Free will. What is it?

[Carbon]

I haven't noticed the Spirit causing me to be regenerated, but the doesn't mean He did not do so>

No, I was talking about me. Have you noticed anyone forcing me to eat a certain flavor?

But on a serious note. We know the Spirit regenerated you, scripture teaches such

 

[Carbon]

... and what was the cause of your taste buds to be the way they are? (Hint: eventually we will get to the First Cause) lol

lol.
God created them that way

 

[fastfredy0]

But on a serious note. We know the Spirit regenerated you, scripture teaches such

By the same idea, the Spirit caused you to prefer a certain type of ice cream.

Have you noticed anyone forcing me to eat a certain flavor?

Similarly, I didn't notice the Spirit forcing me to be regenerated. This does not mean it is not so.

 

[Carbon]

Every effect has a cause. It's called the Law of Causality.
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free; rather, it is designed by God

Well that’s not saying anything different than what I said.

 

[Carbon]

By the same idea, the Spirit caused you to prefer a certain type of ice cream.


Similarly, I didn't notice the Spirit forcing me to be regenerated. This does not mean it is not so.

Agreed

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: ... and what was the cause of your taste buds to be the way they are? (Hint: eventually we will get to the First Cause) lol

lol.
God created them that way

B.I.N.G.O.

.... and the root of a discussion on "free will" must define what we are free from. Arminians would say we are free from God to decide. If this item is not addressed the thread will go no where IMO.

P.S. I like Maple Walnut and Butter Pecan myself.

 

[fastfredy0]

Where's @makesends ... he can say the same thing as me with big, fancy words and intricate jargon *giggle*

 

[makesends]

In another thread, @makesends, @ElectedbyHim and myself started to get into a discussion about free will and it was suggested we open another thread. So here is a thread.

I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. IE, ADAM had to chose between following God or following his wife. And chose to follow his wife.

Abraham had to chose between believing God and doing what God asked him to do. Or not believing God and staying where he was at his fathers house.

I look forward to other views and what they think free will means. I believe strongly it is essential to understand a persons view to be able to understand what they are saying. I am sure not everyone sees it as i do. So if I interpret what they say as per my defenition. I will not be able to understand what they are saying, and the discussion will go downhill fast.

This definition is inadequate. It is more like the definition of one's will without a definition of the "free" adjective in front of the word "will".
What is the definition of FREE? FREE from what?
I can offer a person a $1,000,000,000,000 and your definition of "free will" would fit as the person would be able to chose to take and not take the money. Similarly, I can tell a person I will put a knife in their chest, but the decision will be up to them. Again, this would be an example of your definition of a person to exercise "free will".

There are two definitions of "free will" that are commonly used that I know of:
1) Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
2) God or anyone else determines any of your choices.

Without a clearer definition of "free will" I don't see this discussion going well.

You have to give a definition of "free will" and we will have to assume you agree with the author of the thread who defines "free will" as "the ability to choose between two or more options".

@Eternally-Grateful can you give us some logically necessary implications for/from your definition, as far as you have defined it here? They may well be part of, or used to define better, your meaning for free will. Most anyone can agree with "free will is the ability to choose between two or more options", but have completely different meanings, due to what they consider necessary implications. Can you go with @fastfredy0 's #1 (Libertarian free will) definition above? Is that pretty much what you mean? Or can you narrow that down better? We need something more definitive than merely what we might call, simply, "will".

 

[makesends]

Where's @makesends ... he can say the same thing as me with big, fancy words and intricate jargon *giggle*

Hya I is!

 

[makesends]

@Eternally-Grateful can you give us some logically necessary implications for/from your definition, as far as you have defined it here? They may well be part of, or used to define better, your meaning for free will. Most anyone can agree with "free will is the ability to choose between two or more options", but have completely different meanings, due to what they consider necessary implications. Can you go with @fastfredy0 's #1 (Libertarian free will) definition above? Is that pretty much what you mean? Or can you narrow that down better? We need something more definitive than merely what we might call, simply, "will".

@Eleanor @brightfame52 @Arial @whoever else I may have missed: This is a continuation, without copy-pasting the other thread, of the Free-Will divergence from the thread which spun off as comments to @Carbon 's blog post, https://christcentered.community.fo...nterpretation-of-salvation-in-luke-8-12.2503/

Welcome to our well-modulated free-for-all. Well, 'cheap-for all', anyway.

 

[makesends]

Wow! Why does everything go dead as soon as I show up?

Maybe it's self-fulfilling prophecy, name it and claim it, etc. My name is makes ends, because where I first began using that handle, when I'd say something in that site, people had a way of clamming up and not responding. Maybe I should have called myself, makesconversation, or makesconversation with himself. "That's stupid" no it isn't "yes it is" ok, maybe it is, but nobody's talking to me "it's still stupid". Ok, shut up. "---" !!!! AND I MEAN IT!!

 

[makesends]

It is not necessary for you, @Eternally-Grateful , to give an exhaustive set of implications to your use of "free will". If it is admitted by us, that the only definition we can have in common with you is the one that @Carbon admitted to, we will do that —as long as it is understood by both parties that the word 'free' is not well dealt with there. We would prefer that you would say, "libertarian free will", when that is what you are talking about, so we don't get confused. We could drop the term, "free will", and argue "libertarian free will" instead.

As Carbon said, he believes in free will, and can even accept your definition, and there are a few others here that do to, but if that is all we mean by it, this will be a long (or might become a cut-off) thread.

Maybe all contributing members @Eleanor @brightfame52 @Arial @fastfredy0 @DialecticSkeptic @ElectedbyHim and whoever else should give their definitions, or descriptions, at least, of what they mean by it, and whether or not they believe there is such as thing as what they mean by it.

I like to say that I believe in free will, but that all I mean by it is that it is real choice, with real, even eternal, consequences.

 

[Carbon]

Wow! Why does everything go dead as soon as I show up?

You scared everyone off again.

 

[Carbon]

Now, the natural man does not have free will to choose the things of the spirit, they are spiritually discerned and he is not capable. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14. So, his will is not free as far as salvation is concerned.

 

[Carbon]

Now, the natural man does not have free will to choose the things of the spirit, they are spiritually discerned and he is not capable. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14. So, his will is not free as far as salvation is concerned.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: 1 John 5:1a
But once a man is regenerated, he then has the capacity to believe, its now spiritually discerned. Through regeneration, man receives saving faith, and that faith required for salvation is an act of the whole soul, of the understanding, of the heart, and of the will.

 

[makesends]

Every effect has a cause. It's called the Law of Causality.
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free; rather, it is designed by God.

I might amend that to say, "The first cause must be from [IS, or 'must be'] a source that is eternal." First Cause is not itself an effect—it is not caused. God is not caused. God is First Cause. He is not FROM anything.

 

[makesends]

In another thread, @makesends, @ElectedbyHim and myself started to get into a discussion about free will and it was suggested we open another thread. So here is a thread.

I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. IE, ADAM had to chose between following God or following his wife. And chose to follow his wife.

Abraham had to chose between believing God and doing what God asked him to do. Or not believing God and staying where he was at his fathers house.

I look forward to other views and what they think free will means. I believe strongly it is essential to understand a persons view to be able to understand what they are saying. I am sure not everyone sees it as i do. So if I interpret what they say as per my defenition. I will not be able to understand what they are saying, and the discussion will go downhill fast.

As the scope of the subject, free will, is huge, having as usual come from any one of 50 different directions, it should be admitted by all participants that this will be impossible to keep to JUST free will. For example, in another thread, this came to a question about the nature and source of salvific faith, from an OP basically about the dualism assumed by those who believe in free will, that free will cannot be real if God is in control of all things.

As we have been saying in other threads, and particularly in the forum of the Doctrine of God Proper, Who and What God is, is central to all good doctrine, and it is a huge part of the question of free will. (Just how that is so, is where the huge gap appears between the Reformed and the more Arminianistic believers. I could try to describe the Arminian ways, but @Eternally-Grateful could probably better represent the idea that the Calvinist view neglects the love of God.)

Anyhow, when we discuss, let's try to keep off-shoots short enough to circle back to the question of free will.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Maybe all contributing members ... @DialecticSkeptic ... should give their definitions, or at least descriptions of what they mean by [free-will]—and whether or not they believe there is such as thing as what they mean by it.

I am with fastfredy0 on this one: The whole endeavor is for naught if we don't talk about what a "free will" is supposed to be free from.

To state the matter very briefly, I don't believe that humans have a free will—because (a) God is sovereign and (b) unregenerate man is enslaved to sin.

 

[Hazelelponi]

By the same idea, the Spirit caused you to prefer a certain type of ice cream

I don't know, I feel I was definitely held at gunpoint when I bought that Cadbury egg and actually ate and enjoyed it.

Just terrible forced. It was just so we could have this conversation... Lol.

God wants you to be irritated with someone. . lol

 

[Rella]

I am with fastfredy0 on this one: The whole endeavor is for naught if we don't talk about what a "free will" is supposed to be free from.

To state the matter very briefly, I don't believe that humans have a free will—because (a) God is sovereign and (b) unregenerate man is enslaved to sin.

Adam and Eve were made by God and lived in the Garden of Eden.

Let us assume that Adam and Eve did not have free will.

That would mean that when God breathed life into Adam's mouth he was made with a fallen sinful nature, which obviously passed into Eve when she was made.

What we don't know is why.

God told Adam not to eat that fruit or he would die, so a temptation was placed in the garden for some purpose, and we all know the outcome of that.

There are 2 possibilities here. Either God deliberately made Adam with that nature, foreknowing that Adam would be enticed to eat and therefore would be counted as both Calvin and The Westminster Confession of Faith say on the idea of God's predestination that "others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death " Which could well mean that God made them intending them to both die.

The other possibility is they were given free will. Adam was warned not to eat that fruit, and he told Eve not to... but they did, by their own choice... but seemingly never even said they were sorry or beg for forgiveness.

I lean toward the free will end because it seems that for 4000 plus or minus years from Day 1 to Jesus' baptism... that more people would have been lost then saved. And so Jesus was needed to walk earth... at last.