Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

Biblical free will = being governed by the disposition, free will is the power to choose what one prefers.

do we never chose what we do not prefer?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

And that is where the duality mentioned in another thread comes in. Either man has a will that is free, or he has no will at all. As though our will is an entity of its own, operating on its own. To say that man has a will does not automatically imply that the will is free. If it were, it would not actually be a will at all, since the definition of will would be negated.

How do you define will?

can a man not chose, is he bound by some outside force?

I would say no. I have done many things I did not want to do.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The definition of free will that you give is the definition of "will". "Free" has nothing to do with that definition.

so your going to come in and immediately attack what I said.. wow

We make choices according to what we want.

Not always

The very definition of "not free". Free would involve not being dependent upon anything. So if we go by your definition as you suggest, the thread becomes dead in the water. Fortunately others are offering the "other views" you are looking forward to, so it is moving forward rapidly.

again, free means freedom. not at no cost. Our actions, any action we take imposes a cost. some may be good. some may be bad. but no decision or act we do is free from cost.

so using the term free (no cost) is ok if we want. but i disagree with this notion..

When you speak of Adam, he was not created as a sinner, that is with a nature to sin. but pure and good, not even knowing any evil. His situation is not like ours. He was given a choice, and he chose what he wanted, not what he was forced to choose, though an element of force was applied in the conflict of" this or that", but the force was not from God, but from Adam himself who was created with agency----things working on his will. And he chose.

we all do this. I do it every day, and have my whole life. so i am confused why you think it was just adam

Being in Adam who is now a sinner, all mankind now is born a sinner. Slaves to sin as Paul says. A slave obeys his master. Therefore, our will is driven by our nature. We always choose what we want. Not free----

Again, I have chosen what i did not really want many times as a believer and non believer. I do not agree with this notion that I am bound to always chose bad.. nor is it in scripture. for even gentiles by nature obeyed the law

which does not mean that we do not make choices. There is no such thing as free will and there never was.

SMH

Not even Adam's will pre-fall was free. He was not a sinner or sinful (as we are) but his will was still acted upon. Choice requires a will but that will does not have to be free in order for us to make choices.

He had the freedom to tell his wife no

he had the freedom to try to stop his wife (he was there the whole time)

He had the freedom to do whatever he wanted

He chose to go against God and serve his wife and himself..

So, since this is in the Calvin vs Armenian forum, is what you are getting at that our will is free to choose Christ and that it must be? If so we can move onto that discussion.

I put it here because I was asked to open a thread on free will.. I do not think we have to relagte it to just calvin or arminian..

If this is what we need to do. then I suggest if possible lets move this to another thread.

I suspect it is because you said that Abraham had to choose whether or not to believe God. To this I will say one doesn't choose to believe something. That would imply an element of not believing. We either believe something or we don't.

and your actions come off of this belief.

Abraham believed God. and because of his faith, God made him righteous

But abraham could have chosen to not believe God. or not want to leave his fathers house. or for whatever reason. said no God. I do not want this.

His actions would have followed what he wanted

 

[Rella]

I'm having a bit of trouble following your sequence here. Is it like this?

You— Let us assume: Adam and Eve did not have free will. Implication, then: Adam and Eve were made with, and therefore possessing of, a sinful nature. "What we don't know is why." Me— 1) How does Adam and Even not having free will imply that they were made with a sinful nature? 2) "Why" what? Why they were made with a sinful nature? 3) If it is only an 'assumed for the sake of argument', why are we jumping immediately into a question of why? I need a flowchart of the argument here, or something. I'm unable to draw it. 4) I don't know if your line about what God told Adam and about temptation and the outcome of it is part of the why, or an answer to the 'why?', or even part of the 'assume for the sake of argument', or about the logical implications of the assumption or what.

You— 2 conclusions are valid: 1) God purposely made A&E without freewill so that Adam would be enticed to sin so that the reprobate would be sentenced to eternal death. OR 2) A&E were given freewill, and sinned by their own choice. Me— I mean you no disrespect when I say that I can't even count the logical leaps you have made here. I can't follow your reasoning. Can you present this in a different way? I can't even see how your first "assumed for the sake of argument" leads to the 2 possible conclusions. Nor can I see how either of those two conclusions are valid.

It is doubtful I can make it clearer. Ill try.

A and E either had free will or they did not.

Either they had free will or were predestined by God to do whatever they did with that fruit.

On either choice I assume that God had the foreknowledge to know what they would do before they came to life.

If Adam, and then by extension Eve were predestined, then what Eve did and then enticed Adam to do the same they could not have refused.
It was basically because they were the very first of God's predestined people and they would have had no option but to disobey God. Even though they had been told they would die.
(Another subject would be double pre-destination that Calvin preached and is also in the Westminster Confession of Faith)

Expanding on this thought a bit would mean that in His plans for coming mankind not only was the sin nature built into every person He expected to only have a certain number of people "saved" by his choice

But if Adam and by extension Eve had free will. In other word, even though God said dont do it they were allowed to decide if they wanted to obey, then when God said their punishment would be death if they ate of that fruit,it was their choice .

 

[makesends]

Carbon said:
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

Not only does temporal sequence not necessarily denote causal sequence, but logically, co-incidence doesn't necessarily imply cause at all. But, what's more, the Greek tenses of 1 John 5:1 prohibit your use of it:

In the interlinear, the word for 'believes' is present tense, signifying continual action, as in, "is believing", while the word translated, 'is born', is in the Perfect Indicative Middle or Passive, meaning, "has been born". The second phrase repeats the idea, with the continual action, as a result of the point-in-time action. "Everyone loving (present continuous) the [one] having begotten (point in time) [him], is loving (continuous present) also the [one] having been begotten (past completed action (with effects in the present)) from him."

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

this may be impossible.. but it would be good to see what everyone thinks.

to me, an axymoron, is not helpful. and is actually a proud statement.

now we can say we disagree without attacking the other person.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

I agree sort of. But then I do not agree.

if I do not know something is sin, I can not willfully sin..

And I do not think rebellion is as much as the cause, as trying to fill the whole left By the separation from God is an ongoing process..

God created us to be served by him, When the barrier was come due to the fall. we have to replace this by serving yourself..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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".

Well I do not believe every choice is uncaused.

so where does that leave us?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

or the freedom to chose.

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

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Carbon said:
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.

Not only does temporal sequence not necessarily denote causal sequence, but logically, co-incidence doesn't necessarily imply cause at all. But, what's more, the Greek tenses of 1 John 5:1 prohibit your use of it:

In the interlinear, the word for 'believes' is present tense, signifying continual action, as in, "is believing", while the word translated, 'is born', is in the Perfect Indicative Middle or Passive, meaning, "has been born". The second phrase repeats the idea, with the continual action, as a result of the point-in-time action. "Everyone loving (present continuous) the [one] having begotten (point in time) [him], is loving (continuous present) also the [one] having been begotten (past completed action (with effects in the present)) from him."

so using your defenition.

what happens if a person stops believing?

are they unborn? is salvation lost?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

except for a few slips.. I hope this thread is going well. and we can see some things and learn from one another

 

[makesends]

again, I am not sure I agree with libertarian.

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

Ok, then. I give up. Have at it, y'all. (Lol, seeings as how it has already started anyway).

I don't think anyone here disagrees that we have (generally, except when things happen to us that we had no control over) "freedom to do whatever we want, or whatever we choose." In fact, I'm thinking, most of us insist on it.

Let me ask this, though —is the freedom to choose what we want mean that we understand what we think we want? For example, when one decides he wants Christ, does he understand the terms of that decision, or is it reduced to his little knowledge and little comprehension and momentary emotions?

 

[Josheb]

Can we work on a mutually understood/ agreed upon definition first?

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

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

If it is a lie or not, if it makes sense or not,

A lie never makes sense. Just saying.

we need to get to an agreed definition instead of ruining the debate before it has started.

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.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Did Adam make that choice freely? Was that choice made free of the power and/or control of others?

Keep in mind Adam's choice was made prior to his act of disobedience. Abraham's choice, on the other hand, was made after Adam brought sin into the world and death passed to all men. Therefore.......,

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.

Did Abraham make that choice freely? Was that choice made free of the power and/or control of others?


Lastly, where might I and all the other participants in this thread look to find scripture explicitly attributing what happened to Adam's ability to (freely) choose? Where might we look to find scripture explicitly attributing what happened to Abraham's ability to (freely) choose?

 

[makesends]

It is doubtful I can make it clearer. Ill try.

1. A and E either had free will or they did not.

2. Either they had free will or were predestined by God to do whatever they did with that fruit.

On either choice I assume that God had the foreknowledge to know what they would do before they came to life.

3. If Adam, and then by extension Eve were predestined, then what Eve did and then enticed Adam to do the same they could not have refused.
It was basically because they were the very first of God's predestined people and they would have had no option but to disobey God. Even though they had been told they would die.
(Another subject would be double pre-destination that Calvin preached and is also in the Westminster Confession of Faith)

4. Expanding on this thought a bit would mean that in His plans for coming mankind not only was the sin nature built into every person He expected to only have a certain number of people "saved" by his choice

5. But if Adam and by extension Eve had free will. In other word, even though God said dont do it they were allowed to decide if they wanted to obey, then when God said their punishment would be death if they ate of that fruit,it was their choice .

Let me try to understand that, using the meaning @Eternally-Grateful has gone with: "free will...is the freedom to do whatever we want, or whatever we chose". If you don't mind me inserting into the quote above, reference point numbers:

1) A&E were either able to choose, or were not able to choose, whatever they preferred. We will both go with yes, they were able to choose whatever they preferred.

2) Do you need me to show the 'law of causation' and its pervasiveness? You said, "God had the foreknowledge to know what they would do before they came to life". Of course! —he is, after all, omniscient. I expect that before, you have had to deal with the formidable logic, that if he knew, before creating what would come to that, yet created anyway, then he intended for it to happen... Thus, he predestined it. —What did you do with that sequence of thought?

3) The argument, whether in A&E's case, or any subsequent person, that predestination eliminates options, has not been shown yet. Can you prove it? Or do you reject any need to show it? I can show that it is not a question of options from which to choose, but, rather, a question of what it is that will be chosen. The choice is real.

4) That is a given. That God "built" the sin nature into every person, and that God (not only expected, but) intended only certain ones to be "saved" is indeed what is implied and what we (or at least, I,) believe. If you like, it is a tangent, but we can hit on it a little, if we don't deviate more than a moment. I differ from you on the term you include here, that it is only a "certain number", though that is true, but the implication that it is not particular ones, would be false.

5) A&E had free will, according to the definition, "freedom to do whatever...we chose". Of course they had freedom to do whatever they chose to do! For the moment, let's go with your term, "allowed", in, "they were allowed to decide". And I agree they decided. It was indeed their choice. How does my view, (or Calvinism or Reformed theology), say otherwise?

 

[makesends]

is this how we treat new people? just blow them off?

give me a break! if you do not want to participate, then feel free to leave.

Please ask her to explain how it is an oxymoron. I don't think she meant to just blow you off.

And thank you for so-far being non-aggressive. Most who counter our general views here are usually rather 'encumbered-upon' sounding, in their delivery.

 

[Eleanor]

or the freedom to chose.

No. . I am not able to choose to be sinless, so my will is not free to choose everything.

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

If you choose it, you prefer it at that moment for whatever the contingency may be.

 

[Rella]

Let me try to understand that, using the meaning @Eternally-Grateful has gone with: "free will...is the freedom to do whatever we want, or whatever we chose". If you don't mind me inserting into the quote above, reference point numbers:

1) A&E were either able to choose, or were not able to choose, whatever they preferred. We will both go with yes, they were able to choose whatever they preferred.

2) Do you need me to show the 'law of causation' and its pervasiveness? You said, "God had the foreknowledge to know what they would do before they came to life". Of course! —he is, after all, omniscient. I expect that before, you have had to deal with the formidable logic, that if he knew, before creating what would come to that, yet created anyway, then he intended for it to happen... Thus, he predestined it. —What did you do with that sequence of thought?

3) The argument, whether in A&E's case, or any subsequent person, that predestination eliminates options, has not been shown yet. Can you prove it? Or do you reject any need to show it? I can show that it is not a question of options from which to choose, but, rather, a question of what it is that will be chosen. The choice is real.

4) That is a given. That God "built" the sin nature into every person, and that God (not only expected, but) intended only certain ones to be "saved" is indeed what is implied and what we (or at least, I,) believe. If you like, it is a tangent, but we can hit on it a little, if we don't deviate more than a moment. I differ from you on the term you include here, that it is only a "certain number", though that is true, but the implication that it is not particular ones, would be false.

5) A&E had free will, according to the definition, "freedom to do whatever...we chose". Of course they had freedom to do whatever they chose to do! For the moment, let's go with your term, "allowed", in, "they were allowed to decide". And I agree they decided. It was indeed their choice. How does my view, (or Calvinism or Reformed theology), say otherwise?

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.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

And I use "free to choose what we prefer" for that "volitional agency,"

 

[Josheb]

@Eternally-Grateful,

And thank you for so-far being non-aggressive. Most who counter our general views here are usually rather 'encumbered-upon' sounding, in their delivery.

@makesends is making an important point. This forum is heavily populated (by design) with monergists. You entering this forum and attempting to dispute the majority-held viewpoint places a burden on you. You feeling defensive is not going to help you make your case. By my count, there are ten respondents to this op (not counting you) and nine of the ten say there is no free will. Nine of the ten limit the human will in one way or another or, like me, deny its existence entirely. Most of the monergists here are also very skilled apologists. That means you are in the position to prove your point of view correct to 90% of those in the conversation and you started it . That's okay because the forum exists to discuss all our individual viewpoints and sharpen our apologetics.

Being aggressive won't help your case. Feeling "encumbered" as @makesends put it, won't help, either. ALL of us here will agree THE single best case ANY of us can EVER make is.......,

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.

Yes?

That is all anyone is asking AND that is what we each endeavor to provide for you BUT this is your op, not ours. The op is yours to prove and to prove by overcoming all that every respondent brings to bear on it without shifting the onus onto others. You could prove me, and all the other eight dissenters wrong but that would still not prove the op correct. A number of challenges have been provided for your consideration. Scripture, not doctrine, is the arbiter.

Make the case for free will.