 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 3/31/2004 10:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Friends,
I am trying to find precisely where in Jonathan
Edwards' Freedom of the Will he says something to the
effect of, "Moral agents are free to do what they want
(or desire), but their desires are determined by God."
From contemporary theologians and philosophers I have
read, I understand this to be THE compatibilistic
definition of free will, and that they give Edwards
credit for coming up with this idea. Any one with any
insight on this question? Especially I would like to
know if you know where I can find a quote by Edwards
to this effect.
Thanks,
John E
Hey John,
I believe R.C. Sproul’s book “Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will” might help you (147-165). His book has a great many quotes from Edwards regarding your question, but quickly skimming it, I’m not sure you will be able to find just one section regarding his affirmation of compatibilistic freedom; rather, you may have to draw from different sections of his book to systematize his doctrine of the will.
For what it’s worth,
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 3/31/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I am trying to find precisely where in Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will he says something to the effect of, "Moral agents are free to do what they want (or desire), but their desires are determined by God." From contemporary theologians and philosophers I have read, I understand this to be THE compatibilistic definition of free will, and that they give Edwards credit for coming up with this idea.
Compatibilism as such does not require that desire be determined by God. Compatibilism is the view that our choices and actions are ultimately determined by forces outside of our control, but that we are nevertheless free in a morally significant sense when we choose or act voluntarily, i.e., by choosing or doing what we want.
Here's a quote by Edwards (Part I, Section V) that expresses the compatibilist viewpoint:quote:
The plain and obvious meaning of the words Freedom and Liberty, in common speech, is The power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has, to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting in any respect as he wills. -- And the contrary to Liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person's being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise. ... But one thing more I would observe concerning what is vulgarly called Liberty; namely, that power and opportunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice, is all that is meant by it; without taking into the meaning of the word, any thing of the cause of that choice; or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition; whether it was caused by some external motive, or internal habitual bias; whether it was determined by some internal antecedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause; whether it was necessarily connected with something foregoing, or not connected. Let the person come by his choice any how, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, according to, the primary and common notion of freedom.
The idea expressed here is that voluntariness is a sufficient condition for freedom, irrespective of how our choices are caused.
In a latter section (Part II, Section VIII) Edwards makes clear that he thinks all events, including our choices, are rendered necessary by their causes:quote:
On the whole, it is clearly manifest, that every effect has a necessary connexion with its cause, or with that which is the true ground and reason of its existence. And therefore, if there be no event without a cause, as was proved before, then no event whatsoever is contingent, in the manner that Arminians suppose the free acts of the will to be contingent.
Still later, toward the end of Part II, Section XII, Edwards intimates, but doesn't explicitly state as far as I can tell, the Calvinist position that God's eternal decree is the ultimate cause of everything that happens.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/31/2004 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan posted
Compatibilism as such does not require that desire be determined by God. Compatibilism is the view that our choices and actions are ultimately determined by forces outside of our control, but that we are nevertheless free in a morally significant sense when we choose or act voluntarily, i.e., by choosing or doing what we want.
John says,
Alan, thanks for fine tuning the definition of compatibilism. This perspective helps me to see a glimmer of coherence I have not seen before at least in the abstract with regard to compatibilsm.
However, within the God-man relationship it seems to me that Edwards begs the question and only ratchets the dilemma back a notch. For if man has compatiblistic freedom only, in that he can ONLY choose the "bad" and never choose the "good," (indeed he is compelled to choose the "bad") he cannot be held morally accountable. Yet that is what God does.
I do not see a "moral" distinction between God holding someone accountable for something that He determined they would do or God holding someone accountable for something that "forces beyond their control" determined they would do. Either way you have accountability and consequence without a genuine ability to decide otherwise.
The fact that God is just and man's rudimentary understanding of justice issues from and resonates with the justice of God alone indicates that compatibilism is false when applied to the God-man relationship. For neither God nor man would ever punish someone who was absolutely unable to meet an impossible expectation. Would a loving parent torture a child born without legs (from "forces beyond his control") because he failed to run 100 meters in 10 seconds?
So under the compatibilistic scenario offered by Edwards it does not appear to me that we are NOT "nevertheless free in a morally significant sense when we choose or act voluntarily, i.e., by choosing or doing what we want."
I believe the Achilles heal is exposed in the word voluntary which always implies distinct choice (e.g., I choose to volunteer to join the army or I choose not to volunteer to join the army). In compatibilism there is never a real distinct choice to make, only compulsion TO DO (not choose) what we want to do.
Blessings,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/31/2004 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Alan Rhoda
Compatibilism as such does not require that desire be determined by God. Compatibilism is the view that our choices and actions are ultimately determined by forces outside of our control, but that we are nevertheless free in a morally significant sense when we choose or act voluntarily, i.e., by choosing or doing what we want.
Thanks Alan. But if God is the cause of all things (as in Calvinism, I honestly don't see how "proximate" and "remote" cause makes a difference in this case for God's will is always done) then it must follow that one's desires are caused by God, be they good or evil. In fact, Calvinists I have discussed this with have gone to great lengths to say that one simply cannot desire the good (and God) unless and until God regenerates them first (by "implanting" godly desires in them).
I am positive that I have heard in two conferences I've been to in the past two years, both Dr. Boyd and Dr. Sanders define compatibilistic free will as the ability to do what you desire, with your desires being caused or given to you by God.
That said, I have come across some websites that define compatibilism as merely God's (exhaustive definite) omniscience being compatible with moral agency. I appreciate your input. Please feel free to comment further.
Sincerely,
John E
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/1/2004 7:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Posted by John Earp
I am positive that I have heard in two conferences I've been to in the past two years, both Dr. Boyd and Dr. Sanders define compatibilistic free will as the ability to do what you desire, with your desires being caused or given to you by God.
That said, I have come across some websites that define compatibilism as merely God's (exhaustive definite) omniscience being compatible with moral agency. I appreciate your input. Please feel free to comment further.
I don't doubt that some have defined compatibilism in such ways. My point is that "compatibilism", as that view is understood in philosophical circles, has no essential connection with God whatsoever. It is only the view that our choices/actions are causally determined (how or by whom doesn't matter), but that (somehow) we are still free in a morally significant sense when we choose/act in accordance with what we want to do.
In theological contexts, of course, God has to come into the picture. And there the question might be, "Has God left some things up to us to decide, i.e., are we ever free in a libertarian sense? Or has God exhaustively predetermined everything, in which case we can only be free in a compatibilistic sense?"
The term "compatibilism" is also sometimes used to refer to the position that exhaustive definite foreknowledge (not merely omniscience) is compatible with libertarian freedom. This is an entirely different usage of the term that should not be confused with determinism/free-will compatibilism.
I agree with you that the claim that such freedom is morally significant is problematic. In my view it is only morally significant when one is acting out of a "self-solidified" character (to use Doc's phrase) that is the outcome of libertarianly free choices. Thus, if somehow has hardened their own heart to the point that they have truly become a slave to sin, then they are compatibilistically free to do the evil that they want to do, and they are morally culpable for what they do because they freely (in a libertarian sense) got themselves into such a state. For example, suppose Bob freely took up smoking and has now been doing it so long that he is, on his own power, unable to stop. I would say that Bob's smoking now is still culpable even though he cannot now chose otherwise because he could have chosen otherwise at some earlier point, and had he done so, then he would have been able to refrain from smoking now. Since his current moral inability is his own fault, he is still culpable.
Blessings,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/2/2004 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hi folks! Im kind of simple guy  and don't understand some of the big words some use to describe things, like compatiblism but talking about desires, that we have free will but God gives us the desire to do right? And if your desires were a certain way that would mean you would choose such?
Well im not sure I would agree with that. I may not want to work out today and exercise and everything in my brain is saying no, but then again I go ahead and do it. Why? Because I know its good for me. So we will choose to do things we may not feel like we want to do. Even with sin....there may be times that everything in our brain is saying to sin or overindulge. [lets think of the sin of gluttony]
Our bodies and minds may be screaming at us to have that second piece of cake but we say "No my body is not my own, it is the temple of the Holy Spirit" So desires may be totally different then what one decides to do! Even when preaching the gospel I think we need to get away with asking the sinner if they would like to receive the Lord Jesus. I think rather we should be saying whether you feel like doing so or not you can see the need to do so right? What if today was the day you died? Would you want to have taken the chance of not making your life right with God? After we become Christians we are to walk in the light as he [Jesus] is in the light. That means we also carry out spiritual disciplines whether we might feel like it or not.
To be honest with you many times I don't feel like praying. I feel tried sometimes and would rather sit out in the shade looking at the clouds go by....I don't though...I pray, I develop and cultivate my relationship with God. So your will doesn't always follow your desire. Even with Jesus. Everything in him didn't want to go to the cross where he would be separated from God the Father, but none the less he said "Not my will but yours be done Father"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/2/2004 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bobber,
Thank you for your comments. Submitted for your consideration:
If you choose to abstain from overeating because you don't want to gain weight, though your desire for the excess food may indeed be strong, your preference to avoid gaining weight is by definition the stronger desire (in the sense of "ruling" or "dominant").
In the same way, if we choose to sin, we by definition desire sin more than righteousness; the converse of this is also by definition true--if we choose not to sin, though our desire to sin may in fact be extremely strong, our greater desire is the one that says no to sinning in this instance.
(I of course agree with you that if GOD causes our desires in all cases, we cannot truly be free; however, the fact that we always choose what we MOST desire seems indisputable to me).
Gen. 4:6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
Rom. 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/11/2004 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
John: (I of course agree with you that if GOD causes our desires in all cases, we cannot truly be free; however, the fact that we always choose what we MOST desire seems indisputable to me)
How do you explain the psychological distinction between LFW and compatibilism. It seems to me that the intellect can KNOW what it's best interest is independent of feeling any desire. When my alarm clock goes off, I only FEEL a desire to go back to sleep. But I exercise my mind to contemplate the negative consequences of doing so. This contemplation THEN leads to another FEELING which trumps the first FEELING. I'm not sure I'm explaining it correctly, but somehow the self-directed mind generates impulses/desires which over-ride the inferior ones. It seems to me that the LFW mind/intellect is what is omitted in the compatibilist view of human psychology.
The disciples of Ayn Rand, who was an atheist, even argue for LFW to defend the legitimacy of the human reason. They agree with me, that if the mind has no LFW, then ALL thought is suspect - except maybe for the fact that your conscious of your own existence and subjective states. But one cannot get from subjective to objective without LFW. The part that the Randists leave out is that LFW is not enough. I think one must utlimately except as FOUNDATIONAL that our mind is DESIGNED to KNOW objectively. Thus, we must have final causes to explain both our OWN volition AND the DESIGN which accounts for our intellectual adaptation to objective reality.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/11/2004 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
John: (I of course agree with you that if GOD causes our desires in all cases, we cannot truly be free; however, the fact that we always choose what we MOST desire seems indisputable to me)
How do you explain the psychological distinction between LFW and compatibilism.
Thus far, as far as I have been able to discern, the only distinction between LFW and compatibilism is that in LFW our choices are self-determined (not causally determed by anything other than our own will), whereas in compatibilism, our desires are determined by God, and we simply choose what we desire. (And thus the Calvinist position, that God must regenerate us before we can ever exercise repentance and faith, for God must "change our hearts" before we have the ability to choose righteousness over sin).
I sometimes prefer to use the term, "power of contrary choice" to define what I mean by "free will," for the Calvinist/determinist has his own definition--"freedom to do whatever you want," which to my mind is clearly nonsensical if you think about it. I am certainly not free to become "anything I want to be," or to change my personal history, or to swallow a large watermelon whole.
As to the psychological distinction between the two kinds of free will posited, if by that you mean the subjective aspect of it, I suppose there is no difference subjectively from someone doing what they will in either LFW or compatibilism; subjectively, each is choosing what he most wants. However, it seems to me that someone could very well be led into fatalism or great pride and inconsideration of others (as Calvin exhibited in the execution of his critics) if they really logically thought through their view that whatever they desire has been determined by God. Wouldn't that mean that if a Christian man desires to have an affair on his wife, that GOD gave him those desires? While of course God gave us our sex drive and need for intimacy, he also expects us to respond to those desires righteously--"if you live according to the flesh you shall die, but if through the Spirit you are putting to death the evil misdeeds of the body, you shall live." (Romans 8:13).
quote:
It seems to me that the intellect can KNOW what it's best interest is independent of feeling any desire. When my alarm clock goes off, I only FEEL a desire to go back to sleep. But I exercise my mind to contemplate the negative consequences of doing so. This contemplation THEN leads to another FEELING which trumps the first FEELING. I'm not sure I'm explaining it correctly, but somehow the self-directed mind generates impulses/desires which over-ride the inferior ones. It seems to me that the LFW mind/intellect is what is omitted in the compatibilist view of human psychology.
I certainly would never discount our reasoning abilities and responsibilities. To my way of thinking, this is one of the chief aspects of the image of God that we retain (and should maintain).
However, from what I know of the compatibilistic point of view, they would not deny that the mind is omitted in the process. They would simply say that whatever you most strongly desire in any given situation is what you by definition will choose, even if you are being very logical and deliberate in your consideration of the choice before you. For instance, in the example you gave, you reasoned that you MUST resist the impulse to roll over and hit the snooze button.
In making the choice to resist the urge to sleep in, you considered the negative consequences of sleeping in, and decided that in this situation your overriding preference was to get out of bed, no matter how sleepy you may have felt. As you said, one feeling (desire) trumped the other. Therefore, you did in fact choose what you most desired, difficult as it may have been at the time.  (Not being a morning person, I can TOTALLY relate, by the way).
It seems to me that the chief distinction between LFW and compatibilism is simply that in LFW our choices are self-originated, not caused by God.
Your thoughts?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/11/2004 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
It seems to me that the chief distinction between LFW and compatibilism is simply that in LFW our choices are self-originated, not caused by God.
Yes, the LFW choices are self-originated. But they are so as final causes. I.e., there is no outside (God, Satan, etc.) determining factors NOR is there an infinite, antecedent chain of secondary causes which explain the effect. BOTH of these distinctions are important in the LFW moral system.
For as I understand it, a compatibilist could believe that God has LFW, but not humans. Or he could believe in a biological/spiritual determinism and still claim that the choice is caused by the person alone in a deterministic way - i.e., the cause IS the person, but the person could merely equal the whole biological/spiritual being acting according to biological/spiritual laws as distinct from a truly self-determining entity.
quote:
Your thoughts?
With respect to the role of the intellect, I think it is important to recognize that the mind is free AND capable of causing FEELINGS and IMPULSES. We can purposely think of things that cause us to FEEL delight, disgust, sadness, etc. But, likewise, we can think of things that cause us to feel IMPLUSES. For example, if I need to get up and I'm having a real tough time doing so, I think of my obligations. This thinking in turn CAUSES a kind of obligatory IMPULSE which then gets me moving. It is this ability to generate an impulse from thought that is important in the LFW moral system. This, to me, is what the scripture means by self-control. It is that strength of self-generated impulse which is developed by use and which allows us to endure, forebear, suffer, etc.
If the greatest DESIRE/IMPULSE always wins but we have no CONTROL over WHAT desire/impulse will ARISE within us, then we can't sufficiently explain LFW. To me, the free mind creating FEELINGS/IMPULSES is the key. And it explains the importance of renewing our mind. For until we renew our mind, we are incapable of bearing proper fruit. But we obviously have to ACT off of our knowledge. But God doesn't allow us to be tested ABOVE what we are able at any given time.
Consider another example: Suppose I'm being tormented for my confession of Christ. I can't simply make the pain go away, but I CAN keep in my MIND, as did Christ, the joy set before me and conjure up a reserve of self-control to withstand the pain for the glory of God. Without such a disciplined mind, I would simply denounce Christ to escape the pain, which would THEN be the STRONGEST impulse.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/11/2004 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
It seems to me that the chief distinction between LFW and compatibilism is simply that in LFW our choices are self-originated, not caused by God.
Yes, the LFW choices are self-originated. But they are so as final causes. I.e., there is no outside (God, Satan, etc.) determining factors NOR is there an infinite, antecedent chain of secondary causes which explain the effect. BOTH of these distinctions are important in the LFW moral system.
Good point, Jeff. While I of course deny the idea of an "adamantine chain of causes and effects," with regard to moral choices, it does seem to me that philosophy only gives us one part of the picture here. For instance, as one who has seen firsthand the powerful effects of antidepressant medication to literally change a person's thought processes from depressive to optimistic, it seems to me that we must concede that biology and body chemistry do in fact play a powerful role in our decision-making capacity. Of course this would be an influence and in some cases an occasion, not a cause per se.
Finney referred to "physical depravity" (an imperfect state of health due to the fall) as an occasion (but not a cause) of sinning. It is truly amazing what a lack of sleep or lack of proper nutrition can do to one's ability to think rationally (and even to perceive accurately).
From a behaviorist (and philosophic) point of view, one tends to keep on doing the same things one has been doing (i.e., force of habit). This is what Christ meant when he said, "He that commits sin is the slave of sin...and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." However, the fact that we may be bound in sin does not excuse us, for we have freely chosen our master:
Romans 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
quote:
With respect to the role of the intellect, I think it is important to recognize that the mind is free AND capable of causing FEELINGS and IMPULSES. We can purposely think of things that cause us to FEEL delight, disgust, sadness, etc. But, likewise, we can think of things that cause us to feel IMPLUSES. For example, if I need to get up and I'm having a real tough time doing so, I think of my obligations. This thinking in turn CAUSES a kind of obligatory IMPULSE which then gets me moving. It is this ability to generate an impulse from thought that is important in the LFW moral system. This, to me, is what the scripture means by self-control. It is that strength of self-generated impulse which is developed by use and which allows us to endure, forebear, suffer, etc.
Very good point. I completely agree. However, I honestly don't see how this would not also be true in the compatibilistic point of view. They ascribe everything thought, intention, and choice as originating in God.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/11/2004 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the role of the intellect, I think it is important to recognize that the mind is free AND capable of causing FEELINGS and IMPULSES. We can purposely think of things that cause us to FEEL delight, disgust, sadness, etc. But, likewise, we can think of things that cause us to feel IMPLUSES. For example, if I need to get up and I'm having a real tough time doing so, I think of my obligations. This thinking in turn CAUSES a kind of obligatory IMPULSE which then gets me moving. It is this ability to generate an impulse from thought that is important in the LFW moral system. This, to me, is what the scripture means by self-control. It is that strength of self-generated impulse which is developed by use and which allows us to endure, forebear, suffer, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good point. I completely agree. However, I honestly don't see how this would not also be true in the compatibilistic point of view. They ascribe everything thought, intention, and choice as originating in God.
By ascribing it to God, they are saying the HE is the final cause. I am saying that WE can be a final cause by exerting our inner-strength. When I say our mind is FREE and SELF-DETERMINING, I am MEANING that it is capable of being a final cause. Thus, when God says He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able, He is saying that if we fail the test, it is because WE did not sufficiently exert our inner-strength - but that we COULD have. Hence, the future, with respect to at least SOME of our choices, is OPEN. A compatibilist cannot say that, can they?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/11/2004 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
By ascribing it to God, they are saying the HE is the final cause. I am saying that WE can be a final cause by exerting our inner-strength. When I say our mind is FREE and SELF-DETERMINING, I am MEANING that it is capable of being a final cause.
Okay, I hear ya, and I think I see the distinction you've been trying to make. Sorry it took me a while. I of course agree.
quote:
Thus, when God says He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able, He is saying that if we fail the test, it is because WE did not sufficiently exert our inner-strength - but that we COULD have.
While I affirm LFW, I am cautious to overemphasize "inner strength" apart from the power of God working within us "to will and to do according to His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13).
The verse you refer to is actually saying that if we fail the test, it is because we are not availing ourselves of the strength of God to resist the temptation, not that we have failed to exert our "inner strength."
1 Cor 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
If by "inner strength" you mean "faith in God's power," I would agree. However, free will alone cannot save us or keep us from evil--only God's Spirit can. As Jesus said, "Without Me you can do nothing," but we "can do all things through CHRIST who strengthens {us}."
quote:
Hence, the future, with respect to at least SOME of our choices, is OPEN. A compatibilist cannot say that, can they?
I agree. I don't see how a compatibilist can truly say that the future is to any extent open (truly contingent), except perhaps in our subjective perception of reality.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/12/2004 1:36 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
While I affirm LFW, I am cautious to overemphasize "inner strength" apart from the power of God working within us "to will and to do according to His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13).
The verse you refer to is actually saying that if we fail the test, it is because we are not availing ourselves of the strength of God to resist the temptation, not that we have failed to exert our "inner strength."
That is an important distinction. But I think insomuch as the word for "temperance" means inner-strength, there is a sense in which a non-Christian can strengthen his own resolve by repeated use, just like we strengthen our muscles by use. Dont' use it, lose it, as they say. Some of the parables empasized that principle.
As I understand it, for the Christian who has access to the power of the Spirit, the same principle of use it or lose it applies. We are, as Paul says in Colossians, to be strengthened unto all longsuffering and endurance with joy. But we don't have it all at once. Although "temperance" or "inner-strength" is called a FRUIT of the Spirit, we attain more strength ONLY when we USE that which we have to successfully pass the trials and tests we go through. That's why Paul can say tribulation worketh endurance. When Paul said he wanted to know Christ and His sufferings, I think He was saying that he had not attained unto ALL LONGSUFFERING AND ENDURANCE yet, but that he wanted to. Clearly THIS degree of inner-strength is ONLY available throught the Spirit.
The point is, LFW is implied in the Corinthian passage. If we refuse to suffer (i.e., refuse to exercise our LFW), we can't grow EVEN IF we have the Spirit. We can't just passively wait around hoping our strongest desire will be the right one. We are final causes and must engage our mind's resolve to tap into the inner strength the Spirit provides us. But that involves watchfulness and preparedness, as well.
The same is true for the natural man in the natural realm; no suffering, no growth - except that which comes naturally by chemical changes in the body, etc. Or as the proverb says, no pain, no gain. Just like you can't strengthen your muscles without somewhat taxing them. And if you don't even USE your muscles they will atrophy.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|