Free Will ~yet again.

[Rella]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious objection to advance a little deeper in understanding and ask further questions.

So here's a further question to keep digging deeper:
Can God be said to have free will when He has limitations (such as cannot lie)?

I have never considered God to have free will... but of course it is a valid point. And of course God , as Yahweh, The Father, And creator of all
has the undistinguished right to do as He wishes.

No one was standing over His shoulder or offering opinions when he created all the galaxies and solar systems and everything that extends beyond the possibility of humans to ever see and reach.

No one was standing over Elohim when the animals and all non blood bearing entities were created and given life that lives unto today.

I do believe that He has a plan(s) for every single thing that ever came into existence including those of the heavenly realm called angerls.

But in answer to you question.

We have been told God cannot lie.

Do we know why God cannot lie? He was never made. He did not come from a big bang that if remotely true was designed by Him. He has always been and always will be.... so why can He not lie.

Could it be by choice? Then certainly would not be an infringement on free will but a benefit.

We know that the angels were given free will.... and since this term is offensive to some.. we could say the will that they were given allowed for them to choose.

If that were not so then Lucifer would still be having fun and games and worshipping the heavenly Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not have suffered as has been and will.

 

[Rella]

I do not care what anyone else anywhere else thinks. This is your op, not Calvin's or Barrett's or Ricky's or Lucy's. I asked you to define the word as you intend it to be used. Will I except it? That depends. If it's a completely unscriptural, irrational definition then the answer is no, but I will then ask you some questions in hopes we can arrive at mutually agreed upon definition that will also serve the discussion you want to have.

Great!

That is exactly the same definition I posted. See how easy that was? I would like you to make note of this because what just happened should not happen again. You're not going to like it I ignore the questions you ask me. You're not going to like it if I delay, and obfuscate, and try and change the subject or, even worse, impugn your personal faculties. I assume when you ask me a question, you'd like an immediate, direct, and succinct op-relevant topical answer to the question asked and not answers to questions not asked. If I have assumed incorrectly then let me know because I hope that from here on out, you will make the effort pay attention to the details and answer questions asked when answered.

If that is amenable, then here's my first question based on the definition you provided and with which I completely agree. I've read Post 291, and appreciate your succinctness there, but I'd like for us to establish the matter and build from as much consensus as we can, instead of the typical rancor that ensues in the free will debate.


Is the will of the sinful person not restricted, controlled, or limited by anything else?

Or.... to word the question in positive language:

Is the will of the sinful person restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything?


Again: I remind you an immediate, direct, succinct answer is expected. We move the conversation forward when we do that for/with each other. It's a yes or no question. If the answer is, "Yes," then perhaps you'd care to list 3 or four restrictions, controls, or limits. If the answer is "No," then perhaps you'd care to add a few sentences explaining how/why the sinner's will has absolutely no restrictions, controls, or limitations. I'll try to work with whatever you post, as long as it is an answer to the question asked.


Is the will of the sinful human restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything?

Revisiting this reply to me....

You said " If I have assumed incorrectly then let me know because I hope that from here on out, you will make the effort pay attention to the details and answer questions asked when answered."

That is a two way street and if deliberately misdirecting I will not answer... but it is also incumbent on you to answer questions that are asked.

Else we will call an end to this exercise.

Agreed?

 

[Rella]

Good son.

Rella​

"Daughter of the King"​

 

[Rella]

It's probably best to define it the way the ancient people who wrote scripture meant it to mean in the context of which they used the term.

Please provide that explanation.

That's when I try to remind myself of Ecc 3:1-8 and try not to force it to be only one or the other, but could possibly reflect either one depending on the situation at hand.

 

[Arial]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious objection to advance a little deeper in understanding and ask further questions.

So here's a further question to keep digging deeper:
Can God be said to have free will when He has limitations (such as cannot lie)?

God will not will to go against His character. His will is free in that He answers to no one and no thing. He governs it all.

His character is all His attributes including mercy and love and justice. And yet, it is these very characteristics that will not, and cannot, overlook sin. He will send the unrepentant wicked to destruction.

He ordered war and killing for the Israelites. He subjected all of creation to the effects of man's transgressions. (Romans 8:18-25)

Some people would consider that God going against His love and mercy and justice.

 

[Josheb]

Possibly.

They may be blind, deaf, or a cripple. There may be a physical handicap or a mental one. Each would offer a complication to certain actions of the will of the person. But not necessarily stopping.

Example: Someone who is an avid porn watcher who finds themself having gone blind. I am certain they would find a work around if by no other way then books on tape with descriptions.

Great. Thank you. I'm curious about the example of pornography. Does the long-term use of pornography itself have any control, power, or limiting effect on the user? Would you say any addiction has controlling influence, power, or limiting effect on the user?

I will try to be as immediate as possible but will remind you I am the only caregiver for my mother who has advanced dementia.

I was not talking about time. I was talking about posts. Some people get asked a question and don't answer the question. Instead, they post irrelevant content. Then, when asked the exact same question a second time, they post more content that does not answer the question asked. Then, when asked a third time the posts become adversarial and..... do not answer the question asked. I can be persistent and not get distracted by the unnecessarily irrelevant and unnecessarily adversarial content (everyone in the forum will testify to that effect). I'll continue to ask the question in hope the question will be answered, and the discussion can then move forward with everyone knowing the answer to the question, or until it becomes apparent the person is either unwilling or unable to answer the question asked.

Neither one of us should have to ask a question more than once.

I had to ask for a definition of "free" multiple times and in the end, when an answer to the question asked was finally provided we were able to move the discussion forward. I had to ask if there any controls/limits and got an answer the very next post. That is very much appreciated. It does not matter that I had to wait eleven minutes. It would not matter if you or I were out of the forum for an hour, or five. What matters is the very next post. The very next post either moves the discussion forward in a topical and op-relevant manner, or it does not. Each post moves the conversation along building on what was previously posted or it does not. The posts themselves do not go anywhere. I see by the timestamp that my question was answered 11 minutes after it was asked but this reply I now type is posted many hours later. Many hours passed, but the next post attended to your answer.

Let's try to maintain that kind of timeliness (no pun intended).

Is that succinct enough for you?

Yes. Very much so, and much appreciated. Now back to the matter of free will as it pertains to salvation. We have established a definition of "free" as not having any control, power, or limits place on it and you've cited one limiting example: physical infirmity. Physical infirmity can place a limitation on a person's will. I agree. A person's will can be controlled and/or limited by physical infirmity. That person's will would then be controlled or limited, not free.

And I have asked you about the control, power, and limits long-term use of pornography or any addicition might have. Would you agree addiction to pornography can control, have power over, or limit a person's will, or volitional agency (the ability of the person's volition to have agency)?

I have also listed several examples of controls, powers, and limits on the human will in Post #266. It's not an exhaustive list, but it will do for now. Do you agree that list is correct?

1. Does the ongoing use of pornography pose control, power, or limits of the user's will?
2. Does an addiction to pornography (or any other addiction) impose control, power, or limits on the addict's will?
3. Is the list posted in #266 correct? If not, then which specific points are incorrect?

An answer to the three specific questions asked will be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Josheb]

Agreed?

Agreed.

I have listed several examples of controls, powers, and limits on the human will in Post #266. It's not an exhaustive list, but it will do for now. I'd like to know if you agree.

1. Does the ongoing use of pornography pose control, power, or limits of the user's will?
2. Does an addiction to pornography (or any other addiction) impose control, power, or limits on the addict's will?
3. Is the list posted in #266 correct? If not, then which specific points are incorrect?

A direct and succinct answer to the three specific questions just asked will be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Rella]

Confirming. We ARE in agreement that Free = Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.

Great. Thank you. I'm curious about the example of pornography. Does the long-term use of pornography itself have any control, power, or limiting effect on the user? Would you say any addiction has controlling influence, power, or limiting effect on the user?

I was not talking about time. I was talking about posts. Some people get asked a question and don't answer the question. Instead, they post irrelevant content.

I can assure you if you read back over every time I have done that it is because I have gotten a question in regard to an answer that specifically was aimed at explaining our agreement of the definition of free.

Neither one of us should have to ask a question more than once.

I had to ask for a definition of "free" multiple times and in the end, when an answer to the question asked was finally provided we were able to move the discussion forward. I had to ask if there any controls/limits and got an answer the very next post. That is very much appreciated. It does not matter that I had to wait eleven minutes. It would not matter if you or I were out of the forum for an hour, or five. What matters is the very next post. The very next post either moves the discussion forward in a topical and op-relevant manner, or it does not. Each post moves the conversation along building on what was previously posted or it does not. The posts themselves do not go anywhere. I see by the timestamp that my question was answered 11 minutes after it was asked but this reply I now type is posted many hours later. Many hours passed, but the next post attended to your answer.

Let's try to maintain that kind of timeliness (no pun intended).

Bloviating is kind of in my DNA. Think it comes from my Neanderthal side of things.

Yes. Very much so, and much appreciated. Now back to the matter of free will as it pertains to salvation. We have established a definition of "free" as not having any control, power, or limits place on it and you've cited one limiting example: physical infirmity. Physical infirmity can place a limitation on a person's will. I agree. A person's will can be controlled and/or limited by physical infirmity. That person's will would then be controlled or limited, not free.

Why? Nevermind... answering it below.

And I have asked you about the control, power, and limits long-term use of pornography or any addicition might have. Would you agree addiction to pornography can control, have power over, or limit a person's will, or volitional agency (the ability of the person's volition to have agency)?

I have also listed several examples of controls, powers, and limits on the human will in Post #266. It's not an exhaustive list, but it will do for now. Do you agree that list is correct?

No. Because while we might agree on what free means and you said, " Therefore, any conversation of "free will," must have the word "free" defined in a manner consistent with reality. Otherwise, the term, its validity as a foundation for discussion, and the discussion itself is a delusion or fantasy." And technically I agree....

When you take the "reality" from life with the introduction of God or anything spiritual it does not apply. Once and after we have our rebirths then and only then does a major hiccup happen when the flesh wars against our spirit.... before then man generally will do whatever he wishes until

When you were "born again" you had a spiritual rebirth. But if you are in disagreement with this then say so and we end our discussion.

That is exactly why Paul says the following to Christians in Romans 12: 2: “And Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind (soul dimension), that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” and in 2 Corinthians 10: 5 that “we should bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”. ( But do we.... I say no) We should therefore take every thought (in the mind, therefore soul) captive and make it subject to God’s will. If it was true that the soul dimension immediately became holy and whole upon spiritual salvation or rebirth, it would not have been necessary for Paul to say this to the Christians of his time.

Therefore, when we give our “hearts” (spirits) to God at rebirth, our spirit becomes untouchable to the enemy and becomes holy ground.

God is holy and therefore only lives/stays where it is holy.

The enemy may not invade our human spirits once we have given Jesus Christ permission and authority to enter into and live there.

That is without our permission or invitation and by our wills..."FREE" we all to often open the door.



And that is why I tend to speak of volitional agency and not free will. We all have agency, an ability to choose. What we do not have is completely autonomy, or the ability to not have any control or powers come to bear on that agency.

1. Does the ongoing use of pornography pose control, power, or limits of the user's will?

The stimulation that porn creates does not limit the power of the user's (free) will simply because once experienced it is exceptionally difficult to say ... Okay, been there done that next. And ones will will keep right on wanting more and more.... and will be provided unless it is somehow stopped.

1. Does an addiction to pornography (or any other addiction) impose control, power, or limits on the addict's will?

Repeat the same answer as above and add that to and will be provided unless it is somehow stopped. which in the case on Matthew Perry that sopping was death.

This is the consummate example of free will because even though one knows it is wrong and dangerous they just want to keep right on.

But lest you say that the porn or drugs were an outside influence.... I will remind you that you had to start somewhere before the influence
kept calling.

Voluntary consumption or other is NOT the same as a trafficker who dopes a woman to keep her in sex. It is voluntary.

1. Is the list posted in #266 correct? If not, then which specific points are incorrect?

Andswere above

An answer to the three specific questions asked will be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Eleanor]

That last paragraph is really interesting, made a lot of sense...as you say NO sin is acceptable to God.

I will read what Rella posted, I have never understood free- will...will be interesting where this thread takes us.

Free will is the ability to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers.

Unregenerate man prefers self over God.
The Holy Spirit gives the regenerate man to prefer God.

Both have free will because both choose what they prefer.

 

[fastfredy0]

But lest you say that the porn or drugs were an outside influence.... I will remind you that you had to start somewhere before the influence
kept calling.

Agreed .. the will leads to trying drugs and/or porn. The experience adjusts the will according to established desires.

When you take the "reality" from life with the introduction of God or anything spiritual it does not apply. Once and after we have our rebirths then and only then does a major hiccup happen when the flesh wars against our spirit.... before then man generally will do whatever he wishes until

Confirming. We ARE in agreement that Free = Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.

Sounds like your definition needs to be tweaked to something like:
Free = Not controlled by obligation or the will of another and applies to those who have not been regenerated.

Just throwing in my 2 cents ... carry on

 

[fastfredy0]

Free will is the ability to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers.

Is being born with a "sin nature" an external constraint?


Plural form of constraint

noun​

1. The threat or use of force to prevent, restrict, or dictate the action or thought of others.
2. The state of being restricted or confined within prescribed bounds.
   "soon tired of the constraint of military life."
3. One that restricts, limits, or regulates; a check.
   "ignored all moral constraints in his pursuit of success."

 

[Eleanor]

Is being born with a "sin nature" an external constraint?
Plural form of constraint
noun

1. The threat or use of force to prevent, restrict, or dictate the action or thought of others.
2. The state of being restricted or confined within prescribed bounds.
   "soon tired of the constraint of military life."
3. One that restricts, limits, or regulates; a check.
   "ignored all moral constraints in his pursuit of success."

Thanks. . .

Isn't the sin nature an internal constraint?

 

[fastfredy0]

Thanks. . .

Isn't the sin nature an internal constraint?

If you chose to have an "sin nature" independent of external influences then it would be an internal constraint.

This seems unlikely as, except for Adam and Eve, everyone has a "sin nature".
Seeing everyone was conceived in sin it seems unlikely that anyone chose to have a "sin nature" independent of outside influence (Psalm 5:5)

 

[Rella]

Free will is the ability to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers.

Unregenerate man prefers self over God.
The Holy Spirit gives the regenerate man to prefer God.

Both have free will because both choose what they prefer.

Thank you Eleanor,

Perfectly stated and understandable....

 

[Rella]

Agreed .. the will leads to trying drugs and/or porn. The experience adjusts the will according to established desire

But there always is the will until one dies.

Mathew Perry had one dose of ketamine in the morning, then a second shot at noonish. At 1PM he told the one giving him the shopts
to make this one a hefty one.

He chose, to get a higher dose. Was that addiction talking or his will. I suggest both because although difficult he could have gone to rehab again,,, but I guess he knew once clean he would willingly go back to being a user.

Now he does not need to worry.

Sounds like your definition needs to be tweaked to something like:
Free = Not controlled by obligation or the will of another and applies to those who have not been regenerated.

Just throwing in my 2 cents ... carry on

 

[Rella]

If you chose to have an "sin nature" independent of external influences then it would be an internal constraint.

This seems unlikely as, except for Adam and Eve, everyone has a "sin nature".
Seeing everyone was conceived in sin it seems unlikely that anyone chose to have a "sin nature" independent of outside influence (Psalm 5:5)

 

[Alive]

He chose, to get a higher dose. Was that addiction talking or his will. I suggest both because although difficult he could have gone to rehab again,,, but I guess he knew once clean he would willingly go back to being a user.

Sounds to me like a good illustration of a will being influenced and decidedly not 'free'.
;-)

 

[Alive]

View attachment 877

That's gonna give you a headache.

 

[Josheb]

Confirming. We ARE in agreement that Free = Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.

What I agreed with does not limit the restrictions, controls, power, or limits to the will of another person. What has been agreed upon is the word "free' means without any controls, powers, or limits. Nothing more.

What we've agreed upon is a physical infirmity may limit a person's will, or volitional agency. If a physical infirmity can control, restrict, or limits a person's will then the infirm person is not volitionally free. His/her will is not without restrictions, controls, or limits. It may have liberty to act within those limitations, but it is not free to will anything beyond controls, restrictions, power, or limits of the infirmity. we need to agree upon that, get that point over and done with, and move forward to other aspects of control, power, restriction, and/or limits, whether they be over another person or not.

No need or warrant at this point in the discussion's progression has justified the inclusion of "by obligation or will of another." Perhaps we'll get there but we'll have to first do the work. This is not a point over which ANY two Christians should disagree. Physical infirmity is not another person, but it is, nonetheless a limitation on the human will. You said it and I agree.

The stimulation that porn creates does not limit the power of the user's (free) will simply because once experienced it is exceptionally difficult to say ... Okay, been there done that next. And ones will will keep right on wanting more and more.... and will be provided unless it is somehow stopped.

Then the use of pornography is a control, restriction, limitation on the user's will.


The salient point here is that the porn user's will is not free. There are a variety of controls, restrictions, and limits on the human will. If we can agree to that one single point then we can discuss the other kinds of controls, restrictions, limits, both God and sin may or may not impose on the human will.


Are there controls, restrictions, and/or limits on the human will other than those imposed by another person?


Yes or no
.

 

[Rella]

What I agreed with does not limit the restrictions, controls, power, or limits to the will of another person. What has been agreed upon is the word "free' means without any controls, powers, or limits. Nothing more.

What we've agreed upon is a physical infirmity may limit a person's will, or volitional agency. If a physical infirmity can control, restrict, or limits a person's will then the infirm person is not volitionally free. His/her will is not without restrictions, controls, or limits. It may have liberty to act within those limitations, but it is not free to will anything beyond controls, restrictions, power, or limits of the infirmity. we need to agree upon that, get that point over and done with, and move forward to other aspects of control, power, restriction, and/or limits, whether they be over another person or not.

No need or warrant at this point in the discussion's progression has justified the inclusion of "by obligation or will of another." Perhaps we'll get there but we'll have to first do the work. This is not a point over which ANY two Christians should disagree. Physical infirmity is not another person, but it is, nonetheless a limitation on the human will. You said it and I agree.

Then the use of pornography is a control, restriction, limitation on the user's will.


The salient point here is that the porn user's will is not free. There are a variety of controls, restrictions, and limits on the human will. If we can agree to that one single point then we can discuss the other kinds of controls, restrictions, limits, both God and sin may or may not impose on the human will.


Are there controls, restrictions, and/or limits on the human will other than those imposed by another person?


Yes or no
.

That is not a yes or no question.... And we do not agree BTW that the word "free' means without any controls, powers, or limits.

What if, hypothetically... without the aid of any outside interference or stimulation one succumbs to the oft temptation of .. oh, lets say,
masturbation.

The jury is out if it is a sin or not. And I am not going to discuss that one way or the other.

But usually, not always, in a human beings body the way that God made man comes ... lets say for the lack of a better term ... an urge.

Could be at night. Could be in the morning. Or any old time of the day.

If one is true to themselves and to God one will choose not to act on the situation. Yes, I said choose, for whatever is done is by choice.

If one has less "will"power, then the deed gets done. (I assume you have the picture.)

Now if you have been programmed to believe such is wrong, and is a sin... but just will not resist.... for isn't it a choice? (make a great debate topic) then ...............................................................................................................................................................!

So in this case without the use of porn, Playboy or Hustler, a restricted movie or even letting the mind wander... (It is possible)..
without controls, restrictions, and/or limits a choice has to be made. A choice of the will. A Free choice . Even Paul had to make this choice, if you remember.