Free will. What is it?

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

According to this, then, man has absolutely no will. He is not free to do what he wants, and he is bound by what God has him do. I do not see this in scripture.

There is a lot to go through here.

For starters, notice the absence of any logical connection between what I said (man is not autonomous) and the wild conclusion that Eternally-Grateful drew (man has no will). That simply doesn't follow, on the face of it (prima facie). It is self-evident that man has a will—the mental faculty for deliberate choice and action shaped by our desires (what we want) and intentions (what we plan to do)—but neither man nor his will is autonomous. We are beholden in every way to a purposeful covenant God. According to scripture, man is constituted as a covenant creature, made in the image of God. Man is not autonomous, but nevertheless has a will.

But notice, too, that Eternally-Grateful imposed the term "free" in the context of my suggestion that we jettison the term, almost as if he is blind to his own prejudices. (But I must allow the possibility that he did it on purpose.) If he wanted to take my proposal seriously, he might have said that man "has no autonomy to do what he wants"—and I would have agreed, as would others here. It is true that man is able to do what he wants but not autonomously. He is a covenant creature subject to a God of purpose. And what unregenerate man wants to do is sin, and for that he needs no help from God. (But possibly Eternally-Grateful didn't want to take my proposal seriously.)

Man is not "bound by what God has him do," as if we are robots following a coded program. Man is bound by the purposes of a holy God; that is, God accomplishes his purposes (the ends) through the voluntary choices of man (the means). "Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails" (Prov 19:21). Again, man is not autonomous but nevertheless has a will.

Finally, notice that Eternally-Grateful did not address the biblical claim I had made. If he thinks the Bible DOES present the human will as operating independently of God, and NOT as existing within and subject to God's sovereign purpose, this would have been the perfect opportunity to suggest that and open it up for discussion.

[The material not quoted here was his commentary on Acts 17:28.]

I am probably not the only one who noticed that Eternally-Grateful disregarded the point of citing this passage, namely, that if "in him we live and move and have our being" then we are not autonomous—by definition.

But his commentary itself on Acts 17:28 didn't even refute or undermine that point. Please observe that not a single one of these statements requires the autonomy of man:

• "Here we have God's ... command [that] all men everywhere to repent."
• "... and that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for [him] and find him, for he is not far from us."
• "[We] cannot do this unless we have the ability to do this."

Not even that last statement defeats what I said. Arguing for human ability doesn't make the case for human autonomy—unless ability is supposed to entail autonomy, and good luck proving that from a Christian worldview.

Is this what really happened? Adam was thinking of usurping Gods authority, and not thinking of any other reason? I cannot say I agree here.

I had suggested that the pretense of human autonomy is a usurpation of divine authority, which is true by definition. (Look up the word autonomy.) And man has been doing this since the garden of Eden, living as if we decide for ourselves, usurping an authority that belongs to God. As Christians, we pray like Jesus, "Thy will be done." Did Jesus decide for himself? Should we? That is why Satan's temptation in Genesis 3:5 was a temptation to autonomy—and to contemplate or seek autonomy is to usurp God's authority, by definition, whether Adam does it or his progeny.

Misleading debates?

How about we just discuss what each other sees and believes. Then discuss those beliefs.

The misleading issue is trying to put people under a grouping (this person believes OSAS so he must be calvin, this person believes he can chose so he must be libertarian) when 90 % of the time. neither option is true.

I doubt there's any need for me to point out that I haven't done any of those things; I haven't tried to place Eternally-Grateful in any particular box (or "category," as he said). Although he very strongly suspects me of doing so, the evidence of our conversation proves that it's unjustified. At some point, and soon, I am going to have to crack down on him misrepresenting me and what I've said (and the lack of charity and edification, which are in the Rules & Guidelines).

There is one major flaw in your thinking: We were born dead, meaning we were not born saved. Something had to happen for that salvation to occur. Until then, we were dead in trespasses and sins.

Since, as someone who is Reformed, I believe all those things, I struggle to see where the flaw in my thinking is supposed to be.

"What did God know?" he asked, immediately forfeiting the debate. It is not "what" but "whom" God foreknew (Rom 8:29; προέγνω denotes relational and elective knowledge rather than mere cognition, cf. Amos 3:2). "The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19; cf. John 10:27-30).

whoever sees and believes

"You are not my sheep because you do not believe," Jesus said (John 10:26).

Oh, wait. No, he didn't. That was the Arminian Mistranslated Version.

"The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God's words. You don't listen and respond, because you don't belong to God" (John 8:47). Again, God knows who are his.

I do not judge God.

Please notice that I never said he did.

"If God caused sin, then he should be held accountable," said the person who hates hypotheticals.

"To whom?" I asked. (And he never answered that.)

"If God is guilty," said the person who hates hypotheticals—but we can truncate the rest because that alone is interesting.

"Who would dare to judge God?," I asked, wondering about that verdict. "Man?" (And he never answered that.)

"I do not judge God," he replied, utterly failing to answer my question. Let us accept that Eternally-Grateful does not (and would not) judge God. But telling us who WOULDN'T judge God leaves my question unanswered.

Perhaps this is where he would reassert his disdain for hypotheticals.

 

[Hazelelponi]

For starters, notice the absence of any logical connection b

Why is it that some will say freewill to only seeming to have a choice of what we might prefer under the framework of the head we are under?

To me to say freewill is a lie, but sometimes I don't know what else to say.

But maybe we are supposed to say free? It just seems nonsense to me though.

I like how you're using autonomy and the like, maybe I can change my language without saying nonsense.

I don't think I am a good speaker. I just seem to make everyone mad.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Why is it that some will say freewill to only seeming to have a choice of what we might prefer under the framework of the head we are under?

To me to say freewill is a lie, but sometimes I don't know what else to say.

But maybe we are supposed to say free? It just seems nonsense to me though.

I like how you're using autonomy and the like, maybe I can change my language without saying nonsense.

I don't think I am a good speaker. I just seem to make everyone mad.

I seem to have lost the purpose of this thread. This thread was opened to discuss our views of what we think free will is. Instead it appears to have become a me vs them thread with people taking offense because someone does not see its they do. Then making demands you must do this or that.

I was also trying to get rid of isms and try to focus on the word not what this group or that group thinks

 

[Tambora]

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

I hear ya. Makes me sick also.
There is a lot that can be said about this topic and I'm glad both viewpoints can be expressed.
Both views are so opposed to each other that it is hard not to think that the other side has lost their mind.

For me this has all the markings of the gnostic idea of "fate" in that nothing can be done that is not already determined to be.
Many of the pagan religions adhere to "fate".
Most Greek tragedy writings are about their characters not being able to change what the gods have already fated for them.
And the Norse Vikings had the same type of religion and is why their warriors were never afraid to fight no matter what the odds were; because if they were not fated to die today then they had nothing to worry about, and if they were fated to die today then there was nothing they could do to change it.

My interest in all ancient literature makes it easy to spot.
But in scripture we read time and time again when God asks His people to make the choice of whom they will serve, to make the choice to come back to Him when they stray, etc.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I seem to have lost the purpose of this thread. This thread was opened to discuss our views of what we think free will is. Instead it appears to have become a me vs them thread with people taking offense because someone does not see its they do. Then making demands you must do this or that.

I was also trying to get rid of isms and try to focus on the word not what this group or that group thinks

I wasn't doing groups, I was discussing/asking ways to speak about my beliefs. .

I'm sorry that offends you somehow. I'm here trying to learn, and thought to ask a learned brother a question that I thought he might be able to give me a good answer on.

I'll leave aside asking questions as you wish.

 

[Arial]

Why is it that some will say freewill to only seeming to have a choice of what we might prefer under the framework of the head we are under?

To me to say freewill is a lie, but sometimes I don't know what else to say.

But maybe we are supposed to say free? It just seems nonsense to me though.

I like how you're using autonomy and the like, maybe I can change my language without saying nonsense.

I don't think I am a good speaker. I just seem to make everyone mad.

Not everyone. Just one that I can see and look at the reason. You disagree with him.

 

[Eleanor]

Why is it that some will say freewill to only seeming to have a choice of what we might prefer under the framework of the head we are under?
To me to say freewill is a lie, but sometimes I don't know what else to say.

We do have the power to make moral choices, but not all moral choices; e.g., we cannot choose to be sinless.

But maybe we are supposed to say free? It just seems nonsense to me though.
I like how you're using autonomy and the like, maybe I can change my language without saying nonsense.
I don't think I am a good speaker. I just seem to make everyone mad.

First of all, "free will" is not in Scripture. It is a philosophical notion of man, based on the human assumption that if man is morally responsible then he must have the moral free will (power) to choose which, being a notion of man, may be why it seems nonsense to you.

What we have in Scripture is that everyone is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). So that takes man's philosophical free will (power) off the table.

Now we have to determine what man's notion of moral "free will" (power to make all moral choices) actually means as we see it in Scripture.

And what we see there is that man is not morally "free," he does not have the power to make all moral choices; e.g., to do no sin,
what he has is simply the power to choose what he prefers.

All of which I am sure you are quite aware.

 

[Arial]

Why is it that some will say freewill to only seeming to have a choice of what we might prefer under the framework of the head we are under?

To me to say freewill is a lie, but sometimes I don't know what else to say.

But maybe we are supposed to say free? It just seems nonsense to me though.

I like how you're using autonomy and the like, maybe I can change my language without saying nonsense.

I don't think I am a good speaker. I just seem to make everyone mad.

@Eleanor said it very well. Hence, as @DialecticSkeptic said autonomous is a better word since it gets directly to the assertions by those who are advocating "free will". And "free will" is seen in a plethora of ways by different people. That is why this thread is so long, keeps going over the same ground, actual issues not directly addressed by the OP author, but instead, also, moving the thread in a variety of different directions.

The OP stated his definition of "free will". No one disputes that humans are an agent who makes choices. (His definition: the ability to choose between two or more options.) It was pointed out early and by many that to define it that way is an oxymoron and why it is. He stated that his intent was to examine the definition of "free will" that others have. Then stated in so many words, that was impossible to do.

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.

Then he quickly proved that statement, continues to prove it, blames it on others who were asked to do something they don't refute: Man has the ability to choose between two or more options. And failed to listen to, hear, or understand anything they said, and yet disagreed with them at every turn. Then again blamed the situation on them not being able to understand what he says. We understand perfectly what he is saying and would dearly appreciate it if he would show us how what we say is wrong by considering carefully what we say.

@Eternally-Grateful won't even respond to my posts anymore. Which is condescending and dismissive----a violation of God's rules as to how the brethren are to treat one another.

So EG, we are not treating you badly as you say, though I understand why you think that. We appreciate you being here. The Reformed on this site are just doing what Reformed do when they engage in conversations on forums as they contend for the faith. They present it exegetically, systematically, expositionally. Not as an "ism" but as the word of God as written. It is what you asked for in the OP. We took you at your word, and still do. There is much here to learn if the ears of the understanding are engaged, a willingness to learn is there. No one is putting you down, or standing in arrogance against you. The thread lost its potential, and it had much potential, as quickly taking offense came in and the very human instinct to then defend oneself against a perceived attack. There was no attack on you, and the thread can turn around, even now, to one that is edifying.

In saying the above, I am not attacking and I am not insulting. I am identifying the problem.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I wasn't doing groups, I was discussing/asking ways to speak about my beliefs. .

I'm sorry that offends you somehow. I'm here trying to learn, and thought to ask a learned brother a question that I thought he might be able to give me a good answer on.

I'll leave aside asking questions as you wish.

I was not talking about you but a few others. Sorry if you misunderstood me

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not everyone. Just one that I can see and look at the reason. You disagree with him.

See this is what I am talking about here. This use always has some point to make against someone who disagrees with them. Even here they got it wrong (I assume here this person is talking about me)

The sad part is. If the user is talking about me they are wrong. Because I do not believe or think what the user said that I appear to be accused off

Of course that is why I no longer respond to this person. Always accusing always defending but never or for the most part never understanding

(Now I will Wait for this post to be deleted)

 

[Arial]

See this is what I am talking about here. This use always has some point to make against someone who disagrees with them. Even here they got it wrong (I assume here this person is talking about me)

The sad part is. If the user is talking about me they are wrong. Because I do not believe or think what the user said that I appear to be accused off

Of course that is why I no longer respond to this person. Always accusing always defending but never or for the most part never understanding

(Now I will Wait for this post to be deleted)

Actually I was only trying to help @Hazelelponi as she seemed to think she was making people mad by the things she said.

 

[Arial]

I was not talking about you but a few others. Sorry if you misunderstood me

See this is what I am talking about here. This use always has some point to make against someone who disagrees with them. Even here they got it wrong (I assume here this person is talking about me)

The sad part is. If the user is talking about me they are wrong. Because I do not believe or think what the user said that I appear to be accused off

Of course that is why I no longer respond to this person. Always accusing always defending but never or for the most part never understanding

 

[Hazelelponi]

See this is what I am talking about here. This use always has some point to make against someone who disagrees with them. Even here they got it wrong (I assume here this person is talking about me)

The sad part is. If the user is talking about me they are wrong. Because I do not believe or think what the user said that I appear to be accused off

Of course that is why I no longer respond to this person. Always accusing always defending but never or for the most part never understanding

(Now I will Wait for this post to be deleted)

The user you're talking about is an upstanding sister in the faith whom I hold respect for, and value her thoughts.

She does facts, and does them very well spoken. I appreciate that, it's a rare gift.

I find her very calming myself. I spent this morning listening to Hamas and it was nice coming here.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The user you're talking about is an upstanding brother in the faith whom I hold respect for, and value his thoughts.

He does facts, and does them very well spoken. I appreciate that, it's a rare gift.

I find him very calming myself. I spent this morning listening to Hamas and it was nice coming here.

I am glad you see this

 

[Arial]

See this is what I am talking about here. This use always has some point to make against someone who disagrees with them. Even here they got it wrong (I assume here this person is talking about me)

The sad part is. If the user is talking about me they are wrong. Because I do not believe or think what the user said that I appear to be accused off

Of course that is why I no longer respond to this person. Always accusing always defending but never or for the most part never understanding

(Now I will Wait for this post to be deleted)

Yes, you did violate the rules when you openly accused me of always insulting those who disagree with me and for the most part never understanding. But I will leave it up to others to take action if any. What I will do instead is give you some instruction on the matter.

A great many of your responses to me have contained this same accusation. It is public defamation of my person without ever identifying the insults or my lack of understanding. You simply state my reason as being a doctrinal disagreement with the poster, which speaks to your knowledge of the operation of my mind---which you cannot know. If you feel you have been insulted----that is what the report button is for. When using that, what you perceive as an insult will be made known to staff, and they can handle it.

I have never deliberately insulted you and certainly I would not do so just because someone disagreed with me. Perceived insults are not always insults, but are a result of a person being overly sensitive. The perception, if it is not an actual insult, will be dealt with just as much as if it were an insult, and you will be notified with an explanation. It is also not acceptable to abuse the report button as a retaliatory means of dealing with personal feelings towards another.

 

[His clay]

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.


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.

amen and agree

agree, 100%


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.

I'm just going to move slowly through your response here. Your words will be quoted in blue font. I'll aim at key ideas.

An Important Distinction
"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."
In relation to your last post, where you wrote of "cause man to act in any way that is against God?" (post 628), a very helpful distinction exists between God's prescriptive and descriptive will. The distinction is very helpful because it allows us to explain what is actually going on in different passages. For example, we have the passage in Acts 4 where persecuted Christians are praying. Part of their prayer points to God's sovereignty in relation to the crucifixion. Many people acted in the crucifixion. And the text states, "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:28) The passages makes it abundantly clear that their actions against the Messiah were predestined to take place by God hand and plan. So here comes the exceedingly important distinction. There is a massive difference between what God predestines to take place and what God has said people ought to do. One deals with existence, and the other deals with the commands people are responsible for.

A Critical Point about Initial Causation
Certainly, Calvinists are well knows for their view of God's all-encompassing decree. In many ways, the decree is the blueprint (like an engineer's or architect's blueprint) that is behind creation and history. However, less well known is the fact that any Christian, who is not infected with Open Theism, has much the same problem as the Calvinist. I write of the problem of causation in relation to evil. I'll state this clearly. If you hold to the biblical reality that God knows all things in a self-sufficient way, then you also hold to the fact that God created the universe knowing perfectly well what His actions would entail. God knew perfectly well what would happen, and He made things that way anyway. The only difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist on this point is the type of causation post-creation. I raise this point because it directly addresses your point about God causing everything we do. Apart from God getting the ball rolling, there would be no people, no wills, no freedom, no existence. So at this bare minimum, God is always back of everything that people do.

I would only point out the verses completely obliterating the idea of human autonomy (see post #627). Biblically, we have to bow the knee to scripture. Therefore, I don't see appeals to human autonomy as relevant in this discussion precisely because God disallowed it.

Addressing Labels and an Unknown Position
"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." Ok. Thank you for taking the time to read it. However, this does not help me know why you disagree or what your position is. So my ability to address this point is left hanging to a great degree. However, I can at least address one point. Just because there is a label attached to certain positions does not immediately make them wrong. One has to go into each and argue the points that make them up in order to demonstrate their error. The casual dismissal fallacy is to simply scoff at them or label them as wrong. What I'm saying is that your evaluation needs to be deeper that merely disagreeing with a label. I'm sure we agree on that; otherwise, we would be endorsing judging a book by its cover, which is very superficial.

Adam and Causation
"was Adam the ultimate cause?" No scripture anywhere ever says or communicates that Adam was an ultimate cause. The best I've seen is people using inferences and arguments from silence. In light of no explicitly scriptural declaration of Adam being an ultimate cause, and in light of Scripture stating the exact opposite (remember the verses I presented discrediting human autonomy (post #627)), I am forced by God's own revelation to view the idea of Adam being an ultimate cause as an error.

(post 1 of 2)

 

[His clay]

(post 2 of 2) for @Eternally-Grateful See post directly above this one for part 1.

Causal Distinctions in Relation to God and Man
"was God the ultimate cause?" Critical to answering this question is my prior post which cautions against the causal conflation fallacy. This fallacy is when the word "cause" is reduced down to only one level. Only one type of causation is considered, when in fact scripture demonstrates a multiplicity of types. Further, massive distinctions exist, as stated in the same link provided, that points to various nuances regarding causation. God is the ultimate cause of all that exists; this is a point from God being the Creator. No history would ever take place apart from God getting the ball rolling. However, I repeat that causation does not boil down to one level. Since I do not hold to libertarian freedom, human autonomy, and ultimate human causation, then I make exceedingly important causal distinctions.

God may be the ultimate cause, but this does not mean that human beings are not responsible. God may be the ultimate cause, but this does not mean that God's holiness is hurt in any way. Let's revisit the Acts 4 and the crucifixion. God willed righteously, what man did wickedly. The passage makes this clear. God had perfect motives as He was bringing about the redemption of His people by the sacrifice of His Son. However, this happened through the sinful actions of people.

Humans are always the immediate cause of sin; God is never the immediate cause of sin (immediate and remote distinction). And there is no moral law that states that God is evil because He has ordained all that comes to pass. This moral law is the invention of those who oppose Calvinism. It is a philosophical non-biblical standard elevated into the place that the true God only has. This means that raising the standard above god is to only critique a straw man deity, since the scriptural understanding of God entails God's ultimacy. Further, Job was criticised as being unable to stand as God's judge. The roles will absolutely never be reversed. The creature will never be able to stand over the Creator, and thusly the creature needs to act and think in a way that does not endorse a sinful disconnect with reality.

Further, as the compatibilist position points out, certainly types of causation can be given that remove responsibility. (Example: Absalom and Tamar) However, not all types of causation remove responsibility, and this is why such a detailed account is given of the internal workings and motivations of people.

A Caution against Overreading
"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." A lot of the discussion of Adam and Eve simply suffers from speculation built upon the ediface of an argument from silence. It is important to note the difference between what scripture explicitly says and what people often insert into it. Hence, I would just caution you against reading too much into Genesis 1-3. This is not an accusation; it is only a warning. 1 Timothy 2:14 does state, "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Hence, we do know that Adam knew perfectly well what he was doing in relation to God's command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Human Accountability in Relation to God's Causation
"I also am of the view. if God caused it. then God should be held accountable." I disagree. God is never morally culpable for human sin. The Bible proclaims God's holiness loud and clear (Isaiah 6). The Bible also makes it clear that human autonomy is not an answer. To borrow an analoy from bumper bowling: we need to bowl down the lane of our reasoning about human accountability with two clear bumpers in mind (God's holiness and the repudiation of human autonomy). I will again present the link that directly addresses this matter. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

Human beings are responsible for their sin; God will hold them to account. God is never morally culpable for human sin.

Yes, we can learn from a parent/child relationship. And part of growing up is how we take responsibility for our own actions; we cannot just blameshift to our parents. Certainly, parents have a pivotal and highly impactful role in shaping the thinking of the child. But this does not remove the responsibility of the child. There is a great deal that I have had to reject from my parents; it's part of growing up.

While I agree that we can learn some things about causation and responsibility from a parent/child scenario, significant discontinuity exists between that human-to-human relationship and the God-to-man relationship. God's relationship to His creation has a huge ontological difference. And God's relationship to His creation is such that He never sins, unlike human parents who do sin.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I seem to have lost the purpose of this thread. This thread was opened to discuss our views of what we think free will is. Instead it appears to have become a me vs them thread ...

We have heard several perspectives in this thread—some presented succinctly (e.g., Eleanor), others explained more carefully (e.g., makesends)—as people have articulated what they believe about the supposed freedom of the human will. Eternally-Grateful, on the other hand, has been very clear about what he disagrees with, what he finds unconvincing or sickening, and what he considers frustrating.

What remains unclear, however, is what he does believe on the subject. So far, his statements have been carefully worded in a way that opposite sides of the debate could affirm. For example, he defined free will as "the ability to choose between two or more options." This definition applies equally to compatibilist determinism and libertarian indeterminism—two mutually exclusive positions—making it too broad to reveal where he actually stands.

Eternally-Grateful has expressed concern that stating his position too clearly might lead to being pigeonholed. That is always a possibility in debate, of course, but it shouldn't be a reason to avoid clarity. If someone accurately characterizes your position, great! If they get something wrong, treat that as an opportunity to correct the misunderstanding. Either way, there is little to lose by making your view explicit.

Personally, I was simply hoping to understand where he stands on specific points. There was no hidden agenda or "gotcha" in my question. I asked whether he believes that God can control the human will, and I left room for whatever nuance he wanted to provide. However, instead of answering that, he responded to a different question—what God would do—without acknowledging the distinct difference. But surely we all recognize that God can refrain from doing something he can do (e.g., flooding the world again).

Others in this discussion have been willing to state their positions openly, clearly, and explicitly, yet Eternally-Grateful remains reluctant to do so. I find that difficult to understand but, at this point, I have to accept that it's the approach he has chosen.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We have heard several perspectives in this thread—some presented succinctly (e.g., Eleanor), others explained more carefully (e.g., makesends)—as people have articulated what they believe about the supposed freedom of the human will. Eternally-Grateful, on the other hand, has been very clear about what he disagrees with, what he finds unconvincing or sickening, and what he considers frustrating.

What remains unclear, however, is what he does believe on the subject.

And here we go. Lol.. Its all my fault..

So far, his statements have been carefully worded in a way that opposite sides of the debate could affirm. For example, he defined free will as "the ability to choose between two or more options." This definition applies equally to compatibilist determinism and libertarian indeterminism—two mutually exclusive positions—making it too broad to reveal where he actually stands.

And here is the problem. Instead of listening to EG. Your tying to pit him into some doctrine, or belief system, for which he does not hold to either value. And you have done the very thing I have tried to get away from and warned about.

Then you wonder why you do not understand me. the first step is to remove these isms from your mind. And just listen.

Eternally-Grateful has expressed concern that stating his position too clearly might lead to being pigeonholed. That is always a possibility in debate, of course, but it shouldn't be a reason to avoid clarity. If someone accurately characterizes your position, great! If they get something wrong, treat that as an opportunity to correct the misunderstanding. Either way, there is little to lose by making your view explicit.

Which I have tried to do numerous times

Personally, I was simply hoping to understand where he stands on specific points. There was no hidden agenda or "gotcha" in my question. I asked whether he believes that God can control the human will, and I left room for whatever nuance he wanted to provide. However, instead of answering that, he responded to a different question—what God would do—without acknowledging the distinct difference. But surely we all recognize that God can refrain from doing something he can do (e.g., flooding the world again).

So your still angry I would not answer a hypothetical.

Once again, you could have just made your point. I mean if I was tryign to ask someone something, and they said they would not answer that way, I would find another way. Its called humility

Others in this discussion have been willing to state their positions openly, clearly, and explicitly, yet Eternally-Grateful remains reluctant to do so. I find that difficult to understand but, at this point, I have to accept that it's the approach he has chosen.

Dude, I have stated many times including giving many examples.

And I take it You think I should just cave?? Go back and read my friend.. Go back and read. More false accusations..

 

[Arial]

Then you wonder why you do not understand me. the first step is to remove these isms from your mind. And just listen.

"Isms" aren't the problem. "Isms" exist. "Ism" simply means that the theological/doctrinal positions exist within whatever came before it. E.g. Calvin-ism, Liberatarain-ism, determine-ism. You have your own "isms" and post those "isms" in every post. That is true of all of us. If a poster posts according to his own preferences at the definition of something by using an "ism" that contains the specific view, that is their prerogative to do so. It is not a cause of shutting down and saying the "ism" is the reason no one can understand you. If you think someone does not understand you, attempt to make you position clear. Defining "free will" as the ability to make a choice between two or more options, leaves no room to discuss anything theologically or doctrinally. Even though throughout the thread, you have done so, then get upset at the conversation as if no one understands you.

Truthfully, you waffle, depending on what someone else says. E.g, you believe somethings in synergism and don't believe other things in synergism. You believe some of Calvinism, which you reduce to TULIP (which are the doctrines of grace) but not everything in TULIP. You leave what those things are and aren't unidentified. Where is a conversation possible in that situation?
Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive---that is they cannot both be true at any point. They are antithetical to one another. The same thing is true with Calvinism. So you redefine monergism in order to have some synergism. Which leads directly to not believing all of Calvinism but claiming to believe some of it. And you post with words redefined without giving your definition and expect us to be able to figure out what your position is.

In regards to monergism, picking and choosing like that automatically makes you a synergist.

In regards to Calvinism (and these are just examples pointing out where the actual confusion is coming from---you) the picking and choosing automatically makes you not a Calvinism. You redefine it to suit your desires and beliefs.