Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

I was just pointing our the difference of each.

Yes, and thank you. that helped alot!!

That seems to contradict.

I do not believe that someone can believe in monergism and synergism at the same time concerning soteriology.

I did not say I believed in both. I said I agree with some parts.

its like the calvin/arminian debate

some parts I agree with Calvin on. Some parts I agree with the other side.

It does not mean I agree with both. I do not.

Not really, iguess just feeling you out.

ok good. thank you

I am a firm believe that one cannot hold to doctrine without theolog, in my mind they are inseparable.

The problem is, when you hold to general theologies and try to put a person into that theological mindset. If the person does not fallow that theology completely. You will end up not being able to understand what that person is saying, and usually a heated debate will ensue (at least from what I have witnessed)

thats why I try to get away of pointing people to one theology or another.. And try to just talk the word with them

There have have been many a conversation with christians who believe anything outside of the Bible is man made and should not be used.

I would say if it can not be proven from scripture.. It would at best be questionable..

They believe Holy Spirit will teach them all truth (John 14:26)

Me too

They hate anything with Theology.

I love theology.. We just do not have the same theology

Please understand I am not relating this to you, you told me you have studied the systematic.

yes.. please note. there is not just one systematic theology out there.

There is now wonder they are in error of their personal doctrine.

again, We need to show some humility. we may be wrong with our doctrine..

Must always be open

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Yes, and thank you. that helped alot!!

I did not say I believed in both. I said I agree with some parts.

its like the calvin/arminian debate

some parts I agree with Calvin on. Some parts I agree with the other side.

It does not mean I agree with both. I do not.

ok good. thank you

The problem is, when you hold to general theologies and try to put a person into that theological mindset. If the person does not fallow that theology completely. You will end up not being able to understand what that person is saying, and usually a heated debate will ensue (at least from what I have witnessed)

thats why I try to get away of pointing people to one theology or another.. And try to just talk the word with them

I would say if it can not be proven from scripture.. It would at best be questionable..

Me too

I love theology.. We just do not have the same theology

yes.. please note. there is not just one systematic theology out there.

again, We need to show some humility. we may be wrong with our doctrine..

Must always be open

I did not say I believed in both. I said I agree with some parts.

Forgive me, I did not have my glasses on when reading. You are correct and did not say that.

yes.. please note. there is not just one systematic theology out there.

Yes, I have many different denominational theologies.

I like to research both and then filter them through Scripture.

again, We need to show some humility. we may be wrong with our doctrine..

A great pastor once said, I know that some of my theology is flawed, I just do not know where.

I do not believe John 14:26 in context is saying Holy Spirit will teach us all things doctrinally and theologically, I should of clarified that.

Those that condemn Theological and Biblical resources believe Holy Spirit would only want them to use the Bible.

Let it be know, the written word is our ultimate resource for everything Godly.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Forgive me, I did not have my glasses on when reading. You are correct and did not say that.

Yes, I have many different denominational theologies.

I like to research both and then filter them through Scripture.

I have done the same, yes amen, Anything should be filtered through scripture.

A great pastor once said, I know that some of my theology is flawed, I just do not know where.

I do not believe John 14:26 in context is saying Holy Spirit will teach us all things doctrinally and theologically, I should of clarified that.

Those that condemn Theological and Biblical resources believe Holy Spirit would only want them to use the Bible.

Let it be know, the written word is our ultimate resource for everything Godly.

I believe the bible is our guide.

I read may books, from many authors. and listen to many teaching.

I just think even as I do with my own leaders. test what they say with scripture. do not blindly follow anyone!

 

[makesends]

Yes, i did this at the end of a discussion you and I were having. is that what you are talking about?

Yes In your post 585 you that said I was using a logical fallacy. I responded in 590 that I was not. Ball's in your court.

 

[Arial]

The problem is, when you hold to general theologies and try to put a person into that theological mindset. If the person does not fallow that theology completely. You will end up not being able to understand what that person is saying, and usually a heated debate will ensue (at least from what I have witnessed)

thats why I try to get away of pointing people to one theology or another.. And try to just talk the word with them

I am just going to say this, about that, since a conversation between you and I have become nothing but an argument. And I don't say it as an accusation but as an observation, and in the hopes that you will listen and hear.

It is you who are having the difficulty given in that first statement and for the reasons you are attributing to others. And are unable to understand what they are saying because it is not your theology. In a discussion about God and the Bible, it is paramount that theology be involved. In "talking the word" it means nothing without a theology behind it. Previously you have stated this same thing as a conversation about "isms" and people being painted into a corner by "isms".

Those posting in this thread have not been talking "isms". They have been presenting the word (talking the word) from their theological and doctrinal view. That is the whole point of such a conversation, to examine the different views and provide support through exegesis and exposition. Much of what is said is simply ignored completely, even though it is a jump off point to further a productive to both parties, discussion. You do not appear to be listening or considering or asking questions if need be. Instead you begin arguing and assuming that people are saying you say things that you do not say.

You are often extremely unclear, and very disorganized, and I do not mean that unkindly. As an example, in one post to another person who took what you were saying as presenting your faith as a work. What was left out, and the reason more than one has viewed your comments as saying one thing and then saying another, is you having two conversations at the same time, bouncing between one thing and then another.

When you agree that saving faith is a gift from God; when you agree that the new birth is of the Holy Spirit; when you agree that salvation is all of God and none of man; you leave out key components that you have expressed elsewhere that really involves presenting an argument by redefining words.

Your starting premise is 1. Faith comes before the new birth and in fact brings about the new birth. 2. Faith is what makes one alive and occurs before the new birth. 3. God helps us believe when we are dead in trespasses and sins, therefore faith is not a work. 4. Free will has to be true.

So when anyone disagrees with this and demonstrates from Scripture (as opposed to just quoting a scripture or scriptures) where any or all of these points are not biblical, you have painted yourself into a corner so thoroughly that you can only see what they say as though their view were the same as yours, and argue from that standpoint. You cannot see or understand what they are saying.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yes In your post 585 you that said I was using a logical fallacy. I responded in 590 that I was not. Ball's in your court.

I seem to have posed two issues, But it appears I only called one a fallacy

so as you can see. I just can not agree with you that it is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")

in fact. to me this poses a fallacy

If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act.

The fallacy being this

If it is not a willful act. The only other option is it is an act that was not done by the worson’s will

(You either will to do something or you do not)

And if the person does it outside of their will. Then it must be a forced act (the person had no choice)

You said you responded in post 590. Lets look

An unwilled act is not, "by definition...a forced act." It is a caused act.

That's good, because here you have charged me with fallacy. Rule 4.4 says we need to resolve that charge before proceeding.

So, can you convince me how an act is by definition "forced", if it is not willed? Or can you drop the idea to a more clinical, "caused".

This in my view just adds to the fallacy, if this is your response. I still see a fallacy,

It says by defenition it is not a forced act. It is a caused act.

Ie, something causes the person to act in this way.

This to me, is saying whatever is causing the person to act in this way. Forced that person.

 

[His clay]

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.



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.

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

100% in agreement

It is frustrating is it not?

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

Responding to Opening Comments
At the beginning of your response, you asked me to explain. You quoted three sentences, so my comments will be arranged as points 1-3 in relation to those sentences.

1. My first sentence addresses how the Bible presents several avenues of causation. There is not a one-size-fits-all view of causation. I will give you a link to an opening post. I addressed the issue of responsibility and causation, and in the section titled "Causal Conflation Fallacy," I pointed out important distinctions as well as a brief biblical introduction to causal nuances. Link following. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/
2. The next sentence points out how no human being is outside of God's causal sustaining hand. I'll simply quote several scriptures that demonstrate this point (underlining key portions). If you would like, I can spend some time explaining them. However, I'm only interested in presenting the Biblical evidence.
   1. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
      nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. (Acts 17:24-25 ESV)
   2. For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:36 ESV)
   3. yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Corinthians 8:6 ESV)
   4. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
      (Colossians 1:16-17 ESV)
   5. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (Hebrews 1:3 ESV)
3. My final sentence stated, "No human being is autonomous from God." By autonomous I mean, "self-sufficient, independent, an ultimate cause." I really think that this point is clearly made in the scriptures presented above. Creation is the all-encompassing term. Creation is both dependent upon God for its beginning, and creation is dependent upon God for its continuing existence. The Acts passage above move from creation to a more narrow aspect of creation, namely the service human beings give to God. The point is clear. Since God made everything and gives to all mankind, life, and breath, and everything, then God is not served as though He needs anything. This verse makes is very clear that man is entirely dependent upon God (the opposite of independence/autonomy), and that this dependence leads to a humbled view of human service to God. Much more could be written about the other verses.

Options for Defining Free
Next you address my comments explaining a critical divide between different understandings of "free" with respect to the will. Your main concern appears to be arriving at a false dichotomy, when in fact there are more options. First, I can largely sympathize with your comment. Certainly, you don't want to get placed within a false dichotomy. It is called a fallacy in thinking for a reason. And I can see that my approach is focused upon libertarian freedom and compatibilism's definitions of "free". Second, I'll expand things a bit more. As far as "main" options, I've only seen three: libertarian, compatibilism, and agnostic. The agnostic people usually just throw up their hands and claim mystery before allowing the Bible to be consulted on the issues. However, I can totally get the agnostic approach. Wading into these waters is to wade into a massive debate, and it WILL take work. There is no getting around it. The topic can seem seriously daunting. And sometimes people just don't have the time or the mental resources to thoroughly investigate the matter. However, I usually see people (in general) trying hard to circumvent discussion over the issues. So while I think that the agnostic position is ok to hold, especially if you haven't studied the issues; I don't like it used as a way to be lazy and ignore the issues.

Third, various nuances of each takes place. With respect to the libertarian and compatibilistic positions, we have significantly greater nuance within each. For example, the libertarian view sometimes differs with respect to ultimacy. Sometimes the will is deemed as an ultimate cause, and others hold to the agent being an ultimate cause. I think that both nuances fail. My reason for not spelling out the various nuances is to keep things a little more simple. Part of my motivation for keeping it simple is that I think that people are often overloaded. Because I've waded in these waters for many years, I can present mountains of difficult terminology and multitudes of different positions. But does this communicate? Sometimes, simplicity is preferred over overloading people. So I try to approach the matter with people with the assumption that they don't know very much. It is a very difficult balance.

Fourth: With respect to determinism and indeterminism, I really think that you only have three options. You either hold to determinism, indeterminism, or some sort of mixture. The main issue for the mixture view is going to be the issue of ultimate causation. Both sides cannot be played on the issue of ultimate causation precisely because ultimacy is at issue, and being an ultimate cause does not admit to anything greater. Perhaps one could point out dual or multiple causation being ultimate. But I again would argue against this by means of the scriptures presented above. Any form of human ultimacy cannot be maintained in light of verses that directly state man's and creation's dependence. Hence, I firmly stand in the compatibilistic view.

Frustration in Communication
"It is frustrating is it not?" Absolutely! It is immensely frustrating when people do not listen. I am thankful for the civil, good conversation thus far. Even if I fail to understand or address, I am definitely trying to listen and deal with your points.

Isms and Baptist
I have a similar memory. I was attending (and a member of) a Baptist church, but I was visiting a more Charismatic/Reformed church. I sat at a table with a person, who shared their negative experiences with Baptists. Apparently, they were bad, sour people. However, this wasn't the only time that I visited that church. During a different visit, I was welcomed warmly and given the royal treatment as a visitor. So, I just took it as one person, who had a bad experience with Baptist. When he asked what church I attended, I mentioned that it was a church down the street. I intentionally kept it vague so as to keep the conversation civil. After all, it really doesn't matter much the denomination title; the real issue is doctrine for me. And for me, at that time, the church I was a part of was very solidly biblically grounded (however, I didn't care for the overt dispensationalism, but I wasn't Covenant either....another can of worms, lol).

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Responding to Opening Comments
At the beginning of your response, you asked me to explain. You quoted three sentences, so my comments will be arranged as points 1-3 in relation to those sentences.

1. My first sentence addresses how the Bible presents several avenues of causation. There is not a one-size-fits-all view of causation. I will give you a link to an opening post. I addressed the issue of responsibility and causation, and in the section titled "Causal Conflation Fallacy," I pointed out important distinctions as well as a brief biblical introduction to causal nuances. Link following. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/
2. The next sentence points out how no human being is outside of God's causal sustaining hand. I'll simply quote several scriptures that demonstrate this point (underlining key portions). If you would like, I can spend some time explaining them. However, I'm only interested in presenting the Biblical evidence.
   1. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
      nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. (Acts 17:24-25 ESV)
   2. For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:36 ESV)
   3. yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Corinthians 8:6 ESV)
   4. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
      (Colossians 1:16-17 ESV)
   5. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (Hebrews 1:3 ESV)
3. My final sentence stated, "No human being is autonomous from God." By autonomous I mean, "self-sufficient, independent, an ultimate cause." I really think that this point is clearly made in the scriptures presented above. Creation is the all-encompassing term. Creation is both dependent upon God for its beginning, and creation is dependent upon God for its continuing existence. The Acts passage above move from creation to a more narrow aspect of creation, namely the service human beings give to God. The point is clear. Since God made everything and gives to all mankind, life, and breath, and everything, then God is not served as though He needs anything. This verse makes is very clear that man is entirely dependent upon God (the opposite of independence/autonomy), and that this dependence leads to a humbled view of human service to God. Much more could be written about the other verses.

But how does this cause man to act in any way that is against God?

Options for Defining Free
Next you address my comments explaining a critical divide between different understandings of "free" with respect to the will. Your main concern appears to be arriving at a false dichotomy, when in fact there are more options. First, I can largely sympathize with your comment. Certainly, you don't want to get placed within a false dichotomy. It is called a fallacy in thinking for a reason. And I can see that my approach is focused upon libertarian freedom and compatibilism's definitions of "free". As far as "main" options, I've only seen three: libertarian, compatibilism, and agnostic. The agnostic people usually just throw up their hands and claim mystery before allowing the Bible to be consulted on the issues. However, I can totally get the agnostic approach. Wading into these waters is to wade into a massive debate, and it WILL take work. There is no getting around it. The topic can seem seriously daunting. And sometimes people just don't have the time or the mental resources to thoroughly investigate the matter. However, I usually see people (in general) trying hard to circumvent discussion over the issues. So while I think that the agnostic position is ok to hold, especially if you haven't studied the issues; I don't like it used as a way to be lazy and ignore the issues.

With respect to the libertarian and compatibilistic positions, there is significantly greater nuance within each. For example, the libertarian view sometimes differs with respect to ultimacy. Sometimes the will is deemed as an ultimate cause, and others hold to the agent being an ultimate cause. I think that both nuances fail.

what is compatibilistic? Never heard of this. And I am neither agnostic or libertarian

With respect to determinism and indeterminism, I really think that you only have three options. You either hold to determinism, indeterminism, or some sort of mixture. The main issue for the mixture view is going to be the issue of ultimate causation. Both sides cannot be played on the issue of ultimate causation precisely because ultimacy is at issue, and being an ultimate cause does not admit to anything greater. Perhaps one could point out dual or multiple causation being ultimate. But I again would argue against this by means of the scriptures presented above. Human ultimacy cannot be maintained in light of verses that directly state man's and creation's dependence. Hence, I firmly stand in the compatibilistic view.

I am not sure what any of these mean.. so am still at a loss..

Frustration in Communication
"It is frustrating is it not?" Absolutely! It is immensely frustrating when people do not listen. I am thankful for the civil, good conversation thus far. Even if I fail to understand or address, I am definitely trying to listen and deal with your points.

Amen and Amen. Yes. you are from what I see and I thank you.

some sadly have not done this

Isms and Baptist
I have a similar memory. I was attending (and a member of) a Baptist church, but I was visiting a more Charismatic/Reformed church. I sat at a table with a person, who shared their negative experiences with Baptists. Apparently, they were bad, sour people. However, this wasn't the only time that I visited that church. During a different visit, I was welcomed warmly and given the royal treatment as a visitor. So, I just took it as one person, who had a bad experience with Baptist. When he asked what church I attended, I mentioned that it was church down the street. I intentionally kept it vague so as to keep the conversation civil. After all, it really doesn't matter much the denomination title; the real issue is doctrine for me. And for me, at that time, the church I was a part of was very solidly biblically grounded (however, I didn't care for the overt dispensationalism, but I wasn't Covenant either....another can of worms, lol).

oh no!! We will not open that can.. I can see someone saying a Baptist was a bad or sour people. I have seen some very legalistic Baptist churches. that focus so much or lordship salvation as I call it. their congregations had to hide their sins, and as I witnessed. start trying to push into people who had greater sins than their own. because they had to because they thought they did not measure up. so needed to try to hide this fact.. This is why I left my church and for frustration left the whole church for 5 years as a prodigal son

 

[His clay]

But how does this cause man to act in any way that is against God?


what is compatibilistic? Never heard of this. And I am neither agnostic or libertarian

I am not sure what any of these mean.. so am still at a loss..

Amen and Amen. Yes. you are from what I see and I thank you.

some sadly have not done this



oh no!! We will not open that can.. I can see someone saying a Baptist was a bad or sour people. I have seen some very legalistic Baptist churches. that focus so much or lordship salvation as I call it. their congregations had to hide their sins, and as I witnessed. start trying to push into people who had greater sins than their own. because they had to because they thought they did not measure up. so needed to try to hide this fact.. This is why I left my church and for frustration left the whole church for 5 years as a prodigal son

"But how does this cause man to act in any way that is against God?" I'm going to have to ask for clarification here. What is your referent for "this"? Restated, in your question you utilize the word "this;" what are you referring to when you write "this"?

"what is compatibilistic? Never heard of this." I provided you a link in my last post. In the section titled, "Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom," you will be able to see a very quick definition given. I'll provide the link again. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

"I am not sure what any of these mean.. so am still at a loss.." I usually prefer to use the words "caused" and "uncaused." This is because "determinism" and "indeterminism" can be unclear. So here me out as I try to explain using biblical terminology. We all know the opening verse of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This means that God "caused" the heavens and the earth to exist.

On the sixth day, God created man and woman. In chapter two we get a zoomed in picture of what this creation entailed. Part of this zoomed in picture presents God as forming man from the dust of the ground and creating Eve from Adam's rib. This is explaining a little of the "how" God "caused" Adam and Eve to exist.

I've been highlighting the word "cause" in relation to creation. The word "cause" very roughly corresponds to the word "determine." However, not all causation is equal; we have different types of causation/determination. We also have "preservation," which is when God preserves the existence of what He has created. We see this in the verses that I gave you in the last post. God upholds the creation by the word of His power. God gives to all mankind, life, and breath, and everything. Of Him (creation), and through Him (sustaining preservation), and to Him (probably indicating God's purpose, end, or goal) are all things.

Having observed causation/determination, we can now see its opposite. An uncaused/indeterminate person is God. God is eternal. He is uncreated. He is self-sufficient. Nothing and no one outside of God causes/determines Him to be the way that He is. Often we use the terms, self-sufficient, asceity, etc to describe God in this way.

I'll try to land here. Nearly the entire debate lands on one issue. Who or what is ultiately uncaused? Who or what is ultimately the source? The libertarian viewpoint makes man (or his will) an ultimate cause. The compatibilist sees God as the ultimate cuase. (An ultimate cause is something or someone who is not caused by anything or any other, i.e. uncaused.)

I'll stop here and see how you respond.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

"But how does this cause man to act in any way that is against God?" I'm going to have to ask for clarification here. What is your referent for "this"? Restated, in your question you utilize the word "this;" what are you referring to when you write "this"?

I may have misunderstood you. When I hear the words causation in context in here. I think of the thinking God caused everything we do.

"what is compatibilistic? Never heard of this." I provided you a link in my last post. In the section titled, "Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom," you will be able to see a very quick definition given. I'll provide the link again. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

ok. I went to the link. I would disagree with both causations.. I think I have explained this a few times. But I am not libertarian, or compatibilistic.

"I am not sure what any of these mean.. so am still at a loss.." I usually prefer to use the words "caused" and "uncaused." This is because "determinism" and "indeterminism" can be unclear. So here me out as I try to explain using biblical terminology. We all know the opening verse of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This means that God "caused" the heavens and the earth to exist.

amen and agree

On the sixth day, God created man and woman. In chapter two we get a zoomed in picture of what this creation entailed. Part of this zoomed in picture presents God as forming man from the dust of the ground and creating Eve from Adam's rib. This is explaining a little of the "how" God "caused" Adam and Eve to exist.

agree, 100%

I've been highlighting the word "cause" in relation to creation. The word "cause" very roughly corresponds to the word "determine." However, not all causation is equal; we have different types of causation/determination. We also have "preservation," which is when God preserves the existence of what He has created. We see this in the verses that I gave you in the last post. God upholds the creation by the word of His power. God gives to all mankind, life, and breath, and everything. Of Him (creation), and through Him (sustaining preservation), and to Him (probably indicating God's purpose, end, or goal) are all things.

Having observed causation/determination, we can now see its opposite. An uncaused/indeterminate person is God. God is eternal. He is uncreated. He is self-sufficient. Nothing and no one outside of God causes/determines Him to be the way that He is. Often we use the terms, self-sufficient, asceity, etc to describe God in this way.

I'll try to land here. Nearly the entire debate lands on one issue. Who or what is ultiately uncaused? Who or what is ultimately the source? The libertarian viewpoint makes man an ultimate cause. The compatibilist sees God as the ultimate cuase.

I'll stop here and see how you respond.

I look to what caused Adam, knowing it was against God, to take the fruit of the tree from his wife and eat.

was Adam the ultimate cause?

or was God the ultimate cause?

I do not think Adam was the ultimate cause, and I do not think it was his highest purpose or his ultimate desire to break Gods command. I think there was a third reason.

I also am of the view. if God caused it. then God should be held accountable.

I think of it this way. If I act in a way to bully or pester or nag or cause my child to act out and do something for which she will be found guilty. I too hold some of the blame.

She is the ultimate blame because she sinned

I am the instigator and the cause. so I should not be held as if I am not guilty myself. as if I did nothing wrong.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
John does not say that this receiving is a result of the willed act of believing, nor by being convinced. I hope you read the last time we went through this. Can you show from Scripture where John says that the receiving of the Spirit and its immediate benefits, is a result of the willed act of believing? In fact, you can't even show that the believing is a willed act at all!


Ok, in post 585 you said, my comments within [brackets], "so as you can see. I just can not agree with you that it [I assume you mean, here, 'believing'] is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")

in fact. to me this poses a fallacy

If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act."

The fallacy you are saying I made is when I claimed that faith is not a willful act, the fallacy itself being, (implied), in that my claiming belief is not a willful act logically reduces to the faith being forced.

If I'm getting you right there, let me ask you this, then: If you must consider it forced, does 'forced' necessarily mean it is action against active conscious will to the contrary?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

makesends said:
John does not say that this receiving is a result of the willed act of believing, nor by being convinced. I hope you read the last time we went through this. Can you show from Scripture where John says that the receiving of the Spirit and its immediate benefits, is a result of the willed act of believing? In fact, you can't even show that the believing is a willed act at all!


Ok, in post 585 you said, my comments within [brackets], "so as you can see. I just can not agree with you that it [I assume you mean, here, 'believing'] is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")

in fact. to me this poses a fallacy

If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act."

The fallacy you are saying I made is when I claimed that faith is not a willful act, the fallacy itself being, (implied), in that my claiming belief is not a willful act logically reduces to the faith being forced.

If I'm getting you right there, let me ask you this, then: If you must consider it forced, does 'forced' necessarily mean it is action against active conscious will to the contrary?

I am just trying to fine a route that makes sense.

If it is not a will full act (If I did not will fully do this on my own,) then as you said, it is either a caused act. or was it a forced act?

I willingly acted in calling out to Jesus in faith to receive his salvation. as any person who realizes their desperate situation and inablily to save themselves would when a savior is sent

If I did not willfully act. then was I forced? What caused me to act against or counter to my will..

does this help?

 

[makesends]

I am just trying to fine a route that makes sense.

If it is not a will full act (If I did not will fully do this on my own,) then as you said, it is either a caused act. or was it a forced act?

I willingly acted in calling out to Jesus in faith to receive his salvation. as any person who realizes their desperate situation and inablily to save themselves would when a savior is sent

If I did not willfully act. then was I forced? What caused me to act against or counter to my will..

does this help?

The problem is in perception, then. You say you called out to him and so were saved. You assume your act of calling out was seminal to the salvation.

I say your will was changed prior to calling out. It is not your calling out that saved you. Your calling out, no matter what it felt like, results in your relief by way of the fellowship you felt, including all its forms—feelings of security, joy, etc.. Whether or not the calling out coincided with the regeneration is irrelevant to the causal sequence.

But the question of the fallacy has to do with the perspective. My perspective did not make sense to you as cogent, because (to put it in its plainest terms) you kept assuming I meant that one must be changed before he can be changed. But, instead, what I am saying is that one must be changed in order to want or ask to be changed.

(Others may argue whether faith is a result of regeneration. I see the two as both direct effects of the Spirit's indwelling. Neither available without the other. (Maybe even, it could be said, neither one causal of the other, though that is more than I can definitely say).)

Anyhow, this is why I don't see the logical fallacy you attach to my thesis. My thesis does follow logically, as far as what you were attesting to, I think, because you thought what I was referring to necessarily is man's becoming something in order to become it. I was not. I was saying that man can't even ask for it, until he already has it, and that his asking for it is a result of him already having it. His asking for it IS DOES NOT CAUSE him to get it. He already has it at that point. What he does get, by crying out, is fellowship.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I look to what caused Adam, knowing it was against God, to take the fruit of the tree from his wife and eat. Was Adam the ultimate cause? Or was God the ultimate cause?

The Reformed view provides what I consider the most satisfying answer: Adam was the proximate cause (his will), God was the ultimate cause (his purpose).

I also am of the view that, if he caused it, God should be held accountable.

To whom?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have a proposal that I'm submitting to the community for engaged feedback:

• Rather than talking about whether the human will is free—a horribly ambiguous term—we should talk about whether it is autonomous.

By framing the issue in terms of human autonomy, the theological and philosophical focus is clarified.

First, scripture frames the issue in terms of divine sovereignty, not human autonomy. The Bible does not present the human will as operating independently of God, but rather as existing within and subject to God's sovereign purpose. God alone is autonomous, man is not.

Second, the question of autonomy highlights the Creator-creature distinction. The fundamental theological issue is not whether man makes choices (he does), but whether he does so independently of God (he does not). Paul affirms in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move about and exist." This flatly denies autonomy while affirming creaturely dependence.

Third, autonomy is the theological root of the fall and sin. Satan's temptation in Genesis 3:5 ("You will be like God") was a temptation to autonomy. Sinful man's constant rebellion is an attempt to usurp divine authority and claim autonomy. In contrast, Christ in his obedience (Php 2:8) models that a pure will submits to the Father rather than seeking autonomy.

Fourth, this framing avoids unhelpful philosophical baggage. The term "free will" is often co-opted by libertarianism, which assumes a power of contrary choice outside of divine causality. Asking whether the will is autonomous requires people to deal with divine sovereignty rather than assuming an unbiblical notion of human freedom.

Rather than engaging in misleading debates over human "free will," shifting the discussion to human "autonomy" centers the conversation on the true theological issue: whether the human will operates independently of God. This approach is more biblical, theocentric, and Christocentric. It aligns with divine sovereignty, preserves the Creator-creature distinction, and exposes the real issue behind sinful rebellion.

 

[makesends]

I have a proposal that I'm submitting to the community for engaged feedback:

• Rather than talking about whether the human will is free—a horribly ambiguous term—we should talk about whether it is autonomous.

By framing the issue in terms of human autonomy, the theological and philosophical focus is clarified.

First, scripture frames the issue in terms of divine sovereignty, not human autonomy. The Bible does not present the human will as operating independently of God, but rather as existing within and subject to God's sovereign purpose. God alone is autonomous, man is not.

Second, the question of autonomy highlights the Creator-creature distinction. The fundamental theological issue is not whether man makes choices (he does), but whether he does so independently of God (he does not). Paul affirms in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move about and exist." This flatly denies autonomy while affirming creaturely dependence.

Third, autonomy is the theological root of the fall and sin. Satan's temptation in Genesis 3:5 ("You will be like God") was a temptation to autonomy. Sinful man's constant rebellion is an attempt to usurp divine authority and claim autonomy. In contrast, Christ in his obedience (Php 2:8) models that a pure will submits to the Father rather than seeking autonomy.

Fourth, this framing avoids unhelpful philosophical baggage. The term "free will" is often co-opted by libertarianism, which assumes a power of contrary choice outside of divine causality. Asking whether the will is autonomous requires people to deal with divine sovereignty rather than assuming an unbiblical notion of human freedom.

Rather than engaging in misleading debates over human "free will," shifting the discussion to human "autonomy" centers the conversation on the true theological issue: whether the human will operates independently of God. This approach is more biblical, theocentric, and Christocentric. It aligns with divine sovereignty, preserves the Creator-creature distinction, and exposes the real issue behind sinful rebellion.

Not a bad idea, but one problem. The one guy, @Eternally-Grateful , has said that the will is not autonomous, and that faith comes from God —even has said that he is not a synergist— yet his main disagreement with me is by his consideration of my claims of regeneration coming before repentance, submission etc, as fallacious, because, to his mind, regeneration is still necessarily something the person calls upon God for, as a result of faith.

I'm saying that I think he would agree with what you have said so far. But not what you think it implies.

Please, @Eternally-Grateful , if you would, correct me on this, or restate it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Not a bad idea, but one problem. The one guy, Eternally-Grateful, has said that the will is not autonomous, ...

Where did he say that? Because—to his own chagrin, I'm sure—that answers the question that I have been asking him. If the human will is NOT autonomous, that means God CAN control it (even if he never actually would). If the human will IS autonomous, that means God CAN'T control it (and therefore he never would).

I'm saying that I think he would agree with what you have said, so far, but not what you think it implies.

I suspect that once he realizes human autonomy answers the question I have been asking him, he will immediately rescind his agreement.

 

[makesends]

Where did he say that? Because—to his own chagrin, I'm sure—that answers the question that I have been asking him. If the human will is NOT autonomous, that means God CAN control it (even if he never actually would). If the human will IS autonomous, that means God CAN'T control it (and therefore he never would).

Try it.

I suspect that once he realizes human autonomy answers the question I have been asking him, he will immediately rescind his agreement.

Well, it's worth trying, I hope.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The problem is in perception, then. You say you called out to him and so were saved. You assume your act of calling out was seminal to the salvation.

Did the tax collector call out?

I say your will was changed prior to calling out.

Actually I became bankrupt (poor in spirit) I was desperate. I was so afraid of what eternity held for me that I was at a point I did not think I had any hope. I was like the last person alive from an overturned boat in the middle of the ocean. with 60 foot waves crashing all around me, And no land in site.

and when the savior came, and offered to save me, I called out. Yes lord. Save me, I want your grace gift. Because without it, i will die.

It is not your calling out that saved you.

No, It was God that saved me

Your calling out, no matter what it felt like, results in your relief by way of the fellowship you felt, including all its forms—feelings of security, joy, etc.. Whether or not the calling out coincided with the regeneration is irrelevant to the causal sequence.

I had no joy when I called out. or fellowship. Like the tax collector I was lost. No hope. Bankrupt.

The savior offered me life. and I received it in hop and faith. Because I had no place else to turn

But the question of the fallacy has to do with the perspective. My perspective did not make sense to you as cogent, because (to put it in its plainest terms) you kept assuming I meant that one must be changed before he can be changed. But, instead, what I am saying is that one must be changed in order to want or ask to be changed.

Actually it was your wording.

You said we are not saved by a willed act.. By definition. it must then be a caused act. or unwilled act..

I was thinking of this this morning while I was trying to wake up. If I remember right, you think you are born again, THEN you will to act in faith and recieve salvation is this not correct?

So we both believe our sins were forgiven by a willed act.

Its just you think you were born again first. then understood enough to call out in faith?

I think and act of God helped me understand, and in faith acted and then was born again

(Others may argue whether faith is a result of regeneration. I see the two as both direct effects of the Spirit's indwelling. Neither available without the other. (Maybe even, it could be said, neither one causal of the other, though that is more than I can definitely say).)

do you believe they happen simultaneously as many calvinists do?

Anyhow, this is why I don't see the logical fallacy you attach to my thesis. My thesis does follow logically,

again, It is the words. not the thesis.

as far as what you were attesting to, I think, because you thought what I was referring to necessarily is man's becoming something in order to become it. I was not. I was saying that man can't even ask for it, until he already has it,

this is a logical fallacy in itself.

"from my point of view"

again, if i already have it, I do not need to ask for it.

and that his asking for it is a result of him already having it. His asking for it IS DOES NOT CAUSE him to get it. He already has it at that point. What he does get, by crying out, is fellowship.

this just does not make any sense to me..

and I guess answers my question above.

Your asking for fellowship. Not asking for justification (forgiveness of sin)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The Reformed view provides what I consider the most satisfying answer: Adam was the proximate cause (his will), God was the ultimate cause (his purpose).

This makes me sick inside. and probably why I do not like fatalistic thinking when it comes to Gods sovereignty

God purposed or planned the fall of mankind and all the evil and hardship. and pain and suffering

I can not even fathom a God that would even think of this.

To whom?

If God is guilty. Then God loses the ability to judge. because he can not accuse and try people for doing what he is guilty of also.

also. Jesus sacrifice is null and void. Jesus was not sinless. He caused evil. so he is just as guilty of those who did evil (all of us)