Free will. What is it?

[makesends]

so because you and I can not come to an agreement, we are not allowed to discuss?

I have never heard of such a thing. (just being honest)

again, there are some things we will never agree on, no matter how hard we try. if we stop communications based on this of all other stuff?? I am sure there are some questions you have about things I have said, that no matter how hard I try. you will not see either..

It's not about whether we agree on anything else, except to resolve the issue of whether or not I did or did not front (or use) a fallacy. The rule specifically applies to the claim that someone uses a fallacy. That must be resolved before continuing between us on this thread. I need to either agree that I did, or you need to agree that I did not. Simply that. We haven't had the rule long enough to even decide whether it applies when someone else uses terms like, "That is self-contradictory!", or, "To bring up others who apparently are more respected than you or I, as though their believing what you do proves it true, does nothing for your argument." But now, for the second time in this thread, one of us has used the very word mentioned in the rule —"fallacy"— and so we must resolve it or quit responding to each other's posts.

So, again, relevant posts: 585, 590, 624, 654.

In 585 You say, "I just can not agree with you that it is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")

in fact. to me this poses a fallacy

If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act."

I read this to say that you see what I claimed (whether or not you represented me correctly, and whether or not you can agree with me or with how you represented me is not at issue here) was fallacious IN THAT an unwilled act was by definition a forced act.

I have tried, and apparently failed, to point out to you that the question of "unwilled act" is only in your mind, because regeneration and salvation is not the act of the creature, nor by any act of the creature, but of God —and even that you are not required to agree to, nor am I required to change my mind on. What we are required to come to an agreement on, is whether, given my assumptions and presumptions, my argument poses the specific fallacy you claimed it did.

This 'unwilled act' is not my act.

In other words, the issue is not whether by definition an unwilled act is a forced act, but whether my statement was referring to the same thing you take me to be referring to. I say it was referring to an act of God (whether you agree with my theology or not is not the issue.) If, then, you can see me to be intending "an act of God", and not of man, do you still see it as fallacious? I am not asking if my overall argument is fallacious.

You are not agreeing to my argument by admitting that my argument was not fallacious in the way you thought it was.

I may not be worth it to you to continue to attempt to resolve this with me. I'm tired of it myself. But I can't help but feel like we are arguing two different things, as far as this fallacy business, like if "I could just get you to see what I'm saying".... oh, well.

 

[ReverendRV]

MOD HAT (DialecticSkeptic): Regular members who aren't moderators, like Eternally-Grateful, are not at a disadvantage. If anyone believes that another member is making false accusations against them or misrepresenting them in any way, there is a Report button they can click. That will bring their complaint to the attention of the entire team of moderators to be adjudicated and, if validated, action will be taken.

When I was a Moderator, no one was at a disadvantage; except probably Me. I hardly Moderated, and often went the extra mile with folks..

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Yes, it does. I agree 100 percent.

But, again, every church thinks their view is correct. So, when a question arises and both parties say the Bible is the determining factor, can there ever be an agreement or mode of love?

I have no idea what a "mode of love" is supposed to mean—I will let Eternally-Grateful defend that, if he cares to—but there is, of course, a way of adjudicating those conflicting claims.

That method is called textual exegesis, the critical and systematic interpretation of a text, focusing on uncovering the original meaning and intent—as with 1 John 5:1, for example. It comes from a Greek word meaning "to lead out," emphasizing the process of drawing meaning from the text itself (rather than imposing external ideas onto it, which is called eisegesis).

Far more often than not—and experience in these forums confirms this—only one of the two sides claiming biblical fidelity will actually present an exegetical case for their view; the other side will either fail to provide one or will engage in proof-texting as if it's the same thing. In other words, far more often than not it is rather elementary to adjudicate those conflicting claims. It is not as complicated as Eternally-Grateful's rhetorical question seems to imply.

The question was about there [being] only two [categories], the biblical ... and the philosophical ...

The question was: Who determined what is biblical?

In this chatroom, who determined what is biblical or what is not? Let's start here as an example.

See above.

[The Bible] never discusses the Trinity, either, ...

Just a quick aside to the reader: It actually does discuss the Trinity, from one end of the Bible to the other. What it doesn't do is mention the word Trinity. A rather important categorical difference, one worth keeping in mind.

 

[Carbon]

Eternally-Grateful said:
[The Bible] never discusses the Trinity, either, ...

WHAT?

Just a quick aside to the reader: It actually does discuss the Trinity, from one end of the Bible to the other. What it doesn't do is mention the word Trinity. A rather important categorical difference, one worth keeping in mind.

Indeed, it does.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Eternally-Grateful’s views on free will ... [snip rest]

So, out of curiosity, I tossed all his definitions and descriptions into a generative artificial intelligence chatbot and asked, "How many definitions of ‘free will’ can you decipher from the following texts? One? Two? More? And how would you characterize those definitions?"

The end result is that Eternally-Grateful articulated essentially three different definitions of free will.

• One of his definitions is consistent with libertarian indeterminism—he believes that man has the freedom to equally choose either of two or more options.
  
  ​
• Another of his definitions is consistent with compatibilist determinism—he believes that any choice that man makes has a cause (and effect).
  
  ​
• And another of his definitions was ambiguous because it could go either way—he believes that man has the freedom to choose whatever option he wants or prefers. (This one is ambiguous because Eternally-Grateful provides no indication as to whether those wants or preferences are determined. If they are not, then he leans solidly toward libertarian indeterminism—because, in that case, there would be only a single statement in all of his posts that was deterministic and there is a possibility that he didn't intend that implication.)

Notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, based on his own posts which he voluntarily supplied, his view shares much in common with libertarian indeterminism and almost nothing in common with compatibilism. It is no wonder, then, that people kept getting that impression from his posts.

---

The following quotes from his posts are either verbatim or lightly paraphrased for clarity. (For example, he said, "Did Adam have the freedom to choose to not sin (free will)? Or did Adam have no freedom—he was going to sin no matter what (lack of free will)? To me, those are the only two options." For the sake of clarity, I paraphrased that as, "Either Adam had the freedom to choose to not sin or he did not. I believe he did.")

1. Statements consistent with libertarian indeterminism:

• "In my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. For example, Adam had to choose between following God or following his wife, and he chose to follow his wife. Abraham had to choose between believing and obeying God or not believing God and staying where he was."
  
  ​
• "Either Adam had the freedom to choose to not sin or he did not. I believe he did."
  
  ​
• "In the wilderness, after being bitten by serpents, the people had the ability to choose to receive or reject the cure God sent."
  
  ​
• "Like those people in the wilderness, I was still living, still breathing, still able to choose. But dead spiritually, yes. The serpent's poison was in me, and without rescue I would die. So, like them, I could in faith look to God's provision or continue in unbelief and refuse to look."

2. Statements consistent with compatibilist determinism:

• "Any choice we make has a cause and effect."

3. Statements that could go either way:

• "When Eve ate of the fruit and handed it to him, Adam had to choose whether to obey God. Adam chose self."
  
  ​
• "Free will is the freedom to do whatever we want, or whatever we choose."
  
  ​
• "Free will is the freedom to choose what we prefer."

 

[makesends]

The following quotes from his posts are either verbatim or lightly paraphrased for clarity. (For example, he said, "Did Adam have the freedom to choose to not sin (free will)? Or did Adam have no freedom—he was going to sin no matter what (lack of free will)? To me, those are the only two options." For the sake of clarity, I paraphrased that as, "Either Adam had the freedom to choose to not sin or he did not. I believe he did.")

I know it is hard to make AI understand, but to be fair, it seems that leaving it how @Eternally-Grateful said it would have been better to present to AI.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I know it is hard to make AI understand, but to be fair, it seems that leaving it how @Eternally-Grateful said it would have been better to present to AI.

What I wrote here was paraphrased (for the sake of the readers). What I dumped into AI was his unadulterated statements.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

And here is the problem. Instead of listening to me, you're trying to pit me into some doctrine or belief system for which I do not hold to either value.

First of all, what I've been trying to do is understand what he believes, but I haven't been able to do so. Each time I try to summarize his position in specific terms, he reacts sensitively with strong resistance, as if any attempt to define his view is an attempt to confine it. And yet, at the same time, he appears frustrated that others don’t understand him. This makes it difficult to have a productive discussion, to say the least.

Secondly, in the example he responded to here, there's not even a hint of putting him in a box. I said that he has been making statements that could be affirmed by opposite sides of the debate. Exactly what box is that putting him in? He said that he defines free will as "the ability to choose between two or more options," a definition that applies to both compatibilist determinism and libertarian indeterminism. Again, he is not being put into any box. The fact that two mutually exclusive positions could affirm his definition means it is too broad to reveal where he actually stands (i.e., no box).

"You have done the very thing I have tried to get away from and warned about," he said, when in fact I have not. Because he is so wary of being misrepresented, he sees it even where it doesn't exist.

Then you wonder why you do not understand me.

On the contrary, I know exactly why I don't understand him: He avoids giving clear answers because he is reluctant to associate with any defined position. Personally, I regard defined positions useful—Reformed, amillennial, trinitarian, creationist, etc.—because they provide a starting point for discussion. However, while labels are useful, I recognize that they have limits. When that happens, the best approach is patience rather than frustration, humility rather than pride, and clarity rather than condescension.

So you're still angry that I would not answer a hypothetical.

Not only is that highly inappropriate, it is a violation of the Rules & Guidelines of the forums (2.1, 2.2, and 4.3), as it misrepresents and belittles me.

Once again, you could have just made your point.

He said that in our discussion, too. And my response was quite clear and plain: I was asking a question, not trying to make a point. However, he seems to have convinced himself, quite irrationally, that I have an ulterior motive, regardless of whether I actually do or not (because I told him I do not).

I mean, if I was trying to ask someone something and they said they would not answer that way, I would find another way.

Me too. In fact, anyone following that discussion can observe that I tried four different ways. He refused all of them.

Dude, I have stated many times, including giving many examples.

I take it you think I should just cave? Go back and read, my friend, go back and read. More false accusations.

And, of course, I did exactly that. Here is what I found (link to post #725)

No false accusation.

 

[makesends]

What I wrote here was paraphrased (for the sake of the readers). What I dumped into AI was his unadulterated statements.

Oh, ok. That's good.

I'm trying to figure out just what @Eternally-Grateful does think: Is what he says just not thought through, or what. So often, what someone says seems to them to be the whole 'end of the matter' that they don't realize how many other thoughts can come from how they said what they say, nor even that they haven't themselves figured to the end of reasoning on the matter, that I don't know how to address them on the question.

I like him, but I don't know what to do with him.

 

[Eleanor]

My question goes to anyone and anyone who will answer.

Who determined what is biblical and what is philosophical.

The same one who determined what is science and what is superstition, or what is biology and what is mathematics, etc., etc., etc.

 

[His clay]

the problem is who determines what is biblical?

And what is Philosophical

So do you breathe air, or do you eat food?
We all immediately perceive that something is a bit off with the question, because we both eat food and breathe air.

This is the same for one who has studied both the philosophical and the biblical.
When scripture says, in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth, we are dealing with the metaphysical. When scripture says that God upholds all things by the word of His power, we are dealing with the metaphysical. When scripture speaks of how the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, we are dealing with epistemology. And when we observe the ten commandments, we are dealing with ethics.

For those that know a little bit about philosophy, we just covered the three main branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Certainly, the book of Colossians points out how bad philosophy ought to be avoided by the Christian. However, biblical philosophy is obviously something good. I'll leave it stated simply for the moment.

 

[SoteriologyA1]

Free Will. What is it?

Hey Eternally-Grateful, appreciate you kicking this off. Just a quick heads-up though—what most folks mean today by "free will" is not what the original Church Fathers meant by the phrase. The label "free will" was never meant to elevate human will to some ultimate, godlike status standing next to God in a cosmic arm-wrestling match.

Back then, they were defending against dualist heresies that claimed there were two ultimate powers: God and Will. The accusation was, if God determines something, He must be "forcing" against this competing power called Will—so it’s unfair, unjust, robotic, etc. To defend against this, the consistent view clarified that will isn’t some rival force—it’s not ultimate. It’s just part of the created order, downstream in the chain of cause and effect.

When they called it “free,” they weren’t saying, “The will floats independently, uninfluenced, self-creating choices ex nihilo.” They meant, “No one is being externally forced against what they want.” The will is still the result of who you are, when and where God placed you, what you desire most in the moment—and yes, all of that is under God’s purpose.

But over time, that original use got hijacked. “Free” started to mean, “not determined by God,” or “libertarian freedom” where the will must be the first cause of its own actions. That’s the bait-and-switch. And that’s how people end up calling anything determined by God a “puppet show.”

So if someone says “free will,” always ask: free from what exactly? From external force (the original meaning)? Or from God’s determination (the modern dualistic version)? Two totally different claims with two totally different gods underneath.

 

[Eleanor]

Hey Eternally-Grateful, appreciate you kicking this off. Just a quick heads-up though—what most folks mean today by "free will" is not what the original Church Fathers meant by the phrase. The label "free will" was never meant to elevate human will to some ultimate, godlike status standing next to God in a cosmic arm-wrestling match.

But they were arguing against the philosophical notion of free will asserted by the British monk, Pelagius; i.e., the moral responsibility of man requires that man have a free will.
The Bible does not teach the "free will" of man.
The Bible presents man as free to do what he wishes or desires, to act voluntarily according to his disposition, according to what he prefers.

Back then, they were defending against dualist heresies that claimed there were two ultimate powers: God and Will. The accusation was, if God determines something, He must be "forcing" against this competing power called Will—so it’s unfair, unjust, robotic, etc. To defend against this, the consistent view clarified that will isn’t some rival force—it’s not ultimate. It’s just part of the created order, downstream in the chain of cause and effect.

When they called it “free,” they weren’t saying, “The will floats independently, uninfluenced, self-creating choices ex nihilo.” They meant, “No one is being externally forced against what they want.” The will is still the result of who you are, when and where God placed you, what you desire most in the moment—and yes, all of that is under God’s purpose.

But over time, that original use got hijacked. “Free” started to mean, “not determined by God,” or “libertarian freedom” where the will must be the first cause of its own actions. That’s the bait-and-switch. And that’s how people end up calling anything determined by God a “puppet show.”

So if someone says “free will,” always ask: free from what exactly? From external force (the original meaning)? Or from God’s determination (the modern dualistic version)? Two totally different claims with two totally different gods underneath.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Hey Eternally-Grateful, appreciate you kicking this off. Just a quick heads-up though—what most folks mean today by "free will" is not what the original Church Fathers meant by the phrase. The label "free will" was never meant to elevate human will to some ultimate, godlike status standing next to God in a cosmic arm-wrestling match.

Good day, and thank you

I actually have never heard free will explained in this way. Nor have I experienced anyone who would even contemplate this thinking

Back then, they were defending against dualist heresies that claimed there were two ultimate powers: God and Will. The accusation was, if God determines something, He must be "forcing" against this competing power called Will—so it’s unfair, unjust, robotic, etc. To defend against this, the consistent view clarified that will isn’t some rival force—it’s not ultimate. It’s just part of the created order, downstream in the chain of cause and effect.

When they called it “free,” they weren’t saying, “The will floats independently, uninfluenced, self-creating choices ex nihilo.” They meant, “No one is being externally forced against what they want.” The will is still the result of who you are, when and where God placed you, what you desire most in the moment—and yes, all of that is under God’s purpose.

But over time, that original use got hijacked. “Free” started to mean, “not determined by God,” or “libertarian freedom” where the will must be the first cause of its own actions. That’s the bait-and-switch. And that’s how people end up calling anything determined by God a “puppet show.”

So if someone says “free will,” always ask: free from what exactly? From external force (the original meaning)? Or from God’s determination (the modern dualistic version)? Two totally different claims with two totally different gods underneath.

As I tried to explain earlier. God draws us to himself. And forces us to chose. The tax collector reached out to God in prayer. He went home justified.

The Pharisee (legalist) thought his good works saved him. He did not go home justified.

Both chose freely how they were going to relate to God after Jesus himself came to them.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So do you breathe air, or do you eat food?
We all immediately perceive that something is a bit off with the question, because we both eat food and breathe air.

This is the same for one who has studied both the philosophical and the biblical.
When scripture says, in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth, we are dealing with the metaphysical. When scripture says that God upholds all things by the word of His power, we are dealing with the metaphysical. When scripture speaks of how the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, we are dealing with epistemology. And when we observe the ten commandments, we are dealing with ethics.

For those that know a little bit about philosophy, we just covered the three main branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Certainly, the book of Colossians points out how bad philosophy ought to be avoided by the Christian. However, biblical philosophy is obviously something good. I'll leave it stated simply for the moment.

I am not sure what this has to do with God helping a person to understand the truth so they can make a decision.

But I am sure you will try to explain it to me

 

[His clay]

I am not sure what this has to do with God helping a person to understand the truth so they can make a decision.

But I am sure you will try to explain it to me

In a prior post you stated.

the problem is who determines what is biblical?

And what is Philosophical

My post pointed out that what is biblical can also include the philosophical. What if something is both biblical and philosophical? I explained this issue in a very easy to follow way. What my post did is protect us from falsely assuming that there is dichotomy between the biblical and the philosophical. It is surprising that you did not follow the point. Your statement, "I am not sure what this has to do with God helping a person to understand the truth so they can made a decision." seems to miss the basic context and the progress of thought. My point was that we need to be careful not to miss the proper categories. Asking a bad question can often lead to bad answers. The question should be who or what determines biblical philosophy as opposed to bad philosophy?

This is why I pointed out an easy softball question. Do you eat food, or do you breathe air? We immediately can tell that it is not about either one or the other. We know this because we do both. The same is true with respect to the biblical and philosophical; I gave you examples of biblical and philosophical points. To talk about creation, biblical wisdom, and God's commands is to engage in biblical philosophy.

How does this impact the issue you have raised? Isn't it obvious? I'll ask an easy question. Is the fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom?

If your answer is "yes," then what does it mean to fear the Lord? These are basic questions of a biblical philosophy of knowing.

Let's make a quick shift over to John 8. We can see there that Jesus is declaring to His opponents the truth (8:31-59). Jesus opponents immediately take issue with the idea that they are not free. They demonstrate in the debate that they cannot perceive His words. Jesus tells them the following.

Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
(John 8:43-45 ESV)

Their ability to know the truth was blocked by their false beliefs, and precisely because Jesus told them the truth they did not believe. Jesus indicated to them that their Satanic lineage, and thusly their moral corruption, kept them from understanding and hearing and believing. One of the greatest (or the greatest) obstacle to knowing and belief in God's word (i.e. the truth) is that people often believe themselves to be free when they are not. Which comes down to this, they have failed to see their need. They have failed to see their sin.

Sadly, the end of Jesus' confrontation with the self-proclaimed "free" people is a demonstration of their bondage and corruption as they pick up stones to stone Jesus. (obviously, more could be written, but this post provides some food for though)