Blogger Says Free Will Is a Myth

One of the most oft repeated logical fallacies of the Calvinists runs like this.

We alway choose what we most desire.

Because of the Fall, we most desire sin.

Therefore we freely choose to sin every time.

But if what we most desire varies by the second, we are not constrained by our desire because it is a varible. You desire to stay alive and so you crouch down in combat. You desire to do your share and pop up and fire. You desire to stay alive and you return to your crouching position as soon as possible. What we choose to do varies with what we bring to mind and our memory has our understanding and fear of God. So we sin, and then we seek God, and then we sin again.

Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, not life only for some and death only for the rest as Calvinism rewrites the verse. Our will in not in the sort of bondage to sin that makes us unable to seek God. That view is an unbiblical fiction. See Romans chapter 7.

 

You are always constrained by whatever desire you most have at any given moment.

The fact that desires are unstable proves nothing. In fact pointing it out seems pointless. Don't we all know that?

What about that changes the fact that every man does what he most wants to do at any given moment?

 

I believe so. Paul wrote;
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
If there is no freewill used when we sin then why do we have a choice to escape the temptation rather than go ahead and sin?
Every time I have sinned, (since I was saved), I knew I was about to sin. I knew that I should not do it, and I also knew I didn't have to. I could avoid it if I chose to. I have always seen that escape provided by God. Mostly it's turn around and go the other way. Sin is not predestined to happen which is why we even have the Law.

After God had created the heavens and Earth and all that lives on it including man He said;
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I believe Adam was perfect, ( very good), until he sinned. Adam chose to sin as did Eve. They both Knew better. Adam had the freewill to sin and I believe God knew he would. The only other alternative is that God predetermined Adam to sin. If this were true it would make God a co-conspirator of the breaking of His own Commandment. Can God be against His own self. I don't believe so.

Man sinned and in so doing separated himself from God. This means that now man needs to be reconciled with God and yes Jesus Christ does exactly that.

It''s actually all those who believe in Him and submit to the righteousness of God to send His Son to die for the whole world. Who rose again after three days and now sit's with the Father in heaven.
Obedience doesn't save anyone. Only Jesus Christ can save and it's always through Grace, Faith, and Trust. Salvation is the work of the Lord although we are required to submit.
Romans 10:1-4. We are saved by God's Grace, by His faith which He gives to all men and by God's righteousness.

God Convinces men through His Word being preached to them. The Holy Spirit convicts men of their sins once they are convinced and the conviction takes men to their knees in submission. No work at all on the part of man. All man does is give up His fight with God. This is a choice on man's part to simply stop His fighting with God. To stop is not a work because it's ceasing to continue the fight in his own rebellion. In effect it's merely doing nothing. We do not choose God, He has chosen us already.

 

But we don't always perform our greatest desire. If a fellow pulls a gun on me and tells me he will shoot me unless I give him my wallet, I will probably give him my wallet to preserve my life, but that is not truly my greatest desire. My greatest desire would be that a police officer drive up and observe the robbery and arrest this fellow so I can keep my money, and this criminal be arrested. You can say what you want, it is not my greatest desire to be robbed, in fact, it is not a desire whatsoever.

The truth is, I would hand the fellow my wallet AGAINST my will, this is why robbery is a crime.

I would love to hear you defend a robber in court and argue that the victim's greatest desire was to give the robber his wallet. You would get laughed out of the courtroom.

 

Reply to Luke2724

You are making an argument from irrelevance. The fact not in evidence is that we always desire to not seek God. And if we desire opposites within a second, how does that limit our desire? I desire to sin, then I desire to not sin, then I desire to sin and so forth. Each time I am choosing what I desire most at that time, but since this does not bind my will whatsoever, it is irrelevant.

And you are right, everyone should know this.

 

Doesn't free will imply that you, Van, are just as likely to oppose free will as you are to defend it?

 

No, it implies that his will is free. Thus, such questions asking us to determine what makes his will to be more "likely" to do this over that is a game of begging the question, because it presumes a deterministic explanation is required and rejects the very nature of what free will is all about.

 

Than what is free will by your definition if it isn't making choices free of internal or external influences?

 

So the only thing that separates our moral choices from that of animal instinct is that God has chosen to hold us accountable for what our inborn nature casually determines for us to do? Is that correct?

Just like the Lion that will always instinctively choose meat over veggies. The Lion is doing what he most wants, thus the Lion has a "free-will" by that standard. The only reason the Lion doesn't burn in Hell for his choices though is because for some reason God has chosen to make us responsible for our instinctive choices. IOW, it would be better to be born an animal in this world than an non-elect person, right?

 

"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

 

Does this mean that the agent is just as likely to decide A as he is to decide B?

 

Again, I know you don't see it, but this is question begging. It assumes that a deterministic explaination is required. Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way: "the choice between available options is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects..."

 

remember though that none of us really have in truest sense of the term "free will"

have a limited will, in that we can choose to do things, but in the Ultimate sense, ONLY God has really what can be considered true free will, as our will can be overriden by him, but no one can say same to Him!

 

This is true, hence one of the reasons I prefer the term moral free agency.

 

Only the athiest (non-determinist variety) holds to that degree of free will. In fact, most "educated" atheists are hard core determininsts.

 

If some chooses to do the thing(s) that is within his "fallen nature", then how is that "free"? Even as a sinner, I knew right from wrong, that if I died in my lost condition(I knew I was lost for years before I was saved by His grace), hell would be my "home". Even though God showed my that I was doing wrong, I chose to do it, knowing the consequences that could follow afterwards. I knew the "right" things to do, but I chose the "wrong". So, even as sinners, none are without excuse....they all have a sense of right from wrong.