Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

@fastfredy0
Or I can say. What determined my choice?

My tastebuds

are you sure?

if this was true would be not always 100% chose the one we like best. and not try other flavors. or just want to be different, and take one we may not like the best. but it just sounds good?

 

[Arial]

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

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

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

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

I don't think it is possible to arrive at a mutually agreed upon definition. @Eternally-Grateful has himself said that unless we use his, he will not understand what we are saying. So I was trying to point out that his definition was not tenable to an ongoing discussion and attempted to set that at rights first. And then maybe discuss through a particular actual definition---one that becomes the basis of the conversation. I think his purpose is to not so much define it as to promote a belief that we have to be the ones choosing to believe in Christ or else we have no, what he calls, "free will". Am I throwing the OP off topic? If that is your concern here, let me know.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Every effect has a cause. It's called the Law of Causality.
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free; rather, it is designed by God.

so God caused Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit that caused the fall of mankind?

God caused people like Hitler. who brutally murdered millions to start WW2.

God caused the person who raped a young girl he kidnaped while walking home?

I can go on and on..

did God cause us to do what he determined?

or did he give us the freedom to chose what we want to do?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

By the same idea, the Spirit caused you to prefer a certain type of ice cream.

say again?

Similarly, I didn't notice the Spirit forcing me to be regenerated. This does not mean it is not so.

agreed, He did not force you to not be regenerated either.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Re: ... and what was the cause of your taste buds to be the way they are? (Hint: eventually we will get to the First Cause) lol

B.I.N.G.O.

.... and the root of a discussion on "free will" must define what we are free from. Arminians would say we are free from God to decide. If this item is not addressed the thread will go no where IMO.

P.S. I like Maple Walnut and Butter Pecan myself.

so just arminians think this?

I am hoping to get away from isms, and just look at the word from an open perspective, not a calvinist vs arminain

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@Eternally-Grateful can you give us some logically necessary implications for/from your definition, as far as you have defined it here? They may well be part of, or used to define better, your meaning for free will. Most anyone can agree with "free will is the ability to choose between two or more options", but have completely different meanings, due to what they consider necessary implications. Can you go with @fastfredy0 's #1 (Libertarian free will) definition above? Is that pretty much what you mean? Or can you narrow that down better? We need something more definitive than merely what we might call, simply, "will".

I will just use a biblical example

did Adam have libertarian free will, did God cause adam to do what he did.

or in my view. did Adam see his wife commit a sin. and he freely chose of his one freedom (free will) to not correct his wife. but partake in that sin with her.

I would chose number 3. I am not sure that would quantify as libertarian free will. I actually have never heard this expression.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Wow! Why does everything go dead as soon as I show up?

Maybe it's self-fulfilling prophecy, name it and claim it, etc. My name is makes ends, because where I first began using that handle, when I'd say something in that site, people had a way of clamming up and not responding. Maybe I should have called myself, makesconversation, or makesconversation with himself. "That's stupid" no it isn't "yes it is" ok, maybe it is, but nobody's talking to me "it's still stupid". Ok, shut up. "---" !!!! AND I MEAN IT!!

sorry, I came in as soon as I could..lol

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It is not necessary for you, @Eternally-Grateful , to give an exhaustive set of implications to your use of "free will". If it is admitted by us, that the only definition we can have in common with you is the one that @Carbon admitted to, we will do that —as long as it is understood by both parties that the word 'free' is not well dealt with there. We would prefer that you would say, "libertarian free will", when that is what you are talking about, so we don't get confused. We could drop the term, "free will", and argue "libertarian free will" instead.

As Carbon said, he believes in free will, and can even accept your definition, and there are a few others here that do to, but if that is all we mean by it, this will be a long (or might become a cut-off) thread.

Maybe all contributing members @Eleanor @brightfame52 @Arial @fastfredy0 @DialecticSkeptic @ElectedbyHim and whoever else should give their definitions, or descriptions, at least, of what they mean by it, and whether or not they believe there is such as thing as what they mean by it.

I like to say that I believe in free will, but that all I mean by it is that it is real choice, with real, even eternal, consequences.

again, I am not sure I agree with libertarian.

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

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Now, the natural man does not have free will to choose the things of the spirit, they are spiritually discerned and he is not capable. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14. So, his will is not free as far as salvation is concerned.

I disagree..

I agree he can not see or understand the things of God only a child of God can understand,

But it does not mean he is not free to chose to understand he is lost with no hope. and when offered by God chose to receive this gift of life.

 

[makesends]

I think we can.

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

how do you define sin?

Sin is always willful, even when we aren't conscious of it, because it is ALWAYS done in rebellion against God. The unsaved are to the core in rebellion against God. Therefore, even the good they do is sinful.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: 1 John 5:1a
But once a man is regenerated, he then has the capacity to believe, its now spiritually discerned. Through regeneration, man receives saving faith, and that faith required for salvation is an act of the whole soul, of the understanding, of the heart, and of the will.

read the passage again

whoever believes (this happens first)

is born of God.

they are not born first. then believe, this does not make sense in my view

 

[makesends]

so just arminians think this?

I am hoping to get away from isms, and just look at the word from an open perspective, not a calvinist vs arminain

Ok. Can we agree to use the term, "libertarian free will", or, at least use that term as the definition of "free will" for the purposes of this thread?

Edit. Sorry, but I forgot to add, that the term, 'libertarian free will', invokes notions of, or is, by definition, the same as "uncaused choice".

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

As the scope of the subject, free will, is huge, having as usual come from any one of 50 different directions, it should be admitted by all participants that this will be impossible to keep to JUST free will. For example, in another thread, this came to a question about the nature and source of salvific faith, from an OP basically about the dualism assumed by those who believe in free will, that free will cannot be real if God is in control of all things.

As we have been saying in other threads, and particularly in the forum of the Doctrine of God Proper, Who and What God is, is central to all good doctrine, and it is a huge part of the question of free will. (Just how that is so, is where the huge gap appears between the Reformed and the more Arminianistic believers. I could try to describe the Arminian ways, but @Eternally-Grateful could probably better represent the idea that the Calvinist view neglects the love of God.)

Anyhow, when we discuss, let's try to keep off-shoots short enough to circle back to the question of free will.

I would ask. Does God have the ability and right to give up his will? Or is he always bound by his own will

ie. as a parent. who loves his child. are we able to give up our will or would be force our will on the child at all times.

this is a relational question. Is God relational?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I am with fastfredy0 on this one: The whole endeavor is for naught if we don't talk about what a "free will" is supposed to be free from.

To state the matter very briefly, I don't believe that humans have a free will—because (a) God is sovereign and (b) unregenerate man is enslaved to sin.

thats why I asked for a persons definition.

I do not think "free from" is the right question.

the question is what are we free to do.. what is our freedom to chose based on

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

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

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

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

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

what is sin?

Someone said earlier it came from the flesh. what does this mean.

maybe we need to delve into this.. it may open things up

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

yes, we either have to have everyone's definition, even if we do not agree..

if I try to define your faith by my definition. I may totally think you are saying something your not saying.

sadly FAR to many debates end up down this rabbit trail

(example. I believe in a term called OSAS. so many people ASSUME I am a calvinist and try to interpret everything I say from a Calvinist perspective.. which turns into an unsustainable discussion, because they are not hearing a word I say

 

[Eleanor]

how do you define free will?

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

Biblically, free will is the power to choose what one prefers.

 

[Eleanor]

Now, the natural man does not have free will to choose the things of the spirit, they are spiritually discerned and he is not capable. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14. So, his will is not free as far as salvation is concerned.

Man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). Slaves are not free.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

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

this does not make sense.. Could we keep it more simple?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

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

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

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

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

uncaused?

What caused Evil to attack a nation?

could Hitler have decided not to attack that nation?