Compatibilism: Freewill or Necessity?

That ENTIRE Psalm is speaking of HIS sin here would you like to read it


Have mercy on me,[a] O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin!


3For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.



7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
9Hide your face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
12Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit.



13Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will return to you.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God,
O God of my salvation,
and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness.
15O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.



18Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;
19then will you delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

David is talking about himself not his mother, the term brought forth in iniquity mean he was sinful from birth even his conception was sinful, this WHOLE Psalm is David telling God to save him because EVERYTHING about him is sinful His conception, his birth, his life EVERYTHING.

Come on now HP quit copying and pasting someone elses commentary and think for yourself.

 

Prove that the Jews did not believe in original sin, the OT is riddled with it.

 

Wow, I take a break for a few days and there's three pages on this. Well that's definitely healthy. I'll quibble with your notion of necessity because it seems you paint all compatibilists with this logical fatalism broadbrush. You can indeed use this scarecrow, but it does nothing to encourage a fair discussion. For instance, take this quote from your OP:

HP: I have offered a principle I believe is applicable to any and all discussion involving freedom and necessity. If there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, the matter is a matter of necessity. If there are two or more possible consequents for a given antecedent, the matter is said to involve choice or freedom. I see no alternative to these two principles.


If an agent acting on her desires without constraint helps produce the one possible consequent, then that is still a free action. You can say that this is "necessity" at work but what makes it "necessity" in your mind is what makes the situation have one possible consequent, and that my friend is not lack of freedom of choice on the creature's part, but rather God's decrees which are free (given that He decrees things according to His nature)-not logically necessitated. You could say God cannot do this but from what you've posted earlier that would not reflect humility before God's infinite powers which is something that I think you honestly want to keep.

This notion of logical necessity in compatibilism is false unless you want to play word games and tell your opponent what his own beliefs are. (Not an uncommon occurrence on this board, and your's truly has been guilty of this before )

This is the same issue in every thread you've started lately on this topic: what is required for freedom? Compatibilists say acting on one's desires without constraint. Libertarians say what compatibilists say and then add one more qualification: the agent could have done otherwise.

You can try to say your opponent believes in necessity, but such a charge doesn't address this person's position on his own terms, namely that your opponent believes in the God who freely created the world and decrees its events, even free decisions. He could have created a different world with different decrees. He could have not created a world at all. All of these beliefs counter logical fatalism and its system of necessity.

back to work and have fun,


BJ

 

I think you're starting to see the difference between us is a presuppositional one and we won't convince the other that our presupposition is correct. I'm cool with that as long as you admit you are doing the same thing: starting with your presupposition which I disagree with. No more attempts to equate your view with logic itself please .

HP: In morals, one must be free to choose between two or more possible consequents under the very same conditions without ‘the desire’ for a reward or the fear of punishment entering into the equation or seen as the only possible deterrents to the formation of an action. If fear of punishment or rewards are the only motivating influences that deter an individual from a particular intent and subsequent action, such an individual is not acting in the capacity of a moral agent by any means, any more than an animal is, desiring the same ends.


I'm not sure if I care to give a detailed, philosophical, definition of what everyone knows as desires; you know the common sense "I want to do it." This quote of yours above is silly. You once again assume your own presuppositions and then use them to make a case for your argument in support of your presuppositions. Why the linking between us and animals again (this showed up earlier by someone else not you); I'm not as persuaded by conclusions that psychology has given for human behavior based on experiments with animals.

There may indeed be some similarities, but I believe that animals have no moral component because they are not made in God's image. Thus, motivations for the desires and actions of moral agents are categorically different than animals who have no moral capacity. That notwithstanding, surely you came to such a notion apart from God's revelation in Scripture.

Do you really believe that Peter's appeal to the believer's inheritance "stored up in heaven" as motivation to live a godly life now in spite of trials was an appeal for believers to be merely as "moral" as an animal wanting a treat? Do you really believe that Christ's warning to fear He who can kill the body and the soul was an appeal for people to be as moral as an animal fearing a stick? Your view of morality is clouded by your libertarian presuppositions. You can say the same for me and compatibilism, but don't fool yourself into once again equating your views on these things with logic itself.

My question is why does Scripture appeal to awards and condemnation regarding moral behavior? What's our motivation? You could answer that the motivation is to glorify God which I agree is part of it and perhaps the foundational part. However, it is obviously not the only part or there would be no passages that refer to rewards or punishments as motivations for our moral behavior on earth.

I suppose I could also answer your post and against my reading of Scripture and intuitions and actually agree with your notions above and say that those qualify as "constraints" and are not free. However, doing something based on rewards or punishments does not alone classify as a constraint in my opinion, and such a notion in my opinion seems to conclude that Scripture repeatedly distorts motivations for godly living.


Regards,
BJ

The other issue that you're getting at with desires goes more into other loci of theology regarding incorruptible, corruptible, and corrupt and how those three states of humanity flesh out in creation, fall, redemption, consummation. That's a whole other ball of wax and I know one 15,000 post member who will readily share with you his views on all of those things .

 

Well, it's been interesting. I've never seen someone try to equate their theological bends with the laws of logic. Even after you were roundly refuted it doesn't matter your back on your horse again with this My theology = the laws of logic garbage. It is pure garbage, lazy debating, and not a compelling way to draw others to your position: "Agree with me or you deny existence itself!" You've still never fleshed out your views of morality for God (metaphysics, something you don't elaborate on) while having quite the system of morality for His creatures, what is it all based on, where do you ground it? You don't know, but you know I'm wrong. This is lazy. It's one thing to admit that we may never know with our finite minds this side of eternity how all of this might be (my view). It's another to equate your views with logic itself and demand agreement on things that both sides admit are a little beyond their comprehension (your view).

I'm out for real this time. You can try to prove your view of logic to others here. Good luck!:BangHead:

The error I see in your threads is this fanciful notion of "first truths" and how they are equal to your presuppositions and that anyone who disagrees with you disagrees with logic. Perhaps people in the church that ignore your first truths are simply ignoring your theological presuppositions; have you ever pondered that? I bet they still believe in the laws of identity and non-contradiction--actual first truths. What truths cannot be established if compatibilism holds? Any, save libertarian freedom's truth? I've wrote this before and it fell on deaf ears.

:wavey:

PS-Yes it is still silly to link animal behavior and human behavior. On what basis do humans act on their desires in distinction to animals, I bet the difference is in the fact that they are categorically different creatures. I don't know why your "first truths" didn't guide you to that conclusion .