd have a situation of the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Arial]

And God's heart, as well, drives his. It's in this sense, then, that it can certainly be said that the heart of God and man is not autonomous.

In the sense that the will by its very definition is not a free floating entity that makes its independent of anything decisions?

I have said that in many of the free will discussions in other places. That the will is not a free floating entity but always moves according the greatest pressure applied to it, and therefore free has no application to it, because that is often how they treat it. It is free----it does whatever it does all by itself. Just as they treat the statement that we do not have free will as though we are saying we have no will at all. Anyway, that is what I have encountered but it makes no impact, anything I say about it. Ignore it, repeat the position.

 

[fastfredy0]

@CCShorts

Your first name isn't Josh by chance?

 

[ReverendRV]

@CCShorts

Your first name isn't Josh by chance?

I accuse him of being the YouTubes guy, but he SAYS he isn't

 

[fastfredy0]

I accuse him of being the YouTubes guy, but he SAYS he isn't

Ah, you saw the commonalities. I really like Sketo.

I saw you mention "Euthyphro dilemma" .. I'd never heard of it. I found a URL that explained it.
I had thought about the concept in part but not near to the depth of what I read.

 

[ReverendRV]

Ah, you saw the commonalities. I really like Sketo.

I saw you mention "Euthyphro dilemma" .. I'd never heard of it. I found a URL that explained it.
I had thought about the concept in part but not near to the depth of what I read.

It can be Deep, but it doesn't have to be. There is a lot of Wisdom in Simplicity...

Which came first; God or Morality?

That's pretty simple. Broken down to it's Lowest Common Denominator; it's pretty easy. Liberals establish that Morality is Subjective to the Individual; but the Individual Objectifies their Subjective Morality in their Life. They will go so far as to enforce their Objectified Subjective Morality upon others...

God is an Individual; at least according to the Euthyphro Dilemma and the Bible. Therefore God has a Subjective Morality that he lives by; ergo his Subjective Morality is Objectified in his Life. By Might and by Right, God Objectifies his Morality in All Creation...


Reduce the Euthyphro Dilemma to the Dilemma we have today over Objective and Subjective Morality; which came first, Morality or Man? Remove God from the equation...

Well? Which came first?

 

[David1701]

All errors of Theology have one thing in common; IE depending on only part of the Bible, instead of depending on All parts of the Bible...

The Core issue with Open Theism, is Open Theism not letting the Bible twist it's arm. We have our Being in God...

Some errors of theology don't depend upon the Bible at all, but on philosophy or rationalisations.

 

[ReverendRV]

Some errors of theology don't depend upon the Bible at all, but on philosophy or rationalisations.

But Vain Philosophy results in only depending on part of the Bible; a Philosophical Partialism...