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

 

[makesends]

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

Will not the end be better than we can ever know now? Will it not more than make up for the bad things?

 

[Josheb]

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

Did you catch my earlier point about conceding territory in the debate to the volitionalists (synergists) by using a term that doesn't exist in scripture, a term that does not mean what it states, and a term that should always be defined and clarified at the beginning of any discussion on salvation so as to avoid everything from factual falsehood to fallacies of ambiguity and false equivalence?

For the record: Humans did not have free will prior to the fall, either (see Post 30).

 

[makesends]

For the record: Humans did not have free will prior to the fall, either

Agreed completely, if "free will" means what the synergists and the rest of those set on self-determinism mean by it. Is there anything we have that is not given us?

 

[Josheb]

Agreed completely, if "free will" means what the synergists and the rest of those set on self-determinism mean by it.

The word "free" means "unfettered" or "without influence or control." If I may, I believe the agreement should be amended to say, "....if 'free will' [is misused] to mean what the synergists...."

Is there anything we have that is not given us?

Sin. We earned that .

 

[JesusFan]

Correct.

Yes, but God says that within the context of whole scripture, and He says that in the context of human behavior, and we know that statement does not apply to angels because there is no provisions for their disobedience/salvation. God is the one who says there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but He is also the one who provided the contexts (plural) for that statement.

On this planet, for humans, in the context of His laws it/they apply to the forgiveness of our sin.

No. It is not. It is always critically important, especially when working from His commands or His laws backwards to His attributes that we understand His commands and laws have context and they do not define Him; He defines them. With a different set of commands and laws mercy would look different. That would not change the inherent relationship between mercy and justice, nor His inherent love/just ontology. God gave us the commands He gave us for reasons; they're not arbitrary (just covering the base, not saying that is what you were saying) and, in the case of this op, they exist to understand a specific, relevant set of divine ontology.

The angels (both unfallen and fallen) understand something entirely different. Their knowledge and witness of God's ontological love/justness is much different.

What God said and has done in the scriptures though is only thing he could say and do, as He gave to us the best perfect expression of Himself thru his actions, deeds, and words that He could have period

 

[JesusFan]

Arial said:
What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God

I think what @Arial was getting at is that there IS no possibility of God doing other than he does. "Could have" is in our heads, not his. His is pure intention, completely directed and omnipotent; he has no need for contingencies (to use the word the way you say the WCF does).

If we obey, this happens. If we do not, that happens. Which we do, and what happens as a result, is not in question. Which we do is his decree. HE establishes what we think of as contingencies. He never changes his intentions, his plans, his doings, in reaction to what is not yet known to him.

"The only thing that ever happens is whatever happens. There is no other."

REven if we were to stae God could do many different things or say many different ways, what he did do is what He only could have done

 

[JesusFan]

Agreed completely, if "free will" means what the synergists and the rest of those set on self-determinism mean by it. Is there anything we have that is not given us?

Adam and satan though before they sinned were not restricted nor confined by sin natures so were free

 

[JesusFan]

Did you catch my earlier point about conceding territory in the debate to the volitionalists (synergists) by using a term that doesn't exist in scripture, a term that does not mean what it states, and a term that should always be defined and clarified at the beginning of any discussion on salvation so as to avoid everything from factual falsehood to fallacies of ambiguity and false equivalence?

For the record: Humans did not have free will prior to the fall, either (see Post 30).

Yahweh did not force and cause either to fall into their sin