I think the street definition is the best! And I deem it sufficient.
However, if you are looking for a philosophical definition, here is a fairly common one to which I subscribe:
Paidion
I think the street definition is the best! And I deem it sufficient.
Person P has libertarian free will, if, after having performed act A at time T, under conditions C, P could have performed not-A at time T under conditions C.
So lets apply that definition to the raising of a dead man and the healing of a blind man.
Given two dead men, can one choose to not be dead?
Given two blind men, can one choose to not be blind?
Given two alive men, now raised by Christ, can one now choose to be dead?
Given two seeing men, now with eyes opened by Christ, can one now choose to be blind?
Jeremiah 13:23 has been used to answer some of these questions. Of course the one who sees could hold their hands over their eyes to obscure their vision, perhaps because of fear, but they still none-the-less have sight. A blind man however has no sight, no ability to see apart from a miracle. So why oppose the good news of miracles?
Back to our question about the origin of sin, evil, brokenness… Romans 8:20-21 is also used to show that the fallen state of the universe is not from man’s will, but the will of “the one” who subjected it. Paul writes, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”
Paul carefully introduces this subject by saying “the one who subjected it” because he knows that the identity of “the one” would be rejected by most. However, as a faithful apostle he was assigned to reveal the whole counsel of God. So after introducing that there is “one” who subjected creation to futility, Paul then identifies “the one” in his grand conclusion in Romans 11:32.
1 Like
Back to our question about the origin of sin, evil, brokenness… Romans 8:20-21 is also used to show that the fallen state of the universe is not from man’s will, but the will of “the one” who subjected it. Paul writes, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”
It’s clear to me that Adam & Eve were just ordinary people as is clear if you look at Eve’s reaction to gazing at the tree. You could say their choice was inevitable yet on the other hand Paul did say “in hope that the creation itself will be liberated” which is different then proclaiming the creation is destined to be liberated.
The ground was cursed because of man’s sin. Likewise, the ground ( I think it is safe to say the ‘creation’?) will be set free from that curse when mankind is restored.
Jeff, several times in the past I have encountered this lame attempt to discredit free will. No believer in libertarian free claims that one can bring about a condition by merely desiring it. Clearly, when the man on the street states that “free will” means “the ability to choose,” he presupposes that there are options from which to choose.
Thanks all for the good discussion. I appreciated the chance to make my understanding known. Further debate may not serve to persuade from the hard-won opinions we each hold. So I look forward to joining the discussion on a future topic. Blessings and grace to you.
Wise decision imo, Jeff! Thanks for the discussion - it is a tough tough question. 
Dave,
My computer at the office unexpectedly bit the dust a few days ago, after several weeks of frantic (and rather problematic) springtime ‘work’ work at the factory; so my ability to keep up with topics isn’t doing at all well at the moment (and hasn’t been for several weeks). I’m only on now to test the new old computer that some techs migrated my old hard drive to. 
Which is to say, it isn’t that I’m not interested but I’m not in much position to comment at the moment. Very briefly and without detail, I’m (a) on the side of “all” in Rom 11:32 referring to all sinners whether Jew or Gentile or indeed even human (all rational intelligences); and (b) God is only the author of evil in the sense of being authoritatively responsible for providing us with existence and capabilities which we then may and sometimes abuse with our free will. Which is a very large and important authority, but not an authority where God (unlike us when we sin) acts toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness, injustice, between persons.
But God loves sinners even though we sin, and treats us as His children, not as robots to be programmed in various ways, nor as failures which He poofs out of existence. So for that and other (ontological) reasons, God insists on claiming ultimate authority even over sinners and our sins.
And God fairly pays for them, too, as exhibited on the cross.
1 Like
Thanks JP - that particular sentence crystallizes just about everything I have tried to say on this subject (in my fumbling manner)!! You would get wealthy if I had to pay you a royalty for each time I am going to use that sentence in the future…
Dave
Dave,
If there’s no reason or desire behind our decisions then they can’t be made. Moreover, without a desire or inclination our choices have no moral significance and cannot be judged good or evil. Motives count too. As Christians our desires are mixed up. But when we are confirmed in grace in the new creation all sinful desires will be removed from our hearts and we will have completely new natures. We will be like God in that it will be impossible for us to sin. We still freely choose what we want but because all sinful desires are gone we will always choose the right thing. This is the essence of true freedom. It doesn’t make us robots to love from the heart. It’s about having a changed heart and new nature. Not exercising a mythological libertarian freedom. Our choices will be self-determined in that they are determined by something within and not external factors.
Each in turn made alive through the promised Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 15:23.
I’m just gonna hang in there with that sentence from JP. I don’t think that it can be improved on or parsed out of existence. I completely understand the positions involved - I suppose that we all do - and those same positions have been around a couple of thousand years (and way before) . I’m satisfied with the position I’ve taken, as you all seem to be satisfied with yours, and I don’t think there is too much more to be said. for myself, anyway.
I’m glad we can have this kind of discussion.
In the beginning, God created the earth and He provided everything necessary for man’s existence and well-being.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness: Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
To me, this says that when God created man, He gave us the knowledge of who He is, put His word in our hearts and taught us how to live in righteousness. I believe He gave this earth and the power and authority to rule over it, as a gift to mankind. We are self-governing only by the very words of God(His laws, His truth and His ways). They are the law and the judgment in and of themselves. By this I mean that when we obey them, we receive the blessings of life. When we don’t obey them, lawlessness takes over and destruction occurs. Take for example, as Paidion mentioned, the law of gravity. The law exists as it is. If we are told not to jump off a cliff, we either heed this advice or we don’t. When we don’t, we end up suffering the consequences. It’s not God that destroys us, we do this to ourselves. We can jump off a cliff and survive only if we operate in harmony or stay within the boundaries of the law e.g. gliders, parachutes etc.
God still keeps His word even when we fall. He proved this when He came to earth in the form of Jesus. He didn’t wrest authority out of the hands of man. He came in love, to bring His word back to us and show us how to live again. He also lets us know that His Holy Spirit always has been and always will be, here to guide us. Some will rise up and follow, and some won’t. But at the end of each of our lives, we must all face God Himself who is the Ultimate Judge and Authority.
This definition doesn’t adequately describe open theism. No open theist that I have encountered has stated that God “has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions.” God’s knowledge and plans are not conditional on anything outside Himself. Rather the open theist position is that future choices of people CANNOT be known in advance, since free will agents haven’t made those choices yet, and so there is nothing to know. Open theists believe that God is omnicient in that He knows everything which is possible to know. But knowing in advance what free-will agents will choose is not possible. Such future choices are not in the domain of knowledge.
Open Theism undercuts the very hope it wants to create. We have one great hope: that Jesus Christ died to obtain pardon and righteousness for us, and that God will employ His all-conquering, sovereign grace to preserve us for our inheritance. We surrender this hope if we sacrifice His sovereignty.
Agreed.
However, I do have a concern about the range of opinions in this forum. Are we merely satisfied with stating our views or are we lovingly trying to persuade one another to higher ground. And if trying to persuade one another, what is the basis of fact? Hopefully the Scriptures. I would be glad to be persuaded or to persuade another, but hopefully only through thoughtful understanding of the Scriptures. Can I request that Scripture be used to defend future points in the discussion?
Romans 11:36 has always been a favorite of mine regarding God’s utter sovereignty over and purpose for creation. I read Philippians 2 for devotions this morning and Philippians 2:12-13 has always been a favorite to show that God is the prior affecter of my every decision. And so we love and respectfully fear him.
And my apologies, I said I was bowing out of the discussion and so I am and would enjoy hearing your points defended with Scripture.
Well, Paidion, you have to set those folks at Google and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy straight. If you put “Open Theism” in Google, it comes up on page one at the top. Can you please correct these folks for me? Google wouldn’t give them such a high ranking and state this definition on page one at the top, unless they considered them an authoritative source.
And if we look at the About page of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it says this:
I’m sure the folks at Google and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy will appreciate any corrections you can make on their behalf!
– Joss Whedon on Twitter
Jeff, I believe this is a paradox. The authors of the bible also saw these things differently, so there is plenty of Scripture to back up either viewpoint. Is the glass half empty or is it half full?
That is one way of answering the question. A friend once suggested to me that there in absolutely no paradox in God or God’s holy word, however, there are paradoxes in both our ability and willingness to understand.
Again to me it seems wiser to quote Scripture to defend our points. For example Proverbs 30:5 says that the word of God is flawless. I will certainly concede that the various author’s of Scripture had different levels of understanding. However, as far as each writer of Scripture communicated truth, that truth is in perfect accord because the Holy Spirit is the inerrant inspirer of Scripture. So in cases where one thinks Scripture contradicts it is better to hold our tongue or have fun pursuing the understanding that is faithful to the whole.
Several in this post have referenced Scripture to defend the utter sovereignty of God over all, including the existence of evil, Acts:2:23, as well as the spiritual deadness of mankind apart from the supernatural intervention of grace which has made Christians alive, Ephesians 2:1-5. Yet there is continued objection.
Objection is fair enough, but the discussion would go much smoother if Scripture was used in support of our statements whether agreement or objection. Maybe I’m just asking for help because I am not familiar with the Scriptures that could be used to say that God is not sovereign over all or that unregenerate man has the ability to love God.