Free Will ~yet again.

[Carbon]

Amen.

We all understand each other very differently.....I am not intellectual..neither do I have to be..my faith is very simple..

I’m not sure what I post to others though..is always .” simple to understand “ for them...it is to me...of course at times I must be in error....

I think you do great.

 

[Josheb]

I recently read a commentary regarding "Free Will" and would like to open up a discussion of why you say it is not so, or why you are certain it is.

Would you please define the word "free" as you mean it to be understood, used, and discussed in this thread?

 

[Josheb]

I recently read a commentary regarding "Free Will" and would like to open up a discussion of why you say it is not so, or why you are certain it is.

@JIM and others please jump in.....

Before that, though, I think Calvin's thoughts on free will need to be looked at so that one can understand that predestined believing people do not arbitrarily say free will is out the door. (The entire link is a good read)

Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?

Matthew Barrett discusses whether or not John Calvin believed in the concept of Free Will.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Now, if that makes little sense, I understand. Much of Calvin's thoughts make little sense.... but he did not just dismiss the idea out of hand.

Why is Matthew Barret assumed correct? I found the article factually incorrect, poorly reasoned, and in a few places grossly misrepresentative of Calvin. Anyone with a software Bible can do a word search and find there is only one place in the entire Bible in which the exact phrase "free will" occurs and that's in Philemon 1:14, a verse in which the Greek "according to willingness" is translated as "free will." It's also a verse written about the already regenerate and saved. The word "freewill" is found aplenty in the Bible but an examination of the Hebrew and Greek shows the word simply means "voluntary" and does not state or imply soteriological autonomy. Furthermore, anyone with a software or e-copy of Calvin's "Institutes... can do a word search within seconds and find Calvin used the two-word phrase more than sixty times. Logically, it seems strange, if not totally irrational, to claim someone discussing the term so often did not believe it exists. In addition, using second-hand and third-hand sources, especially those of adversaries instead of going to the original source material is, at best dubious, and at worst reprehensible. If I listened only to Hamas, I'd know very little about Israel. Lastly, comments like "make little sense" is not only a completely fallacious appeal to ridicule, it also betrays the fact some of the most highly respected theologians in Christian history accept Calvin in whole or part. It's a strange religion indeed where its leaders believe the nonsensical. It's always best to refrain from such commentary and if that impulse cannot be resisted than to ascribe the lack of understanding to oneself, as in, "I know many people believe and claim to understand it, but it makes no sense to me."

Now, how about we start with a definition for the word "free," as you intend us to understand it, apply it, and discuss it in this op?

I recently read a commentary regarding "Free Will" and would like to open up a discussion of why you say it is not so, or why you are certain it is.

Great. Define the word "free," please.

 

[Ritajanice]

If we are in Gods will....what other will is there, His will can never be thwarted..his will be done in us...100%...anyway I’m off to study salvation is relocation.....you may not hear from me for a while, happy discussions.


"But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."
Isaiah 64:8, KJV


"I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart."
Psalm 40:8, KJV


"Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness."
Psalm 143:10, KJV


"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Matthew 7:21, KJV


"For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
Mark 3:35, KJV


"And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."
Luke 22:41-42, KJV


"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."
John 4:34, KJV


"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent . . . All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:29, 37-40, KJV

 

[fastfredy0]

Would you please define the word "free" as you mean it to be understood, used, and discussed in this thread?

Took me about 5 requests for Rella to define it for me and when he did he gave 4 or 5 definitions so I was still not sure which one he held. I think the definition below applies to your question.

Free will is the idea that humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates. Is a person's will free, and is not shaped by powers outside of their own control.

I'll hand the ball off to you. Good Luck.

 

[Josheb]

Took me about 5 requests for Rella to define it for me and when he did he gave 4 or 5 definitions so I was still not sure which one he held. I think the definition below applies to your question.

I'll hand the ball off to you. Good Luck.

Thanks. I'll peruse the thread to see what's been said.

The word "free," literally means "autonomous, or not under the control or power of another and able to act as one chooses," and I do not know anyone who believes human will is autonomous and/or not under the influence and/or of outside sources. Occasionally I'll happen upon someone who says otherwise but a few simple questions, or observations, usually changes their minds and creates enough consensus with scripture and reality that some semblance of a conversation can occur.

• For example, because God is almighty, and we are not any and all conflict between the human will exists only as long as God permits. The creature CANNOT usurp the Creator's will.
• We live in time and space, and for us time is linear. Our will cannot overcome that limitation. Within that overarching limitation are a myriad of other articular limitations. For example....
• We cannot know all the previously occurring event that come to bear on any single moment of choice. We are ignorant of most of them and, therefore, every choice is made in ignorance.
• We cannot know all the options available in any given moment of choice. The more options available to our knowledge the better (more efficacious) our choices will be. Because we limited knowledge of our options our ability to choose is consequently limited, and not autonomous.
• Neither can we know all the possible consequences of our choices. The more knowledge of consequences we have the better our choices and if we knew certain consequences would occur, we'd make different choices.
• Every single one of us is raised in a specific family, a specific kind of family, in a specific culture, in a specific society. Each one of these is a separate control or power, a separate bullet-point but I've listed them together for the sake of space.
• Then there are events that are so significant that they force changes on use that then skew everything we think, feel, choose, and do in life going forward from that event. Every traumatic episode does this. The following information was unknown in the days of the ECFs, Augustine, Calvin, etc., but it has always existed: The brain literally changes in episodes of sudden change and one of those changes is the neural pathway used in that episode then becomes the preferred pathway for all similar events in the future. The brain conditions itself to literally NOT be free. It's a maladaptive response to risk, and everyone has it.
• Sin causes changes that are limiting. Everyone agrees. What we do not agree upon is the degree to which a person is changed. The Augustinian-influence perspectives (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Reformed Arminianism, etc.) all agree: the effects of sin are so thorough that they prevent a sinner from coming to God for salvation, even if the effects do not prevent the sinner from doing good in other areas.

Many more limitations, controls, and powers could be listed. 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 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.

 

[fastfredy0]

The word "free," literally means "autonomous, or not under the control or power of another and able to act as one chooses,"

Agreed. I use the term "self-determination".
My experience is that supporters limit the definition of "free will" to "the ability to choose" and ignore the "free" part of the term.

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.

Amen ... but good luck convincing supporters of "free will" to agree to the obvious or even define "free will" and stick to that definition if they define it.
I asked @Rella when he:
1) chose to be conceived in sin (Psalm 5:5)
2) chose to be given a "sin nature"
He didn't respond.

 

[Rella]

Toodles

Would you please define the word "free" as you mean it to be understood, used, and discussed in this thread?

Galatians 5:13​

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

​

 

[Josheb]

Toodles

Galatians 5:13​

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

1) That begs the question. The word "free" cannot be used to define the word "free." If you're going to use scripture to define the word then a scripture that explicitly states, "The definition (or meaning) of the word 'free' is (definition provided in the text by the text itself) ."

2) That verse says absolutely nothing about the will.

3) The verse was written about those already saved from sin and wrath. It says absolutely nothing about those not yet saved.



So give it another try. How is the word "free" defined for the purposes of this discussion? We all can't be using different definitions because that will result in us talking past each other under the assumption we're all using the same word with the exact meaning when we're not. It will also create false equivalences. Any agreement or disagreement we may think we have would be unfounded because one person will use "free" to mean "x" while another person incorrectly thinks that person is saying "y".

Just define the word and let us get one with the conversation!

 

[fastfredy0]

Just define the word and let us get one with the conversation!

Good Luck getting a relevant answer. *giggle*

 

[Tambora]

Wouldn't "free will" be a term that one can chose to do anything within their limitations?

 

[Josheb]

Wouldn't "free will" be a term that one can chose to do anything within their limitations?

Do you mean, "Wouldn't 'free will' be a term that a person with which can choose to do anything within the individual's limitations?"

If so, then the answer is "No," and the reason that would be no is because it leads to relativism, which would prevent any cogent discussion of the term, and if scripture uses the term to mean one think and 99 out of 100 of us use the term differently, we would not be having a scripture-based conversation. As I said to @fastfredy0 above, when two people use the same word but each has a different meaning attached to that same word, they end up talking past one another, creating false areas of agreement and disagreement, and false equivalences. It's like an orthodox, traditional Christian discussing Jesus with a JW or an LDS. Each has a different definition of Jesus, or Christ, but they are all using the exact same words. For the orthodox Christian Jesus is God incarnate. For a JW that is preposterous. Jesus is a created creature who was especially endowed by God to do what he did. He is a man, not God. For the LDS Jesus is a man who was born mortal but inherited his Father's powers of godhead, divinity, and immortality, having lived a perfect mortal life. Jesus is a completely distinct being from God (although the two are united in love). So when the three individuals get together to discuss Jesus, they must first define the terms as they use them so all three understand what they're hearing/reading. A simple sentence like, "Jesus is the Son of God," has three completely different meanings. The same is true of, "Jesus created the world."

• Jesus, who is God, created the world ex nihilo by speaking it into existence.
• Jesus, a created being, did not create the world but was used by God to do so.
• Jesus, a man who inherited divine powers, created the world by organizing existing elements when he was a spirit being working under the Heavenly Father's direction.

Those are three completely different Jesuses.


I hope you're paying attention, @Rella. If we are going to have a cogent discussion of free will...

I................. would like to open up a discussion of why you say it is not so, or why you are certain it is.

...then the word "free" has to be defined.

Wouldn't "free will" be a term that one can chose to do anything within their limitations?

At a minimum, we should all be able to agree that term is nowhere found in the Bible . The word "freewill," (which means nothing more than "voluntary") is found in the Bible, but not the term "free will". Nowhere does the Bible say the will is free. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly specify the will is not free, either . Both sides of the discussion are making their case from inference.

And that is another reason why the terms need to be defined.

 

[fastfredy0]

And that is another reason why the terms need to be defined.

Amen ... but they won't define what they mean in regards to "free will" or will give an obtuse definition that they insist is a substantive definition............ lest wise that is my limited experience.

I await @Rella 's clear definition but I'm not counting on it.
Goes back to chewing his

 

[Rella]

Do you mean, "Wouldn't 'free will' be a term that a person with which can choose to do anything within the individual's limitations?"

If so, then the answer is "No," and the reason that would be no is because it leads to relativism, which would prevent any cogent discussion of the term, and if scripture uses the term to mean one think and 99 out of 100 of us use the term differently, we would not be having a scripture-based conversation. As I said to @fastfredy0 above, when two people use the same word but each has a different meaning attached to that same word, they end up talking past one another, creating false areas of agreement and disagreement, and false equivalences. It's like an orthodox, traditional Christian discussing Jesus with a JW or an LDS. Each has a different definition of Jesus, or Christ, but they are all using the exact same words. For the orthodox Christian Jesus is God incarnate. For a JW that is preposterous. Jesus is a created creature who was especially endowed by God to do what he did. He is a man, not God. For the LDS Jesus is a man who was born mortal but inherited his Father's powers of godhead, divinity, and immortality, having lived a perfect mortal life. Jesus is a completely distinct being from God (although the two are united in love). So when the three individuals get together to discuss Jesus, they must first define the terms as they use them so all three understand what they're hearing/reading. A simple sentence like, "Jesus is the Son of God," has three completely different meanings. The same is true of, "Jesus created the world."

• Jesus, who is God, created the world ex nihilo by speaking it into existence.
• Jesus, a created being, did not create the world but was used by God to do so.
• Jesus, a man who inherited divine powers, created the world by organizing existing elements when he was a spirit being working under the Heavenly Father's direction.

Those are three completely different Jesuses.


I hope you're paying attention, @Rella. If we are going to have a cogent discussion of free will...

...then the word "free" has to be defined.

At a minimum, we should all be able to agree that term is nowhere found in the Bible . The word "freewill," (which means nothing more than "voluntary") is found in the Bible, but not the term "free will". Nowhere does the Bible say the will is free. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly specify the will is not free, either . Both sides of the discussion are making their case from inference.

And that is another reason why the terms need to be defined.

Not until you define the word Christianity which is not in the Holy Book.

Not until your define the word Bible which is not in the Holy Book.

Not until you define the word Discipleship which is not in the Holy Book.

Not until you define the word Rapture which is not in the Holy Book. ( which I understand you and yours do not believe in.)

Not until you define the word Halo which is not in the Holy Book. (Often used as a description of angels)

Not until you define the word Problem which is not in the Holy Book. ( Interesting no? If no problems are mentioned in Scripture, then what are we trying to fix?)

Not until your define the word Trinity which is not in the Holy Book. (Therefore where is proof that it might exist. There is none, right?)

Not until your define the word Responsibility which is not in the Holy Book. ( Judas had no responsibility for leading the the Jesus)

Is it not possible that the differing words used by many are merely different facets of a beautifully cut gem, each reflecting a unique perspective of the same brilliant truth?

How about general accepted assumptions that are not in the bible?

Three wise men.

A whale swallowed Jonah.

Be in the world , but not of the world.

All things work together for good.

Jesus wants to live in your heart.
God won't give you more than you can bear.
Pray the sinner's prayer.
God is in control.
God helps those who help themselves.
Hate the sin, love the sinner.

But it is useless to even suggest an intelligent discussion because I firmly believe that “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, ergo human beings do have a free will
and you do not.

 

[Rella]

Amen ... but they won't define what they mean in regards to "free will" or will give an obtuse definition that they insist is a substantive definition............ lest wise that is my limited experience.

I await @Rella 's clear definition but I'm not counting on it.
Goes back to chewing his

When Dick finishes chasing Spot and dipping Janes braids in the inkwell and finally finishes his abitlity to read his first grade primer with understanding.... THEN I will have Dick splain it to you as you do lack understanding.

Time for a nap....

 

[Alive]

When Dick finishes chasing Spot and dipping Janes braids in the inkwell and finally finishes his abitlity to read his first grade primer with understanding.... THEN I will have Dick splain it to you as you do lack understanding.

Time for a nap....View attachment 870

This kind of mocking other members is not nice.

 

[fastfredy0]

THEN I will have Dick splain it to you as you do lack understanding.

Agreed ... slain your definition of "free will" to @Josheb ... I don't think he knows what you are talking about either.

 

[Josheb]

Amen ... but they won't define what they mean in regards to "free will" or will give an obtuse definition that they insist is a substantive definition............ lest wise that is my limited experience.

I await @Rella 's clear definition but I'm not counting on it.
Goes back to chewing his

Let me be clear: I am not asking for a definition of "free will." I am asking for a definition of "free." BIG difference.

Not until you define......

Oh my. What a huge attempt to avoid answering the question by fallaciously shifting the onus abdicating one's integrity. The only reason anyone is here because you invited them to discuss the topic of free will. The entire thread is predicated upon your explicit, express desire to have a conversation specifically on free will. The questions I've asked is valid. It is also wholly relevant and specific to your stated mission.

I recently read a commentary regarding "Free Will" and would like to open up a discussion of why you say it is not so, or why you are certain it is.

I'd like to have that discussion and do so in good faith with good will.

And I was just treated to fallacy.


I have posted valid op-relevant observations about the normal, ordinary definition of the word "free." I have also posted several valid, op-relevant facts about scripture. I have explained how and why he definition of terms is necessarily warranted. So far, no one has disputed any of it. I've also asked you several questions that are still sitting in the thread silent and unanswered. Seems strange for a guy who explicitly reported he wanted to discuss free will and why the commentary in the article cited is so or not so. Barrett is not here to give us his definition. That leaves you, the author of this op to define the term as you'd like to be used in your discussion of your op.

And you just tried to shift the onus.


Just define the word so we can have the conversation! Or, if this is personal and you do not want to discuss this with me then just say so.

 

[Arial]

Wouldn't "free will" be a term that one can chose to do anything within their limitations?

"Limitations" automatically removes "free".

 

[Rella]

Just define the word so we can have the conversation! Or, if this is personal and you do not want to discuss this with me then just say so.

Will you accept not just my definition but the definition from people and corporations that are far smarter then I?

Free is all of the following.

And I have to cut some out because of the 10000 word limit.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

1. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.
   "felt free to go."

Cambridge dictionery

(NOT LIMITED)
B2
not limited or controlled:

Collins dictionary
B2
Someone or something that is free is not restricted, controlled, or limited, for example by rules, customs, or other people.

Further
In John 8:36 Jesus makes a wonderful statement of victory. He says, "So if the Son sets you free you will be free indeed." If you look at the Greek, you will discover this word free can mean to liberate or to exempt from liability

Jesus sets us free from our self-centeredness. He frees us from the power of sin in our lives. He frees us from the captivity that Satan has upon us, and he frees us from cultural captivity. Ultimately setting us free to be in union with Him.

GO TO NEXT POST PART 2