Free will. What is it?

[ReverendRV]

Excellent.

Thanks. The Free Will Debate is resolved. The problem is that both sides have so much to lose, by settling things...

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Thanks. The Free Will Debate is resolved. The problem is that there is so much to lose, by settling things...

Agreed.

As I see it, free will to choose salvation is the flesh wanting to be God, to have part in salvation. I have said many times in these debate threads that those who believe they have free will to choose God should really study the Hamartiology, or specifically total depravity.

I do not believe that many Christians really understand how sin has affected all of what makes up a human in body, soul, emotions, mind and spirit.

Anyhow, I strayed OT.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You forgot verse 13....

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

No actually I did not

I did not will myself to heaven. Nor did any other human will me to heaven.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Thanks. The Free Will Debate is resolved. The problem is that both sides have so much to lose, by settling things...

what do I have to lose?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Agreed.

As I see it, free will to choose salvation is the flesh wanting to be God,

But we do not see it this way.

to have part in salvation.

I can not have part in my salvation, If I could. then I would do what needs to be done of my own power to have a part.

I have not done anything. Nor could I do anything.

I have said many times in these debate threads that those who believe they have free will to choose God should really study the Hamartiology, or specifically total depravity.

How do you know we have not?

I do not believe that many Christians really understand how sin has affected all of what makes up a human in body, soul, emotions, mind and spirit.

Anyhow, I strayed OT.

Oh I know how sin has tainted us.

I also know of a loving God

 

[ElectedbyHim]

No actually I did not

I did not will myself to heaven. Nor did any other human will me to heaven.

So how did you have free will to choose to be saved?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So how did you have free will to choose to be saved?

was God not able to teach me, Lead me and like he has done since adam. force me to make a decision? Based on his knowledge and not my own?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

But we do not see it this way.

I can not have part in my salvation, If I could. then I would do what needs to be done of my own power to have a part.

I have not done anything. Nor could I do anything.

How do you know we have not?

Oh I know how sin has tainted us.

I also know of a loving God

I am confused, there are too many threads on free will.

You either think you chose to be saved or God chose you to be saved.

Where do you stand?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

was God not able to teach me, Lead me and like he has done since adam. force me to make a decision? Based on his knowledge and not my own?

He elected you to salvation before the foundations of the world as He does with all His people.

There was no choice for me.

I love Him, because He first loved me.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I am confused, there are too many threads on free will.

You either think you chose to be saved or God chose you to be saved.

Where do you stand?

I did the will of God

1. Whoever sees AND BELIEVES has eternal life (John 6) God drew. He taught, He helped me understand, Then I believed in faith, and he saved me

2. But whoever RECIEVES HIM, to THEM he gave the right to become sons of God (john 1) I received him in faith

3. Whoever looks to the cross. And they looked to the bronze serpent, will not perish but have eternal life (john 3 - I looked to the cross. Not myself

I do not know what else to say

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

He elected you to salvation before the foundations of the world as He does with all His people.

Yes, Based on his foeknowledge, not because I was special and my neighbor was not. God did not hold me above others.

There was no choice for me.

Then I do not see how you recieved God.

I love Him, because He first loved me.

Yes, so do I.

He loved me and gave himself for me.

 

[ReverendRV]

He elected you to salvation before the foundations of the world as He does with all His people.

There was no choice for me.

I love Him, because He first loved me.

The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom; and the Love of God is the end of Wisdom. We Love God AFTER we're Saved; so we Love God after we Believe, not before. ~ Before we Believed; we were at Enmity with God...

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom; and the Love of God is the end of Wisdom. We Love God AFTER we're Saved, so we Love God after we Believe, not before. Before; we were at Enmity with God...

The fear of God was one of the things that brought me to him,

He led me to this bankrupt state where I was lost with no hope. and broken.

After he saved me, based on my receiving him. (but as many as have recieved him) then I felt his love, and grew to love him also. Not because I loved him, but he first loved me

Me trusting God is not me loving God. I have o capacity to love God then one did,

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I did the will of God

1. Whoever sees AND BELIEVES has eternal life (John 6) God drew. He taught, He helped me understand, Then I believed in faith, and he saved me

2. But whoever RECIEVES HIM, to THEM he gave the right to become sons of God (john 1) I received him in faith

3. Whoever looks to the cross. And they looked to the bronze serpent, will not perish but have eternal life (john 3 - I looked to the cross. Not myself

I do not know what else to say

But faith (belief) is a gift from God Ephesians 2:8.

Your fine friend, a lot of info going around on 3 different threads.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom; and the Love of God is the end of Wisdom. We Love God AFTER we're Saved; so we Love God after we Believe, not before. ~ Before we Believed; we were at Enmity with God...

This truth.

 

[makesends]

So how did you have free will to choose to be saved?

—Or to choose to become saved.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Yes, Based on his foeknowledge, not because I was special and my neighbor was not. God did not hold me above others.

Then I do not see how you recieved God.

Yes, so do I.

He loved me and gave himself for me.

Then I do not see how you recieved God.

I could only receive Him after He regenerated (new birth) me, only then could I receive Him.

Before that I was at enmity with God and thought the preaching of the cross foolishness because I was dead in my sin.

Here is what is referred to as the "golden chain" or ordo salutis. (order of salvation)

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Romans8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Foreknowledge
Predestination
Calling
Justification
Glorification

But that is for another topic.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But faith (belief) is a gift from God Ephesians 2:8.

Your fine friend, a lot of info going around on 3 different threads.

YES.. a lot. Lol

Yes it was a gift everything was amen

 

[His clay]

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.

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.

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!

I'll take some time to respond to a few of your thoughts.

Technical definitions: I often find these to be necessary precisely because the danger of equivocation is through the roof. Equivocation refers to how the same word (i.e. free) could be viewed differently because of different background assumptions each person brings to the table. Perhaps I have read too much, but I like to think that because I've read a lot that I can at least try to cut through the confusion where people talk past one another.

The technical definition, especially when I described the compatibilist view of choice, is me trying to tell you what I actually believe. I placed it next to the other technical definition to try and demonstrate the difference between the two.

"What do you believe free will is?" <-- key question from Eternally-Grateful
Interestingly enough, someone else actually asked a similar question in another thread. It wasn't the same question, but my answer there answers your question here. I will quote my response.

If free will is equated with libertarian freedom, then "no" man does not have free will.
If free will just means that people make decisions, volitional choices, and do as they most prefer, then "yes" but the term "free will" is historically misleading.

Yes, people see options. I like to call them future objects of consideration for a choice. We perceive various alternatives. Should I obey or disobey? Should I eat mint chocolate chip or chocolate chip cookie dough? Do I really want to engage a volatile person with an important issue that will probably lead toward an unpleasant encounter? The question is not if people make choices. Everyone believes that people make choices. The true question is "why" people make choices. On the libertarian side, you have indeterminate choices (no causal reason for the choice being thus and not otherwise); and on the Compatibilistic side you have choices made for causal reasons. Caused choices or uncaused choices.

The Bible presents several different avenues of causation. No human being is outside of God's causal preserving hand. No human being is uncaused by their moral nature. No human being is autonomous from God.

Because choice is viewed differently, then responsibility is also understood differently. Because choice is viewed differently, then freedom is understood differently. Mountains more can be said, but those are a few initial thoughts.

The key problem is with respect to one word: "free." This is a truly problematic word because it IS understood differently by different people. In what sense is one's will free? I hold to a person being free to do as he most prefers, in the compatibilistic sense. I do not hold to the freedom to do otherwise. A great divide exists between those two views.

Hopefully, the above answers your question. I also think that I've answered your question regarding choice (see post 429 and this post where I quoted myself).

"I am not concerned with all the isms, or doctrines of others. I feel they paint people into a corner. and prevent real dialogue."
Again, I bring up the technical terms only to add clarity. As I wrote before, equivocation is an extremely real problem. I am trying very hard to explain very clearly. This does not mean that I've accomplished the clarity I'm aiming for, but it lets you know that I'm trying. My dialogue is real, even if I use technical terms. I think that the solution to the {problem of preventing dialogue} is actually found when people take the time to listen and really seek to understand. It is precisely when people fail to listen that they "prevent real dialogue."

I see that you have encountered much the same. After presenting your position through an acronym, "the person has lost the ability to hear anything i say." It's not so much the acronym that is the problem. The problem is with all the negative assumptions and background knowledge that gets immediately in the way, in the mind of the other person. They have their perception of what OSAS means, and they argue accordingly. But you are trying to explain your view, but they only hear their version. I've experienced this with my own views as well. Hence, I raised the technical terms, and then I sought to define the technical terms. I have even spent significant time writing opening posts in different threads directly defining the terms. Therefore, when someone misrepresents me, it becomes very ridiculous for their view. But I totally understand your aversion toward certain terminology.

Lastly, avoiding "isms" is simply not possible or extremely unlikely. This is the reality of church history. More than likely, a person's viewpoint will bear some similarity to certain historical, theological positions. And unfortunately, the view has already been given an "ism". But I am still a fan of inductively stating your view. This is when you go to various verses, make your case from the particulars, and then you give the "ism" at the end. But there are certainly certain "isms" that have so much baggage that it really may not be worth the time and effort. Evaluating the risk depends on how well you know your audience.

I hope that these words help you know where I'm coming from.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'll take some time to respond to a few of your thoughts.

Technical definitions: I often find these to be necessary precisely because the danger of equivocation is through the roof. Equivocation refers to how the same word (i.e. free) could be viewed differently because of different background assumptions each person brings to the table. Perhaps I have read too much, but I like to think that because I've read a lot that I can at least try to cut through the confusion where people talk past one another.

The technical definition, especially when I described the compatibilist view of choice, is me trying to tell you what I actually believe. I placed it next to the other technical definition to try and demonstrate the difference between the two.

"What do you believe free will is?" <-- key question from Eternally-Grateful
Interestingly enough, someone else actually asked a similar question in another thread. It wasn't the same question, but my answer there answers your question here. I will quote my response.

Thank you. Can you explain the following sentence. Other than this, i think we agree with everything

The Bible presents several different avenues of causation. No human being is outside of God's causal preserving hand. No human being is uncaused by their moral nature. No human being is autonomous from God.

The key problem is with respect to one word: "free." This is a truly problematic word because it IS understood differently by different people. In what sense is one's will free? I hold to a person being free to do as he most prefers, in the compatibilistic sense. I do not hold to the freedom to do otherwise. A great divide exists between those two views.

I think there are more than two views.

So I pray we do not limit to just two. I think that is some of the problem. And one thing I am trying to break through.

Hopefully, the above answers your question. I also think that I've answered your question regarding choice (see post 429 and this post where I quoted myself).

Except for my question above. Yes I think you answered it

"I am not concerned with all the isms, or doctrines of others. I feel they paint people into a corner. and prevent real dialogue."
Again, I bring up the technical terms only to add clarity. As I wrote before, equivocation is an extremely real problem. I am trying very hard to explain very clearly. This does not mean that I've accomplished the clarity I'm aiming for, but it lets you know that I'm trying. My dialogue is real, even if I use technical terms. I think that the solution to the {problem of preventing dialogue} is actually found when people take the time to listen and really seek to understand. It is precisely when people fail to listen that they "prevent real dialogue."

100% in agreement

I see that you have encountered much the same. After presenting your position through an acronym, "the person has lost the ability to hear anything i say." It's not so much the acronym that is the problem. The problem is with all the negative assumptions and background knowledge that gets immediately in the way, in the mind of the other person. They have their perception of what OSAS means, and they argue accordingly. But you are trying to explain your view, but they only hear their version. I've experienced this with my own views as well. Hence, I raised the technical terms, and then I sought to define the technical terms. I have even spent significant time writing opening posts in different threads directly defining the terms. Therefore, when someone misrepresents me, it becomes very ridiculous for their view. But I totally understand your aversion toward certain terminology.

It is frustrating is it not?

Lastly, avoiding "isms" is simply not possible or extremely unlikely. This is the reality of church history. More than likely, a person's viewpoint will bear some similarity to certain historical, theological positions. And unfortunately, the view has already been given an "ism". But I am still a fan of inductively stating your view. This is when you go to various verses, make your case from the particulars, and then you give the "ism" at the end. But there are certainly certain "isms" that have so much baggage that it really may not be worth the time and effort. Evaluating the risk depends on how well you know your audience.

I hope that these words help you know where I'm coming from.

The problem I see with isms is my own example.

I grew up baptist (I guess that is an ISM, And when I told people I was baptist. They assumed things not true. Because they determined the understand what a baptist believes and tried to paint me in that ISm.

I finally stopped telling people I was a baptist..

Same with the arminian.calvin debate

Or the amil vs premil debate.

Thank you for being open.. This is how a discussion should go