Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

How does he do that?

1. He convicts
2. He teaches
3. He draws
4. He helps us to understand.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Who is saying we must continue to believe?

My friend. I do not remember right now, I can go back and look for it. But in discussing the passage. A user (I can not even remember who now) said if we look at this passage. the word believe is continue active. meaning we in effect must continue to believe.

that is what this particular discussion was about

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Please address the post you are responding to. The above is entirely irrelevant to it.

In my view it does.

Understand what?

What we must do to be saved, why we need to be saved. and what God did to help save us (the gospel)

You completely hide what I was saying by answering one half of my sentence and then the second half. Here is the whole sentence and its context.

I am going to do us both a favor and move on.

You said this

It means that we have to be given the ability to understand and believe by God taking us spiritually out of Adam (the natural man who is an enmity with God) and placing us in Christ.

Placing us into Christ is literal the aspect of God baptizing us into Christ, (hence my answer)

I did not take you out of context or try to be deceptive. If you think this. I see no need to continue

 

[makesends]

I can't boast because I became like the tax collector. You can not boast of the fact you accepted a gift. You boast because you earned the gift. or merited the gift.

You can boast if that gift is eternal life and you obtained it by, wisely, choosing it, though most do not choose it. Further, you boast if the gift is eternal life and you would not have obtained it if you had not chosen it. Further, you boast if the gift is eternal life, the choosing of which is an act of utter integrity.

The vacuum tube, and later the transistor, operate somewhat analogously to the rudder on a ship. Such a big vessel's direction is inevitably changed by such a small difference in how the water passes by. The bias of the transistor, not just in digital fact of on/off, but in [more or less linear] proportion, controls a much larger flow of current. The notion of free will would have us believe that an infinite ship is controlled by an infinitely tinier rudder.

But it gets worse. This rudder is not just rusted so badly as to be essentially uncontrollable —it is broken, and separated from the ship!

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

First: I think, it is important to understand a couple of facts that follow logically —that God is omnipotent and is the uncaused causer, (or "logical-first cause", since there was no other before him, and since all things that are not God, were his creation(s).

To then proceed to say that there is something that he did not cause, is to imply that somehow there is another 'first cause', be it a person, mechanical fact, or mere chance. There is no logical basis for claiming that there can be more than one first cause, nor can I abide the claim, since the notion of more than one first cause makes neither of the two (or more) supposedly first causes, first. It is, in my opinion, simply blasphemous. Now I am not accusing you of blasphemy. I'm saying that what is (perhaps unwittingly) logically implied by saying that there is something that God did not cause, is blasphemous.

So let me get this straight.

God is omniscient. And he is the first. so any evil would be cause by him being the first cause?

Second: Nothing can happen by accident. God did not make something come about that he did not intend to come about.

Third: That he caused something does not deny that somebody else did too. It only makes it sure that the other person did too.

I'll stop there, since the other things you claim seem to to me logically descend from those 3 misconceptions.

its called free will, By giving free will. God allowed man the opportunity to go his own way and do what he wanted outside of Gods will.

if God did anything, he gave us the ability to chose. because he loved us.

now if people call that blasphemy, or even a bad thing.. all I can say is wow

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So, ALL you wanted was to stay in bed? You did not prefer to do what was necessary? What made you get up and do it? I'm not asking what you felt like, or how you assess what you felt like doing. I'm asking if you did not, in the end, prefer to do what was necessary. I assert that you did prefer that, because you well knew that if you had not, things would be worse for all concerned. You love, and feel responsible for, your family.

Even God does what he most wants.

I think your trying to see something you want. and not what really happened. if I am being honest here.

I answered.

I am not a morning person. it takes every ounce of energy for me to get out of be. I just want to roll over and go back to sleep (I have even broken an alarm clock because I could not get it to shut off)

that was my will. that was what I wanted to do.

so if I did what I desired. that is what I would have done.

please do not try to read any more into it. There is nothing to add..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

My Approach
I've read about a page or two of the 22. So obviously, I have no idea how the thread has progressed. Instead, I'm just going to address the opening post, as if it were posted a few minutes ago.

Paragraph Two
The opening post is arranged into, roughly, four paragraphs. I'll be making a few observations about your second paragraph. A critical portion of this paragraph is a statement about free will. "free will is the ability to choose between two or more options." Unfortunately, this is a poor definition. The libertarian free will advocate would be ok with this, and the compatibilist view of choice-making would also be ok with this.

Thank you for responding.

It is my view.

My focus is to get off these technical definitions like libertarian free will or others. and just find out what others believe.

The main difference between the two different views, just mentioned, is a causal reason for the choice. For the libertarian free will advocate, there is no causal reason why the choice was thus and not otherwise, since they have to maintain an ability to do either of the options. Thusly, if something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in thier view.

The compatibilist view of choice is obviously different. This view holds that a choice takes place because of causal reasons within the person (as such, the ability to do otherwise is denied. However, there are different views of compatibilism, and some do hold to this view. I do not hold to the ability to do otherwise.) A person considers the various futuer objections of choice (i.e. options), and the person considers (deliberation) the various pros and cons of each future object of choice. Eventually, the mind arrives at one option, which is preferred. The preponderance of consideration goes to one in particular, and thusly, the person chooses as he/she most prefers. As Jonathan Edwards said . . . to choose is to prefer.

Hence, I see a significant conflation the libertarian free will advocate makes. Yes, a person does consider two or more future objects of choice; however, one ought not conflate these options with the equal ability to choose either. This is where the lib definition makes a fatal error. Options are future objects of choice present to the mind. The ability to do otherwise, is the ability to make an undetermined/uncaused choice. Way too often, the two are conflated when they should be separated.

What do you believe free will is? or do you even believe man has the ability to chose freely to a point?

again, I am not concerned with all the isms, or doctrines of others. I feel they paint people into a corner. and prevent real dialogue.

Paragraph Three
Yes, Abraham made a choice, but the kind of choice is important to clarify. All are agreed that Abraham made a choice, so that point is moot.

Paragraph Four
I agree that seeing other people's definitions is crucial. This discussion topic is loaded with mountains of equivocation. People often talk past one another precisely because they have different views of choice-making and what constitutes human freedom. I'm fine with a person being able to do has he/she most prefers. I'm absolutely opposed to any form of libertarian freedom. If you would like to see a small critique I did of libertarian freedom, then you can check out the following link.

H

Thread 'Libertarian Freedom, A Critique'

Oct 2, 2024

This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way...

• His clay
• Replies: 73
• Forum: Arminianism & Calvinism

• 

I actually never heard of libertarian free will until last week (I am sure this is odd to some..lol)

Like I explained. I believe in OSAS. OASAS is considered by many to be a Calvinist term. so when people hear me say I agree, I am deemed a Calvinist. and the person has lost the ability to hear anything i say.

in the same token, I have in other chatroom been deemed an Arminian, because I believe in free will by certain Calvinists.. and again, all forms of communication are stopped.

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond!

 

[makesends]

So let me get this straight.

God is omniscient. And he is the first. so any evil would be cause by him being the first cause?

Why not? After all, the free-willer thinks that God causing anything is forcing it to be.

But what I say is that God causes that there be sin. No he is not the author of it. But if you can show me how there would have been sin without God creating what sinned, I want to hear it.

its called free will, By giving free will. God allowed man the opportunity to go his own way and do what he wanted outside of Gods will.

You have yet to demonstrate from Scripture, nor have you demonstrated from solid reasoning, how anything can happen apart from God establishing it.

It is attempting to stand on both sides of the fence, when at one point the claim is that free will is caused by God, and in the next breath, 'freewill' is represented as 'opportunity to go his own way outside of God's will'. The language is that of mere chance, and not by directed circumstance. And causation by mere chance is simple logical self-contradiction, not to mention unbiblical.

if God did anything, he gave us the ability to chose. because he loved us.

I hope that is just hyperbole. We know, by scripture, that God did many things, not the least of which has nothing to do with being able to choose. But that he gave us the ability to choose has not been contested in this thread, as far as I know.

But that his love for us is the reason he gave us the ability to choose is only an assertion, and rather a humanocentric sounding one, too. My question is why you said it. Does it have some relevance to what you want to get across? Is it an argument that it is endemic to love, from the greater to the lesser, to give choice? Does the notion that love grants choice translate somehow to free will?

now if people call that blasphemy, or even a bad thing.. all I can say is wow

Like I said, not only have you not demonstrated your claim here, but you seem, (to me, granted), to be boxing the air. Nobody is saying we don't have choice.

 

[makesends]

I think your trying to see something you want. and not what really happened. if I am being honest here.

I answered.

I am not a morning person. it takes every ounce of energy for me to get out of be. I just want to roll over and go back to sleep (I have even broken an alarm clock because I could not get it to shut off)

that was my will. that was what I wanted to do.

so if I did what I desired. that is what I would have done.

please do not try to read any more into it. There is nothing to add..

Show the process by which you actually willed to get up and get going. Was there some motivation?

No, nevermind, I know you know there was a motivation, if not several motivations.

I have not said you desired nothing else. I haven't even said that if things were different you wouldn't DO something else. I haven't even said that to stay in bed is not your strongest prevailing desire. You decide to do the right thing, because you want the consequences of doing the right thing more, at that moment of choosing, than you want to do the wrong thing— whether it is peace between you and your wife, or groceries in the fridge, or the gratefulness of your dependents, or their simple well-being, or something else, or a combination of some or all of those. Even if it is mere habit, in which you don't see yourself wanting to do it, it is still wanting what you feel more comfortable or at peace with yourself, to do.

It isn't likely, even, that you chose to get up after considering all the alternatives, then choosing the best course, (whatever 'best' means, here). Speaking for myself, I'm used to getting up because it is what I do, like part of living and breathing. I am unable to stay in bed. But when I get up, it is choosing to do so. And I do so because I want it more than I want to stay in bed. I do not attribute it to any noble motivation. I simply will feel better about myself if I get up. As I grow up (I'm only 69) I hope my motivation is that I want to get up IN CHRIST, and to the glory of God. And if I do so, that will be what I want, and I pray it becomes habit.

The ironic thing here, is that the question of 'want' or 'to prefer' or any number of similar words, is not the point. The question is whether or not one who is lost is able to choose anything that is truly self-less, and in no way corrupted by their heart of sin; and the related question, concerning the free will, even in the regenerated, and, maybe, specially in the regenerated, is whether it is truly autonomous, which implies, "not even motivated", or "entirely self-motivated". We have spent quite a long time on the HOW of choice, as it it proved anything concerning free will.

In the same way that you keep repeating that we do have actual choice, as though the fact of actual choice proved free will, I keep saying that one is motivated to choose by causes, (which you claim not to deny), because that is mutually exclusive with free will. But, it has been fun.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

"Irresistible Grace" only refers to God's Grace in regenerating. Transforming one 'from death to life' is done without consulting the person upon whom God chose to show mercy, nor is their permission requested.

again, I do not agree,

God does not force a person against his will..

That is in essence what you just tried to explain to me. God does it without a person consent or asking their permission or consulting them is in essence. forcing it upon them.

No we can argue is that a bad thing, because a person is saved eternally by this act.

But once cause must be taken with another..

if he forces those to believe, he in essence forces those to not believe. by without their consent keeping the truth from them.

This is the jist of the problam I have with what many call fatalistic belief

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

That refers to genuine faith, not counterfeit faith.

Amen, 100% in agreement!

But it is still required for one to be born again.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@Eternally-Grateful , Free Will is our Liberty as a Secondary Causation...

may I ask what this even means?

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree. ~ 2nd LBCF

Our Will is not Free as a Primary Causation; only God's Will is Free in that sense...

if our will is not free. Is God not the author of sin?

Did Adam not have the complete ability to deny eating of the tree?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Eternally-Grateful said:
It fits.
Does god have to make me alive first.
makesends said:
Do you mean, do you have to be made alive first. Yes, you do. (Edit: "[yes, you do have to be made alive first.]")

Says Ephesians 2, Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2:14

eph 2 does not say we were made alive first. Go to vs 5 and take in vs 8 - 9.. it is by grace we have been saved (made alive)

romans 8 I agree. but it does not say when it happened..

1 cor 2: the natural man. If you keep using this passage, I must assume you do not believe God can teach a natural man his gospel..

Not sure how you came up with that sequence. God determined to save some, and not all, from their [deserved] curse.

I do not know where you came up with this thinking. God died for all..

To those he determined to save, he at some point in time 'implanted' (if you will), His Holy Spirit to dwell within them, which indwelling transforms them from death to life. They are become a 'new person'. They are thus no longer in sin. They have thus been given faith. They have thus been justified. No temporal sequence necessary, unless, that the regeneration is necessary to all the other virtues and effects.

This happens when they trust God.. Not before.

Doesn't make sense (makesends! snortsnort) to me either. Not sure how you came up with it. I'm not saying that's the way it goes.

makesends said:
According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, until you are no longer the "natural man" you cannot understand what he may (or may not) have convinced you of.

I guess by that, you are saying that without "God's influence" (whatever that means), you cannot understand the things that should otherwise be understandable.

Exactly.

God does not have to make us born again. He does influence and teach us though

one can not be born again in sin..

makesends said:
You have said elsewhere that the faith is 'from God', in that God can convince you of his reliability, and so you have faith in him, just like you do in your wife (or in a chair, I say). That is not salvific faith

The devil also believes that what God says is true.

The devil believes, He did not trust.

We are not saved because we believe. even demons believe..

The unregenerate cannot understand the things in which they must trust. The fact and depth of sin, the greatness and aseity and purity of God combined with the fact that HE made a way for us to be with him —all these and more are in the knowledge the Spirit of God has—not in a man, in whom the Spirit dwells. Further, the repentance, the commitment, the obedience, the faithfulness, the love —all these are the work of the Spirit, effects of the same faith by which a man continues In Christ. They are not something a man can generate, or make real, apart from the Spirit of God.

romans 1 says otherwise.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Scripture indicates otherwise. For example, the siege of Jerusalem by the king of Assyria

• was ordained and brought about by God (2 Kings 19:25)
• and a choice made by the king, about which he boasted (2 Kings 19; Isa. 36)
• and for which God held him responsible (Isa 10:7-12).

Unregenerate humans are not free—they are enslaved to sin and under God's control—but they certainly have and make choices. A human choice ordained by God is still a human choice.




The only valid answer to my question (which you reworded here) is yes, for scripture both implies and outright states that he can.

However, pay close attention to what that means. If God can control or overrule a person's will—and he can, for he has—then the human will is not free, by definition.

Now, I noticed a curious thing happen in your answer. For some reason, you shifted the language from God stopping someone from committing a sin to God TRYING to stop someone ("I could see the way God tries to stop me"). My question did not ask if God can influence or persuade someone to not sin, which would be a pointless question since all Christians believe he can, including Open Theists. Rather, my question asked if God can control or overrule a person's will. Since I doubt that you could perceive it when he does it to you—it would probably feel like a perfectly natural course of events—what I am looking for is biblical testimony that answers my question.

• Is there anything in scripture that says God can't or won't control or overrule a person's will?

If not, then:

• Is there anything in scripture that says God can control or overrule a person's will?

The answer to the second question, of course, is yes—which has significant implications for this discussion:

• If God can control or overrule the human will, is it free? (No.)

(The rest of your response to me is addressed in a separate thread because it is not sufficiently connected to the topic of this one.)

lol.. Ok..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You can boast if that gift is eternal life and you obtained it by, wisely, choosing it, though most do not choose it. Further, you boast if the gift is eternal life and you would not have obtained it if you had not chosen it. Further, you boast if the gift is eternal life, the choosing of which is an act of utter integrity.

The vacuum tube, and later the transistor, operate somewhat analogously to the rudder on a ship. Such a big vessel's direction is inevitably changed by such a small difference in how the water passes by. The bias of the transistor, not just in digital fact of on/off, but in [more or less linear] proportion, controls a much larger flow of current. The notion of free will would have us believe that an infinite ship is controlled by an infinitely tinier rudder.

But it gets worse. This rudder is not just rusted so badly as to be essentially uncontrollable —it is broken, and separated from the ship!

No my friend we can not.

The person rescued from a raging river can not boast in himself because he chose to allow the one sent to rescue him save them..

We boast in the savior we trusted. Not in ourself which we did not trust. or we never would have trusted them

the thought we can boast because we gave up completely and stopped trying to save ourself (humbled ourselves) ,, Think about it

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Why not? After all, the free-willer thinks that God causing anything is forcing it to be.

But what I say is that God causes that there be sin. No he is not the author of it. But if you can show me how there would have been sin without God creating what sinned, I want to hear it.

You have yet to demonstrate from Scripture, nor have you demonstrated from solid reasoning, how anything can happen apart from God establishing it.

It is attempting to stand on both sides of the fence, when at one point the claim is that free will is caused by God, and in the next breath, 'freewill' is represented as 'opportunity to go his own way outside of God's will'. The language is that of mere chance, and not by directed circumstance. And causation by mere chance is simple logical self-contradiction, not to mention unbiblical.

I hope that is just hyperbole. We know, by scripture, that God did many things, not the least of which has nothing to do with being able to choose. But that he gave us the ability to choose has not been contested in this thread, as far as I know.

But that his love for us is the reason he gave us the ability to choose is only an assertion, and rather a humanocentric sounding one, too. My question is why you said it. Does it have some relevance to what you want to get across? Is it an argument that it is endemic to love, from the greater to the lesser, to give choice? Does the notion that love grants choice translate somehow to free will?

Like I said, not only have you not demonstrated your claim here, but you seem, (to me, granted), to be boxing the air. Nobody is saying we don't have choice.

once again

If a man had no choice. Then the one who caused it is at fault.

I do not understand your logic.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Show the process by which you actually willed to get up and get going. Was there some motivation?

why?

No, nevermind, I know you know there was a motivation, if not several motivations.

I never said there was no motivation.

I SAID IT WAS NOT MY WILL

Is this hard to understand?

I have not said you desired nothing else. I haven't even said that if things were different you wouldn't DO something else. I haven't even said that to stay in bed is not your strongest prevailing desire. You decide to do the right thing, because you want the consequences of doing the right thing more, at that moment of choosing, than you want to do the wrong thing— whether it is peace between you and your wife, or groceries in the fridge, or the gratefulness of your dependents, or their simple well-being, or something else, or a combination of some or all of those. Even if it is mere habit, in which you don't see yourself wanting to do it, it is still wanting what you feel more comfortable or at peace with yourself, to do.

It isn't likely, even, that you chose to get up after considering all the alternatives, then choosing the best course, (whatever 'best' means, here). Speaking for myself, I'm used to getting up because it is what I do, like part of living and breathing. I am unable to stay in bed. But when I get up, it is choosing to do so. And I do so because I want it more than I want to stay in bed. I do not attribute it to any noble motivation. I simply will feel better about myself if I get up. As I grow up (I'm only 69) I hope my motivation is that I want to get up IN CHRIST, and to the glory of God. And if I do so, that will be what I want, and I pray it becomes habit.

The ironic thing here, is that the question of 'want' or 'to prefer' or any number of similar words, is not the point. The question is whether or not one who is lost is able to choose anything that is truly self-less, and in no way corrupted by their heart of sin; and the related question, concerning the free will, even in the regenerated, and, maybe, specially in the regenerated, is whether it is truly autonomous, which implies, "not even motivated", or "entirely self-motivated". We have spent quite a long time on the HOW of choice, as it it proved anything concerning free will.

In the same way that you keep repeating that we do have actual choice, as though the fact of actual choice proved free will, I keep saying that one is motivated to choose by causes, (which you claim not to deny), because that is mutually exclusive with free will. But, it has been fun.

I do not understand what your even trying to say..

 

[makesends]

why?

I never said there was no motivation.

I SAID IT WAS NOT MY WILL

Is this hard to understand?

I do not understand what your even trying to say..

Nevermind. This is going nowhere.

 

[makesends]

No my friend we can not.

The person rescued from a raging river can not boast in himself because he chose to allow the one sent to rescue him save them..

We boast in the savior we trusted. Not in ourself which we did not trust. or we never would have trusted them

the thought we can boast because we gave up completely and stopped trying to save ourself (humbled ourselves) ,, Think about it

If you are drowned, and someone reaches in and pulls you out and resuscitates you, you will, upon consciousness, hold on to your new situation for dear life. THAT, to accept and hold on —after rescue and resuscitation and upon regaining consciousness— is your decision and effort. To be rescued and resuscitated, is God's decision and work upon you —and for that, and the further effects of regeneration, and most of all, to include Heaven, is the reason he made you.

 

[makesends]

again, I do not agree,

God does not force a person against his will..

That is in essence what you just tried to explain to me. God does it without a person consent or asking their permission or consulting them is in essence. forcing it upon them.

No we can argue is that a bad thing, because a person is saved eternally by this act.

But once cause must be taken with another..

if he forces those to believe, he in essence forces those to not believe. by without their consent keeping the truth from them.

This is the jist of the problam I have with what many call fatalistic belief

Here we go again with "force". Already dealt with, but I will repeat. It is not against one's will that God regenerates them. Regeneration is a changed will.

It is no more "forcing" them than he forced them to exist, to begin with.

This insistence on the basic value of a person apart from God is an empty assumption. Does a newborn complain that they have been forced to exist? It hardly even KNOWS that it exists.