An interesting take on free will

[pilgrim3970]

I started to post this in response to the hyper-arminianism thread but instead decided to create a new one for this. It was said there that Mormon's view free will as a gift and this brought to mind the quote I am submitting.

Here is a rather interesting take by Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky

A perfect nature has no need of choice, for it knows naturally what is good...our free choice indicates the imperfection (emphasis mine) of fallen human nature, the loss of divine likeness. Our nature being over-clouded by sin no longer knows its true good, and usually turns to what is 'against nature'; and so the human person is always faced with the necessity of choice; it goes forward gropingly. This hesitation in our ascent towards the good we call 'free will'. - from The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.125

Being different from the typical Arminian view, this statement has always been a little intriguing to me so I thought I'd place it out here for discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Interesting quote. I like that. I don't know how much further they go with that notion but the quote is good as far as it goes.

The problem I have with the Chuck Smith's of the world is this un-Biblical idea that our ability to hate God is somehow something that God very much appreciates in human nature. "God doesn't create Robots..." we're told. "He wants people that choose to love Him...." This notion resonates with the fallen nature that views autonomy as the chief end of man.

What made that video of that song about free will so disgusting was this celebration of the fallen nature. They didn't even know the spirit they were of just so enraptured by the idea that God sees something GOOD about our rebellion. It puts the tenor on an intrinsic quality of man that draws God to man (Oh how I hope they end up loving me) instead of the emphasis that the Scriptures place on God's glory being paramount in all.

 

[ChristianTrader]

A perfect nature has no need of choice, for it knows naturally what is good...our free choice indicates the imperfection (emphasis mine) of fallen human nature, the loss of divine likeness. Our nature being over-clouded by sin no longer knows its true good, and usually turns to what is 'against nature'; and so the human person is always faced with the necessity of choice; it goes forward gropingly. This hesitation in our ascent towards the good we call 'free will'

If one applies this view to God, would not one say that God has no choice in what he does? One would want to say that God has a perfect nature, right? Would not that imply that everything that God does is done by necessity and could not be otherwise?

CT

 

[Larry Hughes]

This is just another form of the argument for man’s fallen autonomy and misses the point of the bondage of the will. The very idea of “man knowing what is good” for himself IS the fall, to know “good and evil” for himself is to make up one’s own “way” or morally relative reality. That’s the way the fallen nature sin acts. It matters very little whether that ‘moral relativism’ justifies what we call gross and overt sins, theft, lust, etc…or trying to be “more pious” than God, which is the true thrust of the satanic – being MORE pious than God. The more pious than God always leads to greater sin, ironically trying to seek after a righteousness, even more ironically doing this even by the precepts of God’s Law. Man is so fallen that EVEN when he seeks this righteousness autonomously thinking he’s following God he ends up eventually in greater sin than ever, that’s how fallen and twisted man is.

The very point Luther made was this: man is not free to choose A or B as a donkey chooses between two piles of hay. As Luther points out information would help this beast. Rather, spiritually, man is purely bound and “ridden” either by God or the devil, there is no middle autonomous neutral ground period. The appearance or assertion of “autonomy” to choose right from wrong is nothing less than the evidence of the riding of Satan upon that man, idea, assertion or thought. Before the fall man really had no choice to make, he was given the way, GIVEN it not given a choice to make. When man exerted his so called choosing power, he was already asserting his fall state, Satan had already saddled and had begun riding.

Thus, there is no autonomy, its either God or the Devil, man is in reality utterly bound. Some might call that “deterministic” or the reverse argument of “libertine”. But those in reality are nothing but philosophical fantasies that simply are pointless dribble. Because fallen man will always attempt to do what HE WANTS TO DO, the devil riding him, and knowing one’s self to be deterministic or libertine will in real life no more affect each and every move one makes than not knowing it. E.g. One will not be any less sinful asserting determinism or libertinism, the fallen state is just that a state of utter bondage. It goes back to the base reality of the man being ridden either by God or the devil with no “middle ground”. There is no in between, like there is no in between between a dead body and a living body, the state is simply the state. A man can be ridden by the devil as a gross sinner in some ways and ridden by the devil as a false saint in other things. The state is simply the state. An autonomy even within a religious context of doing what God says, is still a fallen autonomy. If man were purely ridden by God without this fallenness, say as we will be in glory, then the Law will be pure Love, it will exude from us then that God “rides” us purely. There will be no “choosing”, but that we cannot grasp in our present simultaneous sinner/saint state. That’s a thing beyond our grasp in this life, thus we remain in the tension of pure faith and hope with only glimpses of this reality.

The assertion for autonomy is again the evidence of the fallen state, it is a divorce from the relationship of God.

L