Just Yet Merciful

[Arial]

I am defining retaining some free will as God still does grant to us means to do as we now desire, to make real choices and decisions, as The Lord is not direct causing all evil choices being made by us today

It is still not free and should not be described as such, though I realize it will never cease to be done. It does not have to be free in order for God to not be accountable for our sinful decisions. He let's us make the choices we do because he has turned us over to our rejection of even his visible attributes (Romans 1). We always were a being that is capable of making choices. That did not go away with the fall. But our will bows down to our desires and is a prisoner of them. It does what our desires dictate---the strongest pressure. It is sufficient to say that God allows us to make choices according to our desires. No need to call it free.

But hopefully this won't become a debate over "free" will.

 

[JesusFan]

It is still not free and should not be described as such, though I realize it will never cease to be done. It does not have to be free in order for God to not be accountable for our sinful decisions. He let's us make the choices we do because he has turned us over to our rejection of even his visible attributes (Romans 1). We always were a being that is capable of making choices. That did not go away with the fall. But our will bows down to our desires and is a prisoner of them. It does what our desires dictate---the strongest pressure. It is sufficient to say that God allows us to make choices according to our desires. No need to call it free.

But hopefully this won't become a debate over "free" will.

We can still make valid choices allowed by God, so if he is not directly causing them to be made, are we not in some sense "still free?"

 

[Arial]

We can still make valid choices allowed by God, so if he is not directly causing them to be made, are we not in some sense "still free?"

It is not our will that is free. But in no sense are we ever free until, ironically, until we become prisoners of Christ. And even then, we still owned by him. But that is when our desires change, slowly but surely, and we are kept by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

 

[Josheb]

free not in an absolute sense, but free with can still make choices and decisions based upon our desires and limitations of having the sin nature

The ability to make real decisions is volitional agency, not free (unfettered, without limits or controls) will. Part of the problem is the debate is tied to a red herring = the traditional use of a phrase that does not mean what it states. It favors volitional (synergist) soteriology so monergists are rarely playing on a level field unless this matter of "free" will is defined and clarified at the beginning of the conversation. AND, in addition to the matter of a supposedly "free" will, there is the fact that will is sinful. Synergist soteriology is predicated on decisions made by the still-sinful, unregenerate will, not a freed, regenerate will. This is why I use the phrase "volitional agency" and not "free will."

The word "freewill" can be found stated in scripture. That word means "voluntary." The phrase "free will" cannot be found stated in scripture. That phrase means independent, autonomous will without limitations or controls. Such a thing does not exist. The premise is always and everywhere solely a function of eisegetic inference and not what scripture actually states. Most of the time (especially when the epistolary is used) the audience affiliations inherent in the scriptural texts are also ignored in synergism.


Just saying.

 

[JesusFan]

The ability to make real decisions is volitional agency, not free (unfettered, without limits or controls) will. Part of the problem is the debate is tied to a red herring = the traditional use of a phrase that does not mean what it states. It favors volitional (synergist) soteriology so monergists are rarely playing on a level field unless this matter of "free" will is defined and clarified at the beginning of the conversation. AND, in addition to the matter of a supposedly "free" will, there is the fact that will is sinful. Synergist soteriology is predicated on decisions made by the still-sinful, unregenerate will, not a freed, regenerate will. This is why I use the phrase "volitional agency" and not "free will."

The word "freewill" can be found stated in scripture. That word means "voluntary." The phrase "free will" cannot be found stated in scripture. That phrase means independent, autonomous will without limitations or controls. Such a thing does not exist. The premise is always and everywhere solely a function of eisegetic inference and not what scripture actually states. Most of the time (especially when the epistolary is used) the audience affiliations inherent in the scriptural texts are also ignored in synergism.


Just saying.

We are free to do what we desire and want to do, but that will be limited by the restrictions placed upon us due to our very sin natures

 

[JesusFan]

It is not our will that is free. But in no sense are we ever free until, ironically, until we become prisoners of Christ. And even then, we still owned by him. But that is when our desires change, slowly but surely, and we are kept by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Think we are saying same thing, just when I use free will, some see it as saying we can still choice to get saved or not, being a Calvinist, would totally reject that meaning of the term

 

[makesends]

I am defining retaining some free will as God still does grant to us means to do as we now desire, to make real choices and decisions, as The Lord is not direct causing all evil choices being made by us today

I think that is a lousy definition —just saying.

Even dogs do as they most desire at that moment of decision, and their choices have real consequences. Nor that intentional causation by God that there be sin, results even in specific sins, does not imply direct causation. Sin is of creatures —not the Creator.

As the WCF implies (3.1) rather strongly, even those choices we consider free, and all the contingencies and their effects, are ESTABLISHED by God. To me that is a strong designator of the category into which we should place decisions for consideration of source. I'm by no means saying we don't decide —of course we do! But our very being is by God's intent, so how not our every choice? Is God somehow limited in perspective to only work, as the Arminians claim, in generalities or toward the greater goals? Or is his eye on the motion of every particle of fact? Can any fact be/exist, without his intending it to?

 

[makesends]

Think we are saying same thing, just when I use free will, some see it as saying we can still choice to get saved or not, being a Calvinist, would totally reject that meaning of the term

We all "choose to get saved", which I think we will see had nothing to do with effecting, but being an effect of, our salvation. Consider, looking back through your life, how the shedding of temptations (for an obvious example) seems to be something for which to thank God, rather than to feel like your own victory. It is GOD who works in us. "We do so because it IS so."

"We love him because he first loved us" may not refer to some grateful response to seeing that he loved us and died for us, but, rather, perhaps, refers directly to obedience effected by his direct work IN us.

 

[makesends]

I am defining retaining some free will as God still does grant to us means to do as we now desire, to make real choices and decisions, as The Lord is not direct causing all evil choices being made by us today

Do you say he did not intend that we make those specific evil choices? Logically I don't see it possible that anything can happen he did not intend. Biblically, I have yet to find any indication that he did not intend absolutely everything to happen as it does.

 

[Josheb]

We are free to do what we desire and want to do, but that will be limited by the restrictions placed upon us due to our very sin natures

That is incorrect.

We are not free to desire a step of the Empire State Building will not end tragically. We are not free to exceed the limits of time or space. We are not free to know all the factors leading up to any one particular moment of choice. We are not free to know all possible effects of any one choice on all others.

There are many limitations on human volition beside sin. It is best to use the word "liberty" instead of "free". I have liberty to make choices within the many, many limitations on my volition. My will is not unfettered, nor absent any external controls.

 

[JesusFan]

That is incorrect.

We are not free to desire a step of the Empire State Building will not end tragically. We are not free to exceed the limits of time or space. We are not free to know all the factors leading up to any one particular moment of choice. We are not free to know all possible effects of any one choice on all others.

There are many limitations on human volition beside sin. It is best to use the word "liberty" instead of "free". I have liberty to make choices within the many, many limitations on my volition. My will is not unfettered, nor absent any external controls.

Think we are in agreement, its just the term 'free will" is a bother to some here, but I am not defing that term as one hold to say "full free will" still remaining to us after the fall would

 

[JesusFan]

Do you say he did not intend that we make those specific evil choices? Logically I don't see it possible that anything can happen he did not intend. Biblically, I have yet to find any indication that he did not intend absolutely everything to happen as it does.

God does not determined and directly cause murders and rapist and child molesters to do their thing