Martin Luther used that in his argument that until the Gospel reaches us we have no free will, but after it we have perfectly free will. Hearing the Gospel is the tipping point that allows us to remain in chains or rise up knowing they can be (have been) broken.
Which reminds me of an allegory (Pilgrim’s Progress?) where a traveler comes on a gate with a sign that says “Whosoever Will”.
The gospel reaches many people, but many don’t have the ears to hear it, let alone understand and comprehend it. If one can wrap their minds around that then the 1st cracks to personal bondage begin to happen.
Thanl you fr showing that you do not understand my view or criticism.
[
I think you will find that is not a universal understanding
Well my statement was based on Revelation, but…
You seem to have a unique undwrstanding of Romans 7, even if it does agree with Rev 3
hm. I wonder. (V 16b -18)
For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
What do you knowa bout the conceot of slavery?
It is the antipathy of freedom. It basically means that yur actions are controlled by someone or something else.
Romans 6: 6
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slave s to sin
(Romans 7 is a continuation from Romans 6 and the argument continues through Romans 8)
As soon as he claims to be a slave to Christ he is releasng himself from any notion of freedom (not that he had any freedom before either)
Ah well perhaps this concept is a bit beyond you.because it doesn’t include the word “bulldozer”.
ANd you do not see any of this in conflict woth the notion of freedom, or God waiting (as oposed to insisting)?
The whoe point is that your Gospel is a bulldozer. You insist that everyone is sick and then insist on the cure. (IOW everyne must beleive what yu do)
Ah well, maybe this is just a different understnading. oh, I forgot, there is no other understanding than yours, is there.
Go ahead,contradict me, It is what you are good at.
Richard
That’s the opposite of Paul’s position! You seem to have this fascination for the Law so strongly that in many places you fail to see the Gospel.
More than you do, plainly – Roman slaves were found at all levels of society and not infrequently held more power than even Roman citizens. They ran households, managed farms, directed businesses, taught schools, commanded other slaves in various enterprises . . . and they were not given commands as to how to do every little thing, they were given what we might call a commission to accomplish something and how they did it was up to them (the same as the slaves in Jesus’ parables, BTW). At the same time many Roman citizens lived in such poverty that they weren’t in charge of their own lives but were bound to do what their patrons required.
Only if cutting off chains is a bulldozer.
Not me. But it is what I understand Paul sees.
As usual I will disagree. A cage is still a cage no matter how gilded or comfy it might be. Any freedom is an illusion.
You really do not understand concepts.
Except that the chains were invented (percieved) by you and your view of Scrioture
Richard
The only cage here is in your mind: you do not grasp the Gospel and the freedom that slavery to Christ brings. To be a Christian is to be a slave – as Paul puts it, a slave to righteousness.
A child is essentially the slave of the parent. You would have me believe that a homeless orphan always desperate for food is more free than a child in a good home!
No, both the Psalms and the prophets “invented” the concept of chains.
If that is what you take from Scripture? Fair enough. But
I am a Christian and I am slave to no one or thing
I hope you were never a parent
No I would not. As usual you illustration illustrates your belief not mine.
Last time I looked the prophets and Psalms are in Scrioture
So my statement stands.
It would appear that you are as dogmatic about theology and being a christian as you are about science (but not at the same time)
I am not.
My faith is between me and God and none of your business to criticise. (And that includes my view of Scritpure)
I would point you to some words of Christ but you would probably claim misusage so I won’'t. (unless you insist)
Richard
Only if plain words on paper are “invented” by the one reading them.
Just in case you ignored what was said
Anything else?
RIchard
Do we truly have free will?
Yes… even the icompatibilist (i.e. free will incompatible with determinism) sort of free will, because what your biology class doesn’t take into account are discoveries in physics of quantum physics and chaotic dynamics. In biology you are studying the mechanisms by which biological organisms function. And it is nowhere near so mechanistic in the details as you suggest – only on the broad scale when you don’t look too closely.
Here… take one simple example: cancer. Is either having cancer or not having cancer ever a foregone conclusion? No. It is not. It is a big chance factor. Some things increase those chances and others decrease them.
What is the implications for Christianity if we don’t?
This has always been an issue in both science and religion (including Christianity). There are plenty of Christians who don’t believe in free will (or the incompatibilist version of it any way).
Yes and no. Not only are the complexities a bit overwhelming, but a big part of the problem is that the controller in your question is the same as the object of control. How can you be both controller and controlled at the same time? It is practically a contradiction right there. But is this because free will doesn’t exist or because free will isn’t what the naive have often made it out to be. Clearly there is lot going on “under the hood” so to speak, but just because there are unconscious elements to our choices doesn’t mean it isn’t free will.
Another issue here is Plato or Neoplatonsm influence on Christian theology/thinking which has created a non-Biblical belief in a non-physical rational soul as some puppeteer which controls our actions. That isn’t supportable in the context of the findings of modern science and I certainly don’t believe in any such thing.
No it does not. Cooperation is the most effective survival strategy. And it is the behavior of the selfish which is the most likely cause for all the things threatening the end of human civilization and thus vastly decreasing the chances for survival for any human being. And it has always been that way.
It is certainly not just the free will of an individual for such brain functions are clearly the product of evolution. But I would say there is free will in all the operation of life where choices are made even if they are not quite up to the usual human standards of conscious deliberation. But I don’t think that means they are not free choices. None of the choices we make are 100% aware of the consequences. But while it should put a limit on the judgements we make of people for their choices it doesn’t mean there is no free will. Life is and always has been a matter of learning and growing so our choices become more informed.
I would certainly say yes, of course, IF this was just a matter of God judging people. But I don’t. I think is more a matter of natural logical consequences. On the other hand, I suspect this (whether we have done things out of ignorance and/or lack of control) also has a big impact on the effectiveness of God’s intervention in helping us to change and overcome the bad choices we have made.
I think the discussion of free will is interesting but ultimately fruitless because how can we tell the difference between free will and the illusion of it. I don’t think it has any impact on religious beliefs. At least not mine.
The first thing when thinking of free will is that I think of things that most of us naturally do. Most of us like sweets. Most of us like food. It’s just instincts of seeking out energy and carbohydrates. But even then, did we start to seek out sweetness on our own, or is it the fact that fruits was naturally selected often to be propagated through being eaten. Or pain, we usually move away from significant pain.
I think of how choice is limited by the environment. A fish can’t really choose to travel along the dirt on the dry air. It’s mostly confined to the water.
I also think about caterpillars.
Some caterpillars that looked like part of the leaf was less likely to be eaten. Those that looked like leaves that moved the least were less likely to be eaten. Those that looked like the leaf and. Surely moved, but rolled leaves up around it were less likely to be eaten. So do caterpillars choose to curl the bottom of a leaf around them or did they evolve to naturally do it. So likewise, do we make our choices or is it by an internal drive.
Ah the good old “Nature vs Nurture” dilemma.
This has been an ongoing debate since the time of Adam and Eve…do we choose our future or is it biological.
The mere fact you can and are allowed to ask the question should provide you with the answer there…its both.
Freewill is a product of the nature vs nurture dilemma. I dont see it as a dilemma for Christianity…the very basis of the bible highlights that Adam and Eve made a choice.
Except that after that choice was made you and many others claim tha we have to sin which would deny free will
The only way to affirm free will would be to admit that. in theory, we could always make the right choice (and not sin) In practice that might be less possible, but that possibility must exist (Which overturns any doctrine of Original Sin or ruling of the Devil)
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.