What is Free Will?

[Balder]

No not really.

I am simply saying that some things cannot be broken down into smaller items.

Colors may have been a bad example.

Yet I think my first two examples were good ones.

Yes, they might be. I don't want to introduce a tangent here, but I want to ask you about the soul. I will start a thread about it in a moment. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

B.

 

[BChristianK]

Who is BCK?

No one of any import....really.....

 

[BChristianK]

No not really.

I am simply saying that some things cannot be broken down into smaller items.

Colors may have been a bad example.

Yet I think my first two examples were good ones.

Exactly!

Balder, this is essentially what I have been trying to convey in the other thread. If a choice is a true "free will choice," then asking the question, "what makes a person choose X?" just doesn't make sense.

Why?

Becuase if anything makes a person choose X it isn't a free will choice/

 

[Balder]

Hi, BCK,

I understand ... I think. But what about God? Do you believe God, then, does not have free will? If his nature constrains him from ever sinning, then neither he, nor fallen man, are truly "free" in this sense of the word.

Beyond that, people attribute causal factors to their decisions all the time. If you ask them why they chose to do something, most people are able to give one or even several reasons why they did it. Sometimes it's hard to tell, but typically people have reasons for what they do. When they have no reasons, we typically scorn them and call them...unreasonable!

On the other hand, if you keep pursuing even reasonable people with "why's" about their behavior, eventually they run out of reasons for why they wanted to do something, and they say, "I don't know! I just did!" When we do this, does this mean that we really had no reasons -- no contributing causal factors, in this case, desire -- or that our "lens" is too small and we can't see all the contributing factors, or what?

What is the relationship, if any, between what you are saying and this matter of "reasons"?

Becuase if anything makes a person choose X it isn't a free will choice.

But if a choice happens with absolutely "nothing" behind it, then is it moral?

 

[seekinganswers]

These categories are the attempt of a framework to conform me to that framework. If you look at the registration page for this site there is no option for neither left nor right, and if I am to register I must choose a category. I had to choose one side or the other. In fact, my stance is much more radical. The Enlightenment altogether has no say in my book. The Enlightenment is my focus for attack.



And what of the culture that sees no connection between events? Or that there is no such thing as time? What I was trying to point out is that the system only appears to give us a choice. We think that if we decide to go to bed at 10:00pm or not, that we have been given a decision to make. But it is absurd. It is an appearance of control. The reality is that you will go to bed regardless of your choice or decision.



"Leftist," that would be your label not mine.



Morality is the deception that somehow we can distinguish what is right and acceptable in this world. It is taking of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. It is to say that knit within the very universe is a system of right and wrong and that a human being can discern that system. It is the desire of the Pharisee to be clean before God. The Pharisee did not simply want to judge others, he thought that he could discern wrong and right, and that the law's purpose was in fact this. The law for the Pharisee was this universal principle. You are trying to separate yourself from the Pharisee by separating yourself from the law. But an ethical principle can be used in the same way. "Good" and "Evil" are things that only God can judge and discern. As far as we are concerned Christ tells us that good and evil come together, that is the Creation and distortion are reconciled in him. Jesus declares to us that there does not exist an enemy (in our neighbor). It is our creation, and therefore he calls us to love our "enemy." Your moral system is the creation of the Enlightenment, in which a general principle, or a universal definition of "man" is created to decide what is right. God is not the universal principle, the "rights of men" are. So now that we know what the "rights" are we can live according to them. We can be like the Pharisees once again who conform their fellow men and women to this standard. And we can be even more corrupt than the Pharisees as we distort other human beings horribly through these principles of "rights." Bush can label his enemies "terrorists" and torture them, treating them as less than human, in violation of the geneva treaty. These men that we torture are not human beings, according to Bush; his label of terrorist makes it easy for him to use tactics that are not legal according to the standard of the geneva treaty, which works off of a standard of universal human rights. The problem is that humans are never able to adhere to a universal standard so they are never human by their context. "Terrorists" cannot be humans because they deny the universal principles and thus we are free to do anything to them. Morality is absurd because it cannot resist distortion. Evil is not an ontological reality. The only reality is God, and God made flesh in Christ, thus establishing "evil" as a corruption and nothing more. "Evil" does not have reality in itself. "Evil" is simply a distortion of what is good, making it impossible to create anything but a straw-man to fight against if we are to have a fight against "evil," like the "war on terror." Jesus' words and commands are enough for the disciple. And he says that evil is not only within our brother, but is just as much if not more a part of us. There is no need for a "moral principle." But most people don't believe that Jesus' words and obedience to his commands are sufficient.



It is an illusion. "Justice" in our world equals vengance. One who commits a crime must pay, in other words, and restitution must be visited on the one against whom the crime was commited. And what we are told about this system of "justice" in the scriptures is that vengance is no one's business but the Lord's. Justice before God is reconciliation. The Righteous one is not shaped by morality, as many have come to understand "righteousness" in a moral sense. Righteousness in the scriptures is the same word as justice. And to be just before God is to be reconciled not only to God but to others. Justice is held in God, the one who can judge and yet patiently witholds judgment in seeking reconciliation. The sentance for humanity in the garden of Eden was death. It is language used as a death penalty language, not just to make humanity mortal (they were already mortal when they were created). When God says, "You will surely die," it is not just that you will eventually die, but if you eat from this tree you will be put to death. And notice at the pronouncement of judgment the death penalty is witheld. It is not that God is weak and can't enforce the judgment pronounced. It is that God is the only one who can discern good and evil (as a free agent) and is thus able to withold judgment as well as pass judgment (and notice how it has nothing to do with sacrifice). God is the just judge and will do whatever God pleases to do.



Once again, God is love. We know not what love is. Even our closest relationships with one another do not compare to love. The triune God is love: Father, Son, and Spirit. We are as far from love as we can possibly be. Just look at Christ and look at ourselves and we will see a vast expanse between the two. We cannot nor do we know how to love. Love is distorted among us as we wrap it up in shame and seek pleasure over the other's need. Even supposed love between a man and a woman in marriage is a distortion as that love is confined within them, instead of making them one flesh and living as one flesh to love the other, the neighbor, and the stranger (the child that comes into their marriage as a gift from God), their love remains within them. But God revealed God's love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. That is love, and do not think that we can define love outside of that very particular enactment. Love is defined within the trinity, and only as we are sustained by God do we even begin to know what love is.



No we cannot love God. But God can love us. "This is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and gave his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I John 4:10). And this love is perfected within us so that we can then love: "This is love, that we follow his commandments" (II John 1:6). Love remains wrapped up in God. It is not a universal principle in which both God and men can participate. God is love.



This shows the absurdity of your system, for by your system you would judge God. Your standard of justice can even define the limits of the Creator. It is not my place to establish a justice by which to judge the Creator. Justice is held within God, and therefore only by God are we just. As I said before, God's command regarding justice is to be reconciled. But you go ahead and create that absurd situation where God will be judged by men.



Once again, this is absurd. You have created a system of goodness that superceeds the Creator. God is not good in your system, God participates in goodness that is even outside of God. You once again take judgment into your own hands in order to create that absurd situation where man judges God.



This is the most ridiculous statement anyone has tried to make of me. Do you think that I am a liberal Democrat? If you have read anything that I have written on this site you would know that your categories of "right" and "left" do not apply to what I am saying. I have never read Hillary Clinton's books any more than I have read Hitler's!! If you would like to understand what I am saying, read Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship and Ethics).

Grace and Peace,
Michael

Here was my original post, Clete. It's on page 5. You asked for these answers to your questions, and you also said that you would respond later, but did not.

Grace and Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

Here was my original post, Clete. It's on page 5. You asked for these answers to your questions, and you also said that you would respond later, but did not.

Grace and Peace,
Michael

Ah, Yes! I remember now. I had intended to respond to this Tuesday when I responded to several other posts. I had even remarked when I was done (thought I was done) to Turbo that I was surprised at how quickly I had got caught up because I thought I was further behind that that. It seems I was indeed further behind. My appologies for having over looked this, I really didn't mean to leave you hanging like that. I just got too far behind and this one got lost in the shuffle. I just hope that this is the only one that got overlooked!

I'll respond shortly.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[servent101]

dotcrobe57

Who is BCK?

BCK is BChristianK - who politely shares the doctrines of demons, then has Balder expose the lunacy of the concepts - but all very politely - like sipping wine with canables. All in all I find the discourse vile and without discernment. It is a pity the Christian Faith is being explored and exposed as such, and done so with the smooth flair and calm that these two seem to place above all else. Balder seems to be lost in the confusion, and seems to believe that the Good News actually says what BCK suggests with what he refers to as a responsible exegesis of the Scriptures.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[docrob57]

No not really.

I am simply saying that some things cannot be broken down into smaller items.

Colors may have been a bad example.

Yet I think my first two examples were good ones.

Well let me see if I understand this. Trying to synthesize what Clete and Knight have said. We go along and at some point, for some reason confront our decision. Free will takes over and makes the decision. You, the decision maker, really don't know why you did it that way, other than that it is the product of your free will.

Is this about it?

 

[servent101]

docrobe57

Is this about it?

It might be it as far as their concerned about it, but the "reason" they do what they do is simply beyond their ability to know. With some serious counselling and theropy they might be helped somewhat to understand what they are doing. And as well this is always a good excuse in the courts

I don't know why I did what I did, but I am seeing a counsellor to help me find out

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Clete]

These categories are the attempt of a framework to conform me to that framework. If you look at the registration page for this site there is no option for neither left nor right, and if I am to register I must choose a category. I had to choose one side or the other. In fact, my stance is much more radical. The Enlightenment altogether has no say in my book. The Enlightenment is my focus for attack.

And yet you chose "More left than right" over all of the other options which is perfectly in keeping with your nutty idea that we are not individuals. And while I don't know this for certain I suspect that the reason there is not "neither left nor right" category is because the guy who made the options realizes that there is no one who would really fit in that category.

And what of the culture that sees no connection between events?

There is no such culture and is irrelevant anyway because there in fact is a connection between events whether you or anyone else wants to acknowledge it or not.

Or that there is no such thing as time?

I do not believe time exists. I do believe clocks exist though.

What I was trying to point out is that the system only appears to give us a choice. We think that if we decide to go to bed at 10:00pm or not, that we have been given a decision to make. But it is absurd. It is an appearance of control. The reality is that you will go to bed regardless of your choice or decision.

Fine. Then the conclusion that logically follows is that love and every other moral consideration is also an illusion. Are you willing to concede that? I'm not!

"Leftist," that would be your label not mine.

Okay.



Alright, now for the really 'good' part...

What is morality? Clete asked...

Morality is the deception that somehow we can distinguish what is right and acceptable in this world. It is taking of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. It is to say that knit within the very universe is a system of right and wrong and that a human being can discern that system. It is the desire of the Pharisee to be clean before God. The Pharisee did not simply want to judge others, he thought that he could discern wrong and right, and that the law's purpose was in fact this. The law for the Pharisee was this universal principle. You are trying to separate yourself from the Pharisee by separating yourself from the law. But an ethical principle can be used in the same way. "Good" and "Evil" are things that only God can judge and discern. As far as we are concerned Christ tells us that good and evil come together, that is the Creation and distortion are reconciled in him. Jesus declares to us that there does not exist an enemy. It is our creation, and therefore he calls us to love our "enemy." Your moral system is the creation of the Enlightenment, in which a general principle, or a universal definition of "man" is created to decide what is right. God is not the universal principle, the "rights of men" are. So now that we know what the "rights" are we can live according to them. We can be like the Pharisees once again who conform their fellow men and women to this standard. And we can be even more corrupt than the Pharisees as we distort other human beings horribly through these principles of "rights." Bush can label his enemies "terrorists" and torture them, treating them as less than human, in violation of the geneva treaty. These men that we torture are not human beings; his label of terrorist makes it easy for him to use tactics that are not legal according to the standard of the geneva treaty, which works off of a standard of universal human rights. The problem is that humans are never able to adhere to a universal standard so they are never human by their context. "Terrorists" cannot be humans because they deny the universal principles and thus we are free to do anything to them. Morality is absurd because it cannot resist distortion. Evil is not an ontological reality. The only reality is God, and God made flesh in Christ, thus establishing "evil" as a corruption and nothing more. "Evil" does not have reality in itself. "Evil" is simply a distortion of what is good, making it impossible to create anything but a straw-man to fight against if we are to have a fight against "evil", like the "war on terror." Jesus' words and commands are enough for the disciple. And he says that evil is not only within our brother, but is just as much if not more a part of us. There is no need for a "moral principle." But most people don't believe that Jesus' commands and obedience to those commands are sufficient.

The highlighted comments are sufficient to prove you a nut. No further response to this lunatic rant is warranted.



What is justice? Clete asked...

It is an illusion. "Justice" in our world equals vengance. One who commits a crime must pay, in other words, and restitution must be visited on the one against whom the crime was commited. And what we are told about this system of "justice" in the scriptures is that vengance is no one's business but the Lord's. Justice before God is reconciliation. The Righteous one is not shaped by morality, as many have come to understand "righteousness" in a moral sense. Righteousness in the scriptures is the same word as justice. And to be just before God is to be reconciled not only to God but to others. Justice is held in God, the one who can judge and yet patiently witholds judgment in seeking reconciliation. The sentance for humanity in the garden of Eden was death. It is language used as a death penalty language, not just to make humanity mortal (they were already mortal when they were created). When God says, "You will surely die," it is not just that you will eventually die, but if you eat from this tree you will be put to death. And notice at the pronouncement of judgment the death penalty is witheld. It is not that God is weak and can't enforce the judgment pronounced. It is that God is the only one who can discern good and evil (as a free agent) and is thus able to withold judgment as well as pass judgment (and notice how it has nothing to do with sacrifice). God is the just judge and will do whatever God pleases to do.

The last sentence is in direct conflict with the first. Does justice exist or not? I don't care about what men say or what anyone's opinion is. Why can't people just answer a simple question? What IS justice? Not, what does the world think about justice? And not, what do the Pharisees think about what right and wrong is? I didn't ask that, and I don't give a crap about that. I want to know, based on what you believe about God and about the way we make choices in this life and what the consequences of those actions are, WHAT IS JUSTICE?




What is love? Clete asked...

Once again, God is love. We know not what love is. Even our closest relationships with one another do not compare to love. The triune God is love: Father, Son, and Spirit. We are as far from love as we can possibly be. Just look at Christ and look at ourselves and we will see a vast expanse between the two. We cannot nor do we know how to love. Love is distorted among us as we wrap it up in shame and seek pleasure over the other's need. Even supposed love between a man and a woman in marriage is a distortion as that love is confined within them, instead of making them one flesh and living as one flesh to love the other, the neighbor, and the stranger (the child that comes into their marriage as a gift from God), their love remains within them. But God revealed God's love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. That is love, and do not think that we can define love outside of that very particular enactment. Love is defined within the trinity, and only as we are sustained by God do we even begin to know what love is.

2 Corinthians 11:11
Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

Ephesians 5:2
and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1 Thessalonians 1:3
We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:8
We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us.

1 Thessalonians 4:9
Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

2 Thessalonians 1:3
We ought always to thank God for you, brothers, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing.

1 Timothy 6:11
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.

1 Peter 2:17
Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

2 Peter 1:5-8
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

1 John 4:7
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:11
Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

3 John 1:6
They have told the church about your love. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.

1 Cor. 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.




Can we love God? Clete asked...

No we cannot love God. But God can love us. "This is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and gave his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I John 4:10). And this love is perfected within us so that we can then love: "This is love, that we follow his commandments" (II John 1:6). Love remains wrapped up in God. It is not a universal principle in which both God and men can participate. God is love.

Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

Deuteronomy 11:1
Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.

Deuteronomy 11:13
So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul

Deuteronomy 11:22
If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow—to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways and to hold fast to him

Deuteronomy 13:3
you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deuteronomy 19:9
because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today—to love the LORD your God and to walk always in his ways—then you are to set aside three more cities.

Deuteronomy 30:6
The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

Deuteronomy 30:16
For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

Deuteronomy 30:20
and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Joshua 22:5
But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul."

Joshua 23:11
So be very careful to love the LORD your God.

Daniel 9:4
I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands,

Hosea 3:1
The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes."

Hosea 12:6
But you must return to your God; maintain love and justice, and wait for your God always.

Amos 5:15
Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.

Micah 6:8
He [God] has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " [Jesus]Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' [/Jesus]

Mark 12:30
[Jesus]Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' [/Jesus]

Luke 10:27
He answered: " [Jesus]'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "[/Jesus]

Luke 11:42
"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, [Jesus]"If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.[/Jesus]

John 16:27
[Jesus]No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.[/Jesus]

Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"

1 Corinthians 8:3
But the man who loves God is known by God.

James 1:12
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

James 2:5
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

1 John 5:2-3
This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome



Is God just? Clete asked...

This shows the absurdity of your system, for by your system you would judge God. Your standard of justice can even define the limits of the Creator. It is not my place to establish a justice by which to judge the Creator. Justice is held within God, and therefore only by God are we just. As I said before, God's command regarding justice is to be reconciled. But you go ahead and create that absurd situation where God will be judged by men.

Was the author of Hebrew absurd too?

Hebrews 6:10
God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.




Is God moral (Is God good)? Clete asked...

Once again, this is absurd. You have created a system of goodness that superceeds the Creator. God is not good in your system, God participates in goodness that is even outside of God. You once again take judgment into your own hands in order to create that absurd situation where man judges God.

Well this proves my point as well as anything could I suppose. How is it possible that a person who claims to be a Christian can have such a reaction to the notion that God is good? It's insane! It is literally insane.
God is good and is it not wrong for me or anyone else to say so. In fact, quite the contrary. If you cannot bring yourself to say that God is good then how can you love Him? But you can't love Him according to you so I suppose on that much you are consistent. Consistently lost in a world of insanity, that is.

This is the most ridiculous statement anyone has tried to make of me. Do you think that I am a liberal Democrat?

No I never said that. But you are a liberal.

If you have read anything that I have written on this site you would know that your categories of "right" and "left" do not apply to what I am saying. I have never read Hillary Clinton's books any more than I have read Hitler's!! If you would like to understand what I am saying, read Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship and Ethics).

I responded to this already.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[BChristianK]

dotcrobe57

BCK is BChristianK - who politely shares the doctrines of demons...

Yes, I am very careful to be extra polite :angel: when I share my


DOCTRINE OF DEMONS...

:devil: :devil: :devil:


MOOOOOOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!


I try to be more belligerent and abusive with you in the future…

 

[Clete]

Yes. But let's move to a different but related topic first.

I know that you argue that foreknowledge precludes free will. I still don't agree on that one, and it is related to the free will topic, at least the point that I am trying to get to.

Let's start by looking backward. Monday, you made a free will choice to watch CSI Miami. You told me about it yesterday and I remember it today. Now, at this point, you can't go back and change the choice, but at the time you made it it was free. Does my knowledge of what you did in any way impact your freedom?

The past is closed doc.

That's at least part of what why the past knowable.

Knowledge (or the ability to know) = CLOSED!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

The past is closed doc.

That's at least part of what why the past knowable.

Knowledge (or the ability to know) = CLOSED!

Resting in Him,
Clete

I know that, and in fact said as much, but at the time the action took place, it was open, and I know about it. So, the question is, does my knowledge effect the free choice you made at the time you made it? (Hint: the answer is no)

 

[Balder]

Have you ever had a dream that something was going to happen to someone, and then it did? If you have, or if you can at least imagine it hypothetically, did your dream negatively impact or restrict the "free will" of whatever person you dreamed about?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Have you ever had a dream that something was going to happen to someone, and then it did? If you have, or if you can at least imagine it hypothetically, did your dream negatively impact or restrict the "free will" of whatever person you dreamed about?

Does the word coincidence mean anything to you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I know that, and in fact said as much, but at the time the action took place, it was open, and I know about it. So, the question is, does my knowledge effect the free choice you made at the time you made it? (Hint: the answer is no)

:bang:

 

[docrob57]

:bang:

I must be honest. As I have said before, I agree with the DBC folks on almost everything but this. But the fact is, on this you guys do not put forth anything like a meaningful argument. The reason you don't give straight answers to straight questions on this matter is because it is obvious that if you were to answer meaningfully you could no longer hold to your position.

Making little "beating my head against the wall" smilies and asserting that free will "is what it is" are simply ways of getting around the rather obvious fact that knowledge does not equal control. If present knowledge does not control past events, which it does not, then there is no basis for the conclusion that it would control future events. This being the case, foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will.

It is not incompatible with determinism either, and this is where the problem comes in. The OT argument is simply not a viable argument to rescue free will from Calvinism. Better arguments are to be found in the one that Clete made in his recent one on one which simply broadens the context of scriptural interpretation and makes for a complelling argument.

 

[Clete]

I know that, and in fact said as much, but at the time the action took place, it was open, and I know about it. So, the question is, does my knowledge effect the free choice you made at the time you made it? (Hint: the answer is no)

Of course the answer is no but the point I was making was that it is irrelivent because it is a confusion of category to equate your knowledge of the past with God's supposed knowledge of the future. If that is, in fact, what you are doing and if it isn't then go ahead and make your point. There is no need to ask for answers to perfectly obvious questions.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

Of course the answer is no but the point I was making was that it is irrelivent because it is a confusion of category to equate your knowledge of the past with God's supposed knowledge of the future. If that is, in fact, what you are doing and if it isn't then go ahead and make your point. There is no need to ask for answers to perfectly obvious questions.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I addressed this in the previous post. I guess my hope of arriving at some common understanding of the issue will not be realized. But, in the immortal words of Matthew West, it's not the end of the world.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Clete]

I must be honest. As I have said before, I agree with the DBC folks on almost everything but this. But the fact is, on this you guys do not put forth anything like a meaningful argument. The reason you don't give straight answers to straight questions on this matter is because it is obvious that if you were to answer meaningfully you could no longer hold to your position.

This isn't so. Come on now, lighten up a little. We've been having so much fun on this thread. You have to expect a little light humored ribbing from time to time. If there is a question you really want answered, we'll answer it, I promise.

Making little "beating my head against the wall" smilies and asserting that free will "is what it is" are simply ways of getting around the rather obvious fact that knowledge does not equal control. If present knowledge does not control past events, which it does not, then there is no basis for the conclusion that it would control future events. This being the case, foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will.

It is not incompatible with determinism either, and this is where the problem comes in. The OT argument is simply not a viable argument to rescue free will from Calvinism.

What do you understand the OT argument to be and where do you see it's logic to be flawed?

Better arguments are to be found in the one that Clete made in his recent one on one which simply broadens the context of scriptural interpretation and makes for a complelling argument.

Well thank you for saying so but I think that this issue can be argued from just about any angle you want to argue it from and the idea of a closed future is simply incompatible with the idea that I am able do or do otherwise.
Your argument about the past demonstrates it beautifully. I cannot do other than what I have done. I cannot go back are redo the past. The reason I cannot is because it is closed (among other reasons). It is the fixed and settled nature of the past which makes it knowable in the first place. If something is open (philosophically speaking) that means it is UNKNOWN to some degree. For example, most of the questions in philosophy are "open questions", meaning that there is no answer that has been firmly settled upon, some people think the answer is one thing and others think the answer is something else but know one have proven the answer absolutely (i.e. no one absolutely knows the answer) thus the questions of philosphy are considered "open questions".
Another example is a court case. When the legal matter is resolved or "settled" the case is "closed" and until it is settled it is considered "open".
Likewise if the future is settled by whatever means foreknowledge or otherwise, then it too is closed and I have only the ability to do but not to do otherwise and I am therefore not free.


How am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete