Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[renniks]

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.

Doesn't the unregenerate have to make a freewill choice to respond to the gospel? It's the same thing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Doesn't the unregenerate have to make a freewill choice to respond to the gospel? It's the same thing.

There is a significant difference between making a choice and making a free will choice.

For example, I can choose to drive the speed limit or not. My choice is not really a free choice because I am motivated by the force of the law if I exceed the speed limit. My choice is tainted because of an innate desire to drive fast.

On the other hand, if I am asked to choose between opening door A or B, with A and B being essentially similar to each other with no apparent differences that I can detect, my choice is essentially free in that it is randomly made.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The bondage of the will to evil doesn't mean they cannot make decisions but that their decisions will always be tainted by, to the purpose of, evil.

Of course

Therefore the ability to make decisions is NOT the definition of a free will.

Also, of course.

But the ability to decide according to one's own will IS the definition of free will, if there is such a thing as free will.

In GOD's creation in which HE cannot create any evil or force it upon anyone, the only sure sign anyone has a free will is the ability to rebel against HIM, the ability to choose evil and thereby become an evil person perpetuating evil with every choice.

Why does the question, "in which HE cannot create any evil or force it upon anyone" even come up, concerning God? The fact is irrelevant, concerning free will. But also, the fact is, the whole statement seems to me to proceed from a temporal, human-centered mindset. We love to say what God can and cannot do, instead of saying what he does and does not do. God doesn't decide to do a righteous thing because it is righteous to do. He simply does, and according to his nature, the thing he does is righteous.

Agreed that the ability to rebel against HIM is astounding. To me, it makes no sense, but there it is anyway. To me then, it is worse than outrageous, and would 'tear the space-time continuum to pieces', but for the power of God to hold things together during this temporal 'envelope', until he has returned all authority to himself. The corruption of the work of God that sin is, is a horror beyond the mere nature of any being. 'Free will' is among the least of considerations in the subject. None of us has the slightest understanding of just how bad we have been, by comparison to the payment Christ has made on the behalf of those whom he has redeemed.

Righteous moral holiness must obviously be chosen by a free will or it is as meaningless as claiming a dvd song of worship is true worship but acting morally does not have the same proof value that we are following GOD by our free will and not by the coercion of fear, selfishness, or mental manipulation from GOD like a Stepford wife.

This, to me, is assessed and stated backwards. But to go with it: Righteous moral holiness is chosen by simple will —why the necessity for the word, "free"? Furthermore, in keeping with the notion that apart from Christ we can do nothing (no hyperbole there), even our good decisions are the result of the Spirit of God within us. It God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. We are not robots, but we are holy only by Christ's substitution. We DO holy, by the Spirit within us —our very changed nature is by the unity we call 'Christ in us'.

The jibes of the atheist that our worship must be caused by a Borg like bondage to HIS will cannot be refuted by logic but only in ourselves as we are trained in righteousness, choosing to melt further and further into total accord with HIS goodness.

Both this that the atheist thinks, and this statement from you, seem of a common mindset, that this temporal existence (whether characterized by freewill or not) is the base reality. We think it is what is, when it is only what God is doing in us right now. NO! The base reality, concerning us, is our identity in Christ, spoken into reality/existence by God himself, or, for the one who will not repent, the base reality concerning him is his use by God. This temporal existence, where we fight over terminology and P'sOV as to the ontological personhood of creatures, is only God's tool to accomplish that which is already spoken into existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Doesn't the unregenerate have to make a freewill choice to respond to the gospel? It's the same thing.

He makes a WILLED choice concerning the Gospel, but in bondage to sin. In fact, the Gospel is foolishness to him, and the word of God stirs the rebellion in him.

He does as he wants to do, always. In that respect it can be called free. It is done willingly, and so he is without excuse.

 

[GenemZ]

Doesn't the unregenerate have to make a freewill choice to respond to the gospel? It's the same thing.

Without God administering the unbeliever the power of grace to suppress his flesh? The unbelievers soul would remain enslaved to his sin nature, and could not believe! Grace isolates the sin nature from the soul, so that soul can choose without negative coercion. Grace is given at Gospel hearing...

That is why it says.... "You have been saved by 'grace' "

Grace is what the born again Christian walks in when he is controlled by the Spirit. We can learn to walk in the filling of the Spirit if we opt for sound doctrine, and follow it's thinking.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Without God administering the unbeliever the power of grace to suppress his flesh? The unbelievers soul would remain enslaved to his sin nature, and could not believe! Grace isolates the sin nature from the soul, so that soul can choose without negative coercion. Grace is given at Gospel hearing...

That is why it says.... "You have been saved by 'grace' "

Grace is what the born again Christian walks in when he is controlled by the Spirit. We can learn to walk in the filling of the Spirit if we opt for sound doctrine, and follow it's thinking.

Off topic, but, your quote from Izaak Walton (which I like very much) —
"God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart."

—I'm thinking describes a riddle in Scripture. It may be that the two are one and the same Dwelling, and we just can't see it yet.

 

[renniks]

There is a significant difference between making a choice and making a free will choice.

For example, I can choose to drive the speed limit or not. My choice is not really a free choice because I am motivated by the force of the law if I exceed the speed limit. My choice is tainted because of an innate desire to drive fast.

On the other hand, if I am asked to choose between opening door A or B, with A and B being essentially similar to each other with no apparent differences that I can detect, my choice is essentially free in that it is randomly made.

Semantics. It's still Free Will. Nobody is saying free will is without any restrictions whatsoever.

 

[renniks]

Without God administering the unbeliever the power of grace to suppress his flesh?

How does this happen? I agree that God has to be working on the person but also believe he works on everyone. We can choose to respond. Or not.

 

[renniks]

He makes a WILLED choice concerning the Gospel, but in bondage to sin. In fact, the Gospel is foolishness to him, and the word of God stirs the rebellion in him.

He does as he wants to do, always. In that respect it can be called free. It is done willingly, and so he is without excuse.

Lol, if he's in bondage then it can not be a free choice.
And if it's not a Free choice then God never gave him a chance.

 

[GenemZ]

Off topic, but, your quote from Izaak Walton (which I like very much) —
"God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart."

—I'm thinking describes a riddle in Scripture. It may be that the two are one and the same Dwelling, and we just can't see it yet.

Thank you. I fell in love with those words at first sight. Izaak Walton was an avid fisherman.

The Lord's glory used to indwell the Temple in Jerusalem.

That Temple was destroyed.

The believer's body is now the Temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19)

We also are to make Jesus at home in our hearts by means of Faith. (Eph 3:17)

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. (Rom 10:17)

His ways are not our ways... And, His thoughts are not our thoughts. (Isa 55:8-9)

That is why we must have a sound gasp on Scripture in order for Jesus to be at home in our hearts.

To have Jesus feel at home in our hearts we must unlearn our ways, as we learn His ways though sound doctrinal teaching.

grace and peace ........

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lol, if he's in bondage then it can not be a free choice.
And if it's not a Free choice then God never gave him a chance.

And so.... ...there we go....

the word, "free" keeps changing use, meaning, relevance.

But we've been through this before, you and I. You know I don't believe in "chance".

 

[GenemZ]

How does this happen? I agree that God has to be working on the person but also believe he works on everyone. We can choose to respond. Or not.

God does work on everyone. Read Romans 1:18-23. God even made those who rejected Him (and later turned into the worst reprobates) to see that God is real. Grace was drawing them into knowing God is real. And, His grace was not irresistible. They felt free to reject. That is the beauty of God's drawing. For no coercion is used. He makes us free to accept, or reject, because we are unconscious of the process while its going on...

 

[GenemZ]

And so.... ...there we go....

the word, "free" keeps changing use, meaning, relevance.

But we've been through this before, you and I. You know I don't believe in "chance".

Only with God. We are not God. "Chance" is a term we invented by men to suit certain situations in life.

The Devil wagered the Lord concerning Job.... Unlike Job... other men have cursed God.

 

[renniks]

And so.... ...there we go....

the word, "free" keeps changing use, meaning, relevance.

But we've been through this before, you and I. You know I don't believe in "chance".

As it's used here it just means God created him for hell and gave him no other options.

 

[GenemZ]

Semantics. It's still Free Will. Nobody is saying free will is without any restrictions whatsoever.

Only when granted the freedom to do so, does man have free will. That is one of the perks of God's blessing found in 'prosperity.'

Free to choose, and free will... may not be the same things. For a prisoner may be given a choice of the means for his execution.

Free will is doing whatever pleases you. In that sense, no one has free will except God.

 

[renniks]

Only when granted the freedom to do so, does man have free will. That is one of the perks of God's blessing found in 'prosperity.'

Free to choose, and free will... may not be the same things. For a prisoner may be given a choice of the means for his execution.

Free will is doing whatever pleases you. In that sense, no one has free will except God.

Again, that's not what we mean by free will.
Freedom always has limits. I can not choose to fly to London by flapping my arms. Well I can, but I can not actually do it.
Free will just means no one else is controlling the decision. Even if there's only two choices.
Even if someone has a gun pointed at you, and tells you to do something you still have limited free will. You can choose death instead.
But in Calvinism, God has already controlled every one's decision about him, so there's no free will there.

 

[GenemZ]

But in Calvinism, God has already controlled every one's decision about him, so there's no free will there.

They have created a master Robot God.

God in His omniscience takes into account man's freedoms, and decrees what shall be according to that knowledge.

God is not controlling the decision. God is controlling that their decisions will be

God prevents Satan from having too much control. Satan is only a tool.

 

[Clare73]

To be uncoerced would require having omniscience.

The TRUTH will set you free.

In other words... You are not free until you have truth.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word,
you are really my disciples. You will also know the truth, and the truth will
set you free.” Jn 8:31-32​

Getting truth is the hard part..... Yet, all things are possible with God.

Free will is a philosophical (Aristotle, Cicero) concept: the power to choose to do what one prefers, likes, without external force or constraint. It was asserted by Pelagius in the fifth century as a requirement for being morally responsible.

 

[Clare73]

Doesn't the unregenerate have to make a free-will choice to respond to the gospel? It's the same thing.

The issue in the Bible is not philosophical free will. The Bible denies such, stating that he who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Slaves are not free to make all choices they prefer/like. They can make some choices, so their free will is limited, which in philosophy is called free agency, an agent capable of making free choices.
The Bible does not present free will, it denies it. Rather the Bible presents free agency, the ability to make free choices according to one's preferences, likes. So it's about preferences.

Man is born condemned by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18), by nature (birth) an object of God's wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The unregenerate man's preference is self over God, so left on his own he will not choose submission to God in the gospel. It is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand it (1 Corinthians 2:14). The free will of unregenerate man will not choose the gospel.

 

[Clare73]

There is a significant difference between making a choice and making a free will choice.

For example, I can choose to drive the speed limit or not. My choice is not really a free choice because I am motivated by the force of the law if I exceed the speed limit. My choice is tainted because of an innate desire to drive fast.

Actually all choices are governed by what one prefers, which is determined by the disposition. The disposition governs the will. We choose what we prefer, for whatever reason.
The issue in the Bible is not the will, it is the disposition--what we prefer/like.
And having a fallen nature, unregenerate man prefers the autonomy of self over submission to God. That, not the ability to choose, is the Biblical issue.

On the other hand, if I am asked to choose between opening door A or B, with A and B being essentially similar to each other with no apparent differences that I can detect, my choice is essentially free in that it is randomly made.

That philosophical concept has no bearing on the Biblical issue of moral responsibility for sin.