Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

Subject: Christian debate Determinism vs. Free Will Author: Markm [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 00:16:30 10/09/03 Thu Christian debate Determinism vs. Free Will Im now studing the topic of Determinism vs. Free Will. Its a very interesting topic to say the least and one of the longest running debates in Christianity. I'm just getting started. The below was posted on another message board. The first post in favior of Determinism and the following is a rebutal and is in favior of Free-will. Enjoy the read its a good one!! --------------------------------------------------- Free will... not in scripture! Paul pointed out that we do that which we hate... this is not freedom of will, but slavery to sin. Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. ---- On the other hand we cannnot redeem ourselves either, but it relies on the grace of God and His calling us... again no evidence of any freedom . Man either follows evil [whether proclaiming himself free in doing so or not] or follows good [whether proclaiming he is free in doing so or not] but is a slave either way to principalities beyond himself... proclaiming one's freedom makes no differenece to the underlying ultimate reality. We are pots of the master potter, children in God's safe nursery, we do the proof of the ultimate unavoidability of God's way of love through DOING our sin and seeing its wrongness for ourselves... and then He redeems what is His ...we suffer a while for sake of proving by DOING that no other way works out, and then would it even be fair for us to be rejected for want of knowledge of the truth ,having been put in that position by our Creator? ... not according to the will behind love or to the bible... God simply "will not cast off forever" Some pots will be redeemed intact [translation], many are bound for destruction of death and to be re-formed in resurrection. Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- REBUTAL Quote: "Now examine CHOICE in light of this ... clearly man experiences situations where he sees himself having a choice... he enumerates the possibilities and weighs them or indeed may rush to decide on an impulse, but by the concept of determinism there is a determinate cause of the outcome of the choice and in principle one could study all the relevant factors that will be of influence in the decision and the outcome becomes predictaable ... one simply follows the determinate process in the man in making the choice.... " This sounds like "fatalism"; the belief that "everything consequents from what has gone before." The extreme of this view is that "It is senseless to witness to people; we are merely flotsam and jetsam in the flow of life, everything we say and do is prescribed by the past; we are incapable of independant choice." What counters this idea, is "SENTIENCE". Self-awareness, in other words. Is there a HEAVEN? Yes. Is there a HELL? Yes. Is God JUST? Yes. What do these three things mean? Justness demands that Hell is achieved ONLY by a man's OWN CHOICES; if he has no option, THEN IT IS NOT JUST. Now, to discuss this in terms of Christianity, there must be structure; some framework to set the boundaries. Else it becomes merely an "opinion-match", each person defining absolutes as he sees them. This framework is Scripture. Founding on the agreement that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that everything in it is true and the morality presented there is absolute, this becomes the "common-ground", the method of arriving at agreement. What does the Bible say about "free will"? Much. In Jesus' conversation to Nicodemus (Jn3), Jesus said: "God loved the world that He sent His only Son, that whosoever believes should not perish but have eternal life." This presents a choice --- incidentally, the same choice as has ALWAYS existed. Consider Deuteronomy 30:15ff: "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; so choose life that you may live, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice and holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days." Given the choice between "LIFE/DEATH", "BLESSING/CURSE", "PROSPERITY/ADVERSITY", "HEAVEN/HELL", why would anyone choose WRONGLY? Jesus continues with Nicodemus: "Men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." Is there any FATALISM, any PREDESTINATION here? It's all about FREE WILL: some receive Jesus and love the Light, but others love the darkness and evil. Jesus says this exact same thing in other passages, like Jn8:43-44 for instance: "Why do you not understand My words? You do not understand because you cannot hear; you are of your father the devil, and you WANT to do his evil desires." It's all about "free will", isn't it? Jn6:40 says "all who believe, will be saved"; free will. Rev2:17 says "let WHOSOEVER WILL take of the water of life freely." O THELOS, whosoever WILL. NO predestination, no fatalism. Quote: I don't see how the will is in any sense free if we see what we would want to do ,but still don't do it or conversely we do something but hate what we have done... where is the freedom in that? We are constrained to follow our nature. The question becomes, how is our nature DETERMINED? According to the Gospel, evil-fallen-man is brought to the point where he CAN receive Christ; and Jesus-in-his-heart changes his nature. Instantly? Permanently? NO! Jesus-in-our-hearts is a CONTINUAL WALK! Excercising our free will, DAILY --- in that we submit and surrender to Him, DAILY. Salvation is RECEIVING CHRIST (Jn1:12, Rom5:17); but Paul says: "As you have RECEIVED Christ, SO WALK IN HIM!" Col2:6 Abiding is persevering is enduring is "KEEPING OURSELVES IN THE LOVE OF CHRIST" (Jude21). If we are "IN Christ, we are new creations; the old has passed away, behold all new things have come" (2Cor5:17); but being IN CHRIST, is our daily walk. Paul says it well in Rom8: "We are under obligation to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; for if we walk after the flesh we will surely die." Sentience, RWC; consciousness, free choice. Fatalism predicts the actions of automatons, insects and plants; but we THINK, and our thoughts direct our steps. Salvation is, succinctly, FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST; we choose to fellowship with Him daily, or not... --------------------------------------------- FEEL FREE TO POST YOUR THOUGHTS OR ANY LINKS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: From Christianity Today Magazine Author: Christopher A. Hall, who teaches theology at Eastern College [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 00:39:56 10/09/03 Thu Hi this is posted by me -- markm ------------------------------------------------------- Theology Home > Christianity Today Magazine > Faith & Thought > Theology Christianity Today, April 23, 2001 Truth at Risk Six leading openness theologians say that many assumptions made about their views are simply wrong. By John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, William Hasker, Richard Rice, and David Basinger | posted 4/23/01 The Christianity Today interview with Royce Gruenler, "God at Risk" (March 5), contained so many errors concerning openness of God theology that we wonder whether he really intended to give an honest and accurate account of our views. We hope he did intend this, but if so, he failed abjectly. It distresses us to see these misconceptions disseminated in the Christian community. Gruenler, for example, says we are "Pelagian." This is false. We, along with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Wesleyans, and Arminians, believe that God grants us the "enabling grace" to come to faith in Christ. Contrary to Gruenler's assertion, we believe no human can initiate salvation. We do affirm that humans have the God-given free will to reject God's grace. But this does not mean that God's power is limited. He remains omnipotent, and he could bring the world to a close at any moment, if he chose to. But God does not always exercise his power. When we wrestle with our children, we don't lose power, we simply restrain the full exercise of our power. The issue is not divine power but the type of beings God created and the sort of covenant God has made with us. Gruenler claims we have only an "aesthetic" view of the Atonement. This may be true of process thought, but it does not come close to accurately depicting what any evangelical openness theologian believes. We agree with Gruenler that Jesus' death and resurrection are the divine means whereby God reconciled all things to himself. Apart from Jesus' work on our behalf there would be no redemption. On the problem of evil, we acknowledge that God is responsible for creating a world where evil is possible. Gruenler correctly says we believe that God takes risks and that God has been disappointed by our sin. But in claiming that we bypass the "biblical" definition of human freedom (by which he means the Calvinistic definition), he identifies the biblical view with theological determinism. We, along with the vast majority of Christians, reject this deterministic theology. In our view, God takes the risk that we will not do everything God wants us to do. Hence, some of God's desires may go unfulfilled—which is what Scripture says at many points—but this certainly does not put God himself at risk, as Gruenler suggests. Gruenler says, falsely, that we deny there can be biblical prophecy. Each of us affirms prophecy, and we believe the open view is the best explanation for all the types of prophecies found in Scripture. We believe that some of the future is definite and some is indefinite. God does not determine everything about the future, but he does determine whatever he chooses to, since he is the sovereign Lord of history! In criticizing our view of God and time, Gruenler assumes that God has to be timeless in order to be omnipresent and omniscient. The issue is whether God experiences sequence in thoughts and emotions. We believe the Bible teaches that God has emotions (e.g., grief, Gen. 6:6) and can change his mind (Jon. 4:2), and these are things a timeless being simply cannot do! Finally, Gruenler says our God "is not a very helpful God," but he fails to interact with what we have said about the sort of help the openness God can provide. God has all the wisdom and power necessary to help us—God can heal, guide, teach, and love us. We believe that God is profoundly involved in our lives. Gruenler's criticism presupposes that only a God who controls every detail—including our own decisions—can help us. We who embrace a partly open view of the future reject this assumption—but so do all non-Calvinist Christians. Many readers will find abrasive this cavalier dismissal of the entire Arminian tradition. John Sanders teaches religion and philosophy at Huntington (Ind.) College and is author of The God Who Risks (InterVarsity). Clark Pinnock teaches theology at McMaster Divinity College (Ontario, Canada) and is editor of The Openness of God (InterVarsity). Greg Boyd teaches theology at Bethel College and Seminary (Minneapolis) and is author of God of the Possible (Baker). William Hasker teaches philosophy at Huntington College and is author of God, Time, and Knowledge (Cornell). Richard Rice teaches theology at La Sierra University (Riverside, Calif.) and is author of God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will (Bethany). David Basinger teaches philosophy at Roberts Wesleyan College (Rochester, N.Y.) and is coauthor of Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (InterVarsity). Christopher A. Hall, who teaches theology at Eastern College (St. Davids, Pa.), and John Sanders will engage in an e-mail debate about openness theology in the May 21 issue of CT. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Christian debate Determinism vs. Free Will Author: steve [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:40:49 04/09/04 Fri mark -- check out study posted to other ucfm board, "Ordained of God?". have the full thing available as a pdf if you want me to email it to you. steve [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Christian debate Determinism vs. Free Will Author: steve [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:18:49 09/30/09 Wed here? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Christian debate Determinism vs. Free Will Author: steve [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:31:44 09/30/09 Wed here? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Threading function..... Author: steve [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:42:40 04/09/04 Fri ....apparently works with old messages, but not with anything newly posted. strange anomaly. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Christian debate Determinism vs. Free Will Author: Rev. Jeffrey S. Burns [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:27:02 11/21/06 Tue Just to note that Christian theology does not teach "determinism" but "predestination". The concepts are different in a number of respects. For one thing, predestination is the work of a benign, omniscient, omnipotent, and purposeful God, where as the concept of 'determinism' implies that 'nature' unreasoning forces, or evolutionary or psychological factors shape or determine what we do, but do so impersonally and without any particular purpose [ Post a Reply to This Message ]