Free will. What is it?

[Hazelelponi]

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.

We have moral agency but we remain within the confines of our respective heads - whether that head is the first or the second Adam.

I don't believe we will ever actually change our head inside the confines of our own will (not in truth) without God changing that head for us due to our own depravity. We don't have the will under the headship of the first Adam to do anything but sin, because we love sin.

We simply cannot recognize the deths of our own depravity. I believe.Jesus Christ was always telling us that sin wasn't what society thought when he placed that deeper note on sin as standing before a Holy God.

For example; Jesus likened being angry with a brother and speaking words in anger to murder in Matthew 5:21-22, He elsewhere likened lustful thoughts to adultery and more.

Sin is not what society at large thinks it is, and therefore, the will of a man not the free agent man likes to consider himself as being.

 

[makesends]

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.

But we will talk about it. My question is, does that need to be brought up before we can agree on a working (even if only temporary) definition of free will, before beginning our arguments? I've been in countless such debates, where the whole matter is about definition, and nothing gets agreed on— everybody striking while they think the iron is hot.

 

[Josheb]

Free will. What is it?

What it is, is a lie from the pit of hell.

I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options.

That is a very poor definition. That definition would define the term "volitional agency," which is the term I prefer and use because the word "free" means autonomous, or without external power or control, or not under the power or control of outside sources. Using the normal, ordinary definition of "free" it is (or should be) objectively verifiable no one's will is free.

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.

If he HAD to choose then he was not free. That statement necessarily and inescapably implies some (real or imagined) force compelling the moment of choice.

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.

It's very sad the phrase "free will" has infected our doctrines to the point of being accepted as everyday vernacular when its substance is completely false, completely absent reality we experience and observe every day of our lives. The meaning of the phrase has to be assigned to it contrary to the normal meaning of the words in ordinary usage and that is a telltale sign of deceit. There's also no need for the phrase because "volitional agency" is more accurate and much more efficacious. The phrase "free will" is an invented term, scripturally speaking. That phrase is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Many Christians confuse or conflate it with "freewill," a word that is found in the Bible but means simply, "voluntary." No one volunteers anything in a void. Sch a condition does not exist in the Bible. The phrase "free will" was invented by humans, and it should be discarded from our vocabulary - not just because it is a grossly inaccurate term, but also because it is a term that unnecessarily sows division.

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus told some men this Jn 8:44

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Now can these children of the devil, choose not to do the lust of their father, when Jesus said they will do. Do they have freewill to change that ?

 

[makesends]

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.

I'm having a bit of trouble following your sequence here. Is it like this?

You— Let us assume: Adam and Eve did not have free will. Implication, then: Adam and Eve were made with, and therefore possessing of, a sinful nature. "What we don't know is why." Me— 1) How does Adam and Even not having free will imply that they were made with a sinful nature? 2) "Why" what? Why they were made with a sinful nature? 3) If it is only an 'assumed for the sake of argument', why are we jumping immediately into a question of why? I need a flowchart of the argument here, or something. I'm unable to draw it. 4) I don't know if your line about what God told Adam and about temptation and the outcome of it is part of the why, or an answer to the 'why?', or even part of the 'assume for the sake of argument', or about the logical implications of the assumption or what.

You— 2 conclusions are valid: 1) God purposely made A&E without freewill so that Adam would be enticed to sin so that the reprobate would be sentenced to eternal death. OR 2) A&E were given freewill, and sinned by their own choice. Me— I mean you no disrespect when I say that I can't even count the logical leaps you have made here. I can't follow your reasoning. Can you present this in a different way? I can't even see how your first "assumed for the sake of argument" leads to the 2 possible conclusions. Nor can I see how either of those two conclusions are valid.

 

[makesends]

A lie from the pit of hell.

That is a very poor definition. That definition would define the term "volitional agency," which is the term I prefer and use because the word "free" means autonomous, or without external power or control, or not under the power or control of outside sources. Using the normal, ordinary definition of "free" it is (or should be) objectively verifiable no one's will is free.

If he HAD to choose then he was not free. That statement necessarily and inescapably implies some (real or imagined) force compelling the moment of choice.

It's very sad the phrase "free will" has infected our doctrines to the point of being accepted as everyday vernacular when its substance is completely false, completely absent reality we experience and observe every day of our lives. The meaning of the phrase has to be assigned to it contrary to the normal meaning of the words in ordinary usage and that is a telltale sign of deceit. There's also no need for the phrase because "volitional agency" is more accurate and much more efficacious. The phrase "free will" is an invented term, scripturally speaking. That phrase is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Many Christians confuse or conflate it with "freewill," a word that is found in the Bible but means simply, "voluntary." No one volunteers anything in a void. Sch a condition does not exist in the Bible. The phrase "free will" was invented by humans, and it should be discarded from our vocabulary - not just because it is a grossly inaccurate term, but also because it is a term that unnecessarily sows division.

Can we work on a mutually understood/ agreed upon definition first? If it is a lie or not, if it makes sense or not, we need to get to an agreed definition instead of ruining the debate before it has started.

 

[makesends]

@Josheb says: That is a very poor definition. That definition would define the term "volitional agency," which is the term I prefer and use because the word "free" means autonomous, or without external power or control, or not under the power or control of outside sources. Using the normal, ordinary definition of "free" it is (or should be) objectively verifiable no one's will is free.

This is a good place to show the dividing line to be eliminated in order to come up with an agreed upon definition. By "free will", for the purposes of this thread, do we mean only, "volitional agency", as in, mere "will", or do we mean, "uncaused will". Choosing one or the other over which to debate does not mean acknowledging that definition as valid or true.

 

[makesends]

All: @Carbon @fastfredy0 @Josheb @brightfame52 @Hazelelponi @Rella @ElectedbyHim and last but not least, @Eternally-Grateful

Please, everyone slow down a second. Are we going to argue about mere, "will", or "uncaused choice"?

Or are we going to free-for-all into noise?

If someone has another option besides those two, let's hear it. Particularly, those who tend towards "libertarian free will", which I take to mean, or logically descend to, "uncaused choice", need to agree with one of these —mere, "will" or "uncaused choice"— or come up with something better for us to consider.

I suggest we argue about "libertarian free will". Can we define that as "ability to choose uncaused to do so", and go with that? Does it need a better definition than that? Or does someone please have a better definition for "free will" so that we have a mutually agreed upon basis for proceeding?

 

[Eleanor]

You scared everyone off again.

Cracks me up!

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Biblical free will = it being governed by the disposition, free will is the power to choose what one prefers.

 

[Arial]

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.

And that is where the duality mentioned in another thread comes in. Either man has a will that is free, or he has no will at all. As though our will is an entity of its own, operating on its own. To say that man has a will does not automatically imply that the will is free. If it were, it would not actually be a will at all, since the definition of will would be negated.

 

[makesends]

And that is where the duality mentioned in another thread comes in. Either man has a will that is free, or he has no will at all. As though our will is an entity of its own, operating on its own. To say that man has a will does not automatically imply that the will is free. If it were, it would not actually be a will at all, since the definition of will would be negated.

I'm lost. Is this an argument for a valid definition of "free will" for the sake of having a mutually agreeable definition for the sake of the thread, or is this an argument about whether or not "free will" is a valid concept?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Thanks for starting this new thread.

You opened up a whole can of worms and will have many replies, it will be very edifying conversation.

I will be contributing to this thread periodically as time allows with work.

As for free will, this says to me, that humans have the ability to choose salvation and also renounce their salvation.

I do not find either Biblical.

Until tomorrow.

Grace and peace to you.

I do not believe a believer would renounce their salvation. nor would I believe it even be supported.

1 John 2 talks about those who were once with us, but departed having seemingly renounced their faith and become against Christ.

John said they were never of us..

Also when it comes to faith. You only lose complete faith in someone when that person fails you over and over again.

so I do not think anyone would renounce their faith in God because God does not continue to fail he. he does the opposite

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I believe man has free will. Sound weird for a Calvinist?

how do you define free will?

it does appear to go against the T in tulip..

 

[Arial]

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.

The definition of free will that you give is the definition of "will". "Free" has nothing to do with that definition. We make choices according to what we want. The very definition of "not free". Free would involve not being dependent upon anything. So if we go by your definition as you suggest, the thread becomes dead in the water. Fortunately others are offering the "other views" you are looking forward to, so it is moving forward rapidly.

When you speak of Adam, he was not created as a sinner, that is with a nature to sin. but pure and good, not even knowing any evil. His situation is not like ours. He was given a choice, and he chose what he wanted, not what he was forced to choose, though an element of force was applied in the conflict of" this or that", but the force was not from God, but from Adam himself who was created with agency----things working on his will. And he chose.

Being in Adam who is now a sinner, all mankind now is born a sinner. Slaves to sin as Paul says. A slave obeys his master. Therefore, our will is driven by our nature. We always choose what we want. Not free----which does not mean that we do not make choices. There is no such thing as free will and there never was. Not even Adam's will pre-fall was free. He was not a sinner or sinful (as we are) but his will was still acted upon. Choice requires a will but that will does not have to be free in order for us to make choices.

So, since this is in the Calvin vs Armenian forum, is what you are getting at that our will is free to choose Christ and that it must be? If so we can move onto that discussion.

I suspect it is because you said that Abraham had to choose whether or not to believe God. To this I will say one doesn't choose to believe something. That would imply an element of not believing. We either believe something or we don't.

 

[Arial]

I'm lost. Is this an argument for a valid definition of "free will" for the sake of having a mutually agreeable definition for the sake of the thread, or is this an argument about whether or not "free will" is a valid concept?

The valid concept. "Free will" as defined by the poster is an oxymoron.

 

[makesends]

The valid concept. "Free will" as defined by the poster is an oxymoron.

Lolol, this is one of those situations, where if I'm texting someone, I need to stop and just call them!

Let me see if I understand you. You are, at least, saying that the OP's definition of "Free will", is an oxymoron. I agree.

So, (if I may extrapolate), you may be thinking that the oxymoron would be enough to defeat the notion, and we're done? —and so you suggest we find a better definition?

I'm not sure what to do here. I had hoped that we could first settle on a mutually agreed upon definition and then debate it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

free will is free. although when I see the word free will. I use the word freedom of will.

You may be held in constraint by outside circumstances. But you still have the ability or freedom to chose between one or more options..

If God determines all choices.. Then that does not say very much about God (in my view) technically it would also free the one who sinned from any responsibility, because technically. God determined what that person would do and they did it (Hitler for example)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Well I don’t believe anyone ever sins against their will.

I think we can.

We may be doing things we do not even know is sin.. so this technically would not be willful sin..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We sin because we want to, we enjoy it. I might even go as far to say, we love it

how do you define sin?