The Ability To Choose - Free Will

[DialecticSkeptic]

Agreed. What is your definition?

The only relevant definition, in my opinion (and Sproul seems to agree), is freedom relative to God.

And in that sense, the human will is not free, never has been, and never will be—thank God. I prefer the total sovereign control of this loving, gracious, and all-wise God.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

The only relevant definition, in my opinion (and Sproul seems to agree), is freedom relative to God.

And in that sense, the human will is not free, never has been, and never will be—thank God. I prefer the total sovereign control of this loving, gracious, and all-wise God.

Agreed.

I prefer the total sovereign control of this loving, gracious, and all-wise God.

This brings much comfort and peace in my life.

Of course I am responible for my sin and wrong doing.

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Of course, I am responible for my sin and wrongdoing.

I believe that was answered on the cross of Christ. It is finished, brother. It is finished.

 

[fastfredy0]

If we define human freedom as autonomy (meaning that man is free to do whatever he pleases, without constraint, without accountability to the will of God)

This be the definition of "free will" seems incomplete. Yes, man can do what he pleases, but what is the cause of a person to will to do whatever in the first place. For example, I don't like to eat dog poop and I am free to do so, but who/what is the source of my desire to not eat dog poop? If "free will" as you've define means I am "autonomous", when did I program my my will to desire "X" or "Y" and what was the cause of me programming my will to like "X" or "Y"?

(from nothing nothing come)

 

[makesends]

That depends on how we are defining freedom. You are asking if the will is free—but relative to what?

Is the human will free relative to God? Absolutely not.


With all due respect, it is not relevant what Reformed folk believe, but rather what scripture teaches. There is one appeal which all Reformed folk make. Does scripture teach that the human will is free relative to God? Quite the contrary, it teaches that God is sovereign over all his creation.]

I'm sure you meant no disrespect, but this comes across as a put-down. @Carbon 's style of presentation began with this, in an apparent semi-attempt to defend Reformed teaching, or maybe even a centering onto what he wishes to talk about. He does get into what Scripture teaches immediately after that statement. There's nothing wrong with him introducing what Scripture says with this.

Let us grant all of this for the sake of argument. Yet, what does it have to do with free will? What is the hidden premise at work here? That moral responsibility presupposes the freedom of the will?

Lol, in my opinion it doesn't even presuppose choice! But that we have choice, for which we are responsible, is self-evident.

This is false, since other creatures are able to make choices.

Call it mistaken, or an incomplete statement. He is not teaching falsehood, but rendering an opinion, just as you do below.

What sets man apart from all other creatures is God who made us in his image and entered into a covenant relationship with us.

In the words of Vincent Cheung, "Moral responsibility (or accountability) has to do with whether God has decided to judge us; it has no direct relationship with whether we are free. In fact, if we were free from God but not judged by God, then we would still not be morally responsible (or accountable). In other words, moral responsibility does not presuppose human freedom, but it presupposes divine sovereignty. We are responsible not because we are free, but [rather] precisely because we are not free."

Very good.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I'm sure you meant no disrespect, but this comes across as a put-down.

It is difficult for me to understand how it could come across as a put-down, but I am certainly open to instruction. (Let it be noted that I am on the Autism spectrum, which means there are subtleties to human interactions that the average person takes for granted but completely escapes my notice.)

What Reformed folk happen to believe is truly and genuinely not relevant, so why spend any time on that? This is not a moral judgment of either the character or intentions of the OP's author, but rather an unencumbered logical evaluation. The point of my response was essentially, "Let's skip right over that and get to what scripture teaches, since that forms the basis of what Reformed folk believe anyway."

"There's nothing wrong with Carbon introducing what scripture says with this," you said. And I totally agree. But please observe that I never said, nor even suggested, that there was anything wrong with it. Just that it was not relevant. That is a logical evaluation, not a moral one.

Again, please feel free to instruct me on what may have escaped my notice.

In my opinion, it doesn't even presuppose choice! But that we have choice, for which we are responsible, is self-evident.

Yes, we have and make choices. But is that with a will that is free or not? Is the intelligibility of moral responsibility predicated on the human will being free? If so, relative to what?

You see, I am asking questions designed to expose a hidden premise at work so that we can examine it.

Call it mistaken, or an incomplete statement. He is not teaching falsehood, but rendering an opinion, just as you do below.

Since I can’t know his intent, motive, or prior knowledge, my focus is simply on whether the statement itself is true or false. And this particular claim—that man's ability to make choices is what sets him apart from all other creatures—is false or incorrect. If you (or Carbon) disagree, I would love to explore where we differ and engage with evidence. My counter-claim was straightforward: other creatures are able to make choices. Is this false? If so, let’s examine that together. (And let us keep in mind that angels are included in "other creatures.")

That said, I see two main issues with Carbon’s claim. First, it focuses on something about man that sets him apart. However, as I understand scripture, it is God who sets man apart—not through our abilities, but by making us in his image and entering into a covenant relationship with us. He did that for no other creature, whether in heaven or on earth. Second, if there are other creatures that can and do make choices—and there are—then choice cannot be what uniquely distinguishes us from all other creatures.

 

[makesends]

Yes, we have and make choices. But is that with a will that is free or not? Is the intelligibility of moral responsibility predicated on the human will being free? If so, relative to what?

Not sure what you are getting at. To me, your questions require defining "free", and "free of...", or "free relative to..."

You see, I am asking questions designed to expose a hidden premise at work so that we can examine it.

Ok. Is that shown below, or yet to come?

Since I can’t know his intent, motive, or prior knowledge, my focus is simply on whether the statement itself is true or false. And this particular claim—that man's ability to make choices is what sets him apart from all other creatures—is false or incorrect. If you (or @Carbon) disagree, I would love to explore where we differ and engage with evidence. My counter-claim was straightforward: other creatures are able to make choices. Is this false? If so, let’s examine that together. (And let us keep in mind that angels are included in "other creatures.")

Ok, fair enough. And @Carbon didn't complain.

That said, I see two main issues with @Carbon’s claim. First, it focuses on something about man that sets him apart. However, as I understand scripture, it is God who sets man apart—not through our abilities, but by making us in his image and entering into a covenant relationship with us. He did that for no other creature, whether in heaven or on earth. Second, if there are other creatures that can and do make choices—and there are—then choice cannot be what uniquely distinguishes us from all other creatures.

Good enough, brother.

I'm guessing Carbon didn't mean choice in the same sense as animals or even angels choose, being that, as you said, we are made in the image of God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Not sure what you are getting at. To me, your questions require defining "free," and "free of... ," or "free relative to ..."

Since we can make choices with a will that is not free, the fact that we make choices doesn't answer whether our will is free (as per the original question in the OP).

Okay. Is that shown below, or yet to come?

Since my questions are not being directly engaged, it is obviously yet to come. (There is a natural reluctance to having one's hidden premises exposed.)

P.S. The way things display on my screen (descending order), "below" and "yet to come" mean the same thing (i.e., newer material below, older material above). So, your question is confusing. It would make more sense to ask, "Is it shown above, or yet to come?" Do you have things displayed in ascending order?

I'm guessing Carbon didn't mean choice in the same sense as animals or even angels choose, ...

It would have been great if he had answered that. No guessing would be needed.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

What is free will?
Does man have free will?

I know there is a lot of talk about Reformed Christians (Calvinists) not believing in free will. But scripture always addresses man as a being who not only is capable of making decisions but is also responsible for the decisions he makes.

Simply, man is a creature of options. He is one constantly confronted with alternatives between which he chooses, saying yes to one and no to another.

Mans ability to make choices, sets him apart from all other creatures.

The ability to make choices is basic to human exsistence. Apart from this ability there can be no responsibility, no dependability and no planning.

Thoughts?

I believe it is the part of nature of God he gave us. Its what makes us different than the rest of the creatures on earth

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But don't even animals have the ability to choose?

Only by instinct.

 

[makesends]

Only by instinct.

Ok. And the difference is.... We like to say we can consider abstracts, we are self-aware, we are sentient.

What that does is make us responsible —it does nothing to raise us above instinct, compared to God's intelligence, self-awareness, sentience.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Ok. And the difference is.... We like to say we can consider abstracts, we are self-aware, we are sentient.

What that does is make us responsible —it does nothing to raise us above instinct, compared to God's intelligence, self-awareness, sentience.

but do we not have intelligence, are we not self aware, are we not sentient?

and does this not raise us above instinct?

 

[Hazelelponi]

That depends on how we are defining freedom. You are asking if the will is free—but relative to what?

Is the human will free relative to God? Absolutely not.




With all due respect, it is not relevant what Reformed folk believe, but rather what scripture teaches. There is one appeal which all Reformed folk make. Does scripture teach that the human will is free relative to God? Quite the contrary, it teaches that God is sovereign over all his creation.




Let us grant all of this for the sake of argument. Yet, what does it have to do with free will? What is the hidden premise at work here? That moral responsibility presupposes the freedom of the will?




This is false, since other creatures are able to make choices.

What sets man apart from all other creatures is God who made us in his image and entered into a covenant relationship with us.




In the words of Vincent Cheung, "Moral responsibility (or accountability) has to do with whether God has decided to judge us; it has no direct relationship with whether we are free. In fact, if we were free from God but not judged by God, then we would still not be morally responsible (or accountable). In other words, moral responsibility does not presuppose human freedom, but it presupposes divine sovereignty. We are responsible not because we are free, but [rather] precisely because we are not free."

I like this, it makes sense.

 

[makesends]

There is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Those who see a contradiction, or even point to the problem as an unsolvable mystery, have misunderstood the mystery. The real mystery regarding free will is how it was exercised by Adam before the fall.

I disagree, unless by 'free will' you only mean, like I do, that "man's choices are real, with real, even eternal, consequences". Man does chooses between options, but only one option will be chosen, which is precisely the option that God intended that he choose.

Empirically, then, since we can see that only one option has ever been chosen, and since we can predict that only one option will ever be chosen from the several available, we have no reason to believe that any other option even COULD HAVE BEEN chosen. That translates to, (in my opinion), "Only one of the options in any one choice is ACTUALLY possible" —just as God has arranged it.

Funny, that in the "could have, should have" riddle of Hume's "is-ought problem", we have just that very juxtaposition here. The only "IS" we can see is what history has (empirically) shown us, and what (logically) we can know God controls/causes. What we obey, (or disobey), is a completely different "Will of God".

There is no such thing as 'random', or, 'chance', from God's perspective, which is the only reality. Nothing is uncertain. "Chance is only short for, 'I don't know'."

 

[makesends]

but do we not have intelligence, are we not self aware, are we not sentient?

and does this not raise us above instinct?

Psalm 32:9 "Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you."

Yes, we are more than just instinctive. My point is that we esteem ourselves to be operating on God's level, or worse, that God operates on our level, which is not authorized anthropomorphism. We don't even come close to operating on God's level.

 

[Eleanor]

What is free will?
Does man have free will?

In the Bible free will is the power to choose what one prefers.
Man has that power.

I know there is a lot of talk about Reformed Christians (Calvinists) not believing in free will. But scripture always addresses man as a being who not only is capable of making decisions but is also responsible for the decisions he makes.
Simply, man is a creature of options. He is one constantly confronted with alternatives between which he chooses, saying yes to one and no to another.
Mans ability to make choices, sets him apart from all other creatures.
The ability to make choices is basic to human exsistence. Apart from this ability there can be no responsibility, no dependability and no planning.
Thoughts?

 

[Carbon]

In the Bible free will is the power to choose what one prefers.
Man has that power.

I agree.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Psalm 32:9 "Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you."

Yes, we are more than just instinctive. My point is that we esteem ourselves to be operating on God's level, or worse, that God operates on our level, which is not authorized anthropomorphism. We don't even come close to operating on God's level.

agree,

but we do not come close to operating on a mules level either.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Psalm 32:9 "Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you."

Yes, we are more than just instinctive. My point is that we esteem ourselves to be operating on God's level, or worse, that God operates on our level, which is not authorized anthropomorphism. We don't even come close to operating on God's level.

agree,

but we do not come close to operating on a mules level either.

Compared to God's sentience, yes, very close to operating on a mule's level.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

makesends said:
Psalm 32:9 "Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you."

Yes, we are more than just instinctive. My point is that we esteem ourselves to be operating on God's level, or worse, that God operates on our level, which is not authorized anthropomorphism. We don't even come close to operating on God's level.

Compared to God's sentience, yes, very close to operating on a mule's level.

Nope

God did not make the horse in his image

He made you and I in his image.

we are not even close.