Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

EG’s views on free will

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.

again, I am not sure I agree with libertarian.

free will again is the freedom to do whatever we want, or whatever we chose.

or the freedom to chose.

do we have the freedom to chose what we do not prefer?

No, any choice we make has a cause and effect.

Thats why I was saying earlier not to try to put people into groups. such as libertarian free will or whatever group. Because it limits people and can cause confusion

the best we can do is take things oir events like adam and the fall. and explain how we see that happened.

Did Adam have the freedom to chose to not sin (free will)

Did Adam have no freedom,. he was going to sin no matter what (lack of free will)

to me, these are the only two options.

the bible does not say adam and free will.. so the question that I must prove that the bible says free will is as invalid as someone asking to prove the trinity by the word..)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Continued

Lets try to walk through it

9. Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

1. Jesus had just told Nicodemus unless one is born again, they can not see th ekingdom.

2. Jesus then went on to tell nicodemus after he asked him a question. what this means

3. Nicodemus then asked him. How?

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

1. Jesus asked him how, as a teacher, he could not know these things, Nicodemus should have known, And now he is going to tell him


11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

1. He explains that the son of man came down from heaven.

2. the son of man came for a purpose.

3. What is that purpose?

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,

1. Nicodemus, a teacher would have immediately recognized this even which happened in the OT.

2. Children of Israel were led into an area where serpents were biting them

3. Those bitten had a death sentence, they needed rescued (saved0 and could not save themselves. nor could anyone else save them

4. God had Moses create a bronze serpent on a pole. and had him lift this up (a type of Christ)

5. Those who in faith looked. were rescued. their death sentence was removed

6. Those who did not. were dead already, and were not rescued and eventually went to the grave because they did nto trust God, and thus did not look

even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

1. In the same way,

2. The son of man will be lifted up (fulfilling the type

15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

1. Whosoever "pas" all or whoever, or all who,

2. Look up, as those who were saved in moses day

3. Will be rescued. will be born again, Given God promise they will never perish (the thing that condemned them was removed, hence the curse is removed) and they will live forever )spiritually speaking)

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

1. Just like God loved Israel and gave them an opportunity to be saved from the serpents bite, He loved the word. so much, He sent his son (Jesus) to the world. So he could be lifted up and again, all who believe (pas) would again be born again, this life will be eternal (eternal life) and they are given the promise they will not die (spiritually)

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

1. God was not sent to the world to judge it (this time) he was sent to give the world an opportunity (might) be saved

18 He who believes in Him is not condemned;

1. Again, Whoever trusts in God and looks, will be rescued from the curse that killed them, and they would not die (they are reborn, or born a second time spiritually)


but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

1. But the one who is not believing, He remains with the curse, he remains condemned, He remains dead because of his sin. because like the children of Israel who did not look to the bronze serpent, they in unbelief, refused to look.

If you notice here. 3 times 9actually 4 if you look to Moses day) God said we must believe his promise, by looking to the cross (no one comes to the father but through me)

and 3 times, he said those who do will be rescued. they will not suffer the curse of condemnation (the wage of sin is death) they have been born again (spiritually) and they will never perish (they are no longer condemned) and they will live forever.

This is not only one of the greatest gospel passage in the word of God. it is also one of the most secure passages for those who been saved.. If we translate it right. our security is here

God keeps his promises.. When he say forever, he means it. If he says you will never die. he means it.

Again, those who say we can stop believing and lose this promise. take it because the word believe is present tense active.

The offer us no security. and put the onus of salvation on our ability. Not Gods promise

No my friend we can not.

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

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

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

I am not Arminian or Calvin.. I am just trying to define free will. so people can understand me when I see free will as I want to know everyone elses.

God told Adam, do not do this

Adam had to chose when Eve ate of the fruit and handed him this fruit to obey God. or to obey self.

Adam chose self.

This is the ocean, in the middle of a hurrican

It is in the wilderness having been bitten by a poisonous snake with no cure (See Israel and Moses)

I gave two examples of how People had the ability to know. and ability to chose to recieve the one God sent, or to reject them

I will hold on just as fast if I was rescued

again, The people of Israel were dead. the serpents poison was flowing through them. Yet they still lived and breathed. they still had to chose to trust what God sent to save them from death, or in unbelief reject this salvation.

I was the same way, still living, still breathing, still able to chose.. But dead spiritually. the serpents poison was in me, and without rescue I would die. so I could just like them, Look in faith To Gods provision, or continue in unbelief and refuse to look.

For those who see, they can see EG believes in a few things

1. Free will equals the FREEDOM to choose between 2 or more options
2. EG gave examples. Adam has the freedom to chose to obey God or the freedom to obey self, Israel had the freedom to look at the serpent and be saved. Or not look in unbelief and die, A person in the middle of the ocean has the freedom to say yes. i want you to save ne. Or no. i will save myself. Abd can not boast if he chose the first option
3. Free will is limited by what we desire for the most part. But there are times we do not chose to do what we most desire. As we are enacted by outside sources (Ie I do not want to get up in the morning. (My greatest desire is to lay there Like I do every weekend. But I get up because I have other needs.. (if I do not go to work, I will be fired. And will nto have a job)
4. EG does not believe in libertarian free will. Or the other types of free will that have been mentioned in this thread
5. EG is trying to get out of trying to put people in a box. You hear this key word. Well then you ASSUME based on this particular ISM, that they must believe this (multiple times in this very thread EG has been mischaracterised as to believing this or that when he does not. Because again, people are tying to figure out which box or ism he belongs to

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

"Isms" aren't the problem.

Yes they are the problem. As we have seen all over this thread.

"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.

The problem is Unless a person is 100 % in line with that ism. Then trying to put the person inside that ISM will cause mischaracterisation. False accusations. And a failure to have any reasonable discussion. Again, as has been proven in this thread

If a poster posts according to his own preferences at the definition of something by using an "ism" that contains the specific view,

And they are allowed to. For THEIR BELIEF.

When a poster tries to put another person inside the boundaries of an ism, and demands or insists that is what the other person believes. Then that person needs to hold his or herself accountable when the person they are accusing tries to show them that is not what they believe.

Sadly on a few occasions, that has not happened here

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.

My friend, I have tried so hard to be reasonable.

And here I am once again being told I must insist that if a person uses an ism to define what I believe. And if I counter that or question that. Than I am the one who is wrong. And I am the one who is in error.

Where does this thinking come from? Because it certainly does not come from logical thinking

If you think someone does not understand you, attempt to make you position clear.

I HAVE DONE THIS AND BEEN ACCUSED OF NOT DOING IT.

Defining "free will" as the ability to make a choice between two or more options, leaves no room to discuss anything theologically or doctrinally.

If that was the ONLY defenition I gave, then you would be right. But its not.. Again, I just posted multiple examples on posts where i tried to do what you just said i should do

Even though throughout the thread, you have done so, then get upset at the conversation as if no one understands you.

No. I am not upset at that

I am upset at the false accusations. People who are mad because I did not play their game, then make this outlandish post that I have not tried to show people what I believe. And falsly claims I have not even tried. And then I am mad when I try to correct someone. And my posts get deleted or i am told I am out of line.

I think any reasonable person would be upset of this themselves.

Truthfully, you waffle, depending on what someone else says.

Ok. PROVE THIS TO ME.

YOU HAVE NOW ACCUSED ME OF THIS MULTIPLE TIMES

NOW I AM GOING TO ASK LIKE YOU ALL HAVE ASKED ME. TO PROVE THIS ACCUSATION.

E.g, you believe somethings in synergism and don't believe other things in synergism.

See. Your doing the very thing I said was happening.

I do not believe in synergism,but it does not mean i do not believe certain aspects of the synergistic belief. Thats why it appears sometimes i agree, and sometimes i do not.

And also proves. If your trying to put me under synergism it will fail. And you will misunderstand me,, just listen to the person talking to you. Do not try to put them in these different doctrinal positions.

Not every calvinist I have ever spoken to believe in all 5 points. Many of them differ in every area.

If I try to take them and force them into the 5 point calvinist theology. I will continuously misrepresent them and not be able to understand them and falsly accuse them of believ in things they do not. Because i am trying to put them in a hole they do not belong in.

I have to listen to them. THATS WHY I OPENED THIS THEAD? To begin with.

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?

If your trying to understand what I believe by trying to see me as calvinist. We will never be able to discuss anything, because you will continually misrepresent what I believe, and others just like me (I know I have seen it hundreds of times in many chatrooms)

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.

I am neither a modernistic or synergistic. If everyone in this chatroom is looking and reading what I say and try to put me in one of these two isms. Or doctrines. You will never understand what I believe, YOU will be frustrated, and I will be frustrated.

Thats the point I have been trying to make from the moment I opened this thread.

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

You just proved my point. Your not trying to understand a things I said. You say If I do not follow your path of what you think I should be saying, MUST BE THIS.

You just shut off any ability for you and I to have any reasonable discussion. You you just answered the reason you think I am waffling. Because I do not fit your idea of what you think I should be saying, because your trying to force me into one or two doctrines, unable to see that I may not agree with either.

It’s like the calvin vs arminian debate. Most of the people I see in these debates in all my life are not truly arminian or calvin.

I am an example. I reject salvation can be lost. So i am not an arminian

I reject limited atonement so i am not a calvinist.

So I must be something else.

It’s not rocket science.. to understand, he does not believe in either of these things, or has parts he believes and parts he disagrees with. So he must be something else.

I grew up in the baptist church. I remember being told what people believed. And when I talk to them, this is how I should understand what they are saying, and this is why they are wrong.

It took years for me to break this line of thinking, and to sit and actually just listen to someone. And not try to put them under some doctrinal degree of thinking, and never understand a thing they say and getting frustrated because they would tell me, I do not believe this, and I would counter back. Well you must.. blah blah blah

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.

I do not redefine anything. I did not start in calvinism So calvin never defined my belief. But here you are accusing me of redefining.

Then you wonder why I get mad or frustrated you just falsly accused me of redefining what I believe as it comes to calvinism.

 

[Eleanor]

There are two views on free will: the philosophical and the Biblical.

Philosophically: free will is the power to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless, as Adam had before the fall.

Biblically, as we see "free will" operating in the Bible: free will is the power to choose what one prefers,
for one cannot make all moral choices; e.g., the choice to be sinless.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

There are two views on free will: the philosophical and the Biblical.

Philosophically: free will is the power to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless, as Adam had before the fall.

Biblically, as we see "free will" operating in the Bible: free will is the power to choose what one prefers,
for one cannot make all moral choices; e.g., the choice to be sinless.

And here we go with further proof everyone is trying to put people under what they think is the only two possibilities.

All we will do if we stick to these 2 possibilities by claiming it MUST be one or it MUST be another.

Is shut down any Conversation.

I have been a believer for over 40 years. And I can tell you. There are a lot more than two views..

 

[makesends]

There are two views on free will: the philosophical and the Biblical.

Philosophically: free will is the power to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless, as Adam had before the fall.

Biblically, as we see "free will" operating in the Bible: free will is the power to choose what one prefers,
for one cannot make all moral choices; e.g., the choice to be sinless.

Thank you for returning this thread back to the subject.

Maybe these all fit under "Biblical", but, there is also evidence that is 'Logical', which is not what you presented as the 'Philosophical', but does fit the 'Biblical' precisely. Besides that, there is the 'experiential' (or anecdotal evidence), and the 'epistemic', which are not quite the same thing, and, if one was to analyze either one well enough, they, too, would agree with the Biblical, though they are derived subjectively.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Thank you for returning this thread back to the subject.

Maybe these all fit under "Biblical", but, there is also evidence that is 'Logical', which is not what you presented as the 'Philosophical', but does fit the 'Biblical' precisely. Besides that, there is the 'experiential' (or anecdotal evidence), and the 'epistemic', which are not quite the same thing, and, if one was to analyze either one well enough, they, too, would agree with the Biblical, though they are derived subjectively.

the problem is who determines what is biblical?

And what is Philosophical

 

[makesends]

the problem is who determines what is biblical?

And what is Philosophical

According to rule 4.4 you and I are not to discuss together here on this thread, unless in attempting to resolve, or until the charge of fallacy has been resolved. Are you admitting that I did not posit a fallacy? (Relevant Posts: 585, 590, 624, 654.)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

According to rule 4.4 you and I are not to discuss together here on this thread, unless in attempting to resolve, or until the charge of fallacy has been resolved. Are you admitting that I did not posit a fallacy? (Relevant Posts: 585, 590, 624, 654.)

so because you and I can not come to an agreement, we are not allowed to discuss?

I have never heard of such a thing. (just being honest)

again, there are some things we will never agree on, no matter how hard we try. if we stop communications based on this of all other stuff?? I am sure there are some questions you have about things I have said, that no matter how hard I try. you will not see either..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

the problem is who determines what is biblical?

And what is Philosophical

My question goes to anyone and anyone who will answer.

Who determined what is biblical and what is philosophical.

I ask. because as we see in many chat rooms and many churches. The answers to these questions will vary.

If I am in a catholic chatroom. they determine the answer to this question

If I am in a Mormon chat room. they determine what is the answer

If I am in the old baptist chatroom I visit from time to time. They determine.

All these different people. or churches will be determinate of what they think is biblical. so they can not all be right. they can not all be biblical

so who decides in reality what is biblical?

The point I am trying to make, is this is not a valid argument. because every particular group has their own determination of what is biblical and what is not.

 

[Eleanor]

And here we go with further proof everyone is trying to put people under what they think is the only two possibilities.

All we will do if we stick to these 2 possibilities by claiming it MUST be one or it MUST be another.

Is shut down any Conversation.

I have been a believer for over 40 years. And I can tell you. There are a lot more than two views..

Generically?

 

[Arial]

If your trying to understand what I believe by trying to see me as calvinist. We will never be able to discuss anything, because you will continually misrepresent what I believe, and others just like me (I know I have seen it hundreds of times in many chatrooms)

I am not trying to see you as anything. You are the one who said you believed some Calvinist things and not others. But you did not say what either of those things were. If a person does not believe any one of the five points in TULIP, they are not any sort of Calvinist. Any more than someone who does not believe in the deity of Christ is any sort of Christian. It denies a crucial Christian doctrine. Everything in the TULIP follows and necessity one upon the other from the T through the P. Take out one aspect and the rest is just preference. Just like leaving any of them out is simply preference.

The problem you identify as being the problem is not the problem. It is not what anyone is doing. The misrepresentations are coming from you redefining words and from the redefinition of them agreeing with portions of the TULIP and writing accordingly. When genuine Calvinist may not realize that you have done that. So it sounds like you are saying one thing when you actually mean something entirely different.

If that were not the case, you would not be saying that salvations is all of God, no one can be regenerated without faith, God is the one who regenerates---all things you have replied "Agreed" to, and then turn around and say faith has to come before regeneration. You would not be able on the one hand, agree that faith is a gift from God, and on the other hand say that God helps you to understand so that you can choose Christ in faith. You could not say a lot of things you say but I am not going over them all. You have developed your own "ism" with its own language and word definitions, and to us who by the same means as Reformed theology arrives at its theology and doctrines (see it can be said even without the "ism" attached) systematically and theological consistency throughout the Bible, do not know the content and definitions in your private "ism", and they seem to shift, depending on the circumstances or conversation. A situational "ism". So stop blaming us and making false accusations and misrepresenting what we say and believe and do.

 

[Eleanor]

the problem is who determines what is biblical?

And what is Philosophical

No more than determining what is science and what is superstition.

The actual problem is not being familiar with what each one means and working within those fields.

 

[Arial]

Who determined what is biblical and what is philosophical.

The Bible does that very well. Sometimes even Google will do a decent job. Look up Free Will on Google or whatever search engine you use and you will see that it is a philosophical argument brought into the Bible at some point. The Bible itself, never discusses it.

The point I am trying to make, is this is not a valid argument. because every particular group has their own determination of what is biblical and what is not.

Pardon me. I thought the question was what is biblical and what is philosophical. When did it get changed to what is biblical and what is not?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Generically?

Is generic greater than 2?

I do not understand your answer.

 

[Eleanor]

Is generic greater than 2?

I do not understand your answer.

Would looking up the meaning of the word help?

There could be more than two; for example, Biblically, philosophically, scientifically, artistically, historically, mathematically, medically, physically, literally, grammatically, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I am not trying to see you as anything. You are the one who said you believed some Calvinist things and not others. But you did not say what either of those things were. If a person does not believe any one of the five points in TULIP, they are not any sort of Calvinist. Any more than someone who does not believe in the deity of Christ is any sort of Christian. It denies a crucial Christian doctrine. Everything in the TULIP follows and necessity one upon the other from the T through the P. Take out one aspect and the rest is just preference. Just like leaving any of them out is simply preference.

The problem you identify as being the problem is not the problem. It is not what anyone is doing. The misrepresentations are coming from you redefining words and from the redefinition of them agreeing with portions of the TULIP and writing accordingly. When genuine Calvinist may not realize that you have done that. So it sounds like you are saying one thing when you actually mean something entirely different.

If that were not the case, you would not be saying that salvations is all of God, no one can be regenerated without faith, God is the one who regenerates---all things you have replied "Agreed" to, and then turn around and say faith has to come before regeneration. You would not be able on the one hand, agree that faith is a gift from God, and on the other hand say that God helps you to understand so that you can choose Christ in faith. You could not say a lot of things you say but I am not going over them all. You have developed your own "ism" with its own language and word definitions, and to us who by the same means as Reformed theology arrives at its theology and doctrines (see it can be said even without the "ism" attached) systematically and theological consistency throughout the Bible, do not know the content and definitions in your private "ism", and they seem to shift, depending on the circumstances or conversation. A situational "ism". So stop blaming us and making false accusations and misrepresenting what we say and believe and do.

Ariel my friend

You make accusations. Yet every time I answer them, You put it back on me as if I am the problem

You are trying to see me as something, Your trying to see me from a point of view that fits whatever ISM you have been I assume trained to see. I think I made this case quite well in my last post.


I have no redefined words.. Unless my definition of a word does not fit your definition. Then what has happened is we have a disagreement, Not me redefining words.

I also have not defined my own language and ism. I do not deal in isms. Why would I? The only reason you even say anythign like this is again, your trying to put me in some group. and not listening to a thing I say.

Yes, You have developed your own image, and your own ism or whatever you want to call it. So when I talk to you about what you believe, I will look to you at what you say, Bot what I have been told you believe, or try to put you under some ism. I try as best I can to look at you as an individual with your own belief system. so I can have a discussion with you

I want to have a discussion between Eternally-Grateful and Arial, not between the reformed church and my non denominational church.

I am not sure why this seems to be a bad thing for some people

) systematically and theological consistency throughout the Bible, do not know the content and definitions in your private "ism", and they seem to shift, depending on the circumstances or conversation.

How many times are you going to accuse me of this, and how many times am I going to ask you to defend your accusation against me, Before you either admit you are making this up. Or your seeing something that is not really there. or whatever reason you keep accusing me of doing this?

So stop blaming us and making false accusations and misrepresenting what we say and believe and do.

I understand you are a mod of this chat room. I also understand you have power. and I feel at a disadvantage because you keep making these accusations and I feel I can not say anything about them

If you or anyone else say I believe something I do not believe, After I have told you or them many times, and even given examples to show I do not believe that. That is a false accusation.

If you or someone else says I am doing something, I have not done. or make an accusation against me. I will ask you to prove those accusations (as you would me) if you do not prove those things, I will accuse you of making a false accusation against me.

Its not hard to listen to a person and understand what they are saying or doing.. if you just listen.

once again, You have now accused me twice this very day. PROVE YOUR ACCUSATIONS.

or STOP ACCUSING ME of doing something, I have not done.

My words have been the same from the beginning, I just reposted a bunch of posts I have made concerning free will. From my very first post to the last one. I have said the same thing.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The Bible does that very well.

Yes it does I agree 100%

but again, every church thinks their view is correct. So when a question arrises. and both parties say the bible is the determining factor. can there ever be an agreement or mode of love?

Sometimes even Google will do a decent job. Look up Free Will on Google or whatever search engine you use and you will see that it is a philosophical argument brought into the Bible at some point. The Bible itself, never discusses it.

Again, it never discusses the trinity either, but we all believe in the triune God. in fact many think if you do not believe in a triune God you can not be saved

Pardon me. I thought the question was what is biblical and what is philosophical. When did it get changed to what is biblical and what is not?

The question was about there are only 2 possibilities. the biblical one and the philisophical one

the question was. who determined what is biblical?

in this chatroom who determined what is biblical or what is not? lets start here as an example

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Would looking up the meaning of the word help?

depents.

Look up the word baptism. does that tell us what Rom 6, 1 cor 12 and gal 5 means or how about col 2?

There could be more than two; for example, Biblically, philosophically, scientifically, artistically, historically, mathematically, medically, physically, literally, grammatically, etc., etc., etc.

Yes exactly.

so again, who determines what is what?

I have been in many a discussion where people have been accused of not following the bible. end of discussion. is it really the end of discussion?

 

[Eleanor]

Or is the problem that you believe the bible says one thing, and if I agree with you. I have agreed with the bible. If I disagree with you. I disagree with the bible

And because I present it as Biblical, you can
ask for a Biblical demonstration of my view, or you can
BIblically demonstrate that my view is incorrect, or you can
Biblically demonstrate your view.

But disagreements or opinions do not matter, only Biblical demonstrations matter.

You may disagree that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C, but you get to (must) demonstrate that your disagreement is correct.