Free will. What is it?

[Eleanor]

That is incorrect. Or, rather, I will say that is often incorrect. People quite often make choices against their preferences. This ranges from commonly occurring deferences to the wishes of others to the equally commonly occurring condition of competing preferences. There are also several psychological conditions where a person makes choices completely contrary to their best interests (which, presumably, they would prefer). At its worst, the latter results in a variety serious mental illnesses.

Nevertheless, it is their choice at the time. . .no external force made them do it.

I have yet to delve into these and other limitations but some simple observations readily reveal the deterministic context in which every single choice is made and none of the have to do with God (or sin) directly controlling the human will. None of us, for example, can fully understand all the past events that in from, influence and control every single moment of choice. Neither do any of us know everything, so every single moment of choice is necessarily and deterministically limited to the known options (even though an infinite number of alternatives may exist). Neither do any of us know all the possible consequences or repercussions of any one choice we make so every choice is also made in ignorance of its effects. That's just one choice by one person. If we mix in all the choices of all the other people before, during, and after a choice is made (like the choices of the eleven people posting in this thread) then the premise of "free" choice is nonsensical. No one is actually free in their ignorance.

Time and space alone are incredibly controlling.
No human will can ever usurp God's will. That is axiomatic. No sinful human can ever usurp sin, either. It has already been observed (correctly) that choosing not to be sinful is an oxymoron. No human, sinful or not, can usurp the limits of creation.
There is no such thing as free will.

Not in the philosophical sense (power to make all moral choices). . .but in the Biblical sense, it is simply choosing what one prefers.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Maybe. The ability to keep "it" simple is dependent on you.

We all agree an ability to make choices exists. Is that ability to choose absent or void of any and all controls? (it is a simple yes or no question) it does not get any "more simple" than that.

answered multiple times

It must not be all that simple if a person keeps telling you. yet you keep asking.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

From whence did that faith (the faith through which you were saved) come?

It came from God. (i think I have answered this also)

But I still had a choice. just like others have a choice to neglect what God says and reject his grace.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

...but you're missing the crux of most "free will" discussions. Who determines your desires (will)?

We do

Tha'ts why we are held accountable for what we do

if we we not free to do. we could not in essence be held accountable

Responsibility is not defined as you have the ability to do something; rather, an authority has determined that you must do something. If the university says you must get a 700 on your S.A.T.s then you are responsible for doing so despite your capabilities.
God says you must not sin so you are responsible even though it is not possible. Using your statement one could infer you do not think much of God for He has made you responsible for your sins.

He also said we must believe in him, or we will perish.

Yes. Look up the Law of Causality for proof.

I can not agree with you my friend. If God causes all actions. I do not see a God who is a God of love..

True ... but God did not give you a change to reject Him;

yes he did.

rather, God changed your heart (desires) via regeneration and with your God changed desires you choose to follow God rather than Satan.

No. He changed my heart. brought me to my knees, I called out to him, and through that he forgave me of the tresspasses and sins that made me dead. and raised me to spiritual life.

You have God making a person alive in sin, hence he is saved before he is even justified. and his sins are forgiven.

That would be against Gods character and essence.

it would be like a judge letting a serial killer out of jail first. then after he is released (made alive) gets that serial killer to believe.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It is still "what we prefer."

Grace giving us to prefer it and, therefore, we choose it.

grace is given to all mankind.

the fact we are hear and have the ability to sin, is by the grace of God.. non of us deserve any life God has freely given us

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not in the meaning of the words.

I made the choice of that something because of another choice I made--to serve someone.

right, even though you may not have wanted to do it you sacrificed yourself for them

Everyone does it. be it they are saved or not.

so they have the freedom to NOT do what they desire and chose freely to serve someone else

 

[Eleanor]

grace is given to all mankind.

Not saving grace.

the fact we are hear and have the ability to sin, is by the grace of God.. non of us deserve any life God has freely given us

Relevance?

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: ..but you're missing the crux of most "free will" discussions. Who determines your desires (will)?

We do

Oh? When did you decide to have a sin nature? ... and when did you program your desires? ... and what was the criteria for you so programming your desires?

 

[Eleanor]

right, even though you may not have wanted to do it you sacrificed yourself for them

You freely chose to do it. . .it's not about "wanting," it's about choosing without external force.

Everyone does it. be it they are saved or not.

so they have the freedom to NOT do what they desire and chose freely to serve someone else

It's not about wanting, it's about freely choosing.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not saving grace.

yes it is. it is offered to everyone

he who believes is not condemned,

he who does not believe is condemned already

Relevance?

Grace is given to all..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Re: ..but you're missing the crux of most "free will" discussions. Who determines your desires (will)?

Oh? When did you decide to have a sin nature? ... and when did you program your desires? ... and what was the criteria for you so programming your desires?

lol.

Our desires are programmed by our lives.

who determines our will and desires?

we do..

 

[Carbon]

yes it is. it is offered to everyone

You have seen the difference in scripture between common grace and saving grace?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You freely chose to do it. . .it's not about "wanting," it's about choosing without external force.

But I did have an external source. My love for the person i served.

It's not about wanting, it's about freely choosing.

yes.. I freely chose I had the freedom

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You have seen the difference in scripture between common grace and saving grace?

I see grace..

I do not see common verses saving

 

[makesends]

Sorry, but I seem to be having one of those days that you are not making sense to me... so
Thanks and if a mod would remove my posts I wont confuse anyone else.

No need. Apparently nobody else is confused, so... No harm done.

 

[Arial]

I think free agency is probably the best word to describe what man has. He is a free agent.

I would say he has agency but I would not say it is free. Nothing about man is free until he comes to Christ. And then he is free to love and obey God with an act of his will. But he is still not free of God and his commands or God's working in him.

 

[Carbon]

I would say he has agency but I would not say it is free. Nothing about man is free until he comes to Christ. And then he is free to love and obey God with an act of his will. But he is still not free of God and his commands or God's working in him.

This seems a good explaination.

In Reformed theology, "free agency" refers to the ability to make voluntary choices, while "free will" is understood as the ability to choose what is moral and good, which is believed to be lost due to the fall of humanity.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Free Agency:
  • Reformed theology, particularly Calvinism, affirms that humans are free agents, meaning they have the ability to make choices and act according to their own inclinations and nature.
  • This includes the ability to choose between different options, but not necessarily the ability to choose what is morally good or pleasing to God.
  • Free agency is understood as the ability to act, but not necessarily the freedom to choose what is good or pleasing to God.
  • The Reformed view holds that humans, due to the fall, have lost the ability to freely choose what is morally good and pleasing to God.
  • While humans can still make choices, they are inherently inclined towards sin and cannot choose to follow God without divine intervention.
  • This is often contrasted with the Arminian view, which affirms that humans retain the ability to freely choose what is good and pleasing to God.

In essence, Reformed theology distinguishes between the ability to act (free agency) and the ability to choose what is good (free will), arguing that humans have lost the latter due to the fall, but retain the former.



Hope this helps with how I understand it.

 

[makesends]

I think that a necessity, not just a highly commendable suggestion.

EVERY good case begins with defining its terms....... correctly.

A lie never makes sense. Just saying.

Welll... if the opening post's definition is incorrect then the thread was "ruined" before it started and that ruining did not occur at the hands of the respondents.

The definition of the word "free" (as I have already posted) is "autonomous" or "not subject to the power or control of other influences."

Does anyone here dispute that definition? Does everyone affirm that definition?

The definition of the word "will" is, "the faculty of faculty of wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending."

Does anyone here dispute that definition? Does everyone affirm that definition?

Put together, the two words form the phrase being discussed, "free will," which, according to the dictionary definition of the terms constituents means, "the faculty of wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending not subject to the power or control of other influences."

Does anyone dispute that definition? Does everyone affirm that definition?


I affirm every word of it AND I can make an impeccable case to prove there are many influences having power or control over every choice we make.

That is why I think "volitional agency" is the better, more accurate, more valid, veracious, efficacious, and wholly scriptural alternative. We can and do make choices, but they are never made without the power or control of outside influences.

I agree with that better, more accurate, etc definition. HOWEVER, if the OP puts an invalid definition to it, we can prove it wrong, and, either with his assent continue with a better definition, or finish up with conclusions, and maybe start another thread with the better definition.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

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.

...but you're missing the crux of most "free will" discussions. Who determines your desires (will)?


Responsibility is not defined as you have the ability to do something; rather, an authority has determined that you must do something. If the university says you must get a 700 on your S.A.T.s then you are responsible for doing so despite your capabilities.
God says you must not sin so you are responsible even though it is not possible. Using your statement one could infer you do not think much of God for He has made you responsible for your sins.


Yes. Look up the Law of Causality for proof.



True ... but God did not give you a change to reject Him; rather, God changed your heart (desires) via regeneration and with your God changed desires you choose to follow God rather than Satan.

This is what it comes down too.

 

[makesends]

Have you ever chosen something against your will. because you had to serve someone?

Never. I do choose against what would otherwise have been my will.

Example, (with a nod to RC Sproul): If a guy holds a gun to my head, I am suddenly willing to do what I otherwise would not have been willing to do; I will part with my wallet, preferring that over dying and still losing my wallet.

On close analysis, it is always to be seen, that the will chooses according to what it most wants at that moment of decision.

By your definition, (that freewill is the ability to choose what one [most] wants), we are in this post agreeing to use that definition for the sake of argument. But now you begin to see, I'm guessing, that we draw completely different implications. The words can be the same, but the meaning is not just more words.