Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

How would you define "stops" there?

I am going off this defenition. or this word use

"In the interlinear, the word for 'believes' is present tense, signifying continual action, as in, "is believing", "

if they are using this to determine that belief is in the present tense. That in essence. means that whatever is being said or given is only true as long as believing continues. If it stops. then the thing the we get stops being true.

people who believe we can use salvation use this all the time, they say in John 3, he who believes will not perish and has eternal life means because belief is in present tense. that belief must continue be ongoing, if it stops, then eternal life or the promise they will never die ceases to continue.

the scripture in question is this

Carbon said:
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: 1 John 5:1a

so if we use the present tense believes, the same way they use it in john 3. Does the fact one stops believing cause our new birth to end?

My answer is no. Because once you are believing, then you are born again, That can not be lost.

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.

yes. Many people have what a good friend of mine says, they are make believers..

Not everyone who says lord lord...

we are in 100 % agreement on this

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If we use the present tense believes, the same way they use it in John 3, does the fact one stops believing cause our new birth to end?

No, it means the person wasn't born of God.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

yes. it was for us to discuss differing opinions of what free will is..

It was not about my definition at all. Mine is just one of many from what I see

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

even more

If I know your definition. I can interpret what you say based on that definition. and not my own, and vice versa..

 

[makesends]

I am well aware of this word and others like it. Been awhile since I heard it. but yes.

Remember, God created mankind in his image. and his likeness..

Yes, but we must not perceive him in our image. That would be backwards.

I agree, we can make ourselves crazy. But I also think we can make him fit our perception and not his.

Making him fit our perception is necessarily, in some ways, going to make him 'our size', which is a mistake. We don't operate in his arena.

1. Creation. God spoke and it happened. I believe in a literal 6 day creation.. God is all powerfull. (I hope I did nto open another can or worms..lol)

You miss my point. I'm not asking how you see creation. I'm saying that God, in creating, set out to accomplish certain things, and they are sure to be accomplished. (There is even reason to say that from his POV, they ARE accomplished.)

2. As for resisting his will. there are many examples of people who resisted the will of God
Adam (sinned) Israel- (did not follow God. he wanted to gather them together as a mother hen, but they were not willing) Jonah, resisted for awhile. although God had a specific plan for him so God kept putting roadblocks until Jonah repented. I am sure I have many times in my life. before and after I was born again. that's why I need to keep focusing on him, and not myself..

You miss my point. I'm comparing the "two wills" that the Bible represents as two different things. Both of God, but one being the "decree" (the plan, which will surely come to pass (and which uses both our obedience and disobedience), and one being the "command" (which we obey and disobey). We can resist his command, we disobey. But we cannot resist his decree. It WILL be accomplished.

3. as for disobedience accomplishing what he planned to come to pass. I do not even know what to say.. I will just say I can not agree with this.. this makes God the author of evil..

No, it does not. James 1:13-15 is a good place to look, though there are many other places. WE are the ones who choose to sin. And we are tempted via our evil desires. God's pervasive decree does not make him the tempter, nor the author of evil. Evil is not just 'out there' as a principle for us to engage in, and dip back out again. It is US, it is what we do, when we rebel against him. The Bible says God made him, who knew no sin, to be sin, in our place.

The facts are whatever God does —they are what he 'sets up', if it helps to put it that way. We are in a place of temptation, and God has set things up that way. If you need proof from scripture that it is so, I don't think there is a participant here (including you and @Rella ) that cannot provide that. God intended for what comes to pass, to come to pass. Look at what is considered the most heinous of evil acts—the murder of The Son of God—God intended that—he deliberately planned it. (Acts 2:23)

There are things he needs done, and he puts people in place to get them done (pharaoh in Egypt as a great example) God used pharaoh to do what he knew pharaoh would freely chose to do to show his power.

He chose Israel to reperesent him on earth. and they continually failed. so bad he had to remove them from their land multiple times. Although he will in the end fulfill his plan with that nation. they continued to resist his will..

An so do we, contrary to his command, just as he decreed. The prophets show it with Israel. God didn't just foresee, he foretold, and actively caused that they be removed (and replaced).

Again, he created us in his image, He created us to love and be loved.

That is a long cry from the whole story, though, isn't it!

You can not have any kind of relationship without the ability of the one we love having the ability to go against that love, and take care of themselves. That is why he put the tree in the garden. God gave Adam and Eve everything they wanted. up to and including a test. will you trust me, or will you trust self.

True enough for the purposes of this thread. That goes perfectly with what I am saying. By your earlier protests, you would have to claim that God tempted Adam, because he set up exactly everything that he knew would result in Adam's disobedience. You would say that makes God the author of sin.

I know for many this is a hard concept. But if a person has no ability to resist. there is no relationship. If a person will always do what you say, then it is a one sided relationship.

Debatable, but, it's beside the point. That neither makes nor breaks your position about 'freewill'? At the most, all I see there is 'will'.

if a person has no choice. I do not know how we can say they were not forced. what other option did they have?

Nobody is saying a person has no choice.

That is a common misconception of those insisting on freewill—it is the dualism mentioned in another thread, that makes God's decree and man's choice mutually exclusive.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

I was just asking if anyone read what is said. can they not understand the basics of it.

It says God loved the world. so that all who believe or look up will be born again.

is this so difficult that the lost (unborn) can not understand it?

remember also. Jesus told Nicodemus as a teacher of the law. he should have understood it.

I do not believe Nicodemus was saved at the time.. yet Jesus said he should have understood it.

a few examples of things like this

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But that would seem to mean there is no valid definition.

I personally don't like the word, "free", in the term 'free will'. But I use it in order for those who wish to argue with me, to, from the outset, show that I do believe that choice is real.

But, my larger point is not whether or not the definition is valid. Often, in debate, a person will, for the sake of argument, allow "for now" the person is right, or that their assumption is right, and then go to show how it is logically self-contradictory, or inconsistent with other agreed-upon facts. We can do that here.

I do not think in any discussion,

the words, "your wrong, that is so wrong, it comes from hell. I am right, and there is nothing you can say etc etc." anything like this. should be said.

if we are trying to have an open discussion. You may think these things, but we should keep them to ourselves. (I know I am guilty of not remembering this, so i am talking to myself also)

when we do this, it pretty much stops any conversation.

we may think it.. but we should keep it to ourselves. and try to at the least understand what the other person is saying, if anything, as questions or state why you are struggling to understand their way of thinking

 

[Eleanor]

Hmmm... so we're inventing definitions as we go along? Post 157 was written by @Carbon in response to something @Arial posted in Post 156. Perhaps you are referring to Post 97 or some other post(?).

Actually, I was referring to what I see as Biblical "free will;" i.e., the human will as it operates in Scripture.
And that is: the power to choose what one prefers.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Does it not demonstrate the principle? I think it demonstrates my point very well. Whether it is to serve someone else, or not, we do make choices, and rather often, as a matter of fact, that are made on the moment, and go against what we would otherwise have preferred to choose. It doesn't at all mean that what we did choose was not what we preferred at that particular moment. We change our minds all the time. Look at a drunk. When he is sober, he may decide that drinking isn't worth it. But it won't be long before he has changed his mind, no matter how much he hates the next morning.

changes his mind about stop drinking?

I know many a drunk who stopped drinking. many are not even saved..

Getting out of bed to do what you must is what you most wanted at that particular moment. No?

No,

You are choosing it against what you FEEL LIKE, maybe, but not against what you want most.

Yes, I do it almost every morning. I am not a morning person.. I have gotten up angry and complaining that I have to get up so early.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Sin is any failure to conform to God's moral law whether in act, attitude, or nature..

I think it is deeper than this

Jesus said 2 commands are all the law and prophets.

1. Love the lord your God
2. Love your neighbor (which is anyone including your enemy)

if doing these 100% perfect 100% of the time would mean we kept the law

then anytime we either do not love anyone, or do something, but not out of love,

it is sin.

remember when Paul called the Corinthian church bases.. needing fed mild. they were allowing or participating in sexual sin.. They had to grow in Christ..

the more mature I become. the more of a sinner I realize I have been and am..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I find it interesting that the title of the OP is Free Will. What is It? and then gives the only definition everyone must adhere to

Ariel,

how many times are you going to misrepresent what I have said?

I never made this comment, nor have I tried to assert it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The OP asks a question about free will.

It is enough to defeat the notion. I suggest that as defined in the OP it be demonstrated why that is an oxymoron. Which I have attempted to do. Once that is done it could well segue into a discussion on Libertarian Free Will and uncaused causes vs first causal cause. The OP itself promotes an automatic free for all.

Ariel,

I have already had 2 posts deleted because they said I overreacted. I am trying to keep my calm and not react in a certain way because I do not want to give my self a bad reputation.

I opened this op because @makesends and @ElectedbyHim asked me to. I did not open this thread so I can force my view of what I believe on others. I opened it so we could discuss EVERYONES view (including theirs)

if you want to give your view. and we all discuss it feel free.

thats what this thread is for

Do not think of me as the OP.. if you want to discuss the OP. the op would by myself and the two gentlemen who asked me to please open a thread on this topic.

also. I do not believe in libertarian free will. I am not going to sit here and have you or anyone else try to point me into a corner and say this is what I believe. As this defeats the one of many reasons I wanted to discuss this tope (in the other thread) because I believe we put people in corners. then have no basis to discuss because we think we know what they are saying, when in reality we do not.

oxymoron, here we go again..

I can just shake my head..

If you do not agree. say so. and say why, and give your view. and maybe we can discuss it.

I digress..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I don't know if @Eternally-Grateful mistook that for some derivative of 'moronic', but he obviously mistook it for an insult of some sort.

to any person it would be an insult my friend.

Morinic by defenition - very foolish or stupid.

I do not know of anyone who being called stupid would not take that as an insult

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not disagreeing with you here—just asking. Can you show just how you mean, that it goes against the T in Tulip? Might help us come to some consensus of meaning.

I had to go look up a defenition to get it right.

Total depravity: Protestant theological doctrine derived from the concept of original sin. It teaches that, as a consequence of the Fall, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious (irresistible) or prevenient (enabling) grace of God, is completely unable to choose by themselves to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.

so saying we can chose. appears to go against this definition.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Our arguments should begin to skinny down to something. Hopefully. It's not a matter of opinion. There is absolute fact, even if we can't find it.

it would be great, but after years in discussion with to the believers. there are some things people are willing to die for.. even apposing views where both parties are willing to die for their view to be right.

Our arguments haven't gone far enough to show that you or anyone else, is right, to the satisfaction of the opposition. It has a long way to go. We are still going on terminology—look at all the words we are throwing around and trying to figure out what the other means by it!

I did not know we were trying to see who was right.

I thought we were discussing different views.

 

[Arial]

to any person it would be an insult my friend.

Morinic by defenition - very foolish or stupid.

I do not know of anyone who being called stupid would not take that as an insult

The word oxymoron has nothing to do with the definition of "moron". To say a statement or claim is an oxymoron is not saying a person is stupid.

 

[Arial]

Ariel,

how many times are you going to misrepresent what I have said?

I never made this comment, nor have I tried to assert it.

Either you have made the statement or you have not worded your statement in a way that is clear to your meaning.

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.

You gave your definition of free will. You look forward to other views on the meaning of free will. If we use a different view than yours, you will not understand what we mean.

So what is the point of the different views?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think it is deeper than this

Perhaps it is that your not understanding the import of the words I used

Jesus said 2 commands are all the law and prophets.

1. Love the lord your God
2. Love your neighbor (which is anyone including your enemy)

Yes. The first encompass the first half of the 10 commandments; all the God facing commandments, and the second encompasses all the man facing commandments of the 10 commandments.

The answer Jesus gave to the question what is the greatest commandment was the same as saying "All of them" because indeed upon those two things hang all the law and the prophets, and Jesus' life and death and resurrection perfectly encapsulates the fulfillment of the whole law during His Life.

if doing these 100% perfect 100% of the time would mean we kept the law

then anytime we either do not love anyone, or do something, but not out of love,

it is sin.

Correct. But your focus here seems to be upon action only, and some perhaps on attitude as well, both I did mention.

remember when Paul called the Corinthian church bases.. needing fed mild. they were allowing or participating in sexual sin.. They had to grow in Christ..

Are you speaking of 1 Corinthians 5:10-13 or so? I absolutely agree with you here.

the more mature I become. the more of a sinner I realize I have been and am..

Me too! It's crazy isn't it?

But in your post you have pointed out act and attitude, you missed noting our sin nature...

That's why the closer we are to Christ the more sin we see in ourselves. Only the self deceived can't see it.

What is the sin nature? | GotQuestions.org

What is the sin nature? What does it mean that we all have a sin nature?

www.gotquestions.org

I thought I was a righteous person once, before I was saved. I have since changed my opinion of myself and realize I have no righteousness of my own.

The only righteousness the children of God have is the righteousness of Christ in which we can boast.

You might enjoy Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology Here's a free PDF

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Josheb said:
That is a shifting onus. That question attempts to shift the burden of proving the op's assertion onto someone else to prove an alternative. That is fallacious. The new forum rule requires me to prove the fallacy so HERE and HERE are two sources defining the fallacy. It is up to you to prove scripture attributes what happened in Genesis 3:6-7 to Adam's free choice, not up to me to prove something different.

So, please either provide the scripture requested, or correct the fallacious statement (or both).

Ok, boys. Per rule 4.4 please settle on one of these fallacies to work through to agreement, and don't engage in other claims of fallacy until you have agreed on that one. If I am misusing that rule, then report my post here, and I will leave it to someone else to approve and correct me. I would like to say, don't even talk to one another, until then, but I'm not sure 4.4 should be used to mean that.

[From the moderator who drafted rule 4.4: Makesends is enforcing the rule correctly. Josheb identified a logical fallacy committed by Eternally-Grateful and explained how it was committed. Eternally-Grateful must either confirm that he shifted the burden of proof and answer Josheb's original request for a biblical reference, or deny the allegation with a careful explanation of how he didn't shift the burden of proof. And neither person can allege any other logical fallacies until this allegation is resolved.]

my comment was to show that neither one of us could answer the question as the user wanted us to. so to say I had to answer was illogical.

 

[makesends]

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

I do not think God decreed from the foundation of the world a man named Hitler taking control of his country based on what the Allies did at the end of WW1 and in the end causing the deaths of million of people including the Holocaust..

what would this say about God?

Do you support the notion that some things happen without God having in any way caused them?