Welcome, Guest. Login or register to use the forums.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2009, 04:38:09 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Bookstore | Support | Newsletter


+  Christian Forums
|-+  Christian Interests
| |-+  Organized Religion and Religious Movements Discussions
| | |-+  Protestantism
| | | |-+  Arminianism
| | | | |-+  Humans Have Free Will/Freedom to Choose		 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Humans Have Free Will/Freedom to Choose  (Read 7428 times)
CDHealy
Hero
*****

Manna: 120
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 4207


Blog entries (0)

View Profile WWW
« on: July 23, 2005, 03:42:40 PM »
I've been critical of the responses from a few members on this board that deny humans have any free will (or freedom to choose) when it comes to cooperation with the grace of God prior to regeneration.  I've decided that it's probably time for me to put up or shut up: I should advance my own arguments for free will/free choice.  I can hardly do so in a single post, so what I will attempt to do  is give the broad outline of the argument(s), and allow any ensuing discussion/criticism to bring out more specific details.  (I should note, by the way, that I am building here on the extensive conversation that went on in March and April via my own blog; links to which discussion can be found here.)  But that will have to wait for my next post, since I need to articulate some basic “ground rules” orienting the discussion.

First of all, before we can begin, we must realize that what we say about human nature is bound up with our understanding of Christ, since he was fully God and fully human.  Thus, if we go wrong on our understanding of human nature, we will go wrong on our understanding of Christ's Person.  Furthermore, our understanding of the Person of Christ is bound up with our understanding of the Holy Trinity.  If we get wrong our understanding of Christ's Person, we will go wrong on our understanding of the Godhead, since Christ is fully God and fully human.  That is to say, the essential connections between what we say of humanity, Christ and the Trinity are critical to a proper articulation of free will (or freedom to choose).  This must be our common starting point.  If we don't agree on this, no conversation can continue.

In light of this, we can start our discussion either with human nature, or with the nature of the Holy Trinity, or with the Person of Christ.  But our conversation will always be guided by the touchstone of the Holy Trinity who is the source and cause of all existence.

Secondly, though what we say cannot contradict Scripture, our discussion will necessarily go beyond an exegesis of Scripture.  This is so because not all exegesis of Scripture is correct, and all exegesis of Scripture necessarily entails presuppositions (philosophical and theological) that precede our engagement with Scripture (for example: that humans can even understand Scripture).  Thus, all our arguments will not only have to be consonant with the whole of Scripture, but they will also have to conform to logical norms including truth and falsity and validity.  (Some conclusions of arguments can be true, even if the argument itself is invalid, of course, but this does not negate the necessity for rational explication of an argument.)  This is not to say that human reason trumps Scripture, I hasten to say.  Rather it is to affirm that our God is the God who created reason and he is a God who does not contradict himself.  Thus, if an argument fails logical validity, the failures of the argument must be examined.  God is beyond reason, but God is not against it.

Finally, not every single point of an argument can be (nor need be) tied directly to a Scriptural referent.  For example, I am going to assume that nearly everyone on this board believes in the dogma of the Holy Trinity (i. e., that God is both one God and three Persons).  However, no single referent or body of referents from Scripture unambiguously proclaim this dogma.  Rather, we must approach these verses with certain presuppositions (God is one, Scripture is entirely consistent and does not contradict itself, etc.) and using our presuppositions argue for the doctrine of the Trinity.  That argument is, of course, fully consistent with the explicit testimony of Scripture and does not contradict any Scripture in any way.  But my point is that we do not have any clear and unambiguous texts which describe God as one God who is three Persons.  This is important because many of the arguments that are made for and against human free will/freedom to choose do this very thing: they use Scriptural referents to argue for their position, but those referents to not explicitly or unambiguously state what it is the person is arguing.  They may support it (which is what the argument is about), but they may not explicitly state it.  Thus it is illegitimate for any partner in this discussion to attempt to “trump” his opponent with “Book, chapter and verse me on that, bucko!”  Either the argument is consonant with Scripture or it is not.  Failure to provide a single Scriptural referent or body of referents that explicitly or unambiguously state the person's point is not necessarily a failure to subtantiate that point.  (It might be, but not necessarily.)

I see that already my basic ground rules have made this post quite long.  So I'll end it here and engage in any dialogue that comes up, before I go on to post the outline of my argument for free will.
Logged
Benedict Seraphim
Blog: This Is Life!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Hamlet, Act I Scene 5
johntwayne
Hero
*****

Manna: 99
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 3443


Blog entries (0)

View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2005, 03:49:02 PM »
I'm with you so far (in the sense of understanding) and looking forward to the rest...
Logged
JohnTWayne
aka Ahnog
Personal Site
Blog

___

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (John 7:38 NASB)
Christian Forums
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2005, 03:49:02 PM »
 Logged
mike
Hero
*****

Manna: 90
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 2138


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2005, 05:32:49 PM »
I concur. I agree with your basic ground rule suppositions.

Mike
Logged
"The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time."
CDHealy
Hero
*****

Manna: 120
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 4207


Blog entries (0)

View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2005, 07:28:23 AM »
Despite my previous intent to begin my argument for free will/freedom to choose with this post, upon further reflection I decided it was fundamental to the discussion to set out a list of terms and their definitions so that it won't be necessary to divert the argument once it's underway.  So here are a handful of important terms that will play a part in the debate.

Free Will/Free Choice/Freedom to Choose:

Here I mean not that the will is absolutely free, but that humans are free to direct the will to whatever end they choose.  That is to say, given fallen human nature, our wills will be influenced by our natures toward certain ends (sexual immorality, gluttony, lying, stealing), but that as human persons or agents, we can direct that will toward other ends (chastity, moderation, truth-telling, etc.).

In other words, though our wills are not absolutely free of our natures, they are not absolutely determined by our natures.  It is fundamental to the human person to have the capacity to direct our wills toward ends that we choose.  We may not be able to accomplish the ends we choose (flying to the moon with our own arms flapping), but we can so direct our wills that we will this end.

Soft determinism; Compatibilism:

In our context this is the belief that God ultimately determines all human actions and all human fates.  Humans do not have free will in the libertarian/indeterminist sense.  Human will is only free to do that which God determines.  This almost always include a view of postlapsarian (i. e., “after the Fall”) human nature that understands the human will to be entirely bound and determined by sin.  Not infrequently this view also understands original sin as guilt; that is, all humans inherit not merely mortality and corruption from Adam and Eve's sin, but also their guilt as well.

It should be noted that not all compatibilists are soft determinists, but in our context the terms are interchangeable.  That is to say soft determinists believe that human free will is compatible with God's determining it.  But of course by free will compatibilists and soft determinists only mean that humans are free only to will what God and their sinful nature have already determined them to will.

Mongergism:

Is the belief that there is only one agent in human regeneration: God.  All humans are passive objects of God's inscrutable decision to either regenerate or #### particular human beings.  “Monergism” comes from monos + ergon, or “one-work..”  Most monergists admit that after regeneration the human agent becomes an active subject/agent cooperating with God in his own sanctification (and overall salvation).  However, this acceptance of post-regeneration synergism is fatal to the entire monergist position.

Pelagianism:

Is the belief that man can, by his own act of faith, accomplish his own regeneration and sanctification.  Pelagianism holds that human nature is inherently uncorrupted, and that the human act of repentance cleanses the human soul of the stain of sin.  Pelagianism does believe that the act of God in Christ is the means by which regeneration and salvation is obtained, but the obtaining of such is entirely within the ability of humans to do.

Semi-Augustinianism:

Augustinianism (which it must be stressed is not the same thing as what St. Augustine believed and taught) is the belief that humans are entirely corrupt and unable to exercise faith or do any act pleasing to God apart from God's own direct act on the human agent.  Most soft-determinists and compatibilists (in our discussion here) are Augustinians.

Semi-Augustinianism, then, is the belief that humans are, indeed, corrupt, but that that corruption does not so bind their will that they cannot choose to believe or to place their faith and trust in God to accomplish his salvific work in them.  Semi-Augustinianism, for my purposes, can be synonymous with synergism.

Semi-Pelagianism:

Is the belief that the human nature is not inherently corrupt, but that each one must be cleansed and forgiven of his own personal sins.  Semi-Pelagianism holds that the human will is free and can choose to accept God's grace on its own.  Once the human agent has made an act of faith, then God acts to regenerate and save the human agent.

Synergism:

Is the belief that God is the primary and ultimate agent of human regeneration and salvation, but that humans also actively cooperate with God by exercisimg faith and by obeying his commands.  All this human activity is empowered by the Holy Spirit and grace, but it is also fully the activity of the human agent as well.  

In other words, Pelagianism believes that humans enact their own regeneration by faith (and God puts his seal of approval on the act of faith); monergism believes that God enacts human salvation apart from any activity from the human agent; and semi-Pelagianism believes that humans and God meet halfway in the act of regeneration, man choosing to believe which calls forth God's action of regeneration.  All three of these positions believe that there must be a strict separation of the acts of the human agent and the act of God; they believe in some version of “either/or.”  Synergism, on the other hand, does not subscribe to that dichotomy.  Synergism contends that God is the primary and ultimate agent of human regeneration and salvation and that the human agent can freely cooperate with God's gracious act.

Regeneration; Justification; Sanctificaton; Salvation:

Although most soft determinists want to divvy up salvation into specific logical categories (regneration, justification and sanctification), this is an entirely new innovation which is neither supported in Scripture nor has the historic Church ever held such categories.  Salvation is all one work.  It can be seen from the standpoint of regeneration or justification or sanctification, but none of these three categories can in reality be separated from another.  Regeneration is not only new birth/recreation it is also fully justification and sanctification.  Similarly for justification and sanctification.  All of them necessarily imply and contain the others.

This matters because soft determinists and monergists want to maintain a strict logical separation of these terms.  But they have no Scriptural support for such a logical separation, nor can their argument sustain this contention.

Work(s):

I've saved the most contentious for last, and expect to spend some time discussing this before I begin my argument.  The reasons for this is that different people mean different things when they use the terms “work” or “works” and thus are essentially arguing different positions from one another under the assumption that everyone means the same thing.  I want to forestall this so that it is clear both what I mean and about what the argument is contending.

Works, at least in the context of human salvation, are almost always described in the New Testament as “works of the law” (throughout Romans and Galatians), “works of righteousness” (Titus 3:5) or “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19); occasionally “works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).  Note especially the characterization of the Old Testament sacrifices as “dead works” in Hebrews 9:14.  Very rarely is “work(s)” (in the context of salvation/justification) without any qualifier; notably 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 and Ephesians 2:8-10.  In fact, if Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” is paralleled with Romans 3:27-28 “Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” we see the tenor of St. Paul's thought on what it means to not be saved by works. Interestingly, Jesus himself calls belief or faith a work (John 6:29).  

Clearly then, when it comes to “work” or “works” in the context of salvation, a “work” is not just any act in which a human engages.  Rather the New Testament definition of a “work” is something like this: any human act or acts which one does and in which one trusts as a basis for one's salvation or justification.  After all, if Jesus himself defines faith and belief as a work, and if no work at all can be the basis for our salvation, then we cannot be saved even by faith.

So, once again, the definition of “work” or “works” that will guide my argument is as follows:

Any human act or acts which one does and in which one trusts as a basis for one's salvation or justification.

So, with the ground rules of my original post and the clarification of terminology in this post, I am ready to begin my argument.  However, recognizing that some of my definitions here might be disputed, I'll allow for some time for criticism and response.
Logged
Benedict Seraphim
Blog: This Is Life!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Hamlet, Act I Scene 5
mike
Hero
*****

Manna: 90
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 2138


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2005, 03:23:22 PM »
Quote
cdhealy
 But of course by free will compatibilists and soft determinists only mean that humans are free only to will what God and their sinful nature have already determined them to will.


Which, IMO, is a novel way to define the word \"free.\"

In this view, humans would have the similar \"freedom\" that a marionette does . . . \"free\" to move whatever extremity is tugged on by the puppeteer's string.

This is not freedom in any meaningful sense.

Mike[/color]
Logged
"The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time."
johntwayne
Hero
*****

Manna: 99
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 3443


Blog entries (0)

View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2005, 03:30:38 PM »
Again, I'm with you in that I understand the definitions you have set forth, and I think they are correct and fair to the adherents of the various ideas presented.  

I'm looking forward to hearing the rest...
Logged
JohnTWayne
aka Ahnog
Personal Site
Blog

___

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (John 7:38 NASB)
Christian Forums
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2005, 03:30:38 PM »
 Logged
CDHealy
Hero
*****

Manna: 120
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 4207


Blog entries (0)

View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2005, 03:31:57 PM »
Quote
Which, IMO, is a novel way to define the word \"free.\"

In this view, humans would have the similar \"freedom\" that a marionette does . . . \"free\" to move whatever extremity is tugged on by the puppeteer's string.

This is not freedom in any meaningful sense.
Indeed.  In fact, that is one portion of the vast debate that surrounds the issues pertaining to free will: in what sense is compatibilist/soft determinist free will free in any truly meaningful sense?  That's why one free willist proponent (Robert Kane) entitled one of his recent books The Significance of Free Will.  A book, by the way, I highly recommend.  If you have time and resources only to read one book on the free will debate from a libertarian/indeterminist/free willist perspective, Kane's is it.[/color]
Logged
Benedict Seraphim
Blog: This Is Life!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Hamlet, Act I Scene 5
tidbit
Legendary Member
******

Manna: 135
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 6988


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2005, 03:36:43 PM »
Wow, Clifton!  That's some heady stuff.  It may take some time for us to digest these new terms and ideas--after all, our CoC heritage tends to study scripture alone to the exclusion of theological theories and terminology.  Thanks for going slow.
Logged
mike
Hero
*****

Manna: 90
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 2138


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2005, 03:44:34 PM »
Quote
cdhealy:
That's why one free willist proponent (Robert Kane) entitled one of his recent books The Significance of Free Will.  A book, by the way, I highly recommend.

Thanks. I just ordered it from amazon. Obviously, I won't get through it in time to help me with this thread, but I'll do my best to keep up.

Mike[/color]
Logged
"The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time."
WileyClarkson
Global Moderator
Hero
*****

Manna: 157
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 4068


Moderator

Blog entries (1)

View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2005, 03:47:19 PM »
Quote
I'm looking forward to hearing the rest...

so am I.[/color]



[!--EDIT|WileyClarkson|1122238199--]
Logged
Grace to you and peace.

Wiley

http://www.clarksons.org

Looking for information on Gender Equality in the churches of Christ:
http://www.clarksons.org/spiritleads/spiritleads.htm
Christian Forums
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2005, 03:47:19 PM »
 Logged
Nevertheless
Global Moderator
Legendary Member
*****

Manna: 348
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Female
Posts: 8487


Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord!

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2005, 05:07:43 PM »
Quote
Quote
I'm looking forward to hearing the rest...

so am I.[/color]
Me too!  (three?)   :D
Logged
Jesus didn't die so we can live busy lives. He died to capture our hearts.

Truth is eternal. Knowledge is changeable.
It is disastrous to confuse them.
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves,
for they shall never cease to be amused.
extranos
Senior Member
****

Manna: 40
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 1477


Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2005, 11:40:16 PM »
Quote
Interestingly, Jesus himself calls belief or faith a work (John 6:29).  

Clearly then, when it comes to “work” or “works” in the context of salvation, a “work” is not just any act in which a human engages.  Rather the New Testament definition of a “work” is something like this: any human act or acts which one does and in which one trusts as a basis for one's salvation or justification.  After all, if Jesus himself defines faith and belief as a work, and if no work at all can be the basis for our salvation, then we cannot be saved even by faith.
One note of concern.  In John 6:29 ([span style=\'color:blue\']Jesus answered, \"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.\")[/span], believing is considered a work.  The problem is that the work is of God, not of man!
Your argument in this paragraph is built around the (false) premise that Jesus has defined faith as a human work, when in reality He has defined it for what it is - a work of God.

Given this, I don't know how it changes your perspective, but I think it is only fair to point out that you are building an argument around a false reading of the text.

dan[/color]
Logged
Suppose there were a physician who had such skill that people would not die, or even though they died would afterward live forever. Just think how the world would snow and rain money upon him! Because of the pressing crowd of rich men no one else could get near him. Now, here in Baptism there is brought free to every man's door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men.
CDHealy
Hero
*****

Manna: 120
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 4207


Blog entries (0)

View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2005, 05:34:31 AM »
Quote
One note of concern.  In John 6:29 ([span style=\'color:blue\']Jesus answered, \"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.\")[/span], believing is considered a work.  The problem is that the work is of God, not of man!
Your argument in this paragraph is built around the (false) premise that Jesus has defined faith as a human work, when in reality He has defined it for what it is - a work of God.

Given this, I don't know how it changes your perspective, but I think it is only fair to point out that you are building an argument around a false reading of the text.

dan
Not so fast, Dan.  The interpretation you give is false.  Here's why.  If you read verse 28 with 29 this is what you get:

Quote
Then they said to Him, \"What should we do, that we may work the works of God?\" Jesus answered and said to them, \"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.\"

My argument still holds.  The work of God Jesus was talking about was the very work his audience wanted to do themselves.  Belief, at least in this verse, is not about what God does but about what humans do.

Clearly, however, this verse merely points out that however we define works, we cannot assume that no human work at all is involved in salvation.  That's precisely my point in highlighting these verses.

But insofar as we are defining what sort of works cannot save they are works as I have defined them; i. e., primarily, though not exclusively, tied to the performance of the Torah, and always as what one trusts in, apart from God, as a (though not necessarily the) basis for one's salvation.

Works that do not save are transactional in nature.  A is done, B follows.  Obviously faith that saves is not transactional; it is ultimate existential trust.  That's why Jesus can claim it as something humans do without contradiction to what St. Paul writes.[/color]
Logged
Benedict Seraphim
Blog: This Is Life!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Hamlet, Act I Scene 5
Christian Forums
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2005, 05:34:31 AM »
 Logged
James A. Wyly
Senior Member
****

Manna: 104
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 1295

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2005, 07:14:21 AM »
Quote
 In John 6:29 ([span style=\'color:blue\']Jesus answered, \"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.\")[/span], believing is considered a work.  The problem is that the work is of God, not of man!
Your argument in this paragraph is built around the (false) premise that Jesus has defined faith as a human work, when in reality He has defined it for what it is - a work of God.
Hello Dan,

Clifton has already given you his answer, but another way of looking at the \"work of God\" in John 6:29 would be to draw a parallel to a hired man working on my ranch  who could be described as doing the \"work of Wyly.\"   Another way would be to interpret the passage as referring to \"Godly work\", rather than something that God himself is doing.

Indeed, to say that \"the work that God himself is doing is believing in the one he sent (Christ)\", as you would have it, makes no sense to me.  I don't think of God as having \"beliefs.\"

Anyway, Clifton, this is interesting.


Jim Wyly
Logged
segell
Hero
*****

Manna: 225
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 4179


segell

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2005, 08:23:13 AM »
Quote
After all, if Jesus himself defines faith and belief as a work, and if no work at all can be the basis for our salvation, then we cannot be saved even by faith.

That is true.  We are solely saved by God's grace through His gift of faith.[/color]
Logged
Ephesians 2:8-10  Who saves, how He saves, why He saves.

"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
Christian Forums
   
 Logged
Humans Have Free Will/Freedom to Choose - Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Grace-Centered Christian Forums
Bible concordance | abortion ticker | is God real? | galaga | play tetris | copter game | mini golf games | arcade | donkey kong | Christian marriage help | articles | privacy
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC