I wanted to do a brief thought experiment.
You're in a dark room. You want to escape. You don't feel safe. You notice light under a door, so you go to the door and open it. It leads outside. You step out and close the door behind you. Then you notice that you're in a narrow alley with no openings for a hundred yards. You're torn. Do you go ahead, or do you go back to the room? You debate with yourself for a bit, then decide to head on down the alley.
Now, here's the question. Was your decision to go down the alley free will or not since you didn't realize that the door had locked behind you and you had no other options? You could not do anything but what you did, but you didn't know it. Does that mean you didn't make a free choice?
17 comments:
You made a free choice.
Maybe I am reading more into this than you have written but this is what I see.
The choice to leave the room and walk down the long alley was based on your desires not by coercion. You wanted to escape a dark unsafe room and walk down an alley that gives light. The question is why did you decide you wanted to leave the room that is dark and unsafe?
First of all this door is not a Revelations 3:20 door. It is not for the "whosoevers." We read in the John 3:19 "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." Man love darkness rather than the light and therefore they will stay in the room full of darkness because evil is what they desire. But what made you feel unsafe and the need to escape? God gave you the understanding of your location and position. There was a heart change and therefore you see things differently. God has drawn you and given you the desire to move from darkness to light, from the unsafe to the safe, from slavery to freedom. Once you left the room there was no turning back because you now have understanding you did not have before. You no longer wanted to be in darkness and a slave to sin. You are now God's sheep and under His authority. The option to go back into the room full of darkness is no longer an option. Even though the door is locked, there is no desire to go back. God has you in the palm of His hand and no one can separate you from the love of God for all eternity. You decide to leave the room because your nature has changed, you felt unclean and you want to be cleansed, your affections and desires have changed and you are no longer a bad tree but a good tree that will produce good fruit.
The natural man chooses/wills only what that inner principle desires most (stay in the room). The acts of his will are determined by his internal nature. So any idea of a neutral will is absurd since our will is always driven by its moral nature which direct our desires (either we love God in our choice or we do not). Jesus said, "a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit." Thus, he is saying that it is the nature of the tree determines the kind of fruit it produces. Only by "making the tree good", Jesus says, will the fruit be good. In other words, unless Jesus redeems us from the bondage to sin (Rom 6; 2 Tim 2:25), we have no hope in the world to make any right (redemptive) choice, including believing the gospel (see John 6:65). Again, in what sense are we in bondage (slaves) to sin if not by our affections or wills? Our affections and desires drive the choices we make binding our will over to certain choices.
Yes, Ron, you've read more into it than I intended. The argument I'm given is "If you can't choose anything else, it's not free will." That is, "If God ordains all that comes to pass, there is no such thing as free will." I'm asking if that's actually true, or is it considered free will if I make a choice freely (without coercion) even if I don't know there can be no other outcome?
Danny appears to agree with me that making a choice even if there is no option of making any other is still a free choice.
All that other stuff you added (true as it is) will have to be addressed elsewhere (which I will do, Lord willing).
It would be apparently free, but not actually free.
You'll have to explain. It is only a free choice if there is actually the possibility of an alternative, even if the chooser is not aware of it? The perception of options is not sufficient to classify it as free choice? (You see, this is aimed at figuring out just what you require to define "free will".)
When it comes to applicability, does apparent freedom differ from actual? Not knowing that the second option isn't able to be done doesn't make the choice of the first any less real. We can only make our choices by the perception of reality, and in this example, the perception was that there were two options, thus it was a free will choice.
I would say that a free will agent can create lines of causation. Determinism states that in the present moment each event is caused by circumstances. Free will states that agents can create new lines of causation that were not caused in and of themselves. In this way a set of circumstances can allow a range of actual choices that a person could choose.
In determinism A must lead to B, but with free will A could lead to B,C, or D. B, C, or D are all possibilities that would make sense of the current situation and would all would be logical conclusions from situation A.
I see, Josh. Then, by definition, it is not possible for God to be Sovereign and Man to have Free Will. By your definition, it is not possible for God to work all things after the counsel of His will or to do whatever He pleases.
I'm just curious, though, as I've never seen anything like that definition. On what is it based? Where does the "lines of causation" requirement come from? And isn't it problematic? I mean, if "Free Will" requires multiple possibilities, but the nature of the will requires that you always act according to your strongest inclination, is there a contradiction here?
Working all things after the counsel of His will, does not mean everything works out exactly how he wants. It means God's actions in the world all align with His will.
I don't find it problematic. You are assuming there is always a strongest inclination. Why must it be that there is always a strongest inclination?
Well, of course, it wouldn't be necessary that you choose according to your strongest inclination since you define "free will" in your way. This, of course, clears up a lot of stuff. We've been trying to figure out how to correlate God's Sovereignty and Man's free will and, as it turns out, we've been wasting our time since I do not believe in free will as you define it and you do not believe in God's Sovereignty as it has traditionally been defined in orthodoxy.
So we've reached the end of it. I won't be able to tell you how God can be Sovereign with Man's Free Will in place because I don't believe in your version. And that's not a problem, because you won't be able to explain to me how God is sovereign with Man's free will in place because you don't believe God is sovereign. We should be able to dust ourselves off, shake hands, and let this go.
Seriously, Josh? Everything we do is based on our strongest inclination. If we didn't, then there would be the potential for someone to live without sin. Why do we continue to sin, even with a new nature? Because we are still more often inclined to selfishness than service. Do you eat or do you continue with your task? Your strongest inclination will win out. I have missed many a meal in a row because I was more inclined to do what I was doing rather than stop and eat. Procrastinate, or do it now, your strongest inclination will win out. That is not to say that your strongest inclination is the same at all times.
I am not implying that decisions are made with no influence. Obviously we experience a variety of influences including our nature, our surroundings, our upbringing. I am just saying that given one cause, there can be multiple possible effects. It can also be true that both possibilities are both sin. I will grant, that sometimes there are "strongest inclinations", but not always. There are times where our choice between two effects is actual, and there is no determined outcome.
I would agree, of course, that " there can be multiple possible effects" ... but only from a human perspective. I cannot (which should be obvious at this point) correlate all that the Bible says on the Sovereignty of God over all things and the "God has submitted Himself to the Free Will of His creation" concept and make any sense of it. To me, then, any definition of "free will" that requires that the creature is fully capable of overriding the Creator is nonsensical. And, when I can see with absolute clarity the biblical definition of God's Sovereignty but absolutely no such definition of Man's Free Will, I'm forced to go with the clear over the unclear.
On the other hand, if "free will" is defined simply as "the ability to make uncoerced choices within the realm of possibility", I believe in free will and the Sovereignty of God. (Note that your definition of Free Will is a philosophical one -- and a fairly recent philosophical one -- which you suggested was an error on David's part deriving the timelessness of God from a philosopher rather than the Bible. That is, you will not find your definition in the Bible.)
A philosophical question. If every cause has one certain "actual" effect. Wasn't creation the first cause, and thus sin effectually caused by God?
If "from whom and through whom and to whom are all things", you would conclude, to the contrary, that God is not the First Cause?
But, of course, if a car maker makes a car that a driver uses to run someone down, is the car maker the cause of the murder?
If the car maker knew, without a shadow of a doubt, the car would murder someone why would he make it?
Do I believe that God ordained sin? Yes. I do. Not "caused", but ordained. For good reason. I believe He knew it would happen, planned for it, and uses it for His good purposes. I believe that without sin we couldn't know God as we do (think grace, mercy, justice, forgiveness, judgment, holiness ...).
But, your question in answer to my question suggests that the car manufacturer that is quite certain that someone will someday use their product for nefarious purposes should be considered the cause of that evil. I suppose that kind of thinking is why so many bizarre and frivolous lawsuits flood our courts today.
Post a Comment