Free will. What is it?

[Josheb]

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. You and @Josheb disagree with WCF 3.1?

If I may.....,

The word "contingency can have two meanings. The first meaning is that of a predicate or predicated condition; or a declared (decided) condition. To say "X is contingent upon Y" with that definition would mean Y is determined by Y. The second meaning is that of an event that is unexpected or uncertain. That would make the "contingency mean x could precipitate multiple outcomes, not one single already-determined outcome. As written, Article 3.1 states,

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

given the two definitions of "contingency," WCF 3.1 can be read to say.....

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or [determined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

or....

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or the [undetermined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

If I understand @makesends position correctly then he favors the first definition, whereas I favor the second (necessarily understanding God is omniscient and nothing is unexpected or uncertain from His vantage point in eternity or His status as sovereign almighty Creator). If the word is to mean "determined condition," then that conflicts with the liberty that is stated as an "or" in the clause. Simply put, there is no liberty if it the second causes are singularly determined or have a singular pre-determined consequence, and the Article explicitly states the second cause has liberty, liberty that is ordained by God from eternity. The "or" in that sentence indicates a similarity between liberty and contingency in regard to the second causes. This "liberty or contingency" already has a precedent established in the Article itself when it states God did not author sin. Sin was not "authored" by God; it was "authored" by something/someone else. If "author" is another word for "cause" then whatever authored sin would be a "second cause;" a cause other than God. The last clause is supported in the accompanying catechism by Mt. 17:12; Jn. 19:11; Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28; and Pr. 16:33. The lot cast's decision is from God. He did not throw the die, but He does decide how it lands... and He did so from eternity (not at the time the die was cast). What God ordained did not do violence to the choice to throw the die, the action of the arm extending and the hand releasing the die, the die's every bounce on the table (all of which would be second causes to the die's outcome that each has its own liberty) and God has decided upon which side the die will land. @makesends sees history as a sequence of singular, linear causes and effects and I see history as much more dynamic, not as a single, static, line of fixed and all-predetermined causes and effects. I have used the illustration of a football: one fixed point on one end and one fixed point on the other but a wide array of causes and effects in between. I have also described this dynamic condition as...

If God decides you are going to stub your toe on Saturday morning, then every decision you make within the liberty of creation's limitations will all conspire to see that you stub your toe on Saturday morning.

God's will and human choices do not conflict with one another in achieving God's purpose. God (alone) is sovereign over sin. This seeming tension has been understood outside of the Bible and Judeo-Christianity. We read about it in the Greek plays, like Oedipus Rex, where Oedipus' fate was decided before he was born but, nonetheless, every choice he "freely" made conspired to fulfill his fate. What God ordained did not do violence to the creature's will...... it established it. Any god can make action figures that say and do only what they are made to do by the manufacturer. It is a much greater God that makes people who think, feel, choose, and act for themselves AND still His goal(s) is achieved. if the clause "nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures" is taken as written then John 19:11's "You would have no authority over me, if it were not given to you from above," cannot mean God did violence to Pilate's will. If that is the case, then WCF 3.1 is incorrect.

@makesends can correct me if I have misrepresented his viewpoint.

 

[Josheb]

Our arguments should begin to skinny down to something. Hopefully. It's not a matter of opinion. There is absolute fact, even if we can't find it.

Our arguments haven't gone far enough to show that you or anyone else, is right, to the satisfaction of the opposition. It has a long way to go. We are still going on terminology—look at all the words we are throwing around and trying to figure out what the other means by it!

I disagree.

Early observations such as 1) the sinner's will can never overcome God's will, and 2) the sinner is enslaved to sin (and slaves are not free) are not up for debate. To disagree with the first is to dispute God's omni-attributes and sovereignty (over everything). God's sovereign infinite might is a core doctrine of Christianity. To dispute that is to disqualify oneself as a Christian. When applied to salvation the same applies to enslavement to sin. To dispute that is to subscribe to the Pelagian heresy. @Eternally-Grateful has stated, "Choosing to be sinless is an oxymoron," so we have gone far enough to show what is right to the satisfaction of the "opposition."

The problem is the discussion(s) is not building on the existing consensus, not that no consensus exists.

 

[Josheb]

Eternally-Grateful said:
It came from God. (i think I have answered this also)

Hey, Josh. What @Eternally-Grateful qualifies what he means by "from God", in post uh, uhm, nevermind: He means that it came from God just as trust in his wife came from his wife. That is, she has proven herself, and God has proved to him that Christ is trustworthy.

Not sure how that changes anything. The salient point is that he cannot claim the faith through which he was saved as his own.

 

[makesends]

If I may.....,

The word "contingency can have two meanings. The first meaning is that of a predicate or predicated condition; or a declared (decided) condition. To say "X is contingent upon Y" with that definition would mean Y is determined by Y. The second meaning is that of an event that is unexpected or uncertain. That would make the "contingency mean x could precipitate multiple outcomes, not one single already-determined outcome. As written, Article 3.1 states,

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

given the two definitions of "contingency," WCF 3.1 can be read to say.....

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or [determined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

or....

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or the [undetermined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

If I understand @makesends position correctly then he favors the first definition, whereas I favor the second (necessarily understanding God is omniscient and nothing is unexpected or uncertain from His vantage point in eternity or His status as sovereign almighty Creator). If the word is to mean "determined condition," then that conflicts with the liberty that is stated as an "or" in the clause. Simply put, there is no liberty if it the second causes are singularly determined or have a singular pre-determined consequence, and the Article explicitly states the second cause has liberty, liberty that is ordained by God from eternity. The "or" in that sentence indicates a similarity between liberty and contingency in regard to the second causes. This "liberty or contingency" already has a precedent established in the Article itself when it states God did not author sin. Sin was not "authored" by God; it was "authored" by something/someone else. If "author" is another word for "cause" then whatever authored sin would be a "second cause;" a cause other than God. The last clause is supported in the accompanying catechism by Mt. 17:12; Jn. 19:11; Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28; and Pr. 16:33. The lot cast's decision is from God. He did not throw the die, but He does decide how it lands... and He did so from eternity (not at the time the die was cast). What God ordained did not do violence to the choice to throw the die, the action of the arm extending and the hand releasing the die, the die's every bounce on the table (all of which would be second causes to the die's outcome that each has its own liberty) and God has decided upon which side the die will land. @makesends sees history as a sequence of singular, linear causes and effects and I see history as much more dynamic, not as a single, static, line of fixed and all-predetermined causes and effects. I have used the illustration of a football: one fixed point on one end and one fixed point on the other but a wide array of causes and effects in between. I have also described this dynamic condition as...

If God decides you are going to stub your toe on Saturday morning, then every decision you make within the liberty of creation's limitations will all conspire to see that you stub your toe on Saturday morning.

God's will and human choices do not conflict with one another in achieving God's purpose. God (alone) is sovereign over sin. This seeming tension has been understood outside of the Bible and Judeo-Christianity. We read about it in the Greek plays, like Oedipus Rex, where Oedipus' fate was decided before he was born but, nonetheless, every choice he "freely" made conspired to fulfill his fate. What God ordained did not do violence to the creature's will...... it established it. Any god can make action figures that say and do only what they are made to do by the manufacturer. It is a much greater God that makes people who think, feel, choose, and act for themselves AND still His goal(s) is achieved. if the clause "nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures" is taken as written then John 19:11's "You would have no authority over me, if it were not given to you from above," cannot mean God did violence to Pilate's will. If that is the case, then WCF 3.1 is incorrect.

@makesends can correct me if I have misrepresented his viewpoint.

There is a lot I should add, but for now, that will do, to avoid a tangent to the OP's intent. Well, ok, yes, and I am very sleepy.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

But, for the comfort of the OP, can we not adopt his definition for the mere sake of argument? It doesn't mean we agree that it is a valid definition. It only means we can argue why think it valid or invalid. Then we move on.

I don't think so, and for the reason that I gave in my response to you.

Eternally-Grateful believes that "free-will is the ability to choose between two or more options." As I said, both compatibilists and incompatibilists agree with that definition, which means using it in a discussion may have us all talking past each other—as we appear to be doing!

We can, however, discuss the incompatibilist view—which rejects determinism in favor of human free-will—and show how it conflicts with the sovereignty of God and a host of scriptures.

 

[makesends]

Not sure how that changes anything. The salient point is that he cannot claim the faith through which he was saved as his own.

I think he has claimed his faith is his, in a veiled way. He does not believe that the Spirit generates it, but only causes him to generate it, by convincing him. Thus, his faith and its resulting salvation, is not preceded logically by regeneration. His faith is his, not God's gift by grace. God is not both source and cause of his faith. He is a synergist, not a monergist. His faith is a product of him being convinced and choosing to believe, not the cause of him being convinced and believing. His faith is gleaned from experience, not given him monergistically.

 

[makesends]

I don't think so, and for the reason that I gave in my response to you.

Eternally-Grateful believes that "free-will is the ability to choose between two or more options." As I said, both compatibilists and incompatibilists agree with that definition, which means using it in a discussion may have us all talking past each other—as we appear to be doing!

We can, however, discuss the incompatibilist view—which rejects determinism in favor of human free-will—and show how it conflicts with the sovereignty of God and a host of scriptures.

That last, I thought we HAD been doing, in effect, but without the label, though perhaps not consistently.

 

[Josheb]

Would you explain how? Don't just say so, explain it.

I have already answered and explained how that is the case.

Can you show in scripture where man's choice isn't self-determined?

That is a different question. The prior statements were 1) "Nevertheless, it is their choice at the time. . .no external force made them do it," and 2) Not in the philosophical sense (power to make all moral choices)... but in the Biblical sense, it is simply choosing what one prefers." Post 175 has nothing to do with the premise (sinful) man's choice isn't self-determined. You do understand the words of Post #43, yes? There is no such thing as freewill; no such thing as an autonomous, uncontrolled will in the sinner.

Proverbs 16:9
A man’s heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Jeremiah 10:23
I know, LORD, that a person’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a person who walks to direct his steps.

2 Corinthians 3:5
Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim that anything comes from us, but our competence comes from God.


If these things are said of God's people, then what can we say the dead slave of sin possesses?

 

[Josheb]

Cannot a debate be conducted on what a word supposedly means? Can't we debate on an assumed meaning for the sake of argument?

We could if the terms are defined and agreed upon. In the case of this op there is little or no agreement regarding the definition of free will. Nine of this op's ten respondents disagree. It's impossible to have a cogent and coherent conversation of one term using ten different definitions. It's impossible to have a cogent and coherent conversation of one term using two different definitions. Doing so creates problems of ambiguity, false equivalence, the illusion everyone is talking about the same thing when they are not. That would be like having a discussion about Jesus with an orthodox Christian, a Jehovah's Witness, and a Latter Day Saint. Everyone is using the word "Jesus" but there's little shared meaning to the word.

We do this all the time.

No, we don't, and wherever like terms are discussed with irreconcilable meanings problems occur, not cogent discourse.

It may be arguing from silence, sometimes, but we often say, "If that is what he meant, then he would have....!"

You're moving the goal posts. You just said we could debate on an assumed meaning (one meaning that is assumed). I was not asked, "Can't we debate on multiple assumed meanings?"

So, if free will is only the ability to choose whatever one wants, we can say, "That implies then, that the word, "free", doesn't belong, and we are free to demonstrate how not. And you have ably done that below. Now, convince the opponents. Nicely.

Gladly.

For the record, there is nothing unkind in my op-reply. It is a nice post that was liked by several others. The response it received (which I believe has been deleted) was not nice.

OR, you may wish to engage in another way around, like I am trying to do, deal with facts related to the OP, but not directly engaging the definition.

You know as well as I do it will not make any difference. I approach posts in a variety of ways. It's not the way that matters because one way or another flawed positions run into conflicts with themselves, not your way or my way. It's not your way or my way, or anyone else's way that is the problem. The problem is ability is not identical to, synonymous with, nor the equivalent of free. That is a fact. Deal with it . There are nine posters who disagree with this op. Each of them has taken a different approach and we're twelve pages of posts into this discussion.

And the end result is ________________ ?

 

[Josheb]

He is a synergist, not a monergist.

hehehehe..... really? Are you sure? Do you think there is anyone here who hasn't yet figured that out? It makes no difference to my posts. What I posted could be said to any synergist or monergist asserting free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. It's worth another mention that Pelagianism must change the definition of "free" to suit its position because synergism is untenable if the word is defined as the dictionary defines it. I say Pelagianism because Arminius would not agree with the definition posted in the op.

"In this state [of sin], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."​

The free will of sinful man has NO powers toward the true good whatsoever. It cannot choose between two or more options. That is not a free will. Free will is a misnomer.

His faith is a product.....

Which precludes it from being a function of free will (although I suspect that hasn't yet been thought through by those subscribing to that position).

I think he has claimed his faith is his, in a veiled way........

I would prefer to keep the posts about the posts, and op-relevant. I'd also prefer to let each poster speak for himself (unless something like Posts 209/210 occurs - and then make it quick and sweet so as to return to the op in a timely manner). I'd prefer not to talk about another in place of the subject, which is "Free Will. What is it?"

What free will is, is a misnomer. The will of the creature enslaved to sin is not free. At best, "the ability to choose between two or more options" is evidence of liberty within existing controlling limitations, not freedom.

 

[Josheb]

There is a lot I should add, but for now, that will do, to avoid a tangent to the OP's intent. Well, ok, yes, and I am very sleepy.

G'night

 

[Arial]

@Arial Also, I agree with what Calvin teaches on the subject of free will. Have you read his treatment of it?

If I have, it was long enough ago that I don't remember.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Hope everyone had a great night, or day depending on where you live. I am back, I see 19 alerts. wow. I will try to get to everyone's comments. Lets hope for a great day.

As an old friend used to say, every morning I wake up and I am not in hell is a Good day, because that is where I deserve to be.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Neither. The question does not represent the structure by which God operates; it is anthropomorphic. (Lol, yes, don't laugh this time.

I am well aware of this word and others like it. Been awhile since I heard it. but yes.

Remember, God created mankind in his image. and his likeness..

That is a real, useful, word). God is not bound—he IS, and all else is arranged around him. He does what he does, and we make ourselves crazy trying to fit him into our concepts, lol. He is not like us.

I agree, we can make ourselves crazy. But I also think we can make him fit our perception and not his.

We do read in the bible at least two different concepts as to his will. 1) When he created, he willed creation into existence, in every specific detail, beginning, middle and end. And that does not change. That is his will. The Reformed refer to that as his Decree, (or by other terms). 2) But we also read his commands, enjoiners and such. That is also his will. So the Reformed refer to that as his Command, (or by other terms). We cannot, by resisting his will (command), accomplish any kind of resistance to his will (decree). In fact, when we disobey, we are accomplishing exactly what he had planned to come to pass from the beginning.

1. Creation. God spoke and it happened. I believe in a literal 6 day creation.. God is all powerfull. (I hope I did nto open another can or worms..lol)
2. As for resisting his will. there are many examples of people who resisted the will of God
Adam (sinned) Israel- (did not follow God. he wanted to gather them together as a mother hen, but they were not willing) Jonah, resisted for awhile. although God had a specific plan for him so God kept putting roadblocks until Jonah repented. I am sure I have many times in my life. before and after I was born again. that's why I need to keep focusing on him, and not myself..
3. as for disobedience accomplishing what he planned to come to pass. I do not even know what to say.. I will just say I can not agree with this.. this makes God the author of evil..

To assume that he instead is only wanting or wishing (like we do) is not how the Bible represents him.

There are things he needs done, and he puts people in place to get them done (pharaoh in Egypt as a great example) God used pharaoh to do what he knew pharaoh would freely chose to do to show his power.

He chose Israel to reperesent him on earth. and they continually failed. so bad he had to remove them from their land multiple times. Although he will in the end fulfill his plan with that nation. they continued to resist his will..

He is not like us. I'm not sure you mean how argument comes across. It appears that you see the fact that he is relational to imply many things that it does necessarily imply, among which is that he is relational with his children in the same way that we are with ours. —Not so! As you will hear me say again in completely different circumstances, "He is not like us. We fathers are like him, only not very much."

Again, he created us in his image, He created us to love and be loved.

You can not have any kind of relationship without the ability of the one we love having the ability to go against that love, and take care of themselves. That is why he put the tree in the garden. God gave Adam and Eve everything they wanted. up to and including a test. will you trust me, or will you trust self.

I know for many this is a hard concept. But if a person has no ability to resist. there is no relationship. If a person will always do what you say, then it is a one sided relationship.

But, it is misleading to call what he does, 'force', (instead of Grace, or Providence, or several other words), when it is only complete control for our own good, and for the praise of his glory.

if a person has no choice. I do not know how we can say they were not forced. what other option did they have?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

That which acts upon our desires. The movement (action) of our desires.

then ones will is not really free then, they do not have the freedom to make choices. they will always act in one way.

That a man can choose is not in question. But he always does so according to the greatest outside or internal motivation. "Force" is not always forceful. We all have done many things we did not want to do----but why did we do them if we didn't want to? Hmmm?

Because we put the needs of someone else over our own?

A parent for their child. a husband for a wife. a child for a parent or sibling. a friend for a friend?

or we really had no choice.

A person trapped in a fire can desire to stay where they are because they may feel safe, or they are too scared to leave. or they may be handicapped and unable to move, the point being is they are totally unable to help themselves.

when the rescuer comes, they are forced to make a decision.

stay where you are, and die

or let me help you, and live

this is in effect what God does to his creation. He forces us to make a choice. Trust him and be saved, or stay where we are and suffer the consequences.

in the end, he is glorified. because he offered to help everyone. No one in all eternity can say he was not loving, because he died for those who rejected him. and gave them every opportunity to repent.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Are you agreeing that our choices are uncaused? I'm not sure what you are doing here.

No, any choice we make has a cause and effect.

Thats why I was saying earlier not to try to put people into groups. such as libertarian free will or whatever group. Because it limits people and can cause confusion

More causes than I, or anyone else, can number, go into why I chose the socks I did this morning.

If you want to go there, we can. There is a whole, and rather humorous, line of reasoning about that. Suffice to say that Hitler was in rebellion to God's command, when he did what God had decreed from the foundation of the world. God is not "flying by the seat of his pants".

I do not think God decreed from the foundation of the world a man named Hitler taking control of his country based on what the Allies did at the end of WW1 and in the end causing the deaths of million of people including the Holocaust..

what would this say about God?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yep. But that might make it more complicated, lol. I had hoped on a mutually agreeable definition, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

I do not think that will happen.. unless someone changes what they believe.

is it possible? I guess..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The will is not only what one is conscious of. Is the will of a habitually angry person not into their anger, even if they are not aware they are a habitually angry person, or even, if they are not aware that their uncontrolled anger is sinful?

again, I am not sure what you mean here.

if I do not know that drinking to much and getting a little tipsy is a sin. How can I be willfully sinning if I did not know it was a sin?

Now If I know it is a sin, and do it anyway, then I agree. whis is willful sin.

just one of many examples.

After I was saved, and even today, I find out things I did not know was sin.

People sadly try to look to the law.. While the law does give us an example of many sins, I do not think the list is complete.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Understand what exactly?

understand what others believe and why

Well "isms" are just names that identify particular doctrinal beliefs taken from the Bible or read into it.

But they are not all inclusive.

As I said a few times know. I would agree with OSAS. OSAS as I understand is a Calvinist belief. so when people hear the term osas, they automatically assume, he must be Calvinist. so every Calvinist belief is attributed to that person.

You would be amazed at how many times I have tried and tried and tried to convince people I do not believe in different Calvinist doctrines. and they reject what I say and say I believe in OSAS thus I must be Calvinist.

Does the Bible ever even discuss free will. According to any definition, but lets go with yours. If we can find it in there, then that is where the discussion should go.

see there is the issue.

The bible does not say free will. then again It does not say trinity either.

so when in a discussion someone says show me the word trinity in the bible. well you can not. But you can read and know there is a triune God.

same thing goes with free will. If your looking for the words. you will not find it. But you see examples everywhere. what we have to do is interpret what we see in those examples.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

My question is, is there ANY choice of creatures —and in this discussion, humans— that is uncaused?

No, I do not believe so.

the freedom to chose as I see it is we look at causes and effects of our actions. and chose mostly based on the answers.

we do not always chose the correct way..