Post Edited (JEE) : 2/14/2005 9:58:42 PM (GMT-6)

Thanks John.  That's really helpful too. 

Bryan

Have to ponder this...

RIFO:  ""self-determining freedom.""

JEE:  "power to choose between the options he is presented with."

The first one seems to describe sin. We tried "self-determining" in the garden. It messed up communion with God; and messed up relations between male and famale. This strikes me also as related to the distinction between "person" and "individual." (Something to watch out for.) IS TRUE FREEDOM SELF-DETERMINING. What does the scripture say?

The second, seems to me, could be taken the way of the first (or not). What does the scripture say? (Even what did Martin Luther say, that made him sound so Christian "...I can do none other.")

(Historically, in the devotional history of Christ's church "deliberative will" has been a phrase denoting selfish-individuality.)

Consider 1 Corinthians 13. Deliberately giving one's body to be burned is 'nothing' while living consumed by love--not being "one's own" is to be in Christ.

Consider this 1500's confession from Germany:

^{Q. What is your only comfort
in life and in death?}

^{A. That I am not my own,
but belong—
body and soul,
in life and in death—
to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.}

^{He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven:
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.}

^{Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.}

Post Edited (bert) : 2/13/2005 7:14:11 AM (GMT-6)

FWIW, here is a site (1st hit on Google) that compares "Libertarian free will"  &  "Compatibilist free will "

http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm

Says: 

Libertarian free will -- Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires

Compatibilist free will -- Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires

Makes the claim:

     ^{Open Theism states that God has granted to people free will and that in order for this free will to remain free, God cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be.  They reason that if God knew a future choice of a person, then that person would not be truly free to choose anything different when the time comes to make that choice.  Therefore, they say, if God knows the future free will choices of people, then it means that free will doesn't really exist.}

     ^{Furthermore, they hold to a view of free will known as libertarian free will.  This is the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes.  In other words, the person is able to equal choose between any set of options.  By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose.  In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition.  In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.} 

In the first paragraph I really wonder about  how that "God knew a future choice of a person" would lack freedom. The Virgin Mary had a true choice BECAUSE she willed to do God's will with her WHOLE heart, and that did not mean that any act was determined. Saying "yes" was her own act. But I also really wonder about "would not be truly free to choose anything different" as other options are not anything at all key to the issue of Mary's freedom to act. This is qualitative and not quantitative!!!

I also wonder about in the second paragraph where it says "In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature." as that seems to assume that the nature we were created with is bad -- but God does not make trash.

Jefscott,

Here is a relevant passage from SATPOE that hits on your question

Hey, Bert.  Welcome to the show. 

The OV position is not quite that "if God knows the future..."  We grant that God knows everything.  What we would say is "if the future exists in entirety, which God would, of course, have to know becuz he knows everything there is to know, then it means that free will doesn't really exist."  Do you follow the distinction? 

Before you can even debate this stuff you have to get your mind around the fact that we believe the future does not exist (except in part).  We would view the future as similar to the potrayal of it in the movie "Back to the Future."  Do you remember how before Marty went back in time and everything, Biff was his dad's boss and and his dad was a goof?   Then when Marty went back in time and taught his dad to "be a man," so to speak, his dad ended up saying to Biff, "hey you, get your damn hands off her" and this changed things so that when Marty got "Back to the Future," Biff was now the goof and his dad was his boss. 

What happened in the future was dependent on what happened in the past.  This is how we, as OV theorists, would view the nature of the future.  However, we would depart from the movie's depiction of the nature of reality on the following two points:  First we do not believe the past is alterable.  That's already happened and fixed because God experiences sequence just like us and along with us and for the past to be capable of being altered would put us out of sequence with God, a metaphysical impossibility, not to mention catastrophe.  Second, we do not believe that the future is exhaustively open, i.e. the future is not completely nonexistent, but partly determined, fixed, settled.  This is why prophecy, among other things, is possible.  There are some things that God has decided that he will do and nothing can stop these things from happening, one way or another.  The means to those ends, however, may or may not be fixed according to the open view. 

How's that grab you? 

Bryan

Ross,

Thanks for the quote from Doc.  I agree with it.  I was just wondering where John stood on the matter.

Post Edited (JEE) : 2/14/2005 10:09:56 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (JEE) : 2/14/2005 10:11:37 PM (GMT-6)

Just a heads-up, Bryan. Unless I am greatly mistaken, our friend "bert" is simply the latest reincarnation of "Pot on Wheel" from the old board. Be prepared for him to try to argue that CALVIN believed in libertarian free will, AND that Calvin was really not so bad a guy after all, even though he had scores of people EXECUTED for "heresy" while he was running Geneva. Anyway, just a heads up.

Blessings,

John

P.S.: No offense towards you, PoW/bert. Just callin' it like I see it.

Post Edited (JEE) : 2/14/2005 10:12:17 PM (GMT-6)