Free will. What is it?

[makesends]

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.

I can agree on a false definition to be debated. I would then go about showing its falsehood. That shouldn't be a problem. Agreeing on the definition to be used in debate, is not the same as agreeing that the term is valid.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

your the first person I ever met who would say this..

not calling you a liar. Just saying I have never met anyone who did not do something they really did not want to do. to serve someone else.

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.

Thats an extreme example.. And not even close to what I was trying to draw out

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

I disagree.

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.

if I could only chose what I wanted. I would agree.

But I wake up alot of mornings, and do not want to get out of bed or come to work. But I do it against my actual will or desire. because if I do not. i will not be able to take care of my family..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I can agree on a false definition to be debated. I would then go about showing its falsehood. That shouldn't be a problem. Agreeing on the definition to be used in debate, is not the same as agreeing that the term is valid.

I think you missed the point

who determines its a false definition.

me, you, another person?

we all think your right. so arguing based on another person is in error. defeats the person of discussing. The person has already made up their mind.

then like we have seen, they will come out and say your wrong. period.. etc etc..

that does not help in any discussion, it hurts the discussion.

and sadly, I have found out. you can not even say anything bout it.

 

[Arial]

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

I don't think it was just Adam and I did not say it was. I pointed out the difference between our situation and the situation Adam was in. It is because of what he did that we are in this boat we are unable to get ourselves out of. And I was point out that no will is free. As I said earlier, if it was free, it would not even be classified as a will by the definition of a will.

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

No one has said that we always choose what is bad.

Choosing what you really did not want is not the issue. If a thief holds a gun to our head and says, "Your money or your life." we do not really want to give him our money, but we prefer our life over our money so we give him our money. You chose from our preference, your strongest desire.

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..

That doesn't make is will free. It only means he makes choices. His desires did not follow his will. His will followed his desires. You can give your definition of free will as being able to choose whatever one wants, but that is not a will that is free, it is freely making choices. The definition you give leaves out the actual meaning of the word free. So I would like to get one thing clear. Are you using your definition of free will and applying it to our ability to choose to believe in Christ? If it is, then shouldn't we address that discussion. I ask because of the forum it is in.

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.

The various arguments and definitions on "free will" are the very thing that comes against Calvinism. Free will cannot really be discussed except in relation to Calvinism because the entire thrust of using that argument is to refute the doctrines of election and irresistible grace. If you open up a discussion on "free will" it is "free will" that will be discussed and is being discussed.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The various arguments and definitions on "free will" are the very thing that comes against Calvinism. Free will cannot really be discussed except in relation to Calvinism because the entire thrust of using that argument is to refute the doctrines of election and irresistible grace. If you open up a discussion on "free will" it is "free will" that will be discussed and is being discussed.

it appears to me that people are trying to defend Calvinism, instead of just trying to understand

I totally disagree. I can discuss free will. and do not have calvinsim involved. or arminians for that metter.

Bible doctrine is a God thing, not a calvinist thing, an arminian thing, a baptist or catholic thing.

Sadly. we get so deep in our belief systems we become unable to really see what others are saying.

Like I said. I know I have said this a few times

I believe in OSAS. So arminians will spend days telling me what I believe and attacking me of being a calvinist. when it is not true.

They can not discuss anything with me, because they can not hear me, they are using what they think I believe based n what they were taught or their preconceived ideas.. that nothing I say matters.

I am not hear to attack calvinist brothers or arminains.

I was asked to open a thread on what free will means.. so we can discuss it..

A calvinist view is one of many,,

 

[makesends]

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

Neither. The question does not represent the structure by which God operates; it is anthropomorphic. (Lol, yes, don't laugh this time. That is a real, useful, word). God is not bound—he IS, and all else is arranged around him. He does what he does, and we make ourselves crazy trying to fit him into our concepts, lol. He is not like us.

We do read in the bible at least two different concepts as to his will. 1) When he created, he willed creation into existence, in every specific detail, beginning, middle and end. And that does not change. That is his will. The Reformed refer to that as his Decree, (or by other terms). 2) But we also read his commands, enjoiners and such. That is also his will. So the Reformed refer to that as his Command, (or by other terms). We cannot, by resisting his will (command), accomplish any kind of resistance to his will (decree). In fact, when we disobey, we are accomplishing exactly what he had planned to come to pass from the beginning.

To assume that he instead is only wanting or wishing (like we do) is not how the Bible represents him.

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?

He is not like us. I'm not sure you mean how argument comes across. It appears that you see the fact that he is relational to imply many things that it does necessarily imply, among which is that he is relational with his children in the same way that we are with ours. —Not so! As you will hear me say again in completely different circumstances, "He is not like us. We fathers are like him, only not very much."

But, it is misleading to call what he does, 'force', (instead of Grace, or Providence, or several other words), when it is only complete control for our own good, and for the praise of his glory.

 

[Arial]

How do you define will?

That which acts upon our desires. The movement (action) of our desires.

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.

That a man can choose is not in question. But he always does so according to the greatest outside or internal motivation. "Force" is not always forceful. We all have done many things we did not want to do----but why did we do them if we didn't want to? Hmmm?

 

[makesends]

uncaused?

Are you agreeing that our choices are uncaused? I'm not sure what you are doing here.

What caused Evil to attack a nation?

More causes than I, or anyone else, can number, go into why I chose the socks I did this morning.

could Hitler have decided not to attack that nation?

If you want to go there, we can. There is a whole, and rather humorous, line of reasoning about that. Suffice to say that Hitler was in rebellion to God's command, when he did what God had decreed from the foundation of the world. God is not "flying by the seat of his pants".

 

[makesends]

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

Yep. But that might make it more complicated, lol. I had hoped on a mutually agreeable definition, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

 

[makesends]

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..

The will is not only what one is conscious of. Is the will of a habitually angry person not into their anger, even if they are not aware they are a habitually angry person, or even, if they are not aware that their uncontrolled anger is sinful?

 

[Arial]

it appears to me that people are trying to defend Calvinism, instead of just trying to understand

Understand what exactly?

I totally disagree. I can discuss free will. and do not have calvinsim involved. or arminians for that metter.

Bible doctrine is a God thing, not a calvinist thing, an arminian thing, a baptist or catholic thing.

Well "isms" are just names that identify particular doctrinal beliefs taken from the Bible or read into it. Does the Bible ever even discuss free will. According to any definition, but lets go with yours. If we can find it in there, then that is where the discussion should go.

 

[makesends]

Well I do not believe every choice is uncaused.

so where does that leave us?

My question is, is there ANY choice of creatures —and in this discussion, humans— that is uncaused?

 

[Josheb]

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 conclusions.

Yep. I completely agree. He's already weighed in on the definition I posted, but lets ask him again if the definition provided is amenable.

@Eternally-Grateful, would you be amenable to accepting either 1) relacing the term "free will" with "volitional agency," (since that term allows for the ability to make choices but does not assert autonomy), or 2) the definition that states the human will is free only within the limitations in which it inescapably exists (and we can make a list of those limitations if you like)?

 

[makesends]

so using your defenition.

what happens if a person stops believing?

are they unborn? is salvation lost?

How would you define "stops" there?

But nevermind, if a 'believer' is no longer a believer, they never were a believer, if "believer" means, one who is IN CHRIST. Salvation depends on God's choice, and it cannot be undone. God will accomplish everything he set out to do.

 

[Josheb]

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

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

Both statements are incorrect.

 

[Josheb]

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

Yes. That is correct. The faith came from God. It was not of yourself.

But I still had a choice.

Prove it.

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

Prove that.

Do not assume it. Prove it.

 

[Arial]

I can agree on a false definition to be debated. I would then go about showing its falsehood. That shouldn't be a problem. Agreeing on the definition to be used in debate, is not the same as agreeing that the term is valid.

What would the discussion even be if all we could post had to be according to the definition given in the OP?

 

[makesends]

@Eternally-Grateful,

@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.

For what it is worth, bro: This is a spin off from another thread, where the subject was migrating rather voraciously off-topic. @Eternally-Grateful was good enough to see it get taken back up, here. I don't think he intended to own the thread. Just saying.

 

[makesends]

What would the discussion even be if all we could post had to be according to the definition given in the OP?

Interesting question. If it was strictly held to, the conversation would be short, I think. I am, at present, in the throes of trying to get across that the definition as stated means several different things to several different people.

And I'm not saying that the definition is valid. I am only saying that we can accept that definition, as a given, only for the sake of argument.

 

[makesends]

is John 3: 10 - 19 so hard to understand that no one can understand it?

I suppose you mean that, to imply that anyone hearing that passage can understand it. Yet, if you and I alone go there, we will have a huge difference of opinion as to what it is saying. And neither of us will be entirely correct.