The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Will: Does it Exist?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#21

I could have chosen yesterday not to eat it, but I cannot, having eaten and digested it, choose not to be affected by the calories. If I bring my cheesecake home from the restaurant with the intent to eat it before bed, even one of my dogs could thwart my free will by being unusually naughty while my back is turned. :wink: (However the fear of ME nearly always prevents that sort of mishap. :laughing: )

Honestly, Paidion, we do not disagree on this. You maybe think my examples have nothing to do with freedom of will, but that’s just the way we’re choosing, as individuals, to think about this. Father is making us freer day by day by the work of Christ. How can the Son set us free if we have never been slaves to anyone or anything? He is SETTING us free, and in that sense you could use an already/not yet argument – but there it is; the “not yet.” Which says to me that we are not natively endowed with libertarian free will. We may achieve that at some point, or perhaps we’ll go on growing in it through the ages of the ages; I suspect the latter.

#22

That’s a puzzle that’s fun to think about …

My current thinking is that the choice not to eat it was available to me, so, yes, I could have chosen not to eat. But if I were to live that day over repeatedly, it seems to me that I would always choose the same, not because nothing else is possible, but because my choice was based on my desire at that time on that day. If on another day I had eaten cheesecake for breakfast, I probably would choose to skip the cheesecake at lunch – but maybe not – I really like cheesecake. :mrgreen:

Could Jesus have chosen not to give himself as a sacrifice for the world? He could have, but He would not because His desire is to seek and save the lost.

Sonia

#23

That analogy has nothing to do with free will Paidon. That is choice. Free will from a theological stand point is “Free Moral Agency” which states that you have the ability to make choices with no consequences or outside influences. This state just doesn’t exist in the real world.

#24

Thank you Cindy, and Sonia. Your answer tells me that you do believe in libertarian free will. That is the very definition of free will: “Having made a choice, you could have chosen otherwise.”

Watchman1706, that is not an analogy. As I stated above, it is the very definition of libertarian free will or “Free Moral Agency.” I know of no philosopher or any one else who claims that libertarian free will or “Free Moral Agency” means “that you have the ability to make choices with no consequences or outside influences.” Those who argue against free will on that basis are attacking a strawman.

Choice is tantamount to free will. The ability to choose is exactly what determinists and even compatibilists (“soft” determinists) deny. Determinists claim that the ability to choose is an illusion. Compatibilists define “free will” as “the ability to act where there is no external force to cause you to act differently”. Both determinists and compatibilists believe all the choices you have made could not have been otherwise.

#25

I don’t know that I clearly fall into either category, Paidion, and that’s because I’m not really sure how exactly I think it works. I wrote:

Does that fit with the libertarian free will theory?

I kinda think that different theories can apply in different circumstances.

Sonia

#26

Baby Barry is brought up by disgusting parents in a disgusting environment. He is abused and traumatized. He finally kills someone and is sent to jail where he dies. His soul is annihilated.

God hits the re-set button. Precisely the same Barry is reincarnated as a baby. This time he’s brought up by excellent parents in a supportive, nourishing environment. He becomes a famous scientist, saves millions of lives and is awarded a medal. He dies and goes to heaven.

Which of these is the real Barry? The huge difference between them isn’t down to Barry’s free will, but to Barry’s broken will, the damage sustained largely by circumstances beyond his knowledge and his control.

If the multiverse theory is correct, there exists at least one universe where my will is not damaged, and I freely choose to live a sinless life. I justly go to heaven when I die. All the other imperfect versions of me are annihilated at death. I won’t notice all the other versions of me are dead, of course. Because only one version of me will finally make it, that will be the continuous consciousness of myself that remains. (The bloke who thought up multiverses seriously believed his theory guaranteed personal immortality. There’s a fascinating thought experiment called Quantum Suicide that proves it, too!)

Just some thoughts. :slight_smile:

#27

interesting thoughts…
to go down that road a bit, i’d think though that the failed experiments don’t just go away into oblivion…else that’s all a waste of good suffering.
i think maybe there’d be some mechanism to bring all possible iterations of the soul together, so that the transcendant one (which personally i feel would be the most broken one that sought God, as opposed to the one that had everything handed to it on a silver plate and went on to do right as well) would learn from all the experiences he or she had in all worlds…and that would all go into making them a complete person

#28

Yes. Belief in free will does not require any particular psychological state. The fact of free will simply implies that you COULD HAVE done other than you actually did. Proponents of determinism deny this. They believe that all of our actions are CAUSED by some prior actions or events, and thus none of our actions could have been otherwise than they actually were. The deterministic view of course eliminates all personal responsibility and blame. If Jim Schlim murdered his mother… well, he couldn’t have done otherwise.

Determinism or a similar view was propogated in the early centuries of the Christian era. ALL Christians in the main church of that day, strongly opposed it, and taught free will instead.

Allan, we all know that there are strong influences in our lives. However, these influences do not determine our actions.

I know, and I’m sure you know, of some children raised in the best of environments, raised by loving parents, and yet who turned out to be arrogant self-serving narcissists, who enjoy bullying others. We also know some children raised in hell-holes, with parents who couldn’t care less about them, who abused and traumatized them, and yet who still turned out to be loving people who serve others and enjoy life.

If influences were causations, there would be no cases such as this.

#29

Interesting thoughts on some interesting thoughts.

The one who is forgiven much is the one who loves much, not the one who happens to do everything right at every decision point. If God hits the reset button a trillion times until one version of me just happens to choose to do right at every point, am I truly virtuous or just lucky? Would the sinless one in that situation be morally praiseworthy? Would his choices be genuine? Is this authentic free will?

I like the waste of suffering idea too, and the joining together somehow of all the versions of me… One version would be the very devil. One version would be Christ. Multiple personality disorder on a serious scale… Fascinating.

#30

I agree. Given identical Baby Barrys and radically different environments, we won’t necessarily end with radically different adults, but we almost certainly will. How then can Barry be held responsible for his evil, or praised for his good?

This is not to mention the luck of the genetic draw. Barry 1 has good genes. Barry 2 has a tiny mutation that renders him incapable of empathy. Barry 1 goes to heaven. Barry 2 goes to hell. Bad luck Barry 2.

#31

That was an analogy and not a good one. Here is my point. With your idea of free will, you have the ability to choose NOT to sin. Why don’t you? You can’t. Why?

Rom 8:20 For the creature (us) was made subject to vanity (moral depravity) ,** not willingly**, but by reason of **him who hath subjected the same in hope, ** (he made them subject to it)

At the heart of the universalist belief,there must be an understanding that God created evil and placed it into creation for a purpose and we had no say in it. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was placed in the ‘midst’ or ‘centre’ of the garden. We are the garden. Therefore, there can be no true free-will because we were created without ‘free moral agancy’. Yes, i do know what it means.

If any of you want to read a rather long study on the matter…here it is.

remnantbiblestudies.com/intr … ewill.html

#32

Ahh, but I CAN! And so can you. Take any example of sin you please. People differ as to what sin is, but that’s another discussion. Let’s just speak of “sin X” whatever specific sin it may be.

Can you not choose not to commit sin X for 20 seconds, and succeed? Can I not also succeed for 20 seconds?

If you can so succeed for 20 seconds, could you succeed for a minute? Ten minutes? An hour? A day? A week? A year? A life time?

You may say that it becomes increasingly more difficult to abstain, the longer the period of time. But if it is POSSIBLE to abstain for any period of time at all through exercise of your free will, it is POSSIBLE to abstain for ANY period of time.

Now I know that Jesus died that we might access His enabling grace, a source of power to abstain from doing wrong, and, on the positive side, a source of zeal for doing right:

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

So because of what Jesus did for us through His death, we become gradually purified. Salvation (or “sanctification” if you prefer to call it that) is a process, and as that process continues, it become increasingly easier to eschew wrongdoing and to work righteousness. Though we can and do accomplish this through the exercise of our free wills, we have limited success. (I have known alcoholics who became completely free of alcoholism through their own choice). But with Christ’s enabling grace, through faith, we are likely to have a much greater degree of success.

#33

Now you are moving into the realm of nonsense now Paidon. No alcoholic says they are free of alcoholism. They always say they are alcoholics. The fact that the deny themselves a drink doesn’t mean the addiction has no power over them. You just wait for the pressure and heat to turn up and we all sin. Which you also seem to want to redefine. I already know about sin, transgressions and iniquities. At the end of the day, you are quite wrong. If Paul had a sin that so easily besets him then you and I do as well.

#34

You are mistaken, Mr. Watchman. What you say is the doctrine of Alcoholics Anonymous, but that doctrine is erroneous. AA claims that alcoholism is a “disease” of which there is no cure. A person can be a “recovering alcoholic” but never a "recovered alcoholic. NOW we’re into the realm of nonsense! Do you know of any other disease in which a person can be in the process of recovering and yet never recover?

Check out Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease by Herbert Fingarette:

amazon.ca/Heavy-Drinking-Myth-Alcoholism-Disease/dp/0520067541

Amazon allows you to look into the book and read parts of it at no cost.

I personally know two men who were once alcoholics and are no longer so. One (now deceased) was an elder in my church. AA says that if an alcoholic ever takes a drink again, he will fall back into alcoholism. This elder took a sip of wine every Sunday for communion, and he never fell back.

Another man I know was delivered from alcoholism by Christ, but he still attended AA meetings. Each member was required to say, “My name is . I am an alcoholic." He did it a few times and then became convicted by God. He knew his statement was a lie. So he determined to testify to the truth. He knew he would be kicked out of the AA meetings, but he did it anyway. One day he attended an AA meeting and said, "My name is Willie D__”. I am not longer an alcholic. Christ delivered me from alcoholism." Sure enough Willie was kicked out. Many years have passed since that date, and Willie still takes the occasional drink. But he has never slipped back into alcoholism.

#35

I just realized. This is all just a theoretical exercise for you. As someone who comes from a family with a history of alcoholism and has lost family members, I can assure you that it is different when you experience it personally. Someone who has not experienced it personally should not blithely comment on as if they have a secret incite that they just don’t have. Now I am not angry, but I am surprised at your attitude.
You examples are just exceptions to the rule and do not represent the experiences of the majority of people and unless you are personally going to help people break free of alchoholism, then don’t knock AA in their attempt to help others. I believe that people can be set free completely, but I also know that God uses our weakness to teach us.
Christians always quote the exceptions when they tell stories. It is disingenuous and misleading and does not represent reality for many.

#36

Paidion said:

Not sure of this logic, at first glance I was inclined to agree but to take an example of a different type; if I can hang from a rope for a period of time and then, as muscles start to tire I can hang on for another 20 seconds, then another 20 secs and so on, we know in the real world I will let go eventually because the will and strength to hang on is overcome by forces inclining me to let go i.e. gravity and tiring muscles.
My will, my free will has been exercised in hanging on but in this case anyway the desire to hang on is still there but the ability is not. My free will is exercised in my initial action and continues to be exercised in my desire but my ability (which isn’t the same as free will) fails - isn’t this what Paul speaks of.
Of course, this is in the physical realm with an element of mental effort, given enough motivation eg the jaws of a snarling dog then I might hang on for an extraordinary amount of time, but not indefinitely. Sin perhaps is more in the realm of the mind but many sins have a very physical element, especially where an addiction is involved. I think that many (all?) sins have an addictive element even some that are not obviously so.

Is then the problem that we’re looking at individual sins rather than viewing them as symptoms of an underlying disease?

In regards to ‘sanctification’ here I think we believe that “…it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.” The question is whether this is perfectly achieved and if so when? I suspect that it isn’t currently because it is limited by our present capacity which only literal recreated minds and bodies will overcome.

Cheers S

#37

Yes, Sturmy, if we are forced to do something we have to do it. Even the soft determinist’s definition of “free will” refers to non-contraint.

When the believer in libertarian free will speaks of “free will” he refers to the ability to choose to do that of which we are capable of doing. If, after having performed action A, we could have chosen NOT to perform A, we have libertarian free will.

I understand your attempt to compare the inability to continue hanging from a rope indefinitely to refraining from sin X indefinitely. However, I don’t think they are parallel. Gravity will eventually cause our muscles to let go. But is there a force which eventually CAUSES us to commit sin X? I don’t think so. There might be strong influence, but not causation.