Free will. What is it?

[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. Rule 4.4 please. One fallacy at-a-time.

Once again.

I am not here to force my opinion.

If he wishes to discuss it. he can.

But I am not going to be back into a corner.

he is asking a question neither one of us can answer. like I showed before.

the best we can do is take things oir events like adam and the fall. and explain how we see that happened.

Did Adam have the freedom to chose to not sin (free will)

Did Adam have no freedom,. he was going to sin no matter what (lack of free will)

to me, these are the only two options.

the bible does not say adam and free will.. so the question that I must prove that the bible says free will is as invalid as someone asking to prove the trinity by the word..

 

[makesends]

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.

Tell @Josheb . Explain, admit or deny, but work it out, before proceeding.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not at all. We disagree as to what The Authors of the WCF meant. See the other related post to your question.

mind if I ask what the WCF is.. you all have lost me know..lol

 

[makesends]

Once again.

I am not here to force my opinion.

If he wishes to discuss it. he can.

But I am not going to be back into a corner.

he is asking a question neither one of us can answer. like I showed before.

the best we can do is take things oir events like adam and the fall. and explain how we see that happened.

Did Adam have the freedom to chose to not sin (free will)

Did Adam have no freedom,. he was going to sin no matter what (lack of free will)

to me, these are the only two options.

the bible does not say adam and free will.. so the question that I must prove that the bible says free will is as invalid as someone asking to prove the trinity by the word..

Tell @Josheb . Explain, and that, in as few words as possible; admit he is right or deny he is right. But work it out with him if you can. If you cannot, stop talking to him.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The idea that moral accountability is determined by moral ability is a conclusion in desperate need of an argument. And since a statement like, "I can't see how it could be otherwise," would be autobiographical information, not an argument, let's have something more relevant and robust.

If Hitlers actions were preordained before time began. and Hitler prety much had no ability to not do what he did.

then how can Hitler be held accountable?

I guess this would be a good example?

Read the passage again, but this time in the original Greek and you will discover that πιστεύων (pisteuon) is a present active participle, indicating continuous or ongoing action—"everyone who is believing." This is an ongoing state of faith, not a one-time event. So, every believing person "has been fathered" or born of God (γεγέννηται, gegennetai), which is in the perfect passive indicative. In other words, being born of God is prior to the ongoing faith of the believer. The structure of this passage shows that regeneration is the cause and faith is the result.

(See my post on this passage here.)

ok. so what if one stops believing?

do they stop being born again (as a person who teaches salvation can be lost would say?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Lol, I don't go with any of those, but if I had to choose, I'd go for 2, except that the definitions I read for it are not how I mean it.

But, for the comfort of the OP, can we not adopt for the mere sake of argument, his definition? It doesn't mean we agree it is a valid definition. It only means we can argue why think it valid or invalid. Then we move on.

did not know we were arguing defenitions.

maybe that is why it seemed to get heated a few times?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

how can this be, is if I am being presented. that they at one time believed, and were born of God?

see the problem?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

it appears people have gotten off the op. so i will repost the op. which hopefully will stop some of the confusion.

In another thread, @makesends, @ElectedbyHim and myself started to get into a discussion about free will and it was suggested we open another thread. So here is a thread.

EG is not the OP. EG said it was suggested that WE open a new thread. EG is just the one who opened it.

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.

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.

This is my view. to add to the discussion

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.

this is what I wanted to discuss.. other peoples views.

Not just my view. My view was NEVER the topic of discussion. it was so we could discuss OUR views. which are not the same

and also why I wanted to discuss, so we can listen to people and know what they believe, not assume as sadly we have had to much even in this thread..

 

[makesends]

again, I am not sure what you mean here.

if I do not know that drinking to much and getting a little tipsy is a sin. How can I be willfully sinning if I did not know it was a sin?

If, as you intimate here, getting a little tipsy is a sin, then indulging in it is sin —whether you knew it or not; it is done in rebellion to God. (It is a little like, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If there is no posted speed limit, it doesn't mean it's ok to drive 55.)

Now If I know it is a sin, and do it anyway, then I agree. whis is willful sin.

just one of many examples.

After I was saved, and even today, I find out things I did not know was sin.

People sadly try to look to the law.. While the law does give us an example of many sins, I do not think the list is complete.

I'm not talking about looking to the law.

God looks on the heart to judge the deeds. If ignorance of the truth is the case, it doesn't mean that the sin is not done in rebellion, but God does "take that into consideration".

Take a look at the principle, that the nature of the lost is that of SIN. The lost is at enmity with God. Everything they do, is sin. (Even the good they do, is done at enmity with God). So also, "the old man" within the saved is still at enmity with God. If something the saved does is against God's law, whether the saved knew it or not, it is done at enmity with God—it is the old man doing it. But thank God for his inestimable Grace, his patience and forebearance!

 

[Hazelelponi]

mind if I ask what the WCF is.. you all have lost me know..lol

The Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (eBook) | Monergism

by Westminster Divinesin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formatsWith Scripture proofs.This eBook includes the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Subordinate Documents:

www.monergism.com

 

[Eleanor]

If Hitlers actions were preordained before time began. and Hitler prety much had no ability to not do what he did.

then how can Hitler be held accountable?

I guess this would be a good example?

It's not about Hitler being accountable for his actions.

Adam's fall caused the removal of the Holy Spirit from the human spirit and, thereby, condemned all his descendants to damnation.
Hitler was condemned from birth.

Hitler was born an enemy of God (Ro 5:9) and by nature an object of wrath (Eph 2:3), he didn't become one by his actions.

The only relief is the gift of God; i.e., faith (Php 1:29) in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin (Eph 2:8-9).

ok. so what if one stops believing?

do they stop being born again (as a person who teaches salvation can be lost would say?

They were never born again in the first place. Their faith was counterfeit.

 

[makesends]

No, I do not believe so.

the freedom to chose as I see it is we look at causes and effects of our actions. and chose mostly based on the answers.

we do not always chose the correct way..

Does this "look at causes and effects of our actions" make our choice no longer an effect of causes external to ourselves? To say it another way, is a choice based on those "answers" of which you speak, based only on our deliberations, and not on those causes from/upon which the deliberations are made?

 

[Arial]

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 appreciate that. I know it is not easy. It is not easy for me either. I will say this, that it seems your often think I am insulting you, and misunderstanding you, and misrepresenting you, when all I am doing is expressing my opinion and giving it support rather than just stating the opinion. Disagreement and opinion of Scripture are not insults. And if I do misrepresent you, it is not an intentional misrepresentation but my understanding of what you said or how you worded it. It does not warrant an accusation but instead should be approached with a clarification.

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)

Great. I have not read every post in the thread, but so far you have not discussed the view I put forth with me. You know what you have done instead. And a heads up because it is a mistake that is often made by many posters: simply repeating one's position in response to a view expressed, is not discussing the view that was expressed. These are things we all need to learn, and proofreading our own posts before hitting the "post" button helps to focus on this learning aspect on discussions. And not just proofreading looking for typos, punctuation, capitalization, and such, but checking the clarity of the expression of what we are thinking. Reading it through a stranger's eyes so to speak, to see if your point was made clear. We can actually learn to think more clearly and articulate more clearly---teaching ourselves---if we do that.

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.

This is an example of what I said above. I do not know how to answer, because I can not figure out what you are saying.

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.

I don't see where anyone is doing that, (trying to paint you into a corner). I accept that that is the way you feel about it, but since no one (that I know of, certainly not me) has that objective in mind or is doing that, it would probably help if you recognized what they ARE doing. Maybe, for example, if they are giving a definition of libertarian free will, they are simply pointing out what you say to be similar with that definition. If that is not the case, then you could show how what you believe is not the same as that definition. And if it is similar, you can maybe say you do not classify yourself as being under the full umbrella of Libertarian free will, but do agree with that particular aspect of it (whatever the aspect may be) under discussion.

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 don't even know where "oxymoron" suddenly came into this set of posts. But EG I don't agree with your definition of free will in the biblical sense because you have alienated it from the biblical sense by giving it a philosophical definition only, then carrying that into the Bible. In the theological sense "free will" it pertains to our ability or inability to choose Christ, or to do anything good that is not also tainted with sin, apart from union with Christ, and his imputed righteousness. The OP is in a forum that is theological in nature. One theology vs another theology.

Even in a philosophical sense, free----meaning no boundaries and unhindered---and "will" is a statement that is oxymoronic. That means the pairing of the two words is incompatible because it is self contradictory. That is what oxymoronic means. I.e. "It was a wide, narrow street."

I said that I disagreed with your definition,I said why, and I gave my view---in my very first posts. #51 & #55 and further expressed in posts with @makesends.

 

[makesends]

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.

Correct. The scenario is impossible, but the propositional logic is valid, that if one stops believing, then they have lost whatever salvation they supposed was theirs. But it is impossible to stop believing: The faith behind that belief is wholly valid, because it is generated by the Spirit of God, and not by the believer. We cannot maintain it —HE does. Continuous action.

Little "anecdotal evidence", here: I recall at one time, I think maybe even before I was 10, I was so tired of always wanting what I was not allowed to have, and that, at the ringing-in-my-ears of, "That is not what Christians do!", that I decided to tell everyone that I was not a Christian and did not believe in God. I suddenly found that it was impossible for me to do. I mean, not only did I realize it was dishonest, but it was not something I was even ABLE to do. I COULD NOT. It was kinda like reaching for a hammer to find that I had only been dreaming there even was a hammer.

the scripture in question is this


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?

Only true as propositional logic. The If-Then statement is valid. But the part identified by the "If" is not true. Therefore, the part identified by the "Then", is also not valid.

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

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

"Make believers"! Ha! I like that!

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

yes. But many of our attributes are his. as he created us like him

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.

or maybe it is trying to understand him in a way we are able

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.)

I think he set out to create a world. to put in this world. and serve the people of that world. And that the people who he put on this earth rebelled and he had to adjust things that he did not really want to do to begin with. But was required to do if he wanted to save his creation.

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.

I disagree.

Jonah resisted. If he did not repent and agree. he would have died in the belly of the fish. and we would never of heard of him

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.

then where does the decree of God come in?

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)

Did he deliberately plan and intend Hitler to murder millions?

yes. there was a purpose for the cross. what was the purpose for the holocost?

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).

what do you mean by replaced?

And lev 26 shows Gods commands

Obey me, and live in peace.

disobey me and you will be punished. up to and including being removed from your land, scattered and your cities destroyed

But even after that, if they repent and acknowledge their sin, God will remember them and his promise.

I disagree that he caused them (decreed) to disobey and go through 7 different punishments and be removed from their land 3 times..

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

but it is still afact.

what is love,, what does giving love look like. what is it not?

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.

No I do not see it this way.

God tested adam. And gave him the opportunity to sin. Adam had to make a choice.. I think when we hear the whole story. Adam did resist many times, it was that one time.. and look at the result

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'.

again, if I have no possibility to resist. I have no freedom to chose. I am bound to chose the one option. so in this case. I have no will, free or not. at least again, as i see it.

Nobody is saying a person has no choice.

So we can chose to receive salvation? or reject salvation?

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.

I think the disagreement we have is God decrees everything.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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.

You assume the other person would think this,

again, sometimes we just need to temper what we say.. why say it anyway?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

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?

I will move on..

thank you for your time

I explained the reason in the very first post I made. or as some people call it. the Op

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

I understand them.. just think it goes deeper than the words you used.

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.

yes

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

If we know to do good, but do not do it. to he it is sin.

the law says do not commit adultry. but if i look at a woman in lust. I have sinned.

If I love (agape) my wife. I would not lust. nor would I do.. that is why the law of love will fulfill the law.

if I do not love (agape) my wife. i will be tempted to possibly do both if given the opportunity,

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

1 cor 3: 3 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

Pul gives many examples. including chapter 5 yes

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...

I think you misunderstood.. Our nature to sin is one aspect of our decisions..

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

we also see things we did not think were sin are sin..

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

I do not think I ever thought i was a righteous person. But I agree. I have no righteousness of my own..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

Yes,

Happens all the time.

God allowing something, does not mean he caused it to happen.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Tell @Josheb . Explain, admit or deny, but work it out, before proceeding.

I have decided after yesterday that some things are just not worth getting into with some people. so I have moved on..

he asked me to prove it, I can't, non of us can. so to continue to even go down that rabbit trail would not be good for either of us.. so I have moved on.