Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 11/12/2003 9:24 AM (GMT -6)

Hey all,

I'm not sure exactly how to state my question, so I'll just kind of describe the thought process that brought me to this point. First off, I have always been very confident in defending the position that humans have libertarian free will. And I have always been adament in believing that total compatibalistic freedom is wrong at best and incoherent at worst. And my basic reason for this contempt for compatibalism was threefold

1) it made God responsible for sin, because he determines human actions by the desires and motivations that he gives

2) it went against my firm belief that "Love must be chosen to be genuine" AND

3) I could not see the point to why God would create a world where he controlled every aspect of everything that happens, especially a world where suffering and evil occur.

So thats where I've been for most of my Christian life, and these convictions were really solidified when I was in college in debates with my two five point Calvinist roommates. But some recent thoughts and discussions on this board have made me question SOME of the misgivings I have had about compatibalism.

Here's why. I had always thought that there would be no reason that God would compatibalistically control our decisions. But what if God wanted to have beings that would have experiences of love, gratitude, realization of dependency on God, etc. He then could create the world, control compatibalistically man's choices, but the beings would have experiences of dependence on God (etc) that God wanted.

I've been thinking about in my life. What if I am only free in a compatibalistic sense? It seems that I would still experience things like I do now. And I seem to have some basis as to why God would do this. God wanted beings that were self conscious, so he created us. He wanted us to realize the necessity of knowing Him as the source of life, so he first gives us the desire to try to live without Him so that we can experience the hopelessness of life apart from God. this experience is a GOOD thing in that it furthers our understanding of the necessity of knowing God for true contentment.

Also, if Meph is right in arguing that love does not have to be chosen to be genuine (I know, I have argued against him on this point, but if I am wrong) then God could have a reason for causing evils though compatibalistc human actions in order for our experiental knowledge of the effects of life without God would be like.

Alright, so I've traced out the basics of what seems to be at least a somewhat coherent conception of the reason that God would create humans with compatibalistic freedom. So here's where I'm at.... I definitely don't like the idea that my actions are controlled by my strongest desires. It seems like a big part of my beliefs about who I am are tied to my understanding of myself as a moral agent. I have a part to play in the scheme of things. And I still see a MAJOR problem with a God who would compatibalistically determine people to be seperated from Him from eternity. I definitely am no soft determinist yet, and if I was I'd have to be some kind of universalist.

But I do feel my confidence in my belief in Libertarian free will has kind of wavered. I mean there is a HUGE part of the Christian community that holds to compatibalism. So thats where I would like to start some discussion. If you are a libertarian, what are the reasons that you hold this view? And if there are any compatibalist out there, I'd like to hear your take on things.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

rsirkel
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183

Posted 11/12/2003 3:54 PM (GMT -6)

Ross,
It does seem our understanding changes to a different perspective or at least is altered as we read and study different responses to the same stories in scripture. In my view this is because we would all like to have a unified theory or one principle that applies to every situation in life. Libertarian free will, it looks that way in some places, it feels like I have it sometimes, and other times it seems I am driven to action by a strong desire. Could I be self disciplined in all circumstances? I think it is possible. But do I want my own free will to act in all circumstances without other influences? Not when I pray for God to help me. When the Holy Spirit operates a spiritual gift through a person, say a working of miracles, is that classified as free will or compatibalism? The Holy Spirit gives to every man severally as He will. 1 Cor. 12:11 Is it free will or determinism? You could probably get several different answers to that one and as each explained what they believed about the account they observed or read about it would likely seem very plausible. You get my drift? It is all relative.

I read in the Institutes where Calvin said he would like for the term free will to be eliminated from the church. He states clearly the early fathers before Augustine did not speak much of prescience and predestination but yet he drove on to establish his view of what he calls the ancient doctrine. If you only read the reformers you would probably agree with them about the bondage of the will and if you stop thinking at Romans 7 you would defend the position as biblical. Paul said to will is present with me but how to perform I find not. If my view is relative to just the condition of fallen man under the dominion of sin then I would say one thing but if I go on and see how Christ sets me free and sin has no more dominion over me I see things differently. Then if we go on and speak of liberty in love we will talk differently. Then what about I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. Someone who constantly walks inunion with Christ would speak from a different perspective and experience. Did Jesus have free will during His earthly ministry? I think so, yet He in love allowed the Father to speak and work through Him for the salvation of the world. You can have free will in a love relationship that would look like determinism to the observer if they didn't walk in the same love and spirit. Love can constrain us. You could call it compatibalism but if it is out of a mutual love, the description of it would be relative depending on the position of the observer. Free will is indeterminate, but it is God who is at work in me working both to will and do of His good pleasure. I will to do His will. If you stay in Christ and Christ stays in you. John 15:7 Isn't is relative?

I personally don't think the Peter denial has to do with sin but more with equipping Peter by illuminating his weakness so Christ could eventually be strong in Him. Peter was in relationship, dicipleship, with Jesus. He was there by calling and choice and what and how the Master taught him was for his edification and the church eventually. We get so stuck in our traditional squares Wink

and just rehash over and over again the same arguments we have received from tradition and come up with the same old unedifying answers. We live in a dynamic indeterministic energy that awaits loves constraints to form the future but we always have to allow the undetermined factor to be in the equation or else we will stay in the square and succumb to fatalism. Free will, in love with Jesus, with hope for the yet unseen. There is my two cents Ross, I haven't changed believing in free will or an open future. The future does not exist. That is why prayer and a relationship with the Savior is so important. Thanks for sharing.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/12/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6)

Ross: what if God wanted to have beings that would have experiences of love, gratitude, realization of dependency on God, etc. He then could create the world, control compatibalistically man's choices, but the beings would have experiences of dependence on God (etc) that God wanted.

Doc: "Look how dependent you are on me"... yes God could create a cosmos with this goal. Of course, we would only "look" and "realize" this if he gave us a strongest desire to do so, but he could create this cosmos. And of course those in whom he didn't place this strongest desire wouldn't look and realize this. But God could do this. And God could then eternally punish them for doing what their strongest desire that he gave them led them to do. Its possible.

But why?

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 11/13/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the responses....

Doc, I suppose that you really hit on the key to the whole debate. I had always based my rejection of compatibalism on my belief that it was an incoherent belief. But even if it is a coherent notion, it still has to pass the test of sufficient reason.

Compatibalists usually appeal to some kind of glorification principle, saying that the reason that God created the world was to bring glory to Himself. Free Will Theists usually appeal to God's love as the reason that He created the world.And I believe that this is the fundamental distinction between the two systems.

Hope that there are more responses and that the discussion continues,

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/13/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

I think that compatiblism/ determinism is coherent in and of itself. God can create any kind of world he chooses, including ones where agents are systematically decieved into thinking their free and morally responsible. What is not incoherent is the conviction that agents REALLY ARE free and morally responsible in an exhaustively deterministic world.

I agree with you that love is the decisive distinguishing mark, though of course compatiblists would claim their perspective also incorporates love as a central principle. (And now the question of coherence becomes... is love BY AGENTS for God conceivable in a thoroughly deterministic system.)

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 11/16/2003 9:13 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd

I think that compatiblism/ determinism is coherent in and of itself. God can create any kind of world he chooses, including ones where agents are systematically decieved into thinking their free and morally responsible. What is not incoherent is the conviction that agents REALLY ARE free and morally responsible in an exhaustively deterministic world.

I agree with you that love is the decisive distinguishing mark, though of course compatiblists would claim their perspective also incorporates love as a central principle. (And now the question of coherence becomes... is love BY AGENTS for God conceivable in a thoroughly deterministic system.)

Doc

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 11/16/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6)

Oops..Hit the button too quick
Enjoy reading Doc's reply again

Question

Does anyone recall where on the board Doc's illustration/analogy is about being at a large banquet and God only choosing to feed a few eventhough many were hungry and enjoying it -- as an illustration of determinism?

BTW: IS GOD TO BLAME -- Great read!!!
TGABTG
John

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/17/2003 2:08 AM (GMT -6)

BTW: IS GOD TO BLAME -- Great read!!!

tanx! Don't recall where the banquet analogy was used... I just remember it really ticked off this one Calvinist guy from Penssylvania. Eyebrow

. The thread occurred about a year ago and had something to do with assurance.

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/17/2003 3:14 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: Don't recall where the banquet analogy was used... I just remember it really ticked off this one Calvinist guy from Penssylvania. Eyebrow

. The thread occurred about a year ago and had something to do with assurance.

Tom: Um, that would have been our friend "Hilston" from Pittsburg.

Bandit

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 11/17/2003 8:08 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd

BTW: IS GOD TO BLAME -- Great read!!!

tanx! Don't recall where the banquet analogy was used... I just remember it really ticked off this one Calvinist guy from Penssylvania. . The thread occurred about a year ago and had something to do with assurance.

Doc

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 11/17/2003 8:20 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks

Found the analogy. Rereading it was like watching a favorite rerun.
"Trusting God and Open Theism" page 11
Be warned, the bog of Calvinism, "Hilston style," is thick and not for the faint of heart en route to the analogy.

TGABTG
John

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 11/17/2003 8:24 PM (GMT -6)

BTW Dr Boyd, are you presenting at ETS on Wednesday in Atlanta?

John

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual