Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Lon]

The masters are God and mammon, not will and not-will. The will is in the words "hate" and "love", and "hold" and "despise" as none of those words have any application outside the context of will.

Luke 16:13 KJV
(13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
Matthew 6:24 NKJV

You can use your will to choose which to serve. What's the problem? :idunno:

Aren't you conceding that the will is in bondage between one of two? How can a will in bondage be a free will?

 

[Lon]

Lon, the concept of not having a will is created against the implied. I don't issue commandments for my hands and my feet because they have no will of their own and they already do my bidding. If I had a machine that had no will it would follow commands perfectly, but I wouldn't pretend that it had its own will and command it and further define penalties if it were to disobey. And when the subjects disobey, that is proof that they had will.

Some people are disabled meaning their appendages do not bend to their will. It isn't will that causes the problem, but dead nerves and the like. Similarly: 1 Corinthians 2:14. A man/woman bound in the flesh, has a bound will. He 'cannot' will other than what he is. Does Romans 7:15-20 sound like a 'free' will? Isn't it necessary to discuss the will apart from free?

Stripe, Rosen, Derf and all who may be reading: This series of posts is all about whether 'free' combined with 'will' is redundant. It seems to me, scripture doesn't support the premise. Big deal? It seems not too big of a disagreement other than a definition point BUT as it affects how we read the scriptures and understand them, it it a topic worth a few moments thought and given counterpoints :e4e: Thanks -Lon

1. Penalties for disobedience are only prescribed for those that have their own will.

Again, imho, an assumption not shown or proved. To me, it simply implies a consequence for any particular behavior, whether you have a choice over that matter or not.

2. Displeasure in disobedience is only applicable when the subject had its own will.

Again, I believe this an assumption unfounded: A child with malaria didn't 'choose' the disease, but the consequence is the same.

3. Pleasure in faith and obedience only makes sense if the subject has free will.

On this, I agree and believe we have a substantiated belief: John 8:36 I'd suggest in addition to this premise, we are yet needing to speak of a Master John 15:5 1 Corinthians 6:20

The entire scripture from start to finish is within the context of God and his creation of men and angels that possess free will.

ONLY...as far as I understand...in context set against something else, and in this case, 'free' in sin, 'free from' God. The will that is without ties to God is 'free' from God but horrible and dying. It is not at all a positive thing and is not a 'gift' from God, imh-scriptural-opinion.

So yes, there are hundreds of examples demonstrating that free will is the reality of God's creation in his own image.

Calvinists do agree in the term 'freewill' but we understand it and define it differently. It has much less of a broader meaning than I believe your definition.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Aren't you conceding that the will is in bondage between one of two? How can a will in bondage be a free will?

Through willingness to serve one or the other, as opposed to being forced to serve one or the other.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Aren't you conceding that the will is in bondage between one of two? How can a will in bondage be a free will?

:AMR:

It's not a false dichotomy. It's reality. It's like you can only choose to either go on living or die. That there are only two choices does not mean there is no choice.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Some people are disabled meaning their appendages do not bend to their will. It isn't will that causes the problem, but dead nerves and the like. Similarly: 1 Corinthians 2:14. A man/woman bound in the flesh, has a bound will. He 'cannot' will other than what he is. Does Romans 7:15-20 sound like a 'free' will? Isn't it necessary to discuss the will apart from free?

No. If it's not free, it's not a will.

Stripe, Rosen, Derf and all who may be reading: This series of posts is all about whether 'free' combined with 'will' is redundant. It seems to me, scripture doesn't support the premise. Big deal? It seems not too big of a disagreement other than a definition point BUT as it affects how we read the scriptures and understand them, it it a topic worth a few moments thought and given counterpoints :e4e: Thanks -Lon

If a man lacks capability because of circumstances such as a disability, his will is not gone. That's like saying you can't fly without help, therefore your will is forfeit.

If Calvinists want to make a distinction between "will" and "freewill," they should define the terms clearly.

For me, a will is the ability to choose and a freewill is the ability to choose.

Also, a libertarian free will is the ability to choose.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

Aren't you conceding that the will is in bondage between one of two? How can a will in bondage be a free will?

I cannot see "will in bondage" in any of the previous text, so no, that wasn't the meaning at all.

Besides, that would render Christ's admonition useless. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees that they could not serve both God and mammon unless they had a choice over which they would (will) serve?

Serve does NOT mean "without will" or "with an enslaved will" (implying no will?) That's not the meaning.

 

[Stripe]

A will in bondage is still a will. It's equivalent to a freewill in bondage and even a libertarian free will in bondage.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

2. Displeasure in disobedience is only applicable when the subject had its own will.

Again, I believe this an assumption unfounded: A child with malaria didn't 'choose' the disease, but the consequence is the same.

How do you associate "displeasure in disobedience" with "a child with malaria?"

No police force in the world would prosecute someone for trespassing if they had been kidnapped and hauled to the property against their will, let alone if the charges were brought by the property owner who was also the kidnapper. Yet this is precisely the type of scenario that would exist if God creates subjects with no possibility of obedience and then prosecutes them for that same impossibility that he built into them. To be kidnapped against your will and then executed for trespass? This is the love of God? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I cannot see "will in bondage" in any of the previous text, so no, that wasn't the meaning at all.

Reformed theology affirms free will. An unfree will is an oxymoron. We just don’t teach a free will in the sense that the will is unbound from human desire and affections, which would also be nonsense.

AMR

 

[Derf]

Reformed theology affirms free will. An unfree will is an oxymoron. We just don’t teach a free will in the sense that the will is unbound from human desire and affections, which would also be nonsense.

AMR

That would be an un-will: a will that is entirely bound to follow insentient "desires" and "affections"--chemical and electrical impulses in our bodies. The whole of Christian life is the bringing of our desires and affections under the dominion of our will in submission to Jesus.

 

[Lon]

:AMR:

It's not a false dichotomy. It's reality. It's like you can only choose to either go on living or die. That there are only two choices does not mean there is no choice.

I cannot see "will in bondage" in any of the previous text, so no, that wasn't the meaning at all.

Besides, that would render Christ's admonition useless. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees that they could not serve both God and mammon unless they had a choice over which they would (will) serve?

Serve does NOT mean "without will" or "with an enslaved will" (implying no will?) That's not the meaning.

:AMR: so choosing between which master you will be 'in bondage to' is 'free?'

Through willingness to serve one or the other, as opposed to being forced to serve one or the other.

If a man is a slave to sin, he/she has no choice. Romans 7:14 If any man be in Christ, he/she is a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17 :think:

 

[Lon]

No. If it's not free, it's not a will.

If a man lacks capability because of circumstances such as a disability, his will is not gone. That's like saying you can't fly without help, therefore your will is forfeit.

:think: Isn't it, regarding flying? :think:

If Calvinists want to make a distinction between "will" and "freewill," they should define the terms clearly.

Yes, I believe my definition is clear: "Free" from God and His desires but 'bound' in sin and death. If saved: The opposite, free from sin and death, bound to Christ and His will. Ephesians 2:10
(AMR's definition precedes mine in thread also)

For me, a will is the ability to choose and a freewill is the ability to choose.

Does a computer program, randomized, then have a free will? (I'm questioning if this is a sufficient, accurate, viable definition)

Also, a libertarian free will is the ability to choose.

We aren't puppets in the sense that such is too simplistic, automatons by the same token, too simplistic. We all have self-awareness BUT self-awareness is not, in fact 'free' will (nor puppet nor automaton nor robot).
John 15:6 contrasted with John 1:45 What was Jesus saying? Was He right? What does it mean regarding freewill? Then John 15:5 1 Corinthians 4:7 James 4:16 1 Philippians 2:13

 

[Lon]

How do you associate "displeasure in disobedience" with "a child with malaria?"

No police force in the world would prosecute someone for trespassing if they had been kidnapped and hauled to the property against their will, let alone if the charges were brought by the property owner who was also the kidnapper. Yet this is precisely the type of scenario that would exist if God creates subjects with no possibility of obedience and then prosecutes them for that same impossibility that he built into them. To be kidnapped against your will and then executed for trespass? This is the love of God? Doesn't sound like it.

Again these are YOUR assumptions. You are missing pertinent logical connectors for this discussion. My analogy was/is that consequences do not REQUIRE choice nor are they a morality conundrum but for one missing those important logic points.

 

[Lon]

That would be an un-will: a will that is entirely bound to follow insentient "desires" and "affections"--chemical and electrical impulses in our bodies. The whole of Christian life is the bringing of our desires and affections under the dominion of our will in submission to Jesus.

I think it needs a more careful read. Choosing between vanilla and chocolate, for me, isn't 'free.' My desire is preprogrammed for vanilla. I'm not at all dissatisfied nor thinking I'm a constrained robot because my desire and that choice are both in sync. A robot, conversely, has no conscious thought so isn't 'fretting' being a robot. Your very conscious objection is, I believe, the difference between humans and this false assumption that I'd be a robot, puppet, or automaton. It doesn't, however, clarify 'free' in regards to the will. If Christ acts in us to will, think and do, then my will is clearly in the hands of another. I'd call that 'free' since whom Christ sets free is, but it isn't what most mean by freewill. Most mean 'an option to do otherwise' according to the definition of Libertarian Freewill. AMR argues such is not the proper definition. :e4e:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That would be an un-will: a will that is entirely bound to follow insentient "desires" and "affections"--chemical and electrical impulses in our bodies. The whole of Christian life is the bringing of our desires and affections under the dominion of our will in submission to Jesus.

Don't know how you took biology away from my previous post.

The will is but the mind choosing.
Inclinations born from our desires and affections drive choices.

The will is that by which the mind chooses. It chooses by its perception the greatest. The will isn’t the cause of action. It is the effect. The will isn’t just a faculty. It is the mind choosing. Every act of the will presupposes a cause. This cause is the “motive.” The strongest motive determines the action of the will.

To even speak of free will is a category confusion. Liberty is the power to do as one pleases. It doesn’t belong under the category of “Will,” but agency. Agents are free, wills are not. There is a chain of causes in each act of the will. The key question: is this first act of the Will free or not? If it is free (in the sense of uncaused), then we have an uncaused Cause (God). If it isn’t free, then the Will is not free.

Even if someone like the anti-Calvinst wants to salvage some aspect of free will, he must come to grips that even that (relatively) free will is still determined by something, so it can’t be truly free. We cannot claim indifference as the necessary condition of free will. If the mind or will is indifferent between two options, then it cannot choose between two options, for it has no reason to choose either. Further, it entails a contradiction; namely, that the mind is both in a state of inclination and a state of equilibrium.

Some will even argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

:AMR: so choosing between which master you will be 'in bondage to' is 'free?'

I have never seen the scripture describe the servants of Christ as being "in bondage." Quite the opposite: they that are servants of Christ are no longer called servants, but friends, and they that have been freed from sin abide in liberty (John 15:15, 2 Cor 3:17).

John 15:13-15 KJV
(13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
(14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
(15) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Galatians 4:7 KJV
(7) Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:22 KJV
(22) For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

Yes, we have the freedom to choose slavery unto death, and we also have the freedom to choose life and liberty. This is the very first lesson that God taught to us through Eden and placed at the very beginning, where we could see it so clearly.

If a man is a slave to sin, he/she has no choice. Romans 7:14 If any man be in Christ, he/she is a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17 :think:

So how do you arrive at "if a man is a slave to sin, he has no choice?" From natural analogy? Nay, for servants are known to be able to flee their masters, we have stories in both testaments Old and New to this effect. From direct scripture? None that I can recall, but I can see these scriptures which speak contrary:

2 Peter 2:19-20 KJV
(19) While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
(20) For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Those that were trapped in the pollution of the world can escape, and those that are escaped can become entangled again

Romans 6:17-18 KJV
(17) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
(18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

And it also says that those who were servants of sin were able to obey from the heart... and thus they became free from sin unto a new Master.

 

[Rosenritter]

Does a computer program, randomized, then have a free will? (I'm questioning if this is a sufficient, accurate, viable definition)

No. A computer program uses a complex algorithm that is merely difficult to predict, but even if you allowed for a theoretical "true" random that would not be a free will... any more than a pair of dice or a feather in the wind.

 

[Rosenritter]

How do you associate "displeasure in disobedience" with "a child with malaria?"

No police force in the world would prosecute someone for trespassing if they had been kidnapped and hauled to the property against their will, let alone if the charges were brought by the property owner who was also the kidnapper. Yet this is precisely the type of scenario that would exist if God creates subjects with no possibility of obedience and then prosecutes them for that same impossibility that he built into them. To be kidnapped against your will and then executed for trespass? This is the love of God? Doesn't sound like it.

Again these are YOUR assumptions. You are missing pertinent logical connectors for this discussion. My analogy was/is that consequences do not REQUIRE choice nor are they a morality conundrum but for one missing those important logic points.

The consequences of what? The child with malaria does not receive malaria because of any specific sin. "Why was this man born blind? Was it his sin or the sin of his parents?" It was posited "displeasure in disobedience" makes no sense employed against things that have no ability to obey. What if a tyrant like Caligula passed a law that "All horses must fly" and then executed horses that failed to follow his law? Would we not rightfully say this was a form of insanity?

And what of the hypothetical scenario where someone is kidnapped against their will and then tried for trespass by the person who had them kidnapped? Someone that is bound and carried is not responsible for where they are carried. This also seems like a fair analogy for consideration.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think it needs a more careful read. Choosing between vanilla and chocolate, for me, isn't 'free.' My desire is preprogrammed for vanilla. I'm not at all dissatisfied nor thinking I'm a constrained robot because my desire and that choice are both in sync.

You've never chosen "cinnamon" ice cream just to prove you could choose?

 

[Rosenritter]

Even if someone like the anti-Calvinst wants to salvage some aspect of free will, he must come to grips that even that (relatively) free will is still determined by something, so it can’t be truly free. We cannot claim indifference as the necessary condition of free will. If the mind or will is indifferent between two options, then it cannot choose between two options, for it has no reason to choose either. Further, it entails a contradiction; namely, that the mind is both in a state of inclination and a state of equilibrium.

In real life a mind that is indifferent between two options will still choose one of the options out of necessity. If necessary, a resolution to follow a "random" roll of a die can protect against psychological out-guessing (ensuring that you will at least have fair odds against a legendary "Paper Rock Scissor" champion.)

Cannot choose between chocolate or vanilla? They'll say "I'll have what he's having." Minds aren't stuck that easily, and sometimes people will purposely choose something different for the purpose of reasserting dominance over psychological or biological inclinations.