Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[Mark Quayle]

Websters Dictionary says:
freewill
adjective
free·will | \ ˈfrē-ˌwil \
Definition of freewill
(Entry 1 of 2)

: VOLUNTARY, SPONTANEOUS
free will

noun
Definition of free will (Entry 2 of 2)

1: voluntary choice or decision - I do this of my own free will
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Correct. This is the very reason for my OP. If "Free Will" means only what Webster's says it means, (notice that Webster's makes no claim as to its existence, but only what it means), then those who reject the whole notion of free will are correct, because nobody can do anything absolutely spontaneously. They can only do so apparently spontaneously.

But there is another use (if not meaning) for "Free Will", as I said in my OP. Calvinists historically have been referring to the bondage of the will to sin, and the subsequent freedom of the will of the regenerated because they are free from sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is it possible for God to allow “little first causes to run around” in some humans?

No. There can be only one First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Everything is driven by man’s objective, since it appears from scripture, history and the world around us all is happening to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective.

Everything is driven by God's objective; everything he does to and in us, willing or not, everything we do, obeying or rebelling, is accomplishing God's objective. What appears to us is what we notice --each other. Scripture comments on us, history is about the world and its inhabitants --but so what? Is that everything? Scripture talks about a lot more than us. History is replete with the acts of God, and evidences of his power (not to mention his detailed immanence). The world around us is deceptively humanistic --this life is not about this life. It is not about us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not sure how you are addressing my simple questions: Does God have the ability and power to provide humans with very limited autonomous free will?

You say: “limited autonomous power” is an oxymoron, because “autonomous” means “without limitation”, but I am talking about an autonomy that has limitations, so it does not have the same meaning as “unlimited autonomy” like God has.

Is it possible for God to allow “little first causes to run around” in some humans?

Our objective is a huge topic:

Everything is driven by man’s objective, since it appears from scripture, history and the world around us all is happening to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective.

You can take any Biblical command and say: “This is man’s objective” and have Biblical support for saying that, “God commanded this of us”.

Any organization has an objective which should be briefly addressed in a Mission Statement, but we do not find the words “Mission Statement” in scripture but we do find “The Greatest Commandments” which could be our Mission Statement, briefly summarized as:

“Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

The initial objective would thus be to: “obtain this unique all consuming hugely powerful Godly type Love”, so you can Love God and others completely.

This messed up world which includes satan roaming around is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force [Love] in all universes, since that force [Love] compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

You constantly seem to group the fallen and the redeemed together in a lump of humanity, without distinction. When you do mention a distinction, it seems to be the ability or will to do something right is stronger in the saved.

Regeneration is not Forcing his Love. Where do you get that notion? If he originally made us all to love him the way you describe, as our default manner of thought, would you then call it forced, or would you call it forced if he changed some of those who loved him into sinners? He has the absolute right to do whatever he pleases with his creatures. WE ARE NOT SOVEREIGN.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem with the Calvinistic version of GOD is that we do not see this kind of GOD described anywhere in Scripture. Maybe Romans 9 at first glance may lead somebody to think the wrong thing at first, but by looking at the context and not isolating verses in a vacuum, we realize that Romans 9 is referring to Israel and how they rejected their Messiah.

Have you not read any of the works of the old reformers, (or the new ones, for that matter)? "We do not see this kind of God described anywhere in Scripture"??? Look up the descriptions and the defenses of TULIP, just for starters. Go to John Owen, David White, RC Sproul, and so many others. I can find NO Scripture denying it, and none that leave reformed doctrine with its figurative mouth hanging open for lack of something to say. Scripture does not support Arminianism, nor humanism, but defeats altogether the worth of man in his own salvation. This is to the core of the Gospel --it is the work of God, not just a gift offered, but a work done upon GOD'S decision, not ours. Our eternal destiny does not hinge on our poor invalid response to God.

 

[childeye 2]

Correct. This is the very reason for my OP. If "Free Will" means only what Webster's says it means, (notice that Webster's makes no claim as to its existence, but only what it means), then those who reject the whole notion of free will are correct, because nobody can do anything absolutely spontaneously. They can only do so apparently spontaneously.

But there is another use (if not meaning) for "Free Will", as I said in my OP. Calvinists historically have been referring to the bondage of the will to sin, and the subsequent freedom of the will of the regenerated because they are free from sin.

The definition posted is described as an adjective not a noun. There do exist free will choices or voluntary choices. For example some offerings to God are left up to the individuals discretion. Just thought I'd mention that so as to avoid any misunderstandings as well as snares of the enemy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Have you not read any of the works of the old reformers, (or the new ones, for that matter)? "We do not see this kind of God described anywhere in Scripture"??? Look up the descriptions and the defenses of TULIP, just for starters. Go to John Owen, David White, RC Sproul, and so many others. I can find NO Scripture denying it, and none that leave reformed doctrine with its figurative mouth hanging open for lack of something to say. Scripture does not support Arminianism, nor humanism, but defeats altogether the worth of man in his own salvation. This is to the core of the Gospel --it is the work of God, not just a gift offered, but a work done upon GOD'S decision, not ours. Our eternal destiny does not hinge on our poor invalid response to God.

Give me the Bible any day of the week over what religious men say.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I keep hearing this, as though one's own judgement of such things trumps scripture. Scripture becomes defined and used according to this preconception. (By the way, your statement assumes "no conditions whatsoever", apparently on the part of the elect, but you did not say so. God certainly has conditions, as in, he made each of us for our particular part as each member of the Body of Christ. He most certainly does have his reasons).

But your statement, "This would wrong or immoral of God to do this...", is false on its face, neverminding the logical disconnect with "because God desires the ultimate good for His creation." It is a false claim because it ignores not only the principle behind "who are you to talk back to God?" but God's reason for creating.

For his own Glory, and for his own pleasure, he has created the Bride of Christ. In my opinion he sees her as in fact already complete, but we who are locked within time do not, and will not until we see Him as He is. This being who has been described as, "almost a fourth person of the Godhead", could not be what she will be (is) without sin, suffering, and the lost.

You propose, (whether you realize it or not, logically extrapolated from what you do say), mere Paradise, and beings as Adam and Eve were, and a supreme being whose heel was not bruised. This is nothing near what we will be.

You say that God desires the good of His creation, but I don't really believe you if you still hold to Calvinism. Calvinism is basically saying that God chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved. So in Calvinism: God is not seeking the good of all of His creation. Some He elects by default to reprobation or to remain as being reprobate by His choice (Because God can simply zap anyone to be saved contrary to their will by some magical forced election process).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What a great point.

I believe Calvanism is born out of the effort to rectify about a dozen or so tough scripture passages with the rest of the Bible. I disagree with the Calvanist theology because (a) it distorts God's personality as He describes Himself and because (b) I have found no practical application for it. Calvanist theology has to do with how God conducts his business - it should not override or distort the thousands of Biblical directives given to men.

Thank you.

 

[John Mullally]

Correct. This is the very reason for my OP. If "Free Will" means only what Webster's says it means, (notice that Webster's makes no claim as to its existence, but only what it means), then those who reject the whole notion of free will are correct, because nobody can do anything absolutely spontaneously. They can only do so apparently spontaneously.

But there is another use (if not meaning) for "Free Will", as I said in my OP. Calvinists historically have been referring to the bondage of the will to sin, and the subsequent freedom of the will of the regenerated because they are free from sin.

The nothing is random or spontaneous argument perplexes me. A lot of computer algorithms successfully rely on and use random number generators to good effect.

Your definition of Free Will fits better in a multiple word term like what you see in research papers because it is complex. I give you this, Mark, you are considerate and patient about your differences with non-Calvanists. Cheers.

 

[Blade]

I am sure some if not most of you could fly right over me. I have free will.. I can do what ever I want. Yet.. I know I am out side of where the REAL realm is. This is a time bubble. So my so called FREE WILL has limits. And no matter what I like/think God made some rules that no one can brake.

Its ok.. fly on by.. I like reading lol

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

Free will can be seen in Revelation 22:17 in relation to choosing eternal life.

Revelation 22:17 says,
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Okay. The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” The bride is the church. Seeing Revelation 22:17 does not specify who exactly it is talking to, this means that the message is for the reader or anyone. The bride in your view would be the elect. But the bride (the elect) is calling the reader (i.e. anyone) to “Come.” Not only that but it says that whoever will, let him take the water of life FREELY. Not it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the word FREELY in this verse is referring to how the individual is taking of the water of life (eternal life) FREELY and not because they were forced regenerated against their will to do so by some kind of odd Calvinistic regeneration before exercising faith. It just doesn't seem like that is the case when we look at Scripture. For if we were forced regenerated or zapped to be Elected by God to be saved, then I am not coming forth freely anymore. Think.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

Also, the idea that you think there is no free will in regards to choosing God is also demolished by 2 Thessalonians 2:10, as well.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

Okay. Very simple and straightforward verse here that is easy to read and believe (Unless one does not like what it says and they seek to change it by throwing down the original languages card).

This verse says that those who perish are doing so because they received not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. Okay, not sure if you know what might means. It suggests a possibility. I can say I might be over your house tomorrow, but that would not be a guarantee. The Bible says MIGHT BE SAVED. That those who perish MIGHT BE SAVED. But they are perishing BECAUSE.... they received not the love of the truth.

This again implies free will here. Their is a choice for those who perish.

Again, just read and believe your Bible and you will no longer be a Calvinist. But it appears to me that the Calvinist has a starting point and it is Calvinism books, or Calvinistic articles, or Calvinist preachers, etc. and it is not from simply just by reading and believing the Bible and asking God for the understanding on what it says. For I do not honestly think that a person can come away with thinking Calvinism when they read the whole of the Bible without even hearing about Calvinism. It just not possible. Calvinists hold to TULIP. This is not automatically believed system by reading God's Word, but it is taught by men.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Have you not read any of the works of the old reformers, (or the new ones, for that matter)? "We do not see this kind of God described anywhere in Scripture"??? Look up the descriptions and the defenses of TULIP, just for starters. Go to John Owen, David White, RC Sproul, and so many others. I can find NO Scripture denying it, and none that leave reformed doctrine with its figurative mouth hanging open for lack of something to say. Scripture does not support Arminianism, nor humanism, but defeats altogether the worth of man in his own salvation. This is to the core of the Gospel --it is the work of God, not just a gift offered, but a work done upon GOD'S decision, not ours. Our eternal destiny does not hinge on our poor invalid response to God.

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

Paul was saying that they did not speak in the wisdom of what man's wisdom teaches. How do most in the world teach? By schools, etc. But God's way is different. We learn by the Holy Ghost (i.e. by asking God for the understanding on what His Word says and not what we want His Word to say), and we compare spiritual things with spiritual (i.e. Meaning: We compare Scripture with Scripture to help determine the truth). For one, Calvinism really does not have a lot of verses defending it. Two, there are so many free will statements in the Bible in regards to choosing GOD it pretty much demolishes Calvinism.

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” (Deuteronomy 30:19).​

Okay. Another great free will verse here. God has set life and death before the Israelite. God is telling the Israelite reader to CHOOSE LIFE. This means that they are not being forced against their own free will to choose life because God is setting before them two choices. One is life, and the other is death. Then God tells them to CHOOSE LIFE that both they and their seed (children) will live. It's a choice. So this is why I don't take Calvinism seriously. It's also contrary to God's loving and good character, as well.

 

[bling]

I suppose I should demand your definition of "limited free will" then. If you reference there the notion that they can do anything without limits within certain limits, I call foul. It is not lack of power that stops God from creating logical absurdities, like a rock too big for him to pick up. If, on the other hand, "limited free will" means merely agency to choose unencumbered by certain things they would otherwise be encumbered by (for example, the regenerated are said to have limited free will, in that they no long are under the slavery of their sin nature), that I can agree with. But what seems popular is some kind of halfway between these two ideas, which was the reason for my OP. If man can do a little without cause, it is as illogical as saying he can do a lot without cause; and particular objectionable, if we say man is capable of doing something apart from God's direction or control, whether a little or a lot, we are denying God's sovereignty and immanence.

My “free will” is limited by what I can do so, since I can not fly around the room, I am limited in exercising my free will.

Most maybe 99.9% of my actions and decisions are the result of my environment and my genes, and not my free will ability provided to me by God.

You say: “if we say man is capable of doing something apart from God's direction or control, whether a little or a lot, we are denying God's sovereignty and immanence.” Just because God has allowed me personally to decide if I will accept or reject God’s charity, does not change God in anyway. He has both the power and ability to provide me with such a choice. My very limited free will choice does not change God.

For your consideration, I would like to bring up the term, "chance". Do you see the logical problem implied by "limited free will" as you seem to me to have described? When it comes down to, for example the choice to "accept Christ" resulting in salvation, it is implied either that some people are inherently more likely to choose Christ than others, (thus some are better than others in that way (and if better, why, then?)), or that absolute chance determined who would choose. Whether we realize it or not, "chance" is a logical non-thing, just a short-cut for the work of finding out real causes, the word means, "I don't know". It is self-contradictory to say that chance can determine anything.

I never said the unbelieving sinner is making the choice without lots of help to “accept Christ”.

I am not talking about “chance”, but maybe you are: If God is not arbitrarily (by chance) selecting who will and will not be saved, then what could be His criteria for His selection or do you say: “I don’t know”?

An autonomous free will choice by the individual is not by “I don’t know”, but this miraculous ability God gave the individual, which is like God’s ability, making us in the “image of God”.

 

[John Mullally]

You say: “if we say man is capable of doing something apart from God's direction or control, whether a little or a lot, we are denying God's sovereignty and immanence.”

I am hearing the "God is Sovereign" argument again. It does not mean "You never know what God is going to do" that many attribute to it. It is not a trump card to be played when you don't have a real argument.

God in His Sovereignty has given His Word throughout the Bible. God cannot break His Word. Therefore, God's Sovereignty is not a stand-alone thing because it in itself is subject to His Word. "God is Sovereign" does not supersede scripture. When you don't know, it is better to say that. In some cases you can say that "I believe the Bible is silent on that subject".

 

[John Mullally]

I am hearing the "God is Sovereign" argument again. It does not mean "You never know what God is going to do" that many attribute to it. It is not a trump card to be played when you don't have a real argument.

God in His Sovereignty has given His Word throughout the Bible. God cannot break His Word. Therefore, God's Sovereignty is not a stand-alone thing because it in itself is subject to His Word. "God is Sovereign" does not supersede scripture. When you don't know, it is better to say that. In some cases you can say that "I believe the Bible is silent on that subject" or "You cannot put God in a Box."

 

[bling]

So then, we come to the definition of faith. You profer a dead man able to believe in a benevolent creator. I profer a dead man made alive by his Creator, who then can't help but believe. Salvific Faith is not merely believing without evidence. It IS the evidence of what is not seen. The Spirit within the born-again is the source of that faith --it could be said the Spirit is the faith itself-- so that it is not of the man, not of his will, not of his emotions, not of his understanding, not of his constancy of devotion, not of his love, not of anything about him, but of God. A merely intellectual and emotional assent is not salvific faith.

The heart of the regenerated will come to his senses, will decide for Christ, will loathe sin and will repent.

I am not talking about a “saving faith” but a natural faith: Animals have not been shown to have any, “faith”, so for the most part they operate on instinct and learned knowledge. All mature adults do exercise some God given “faith”/trust, with even sinful pagans putting their trust in stones, wood and metal objects. It is only when the sinner turns this little faith He has toward a Benevolent Creator, that the Creator can shower the sinner with wonderful gifts including a saving faith.

When a group of people seeking loafs and fishes from Christ can to Him, he said: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Is that some noble task Christ is telling them to do? Was Christ asking them to do the impossible?

It really takes more “faith” to believe there is no god then to believe there has to be a god, so humans are exercising faith no matter what they think.

 

[bling]

No. There can be only one First Cause.

Can you give me the reference in scripture to this and/or science?

 

[bling]

Everything is driven by God's objective; everything he does to and in us, willing or not, everything we do, obeying or rebelling, is accomplishing God's objective. What appears to us is what we notice --each other. Scripture comments on us, history is about the world and its inhabitants --but so what? Is that everything? Scripture talks about a lot more than us. History is replete with the acts of God, and evidences of his power (not to mention his detailed immanence). The world around us is deceptively humanistic --this life is not about this life. It is not about us.

I am seeing in this world, in History and in scripture, God allowing or doing all He can to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective. All includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell, death, and even sin is allowed but never desired by God.

If God is the epitome of Love then He is totally unselfish, so even doing stuff for His own sake is doing stuff to help us. If you think about it, created beings really could not do anything for an all powerful God.