Do Humans Really Have Free Will?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason shares the definition of free will and how it relates to theology.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CONNECT -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time - (855) 243-9975. If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: www.str.org/br....
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: str.org/donate
At 01:46.. And at 05:55
1. How is Consciousness independent of the Natural World?
2. How is your wants and desires, which to some degree are determine by your nature; independent of the Natural World?
3. How is all this Not Determinism?
There is no such thing as "the Natural World". That is an unproven postulate. There is nothing natural about doubt. Natural is faith.
@@Armando7654
Really? And what do you call everything around and the four major interactions colloquially? What is the common name for all this?
The natural world influences. Assigning levels of priority, evaluating them, and yielding to the sum of those influences involves choices.
@@ricksonora6656
A natural world influence is something like your parents, who you can not and did not choose
@@XDRONIN That’s obvious, so I assume you have a reason for pointing it out…?
If I give you the choice of doing what I tell you or being tortured/killed, do you have free will?
Yes. The second choice is what most of the apostles chose. Next question?
It may be that our decisions are based on what is more pleasant to us in regards to whether we're following the flesh or the spirit. We're born in the flesh so we follow after fleshly desire, once reborn in the spirit we follow after spiritual desire (sometimes choosing to revert back to the flesh)
And........he never answers the question.
😂
We have both, free will and total determinism......
As I see it there are just two meaningful categories of "freewill" -
Man's and God's. Guess who's prevails.
God choses who shall come unto Christ, the elect's choices are set in serving Christ and spreading the Gospel, from there all man's choices are inconsequential.
Yes, we all have free will. It is not complicated. Sin, forgiveness, God, etc would be worthless wo it. Come on guys, it is not that complicated.
Yes! Greg Koukl has the free agency view/Jonathan Edwards/Reformed view of the will! (-:
In what sense is a humans will 'free' in any sense from contingency at an exponential and every changing level? (Contingencies all within the purview of God) I can't imagine any aspect of my will that is 'free' in that sense, and not effected constantly by those contingencies. (But I'd affirm 'free' in the only way that makes sense to a creature: I make decisions, they are mine, and I am culpable.)
We have human will not freewill . Left to ourself our will would be pure evil . Gods grace is the only thing that keeps humanity from destroying it's self. God is 100% sovereign he determines the beginning to the end .
I have an issue with this, for a couple of reasons, but one big one. In order to believe this, you believe God has caused you and everyone else to sin. That is a bigggg no no, and very unbiblical.
Kevin Kennedy I can tell by your comment that your understanding of sovereignty Gods sovereignty is limited. Human sin because we are sinful in the result of Adams fall . We sin totally on our own . God directs all thing but we do all the sinning. God is not guilty of our sin we are . Just as Jesus was crucified for the sins of the elect it was ordained by God to happen . Yet man is guilty of that sin for carrying it out . Act 3 speaks for that sovereignty . God is 100% sovereign in salvation also He saves whom He wills to save . It is all Him we do nothing it salvation. John 17 Ephesians 1 and 2 Romans 8,9,10,11 all tell of His sovereignty. Man is NOTHING
My understanding is not limited, as I have studied both Calvinism and Arminianism thoroughly for the past few years. I can say, however, that I do not agree with either 100%. I was making a general statement, in that, in order for God to be 100% in control of everything (if he predestined everything), a few things need to be true. God would have had to "totally deprived us" himself. Meaning that instead of allowing evil, he actually is the reason for evil- completely unbiblical. Also, Jesus died for all. In order to believe he died for a select bunch, you have to grossly skew what the bible says. John 3:16. We can debate this, but neither of us will hear anything that we haven't before. I don't believe this is Salvation issue, so let's agree to disagree.
We are totally deprived . I know myself . If you were totally honest with yourself you would agree Ossian 45:7. Amos 3:6 . Scripture teaches that we are dead in trespasses and sin .( spiritually ) dead . Something dead can not choose anything because if is dead . That is why God has the raise you up to life . Ephesians 2:1
@@kevink9391 God doesn’t predestined everything. Only the most extreme fringe super hyper Calvinists believe that.
God decreed a plan that includes things that happen, left to themselves, and things He does to intervene.
If Yahweh is both omniscient and omnipotent, we have no free will. Our universe is playing out just like a movie that you watch on tv. And Yahweh could have created any movie (universe) he wanted from an infinite number of universes and timelines. Everything that happens is because he chose that it would happen. Christopher Hitchens died an atheist because it was Yahweh's will that Hitchens would die an atheist. Hitchens may have thought that he had the freedom to choose, but it was Yahweh who made the choice for him, and Hitchens was just acting out the timeline that Yahweh chose for him.
I think the guy is retarded as no one could be this stupid.
If Yahweh in His omnipotence chose to allow Hitchens to choose or reject Him. Then even though He knew the choice Hitchens would make He didn't determine it ahead of time so Hitchens was free to choose. Forknowledge is not determinism. God can allow the children He created in His image to have a real choice that effects their eternity without losing His sovereignty.
If you see a car heading toward collision with a tree, and realize, “Oh, no! That car is going to hit that tree!” are you causing the collision?
Are you sure that knowing the future causes it?
Take it back to the garden, Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. This is why Adam sinned, because he knew it was contrary to God's will which is God's instruction.
Adam didn't have a fallen nature at the time of his sin, the fallen nature came after.
Unless God is responsible for all sin we have freewill, not to mention, no free will doctrine is dangerous because it takes away from the self accountability for sin leading to the diminishing of the cross.
I believe when we choose our path we can be used respectively.
I believe it's all assessed by the heart.
In regard to the comment you made on not being able to not sin, doesn't the bible tell us otherwise? 1 Corinthians 10:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
That a way of escape exists does not mean that it will be chosen.
I like the video, but it should be called, "What is Free Will?" since you don't answer the question as to whether or not we have it.
right and wrong is not objective so cannot exist, right and wrong is subjective and based on cultural and environmental factors, no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong' we only aim towards doing an action if it will bring us pleasure in some way or another
Your claim has a hidden assumption that God, if He even exists, has no authority to define right and wrong. What proof do you have for your religious claim?
So, in your view, it is not wrong to torture babies for fun and profit; it’s only a matter of personal taste and cultural mores.
So, by your standard, when the NAZI culture said it was good to perform surgical experiments on non-anesthetized Jews, the West had no authority to try them for war crimes.
Ooookaaaay. I know not to let you babysit my children.
You’re wrong about that 😂
@@amyhenningsgard8618 You’re right about that. 🙃
That's also an incomplete definition of libertarian free will. One doesn't need the ability to do A or not A. A person simply needs to be able to choose A for himself without any outside causal reason for doing so.
thats odd, there are always causal reasons, be them conscience or not, such as our emotional state, pain level and philosophy about life.
So, what you’re saying is, you want to make a longer video with more details, aimed at philosophy majors instead of a mass audience. Well, you’ve got the free will to do so.
@@ahamichiana He said OUTSIDE causal reasons.
I exercise my free will to choose to rob a bank. But the law states that I would go to jail because of this. So I choose not to. In this case, my free has been suppressed. Do I still have free will?
I don't think that your free will has been suppressed. You are still completely able to rob a bank, but with consequences. Say robbing the bank is not against the law- it still would be considered a sin. Everything has consequences, even deciding what you eat for breakfast.
People frequently choose to rob banks. Apparently, their free will isn’t suppressed.
Just say anything Koukl
So if you choose to sin, and follow through, why did you? Could you have refrained from sinning? That is, with the Power of the Blood of Christ? You make it sound like we can never refrain from sinning against God. Who's power is more stronger in us, Jesus or Satan?
That was my thought, too. 1 Corinthians 10:13New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
The question needs to be divided into two cases: the natural man, and the saved man.
(Is it still ok to say “man” on RUclips?)
Again. Read William lane Craig's work on free will. The question IS NOT can we avoid sin all together. But can we recognize we are slaves to sin, and in that fallen state still freely choose to trust in Jesus. If you deny we can do that, then God prefers a majority of people to go to hell while an arbitrary lucky few go to heaven. god doesn't really prefer that all sinners repent (as the Bible says) because it's God's choice. How can the Calvinist possibly think this accurately represents the God of the Bible? Not to mention the free will defense of the problem of evil is pretty useless.
Where in the Bible are you referring when you say, God prefers that all sinners repent? As for the problem of evil, I think that Romans 9 attempts to address this some; "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?"
James Losey 2 Peter 3:9
+Michael Gulley context , context ,context . He is patients with YOU , not wishing any should perish , but all come to repentance . God is speaking of believers like YOU . Read verse 7 there are two different groups of people. Verse 8 the words beloved or friends is used depending on the translations used . Believers are the context
I also suggest reading William lane Craig's work on how many angels can dance on a head of a pin.
@Paul.E Tedder
Why is God being patient towards the elect, and concerned about their perishing when they are not in any danger of perishing? Either this teaches unlimited atonement or it teaches condtional security, there's no way around it.
Koukl basically took himself down with the first definition of "free will". Why?
1. If determinism is true, then science works
2. Science works.
3. Therefore determinism is true (there is no free will)
Now, I'm not saying that this is some "ultimate proof" of anything. But Koukl, did this video to convince you of something. And he "wants you" to be believe another thing. And he makes it seem like there's a "choice" you can make here. And he says, there might be a fourth option, but that he's not intelligent enough to create that fourth option.
Well...he's not.
Also, the argument he gives against that first argument is that he doesn't like it. Basically. Thus making an "argument from incredulity" which is itself a logical fallacy.
Completely useless, theologically speaking.
God enables us to love Him:
_"You did not choose Me, but I chose you..."_ (John 15:16)
_"Moreover the Lord God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God..."_ (Deut. 30:6)
_"I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord..."_ (Jer. 24:7)
_"fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith..."_ (Heb. 12:2)
_"And those He predestined He also called, those He called He also justified, those He justified He also glorified."_ (Rom. 8:20)
_"For I am confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will continue to perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus."_ (Philippians 1:6)
_"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."_ (Ezek. 36:26)
And just as God is sovereign over salvation, He is also sovereign over damnation:
_"then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,"_ (2 Pet. 2:9)
_"But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."_ (2 Pet. 3:7)
_"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."_ (John 17:12)
Yes it's very human to question God's impartiality, but as His creations, we must be humble enough to see that God, as creator, absolutely has the right to do as He pleases (and it's safe to say that someone who's omniscient would know better than us, right?):
_"Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. One of you will say to me, 'Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'_
_Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? What if, God. intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? And He did so to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory,"_ (Rom. 9:18-23)
_"Will you really annul My judgment? Will you really condemn Me to justify yourself?"_ (Job 40:8)
God's intention was to save as many people as possible:
_"As a result of the anguish of His soul,_
_He will see it and be satisfied;_
_By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the _*_many,_*
_As He will bear their iniquities."_ (Isaiah 53:11)
_"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for _*_many."_* (Mark 10:45)
If He really willed to save every single person, He wouldn't have allowed salvation to be a narrow road that the majority that He knew would not take, right? God's standard of justice supersedes His willingness to spare the unrepentant from damnation.
He even misses a lot of the complexity of 'determinsm' as a naturalistic idea.
- The idea that there is no 'exaclty the same way' to repeat things, or even define things for that matter
- That this is in no way relevant to the question of predictability