Compatibilism: Freewill or Necessity?

[BD17]

HP: First, David was a Jew and the Jews did not believe in original sin.

Next, that is not what the verse states. Here is what it says. “Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

The plain truth of this text is that David was not speaking directly concerning his personal sin. He was conceived in sin as the result of his mother’s former relationship with an Ammonite. David mother was not the mother of his other brothers, and David had two half-sisters from his mother’s former relationship to the Ammonite that was her former husband. David’s mother was obviously Jesse’s second wife. This is one of the reasons David’s brother so despised him. He was their half brother.

The Jews considered David to be illegitimate as he obviously was in the sight of the Jew laws. David was not a bastard, for if he was he could not have sat on the throne at all, but just the same was considered illegitimate. It was for this reason I fully believe that he father Jesse did not bring him to the prophet to be chosen and anointed as the next king.

What I believe David was stating in this psalm, was reflecting on how sin, even from the facts surrounding his conception, was involved in his life. Obviously David felt these influences did in fact play a part in bringing him to the point of his personal recognizable sinfulness he now felt. There had not been a time in his life, not even in his conception, that sin was not indeed a formidable influence to evil.

What cannot be concluded, is that David was in any way supporting the Augustinian notion of original sin or constitutional depravity. That notion did not even develop until approx. 400 years after Christ’s death, and even then still had no place in Jewish or Christian thought outside of the father of the doctrine of original sin’s thoughts, none other than Augustine.

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.

 

[BD17]

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Come on now HP quit copying and pasting someone elses commentary and think for yourself.

HP: That is a clearly false accusation. There is not one word copied and pasted from any commentary or work of any man other than myself. (That I am aware of. If you have any evidence to the contrtary, please, by all means post it.

I certainly have learned much from the writings of others, but please do not accuse me of something that has absolutely no validity to it at all. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Prove that the Jews did not believe in original sin, the OT is riddled with it.

HP: Riddled? :thumbs:

Can you think of a greater Jewish scholar than Alfred Edersheim? If you can, show us where any of them held to the Jews believing in the Augustinian notion of original sin. I cannot. At any rate, read him for yourself. He clearly states that they did not hold to the doctrine of original sin, neither was there the slightest hint of it in any of their writings. (Those are my words.) If you would like his quotes, read him in his books, “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” and “The Temple.”

Many other writers I have read state basically the same thing. Augustine was noted by historians as the 'father of the doctrine of original sin.' Augustine lived several hundred years AFTER the death of Christ.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ: If an agent acting on her desires without constraint

HP: Glad to see you found the time to post again. I sure enjoy reading your posts on this subject as well as FA’s. I have not heard from FA recently either.

You started out with your quote above. That is a false premise IMO. Desires, as I see them, are indeed necessitated, and I have read nothing so far that would disprove that notion. I have asked for a definition of desires. I have had one response that just quoted from the dictionary every known use of the word, but still no one has defined the word as used in your quote above. Explain to me the definition of the word ‘desires’ as you use it in your quote.


We are trying, at least I thought, to establish how moral guilt could be properly assessed to moral agents, and under what conditions it can be properly assessed, and under what conditions moral guilt cannot be imposed. We are dealing in the realm of morality. A dog can act according to desires, but is he free in any moral sense? No way. The impulses of his sensibilities, or desires, necessitate his actions. The only exception would be where the dog tries to avoid pain, or desires a reward. Even then he is not acting in any sense as a moral agent, nor is he said to be a free moral agent. Sure the dog can exhibit freedom choosing between rewards and punishments, but this is not what constitutes ‘moral freedom’ and the assessment of ‘moral penalties or rewards’ for such intents and subsequent actions.

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.

Have a great day in the Lord!

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

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 .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ : I think you're starting to see the difference between us is a presuppositional one .. I'm cool with that as long as you admit you are doing the same thing: quote]

HP: You cannot be serious. Sure we both have presuppositions, but the problem is they both cannot be right. We are after truth, not a truce with error. Our goal must and remain to utilize every source of truth God gives to man and use those truths to ferret out the presupposition that is not according to Scripture, truth, reason and at odds with God inspired logic. If I did not believe with all my heart that the presuppositions I hold to in relationship to first truths of reason as shown consistent with logical deductions, I would not be on the list sharing those truths. First truths of reason are not just some other opinion held by some individual, but are recognized by all men of reason, and are established upon their own testimony to our conscience as basic and unassailable truth granted to us by God to guide us in our pursuit of moral truth in all areas of theology and philosophy, both mental and moral.

Former quote of 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.

BJ: desires; you know the common sense "I want to do it."

HP: According to the definition you just gave, you do not distinguish between sheer impulses of the sensibilities and intents of the will. Such an approach is bound to land you in the labyrinth of error in as far from common sense as apples are from eggs. Common sense (if that is what you what to call it) informs the conscience that we have all sorts of “I want to do it” impulses that are not in any way moral. Morality involves allowing those influences to take root in our wills and allow them to guide the formation of our intents. It has been said that you cannot keep the birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair. You cannot keep all impulses to selfishness from trying to influence your will, but you can with the help of the Holy Spirit, refuse to yield your will in the direction of temptation they are leading you.

The apostle James pointed this truth out clearly. Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Note that the point of temptation, (which you describe as the “I want to do it impulse” or I would add the ‘boy that would feel good impulse’, or the ‘if only I could have that impulse,’) is not where sin takes place, but rather sin is when I yield my will to those desires, and not before. Many desires come from our sensibilities and again serve as occasions to sin, or influence to sin, or impulses to sin, but those in and of themselves are not sin. It is not ‘silly’ to distinguish between the sensibilities which guide beasts, and serve as influences upon the will of man, with the will itself.

Man is a moral creature, created in the image of God and as such is called upon to judge and choose between influences to sin you call desires, forming intents only in agreement with the influences, impulses, or desires, that gender a response of love towards God and our fellow man.

BJ: Thus, motivations for the desires and actions of moral agents ..surely you came to such a notion apart from God's revelation in Scripture.

HP: Scripture is only one aspect of the revelation of truth to man. Sure it is the only place where the plan of salvation is made clear, or speaks to or origin and our destiny, but just the same, God has revealed truth to man via his conscience, that without which we could not discern the truth, even that found in Scripture.

Wisdom informs us that if we are going to attempt to discover a certain class of truths, that we utilize the best source to establish those truths. In the case of morals, to fail to seek out and examine truths revealed to us by God via conscience to ascertain truths concerning morals via the examination of first truths of reason, might be likened to a man who seeks to discover the truths of optics by starring out in space through the bottom of a couple of coke bottles taped together.


The error we see in the church today in Scriptural interpretation is largely due to the failure to consult these first truth and to apply the knowledge and understanding of the realm of morals, needed desperately to be understood clearly to aide us in our search for truth.

Believe it or not, Scripture is NOT the first place God reveals truth to man. The heathen which do not have the law do the things contained in the law, and as such have became a law unto themselves. God reveals basic truth to our hearts, and that truth needs to be consulted carefully to ascertain the knowledge needed for the examination of deeper truths.

BJ: 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?

HP: Sure punishments and rewards influence our choices. Just the same, one must first understand and comprehend the intrinsic value of a moral command, apart from simply punishments or rewards, if in fact he is to be held morally accountable for his actions.

BJ: My question is why does Scripture appeal to awards and condemnation regarding moral behavior? What's our motivation?

HP: Sure God gives us this motivation to help us form an intent in the proper direction. Just the same, if missing hell or gaining heaven is ones only motivation, apart from love towards God and our fellow man, our goal of either will be sorely disappointed at the judgment of God. There God will judge us not according to the goal we might have sought, but rather according to the intents and thoughts of the heart and if in fact they were motivated by love towards God and our fellowman, or if in fact they were not just impulses sensing a need for fire insurance or a purely selfish interest of gaining a reward.

BJ: 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.

HP: Nor did I ever say that doing something according to rewards or punishments alone necessarily mandate constraint. It may in fact be a freewill choice to follow such selfish interests. What I am trying to say to you is that if one “ONLY” impulses upon the will are those driven by fear of punishment or desire of the sensibilities for a reward, the individual is not a moral agent, and is operating under the same influences that directs animal behavior.

Does Scripture tell us that if our goal is heaven or if we desire to miss eternal hell, that we have thereby fulfilled the law and our motives are proper and to be accepted? Not in a millions years. LOVE towards God and our fellow man is the only motivation that God deems as the appropriate motivation to be accepted by Him. That is only possible as we believe on the atonement He has provided for us, and fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith He has established for sins that are past. One will never fulfill those conditions by trying to buy fire insurance or simply trying to gain a reward. Love towards God and our fellowman are the only motivations that will gender such obedience.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

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 .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brandon, what I do not understand is why you think first truths are based upon logic? Logic to me is just a means by which we test ideas to see if in fact they are consistent with the premise(s) we start from. First truths are not bases upon some premise, but are ingrained upon our minds by God Himself. They are the very foundations of reason and need no logical process to see and fully understand the validity of them.

It indeed can be stated in a sense that first truths are logical, but that is a far cry from saying that first truths are based upon logic, or as you falsely claim, “My theology = the laws of logic.” That is pure poppycock. First truths of reason are intuitive truth, not truths founded by logic. They are universal in scope, and for you to deny the first truth of reason I set forth is beyond reason. I simply stated that in order to do anything blameworthy or praiseworthy, one must have choice. I can only hope that you are not called for jury duty if you cannot see the truth of this first truth. A three year old understands this truth Brandon. “I couldn’t help it!” “ It was not my fault!” Even children understand that if the situation was not a product of their forming an intent to carry out a given action, blame could not be properly placed upon them.

On the other hand, if you know you did ‘D’ work in a class, and the professor made a mistake and penciled in an ;A’ by mistake, would it be fair to praise you for your ‘good’ grade? I think not. Why? It had nothing to do with your work or a choice you had made. In order to do anything blameworthy or praiseworthy, one must have a choice to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances. Deny it as you will, but in the end it will be you found :BangHead:

May God bless you in your studies and your future. Thank you for the discussion we did have. Come back again soon!

Pr 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding