 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/18/2004 4:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | Arghghghghg!  Arhghghghghgh! 
Lock: No decision is unfluenced…
Tom: UnINfluenced! 
Lock: I believe you misrepresent me view because I do not believe that outside influencs "determine" our response. If that were the case, then as you say the response would be the same all the time and robotic.
Tom: Again, no. On your view, that our choices and responses aren’t always the same doesn’t prove that your view isn’t deterministic. It only proves that the influences that determine our choices and responses aren’t always the same (which they obviously aren’t; no two moments in time are exactly the same and the determining influences and contexts are never identical).
Look, Lock. It's like this. There is ONE view of freedom which is not determinisitc. ONE view that affirms our choices are determined by US. ONE. That's libertarian free will. Say it with me, Lock: L-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n free will alone denies determinism (whether theological or scientific). If you deny LFW (and you do) then you're are by definition opting for some form of determinism (whether theological or scientific; or both). Do you realize this?
You must realize it.
Must realize it.
Realize it.
Realize it.
Realize it.
Realize it.
Lock: Let's take the person lead by the flesh and sin first and let's call him George. If it were true that the outside influences "determined" George's response to stimuli then he would always sin. We all know this is not the case. Sometimes in the war within George's mind/heart his conscience and nature win and George keeps the law of God.
Tom: This is what Libertarians call libertarian free will. Do you realize this?
You must realize it.
Must realize it.
Realize it.
Realize it.
Realize it.
Realize it.
Lock: George has the ability at each moment to weigh (reason) which influence will affect his decision.
Tom: To influence is to affect. So we don’t have the ability to decide which influences affect us and which do not. All influences “influence.” To influence is to affect. But to affect is not always to determine.
Lock: It is George's decision even though it is influenced by outside factors.
Tom: And influenced by inside factors (God’s spirit, conscience, reason, etc.).
Lock: On the other side we have Bob. Bob is a believer in Christ and lead by the spirit of God. If the outside influences "determined" Bob's responses, then Bob would never sin again. We all know this is not the case. Even though Bob is lead by the spirit of God, sometimes in the war of his mind/heart his fleshy desires win and lead Bob to sinning, even though, as in Paul's case, Bob is doing the very thing he hates to do.
Tom: And the point is...?
Lock: The only exception to this is, at times, God hardens or blinds a person's heart to suit His purposes. On the other hand God will also purifiy or give a person a new heart when it suits His purposes.
Tom: Wow! That came outta left field. OK, whatever.
Lock: What I can tell through our variance of definitions, that OT'ers call the ability to reason LFW.
Tom: I don’t understand the grammar here. Not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that you conclude that proponents of LFW define LFW as the “ability to reason”? I’d disagree of course. LFW has to be more than just the ability to reason, for the ability to reason is compatible with the reasoning process being determined. So if one wishes to affirm LFW, one will have to argue something ABOUT reason and will beyond the mere ability to do so.
Lock: How much of our reasoning is affected by our preferences or disposition in the OT view?
Tom: Who friggin cares, Lock! The point is that it's not 100% determining influence. There is space left for US, who WE are, our accountable SELVES, our PERSONS to be the final arbiter in all of this. There's no need to disect it under the microscope to this extent. Stand back and look at the forrest for goodness' sake.
And another thing, it's not about open theism. You keep talking about free will "in the OT view"? There is no unique OT view of freedom. It's not an OT issue. Libertarian free will is affirmed by libertarians who HATE open theism. So get that straight too, OK?
I’m on my Harley headin outta town, boys. Catch you guys in the next thread. JEE, you bring the beer. Sparknheart, you got the chips and salsa. Einstein, you can bring yourself (with shoes this time, not bedroom slippers like when you met the President). Lock if you want to come you have to first be able to define libertarian free will to OUR satisfaction. If you can’t at least do this you can’t come to the party.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/18/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | We can lend a helping hand, but it's ultimately the choice of the individual to fit the pieces into place.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/18/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Sorry guys-
I don't believe I can play along with any notion that glorifies man and his "choices" more than God and His purposes. See you on the flip side!
I suspected that was the reason for your reluctance. 
Blinded by the Light of glory! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/18/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
which is why arranged marriages are seen as more "glorious" than marriages where each partner has a choice, DOH!
These days I'm not so sure. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/18/2004 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: Sorry guys- I don't believe I can play along with any notion that glorifies man and his "choices" more than God and His purposes.
Tom: See, you are a determinist. And your criticism of libertarian free will is ridiculous. It’s not about glorifying humans more than God. What nonsense.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/18/2004 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: Have your children made any wise choices, Tom, ROBBING you of your glory?
Tom: Every day. Every cotton-pickin day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/18/2004 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: Sorry guys- I don't believe I can play along with any notion that glorifies man and his "choices" more than God and His purposes.
Tom: By the way, Lock, I said you only had to be able to accurately DEFINE libertarian free will to come to the party. You don't have to accept it. So you can keep glorify God as the one who unconditionally determines all our choices AND you can party with us! That'd be fun. But you have to show that you at least UNDERSTAND us (even if you don't accept our view of freedom).
Don't forget to lose the slippers Einstein.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/19/2004 3:00 AM (GMT -6) | | A Sermon
(No. 52)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, December 2, 1855, by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
At New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."—John 5:40.
his is one of the great guns of the Arminians, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.
www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/19/2004 3:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will.
Lock, please explain why Jesus asked to align his will with the Father's will? Why are we told to pray for the Divine will if we don't already have one getting in the way of His? The will of God is infinitely good, wise, and holy; to have it fulfilled in and among men, is to have infinite goodness, wisdom, and holiness. Granted there is no glory in man's will apart from God, only death. Thanks, Mark
Luke 22:42 (NRSV)
"Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done."
Matthew 6:9-13 (NRSV)
"Pray then in this way:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
[10] Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
[11] Give us this day our daily bread.
[12] And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
[13] And do not bring us to the time of trial,
but rescue us from the evil one.
Isaiah 30:1 (NRSV)
Oh, rebellious children, says the Lord,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who make an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin;
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/19/2004 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock quotes Spurgeon. Right. Gee that settles it. Why didn't start with Spurgeon, Lock? You would have saved us all a lot of time.
But you've made it very clear now that in spite of denying that you're a determinist with respect to our choices, you are in fact a determinist.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/19/2004 4:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Spurgeon DID like good cigars, and that speaks volumes for him. It almost validates his poor understanding of human agency, but only almost.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/19/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | Holy cow, my Grandpa used to catch one hundred pound Spurgeons out of the St. Croix river. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/19/2004 7:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lock, please explain why Jesus asked to align his will with the Father's will?
Christ did not pray for the Father to "align" His will with the Father's will. Christ prayed for the cup to be passed, but then submitted to the will of the Father. Christ never did His own will, but only did as He was directed by the Father, He said the Father's words, He did the Father's works. Christ is the worst example you can give in support of free will because he absolutely submitted to the Father's will. The example you raise shows that even though Jesus' will at that time was not the same as the Father's, but yet He submitted. This seems to address more of a trinity issue then free will.
quote:
Why are we told to pray for the Divine will if we don't already have one getting in the way of His?
Paul stated in Rom. 7 that even though he willed to keep God's law, he observed a diferent law warring in his members. The will is not the problem, its the law of sin and death prevalent int he flesh that is the problem. It is a matter of disposition. Free will is not taught in the bible. The bible teaches you are either a SLAVE to sin and death or a SLAVE to righteousness. Whatever DEFINITION you all come up with for LFW comes from secular orgins.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/19/2004 7:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Lock, please explain why Jesus asked to align his will with the Father's will?
Christ did not pray for the Father to "align" His will with the Father's will. Christ prayed for the cup to be passed, but then submitted to the will of the Father. Christ never did His own will, but only did as He was directed by the Father, He said the Father's words, He did the Father's works. Christ is the worst example you can give in support of free will because he absolutely submitted to the Father's will. The example you raise shows that even though Jesus' will at that time was not the same as the Father's, but yet He submitted. This seems to address more of a trinity issue then free will.
My point was not that Jesus’ will was not of the Father, or not one with the Father, or to deny its perfection. My point was that Jesus had a will, period. Thank you for conceding that the Son of Man had a will.
BTW, the inheritance of that will is great.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/19/2004 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock, were you always so strong willed? Why teach anything in Bible let alone LFW, if you didn’t have a will then you wouldn’t have the will to learn in the first place.
No wonder you think God is at odds with himself, it’s his will against his will. It reminds me of the character Jim Cary played in the restroom scene from the movie Lawyer Lawyer. It's God, excuse me while I beat myself up. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/19/2004 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My point was not that Jesus’ will was not of the Father, or not one with the Father, or to deny its perfection. My point was that Jesus had a will, period. Thank you for conceding that the Son of Man had a will.
BTW, the inheritance of that will is great.
Mark-
I have never denied the existence of a will. I believe we should stand upon what the bible teaches about our will, not how we "feel" about it. According to Webster's libertarian is defined as...
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action
The bible does not teach "absolute and unrestricted liberty" but instead teaches a person is either a SLAVE to sin and death or a SLAVE to righteousness. The only FREEDOM the bible speaks of is freedom from the law of sin and death.
quote:
No wonder you think God is at odds with himself, it’s his will against his will.
Yes, it is strange to think God is at odds with Himself. But, that is exactly what is seen in Luke 22:42. How can it be that the Son's will (remove the cup)is different from the Father's (the cup will not be removed) if they are in essence the one and same God? But like I said that is a trinity issue and this discussion concerns the will of man.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/22/2004 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
I'm sorry for not responding to you sooner. Your post was exactly what I was looking for from the start (I am refering to the one you posted after being out of town all weekend). I especially thank you for admitting that the freewill defense could be seen as a greater good theodicy.
However, asking me or rather telling me to come up with a counter claim is unfair considering the stated purpose of my inquiry. Is it really impossible to dialogue with your view as it stands? I think not, and I am persuaded that you would agree.
You claim that compatibilism is just babble to you. Forgive me sir, but that same could be said of the freeill defense. Actually, if I remember correctly, I said that at the very begining (incidently, I have never stated what I believe to be the truth of these matters. That has been intentional because I desire to dialogue with your view as it stands). But alas! it makes no matter who said what first because surely some great mind has said it before we were ever born.
So even though I sincerely appreciated your lengthy post, it was either over my head or completely nonsensical (I'm refering to the children analogy and LFW, not other aspects which were found to be extremely helpful).
The above sentence makes me wonder why I am even writing this. I'm done.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/23/2004 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Do you mean Liar, Liar and the phrase "I'm kick'in my ###! Do you mind?"
That’s it, Liar Liar and Carrey played a Lawyer that could not tell a lie. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/23/2004 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Cotton: I especially thank you for admitting that the freewill defense could be seen as a greater good theodicy.
Tom: Why should a proponent of LFW need to deny all forms of the greater good argument?
Cotton: However, asking me or rather telling me to come up with a counter claim is unfair considering the stated purpose of my inquiry. Is it really impossible to dialogue with your view as it stands?
Tom: Of course we can discuss "just" my view. But we weren't "just" doing that. There were counter claims made against my view. In that case we're not just looking to discuss what my view is, we're arguing whether or not my view is plausible, in which case you've openned the door and I get to argue back.
Cotton: You claim that compatibilism is just babble to you.
Tom: "Unconditionally determined morally accountable choices" (which is what Compatibilism is) is meaningless to me, yes.
Cotton: Forgive me sir, but that same could be said of the freeill defense.
Tom: So try to argue it.
Cotton: I have never stated what I believe to be the truth of these matters. That has been intentional because I desire to dialogue with your view as it stands.
Tom: That might work for a very short while discussing very few things. But when you start arguing against a person's views, making counter claims, and asking for evidence and examples of how it deals with issues, it's pretty much impossible to not say anything about other views and how they deal with the same issues.
Cotton: So even though I sincerely appreciated your lengthy post, it was either over my head or completely nonsensical (I'm refering to the children analogy and LFW, not other aspects which were found to be extremely helpful).
Tom: What's interesting is your absolute refusal to answer simple questions: Assuming you have children, (1) do you or do you not agree that in bringing kids into the world you expose them to certain risks (the risk of being raped or murdered, or of becoming a rapist or murderer)? Sure, you'll want to argue that there's no risk FOR GOD. Let's assume there isn't for God. But he's not having your kids. You are. And you DON'T know the future. You DON'T know what's how there for your kids. You DO know they MAY be raped or murdered, or worse still, become rapists or murderers. If you understand these risks (and I argue you DO if you have children), then (2) why did you decide to have them in spite of the risks? Demonstrate the meaninglessness of this analogy in answering these questions. I don't believe you can do it.
Sure, Lock, you can try too. But only if you stop your whining about FEELINGS.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 184 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:56 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 |
|
|