God & Free Will

I think that your definition of free will is incoherent. Such a "free will" clearly does not exist and life would be chaotic and undesirable if it did exist. Option (B) is the case. God draws some to himself and not others. Why? I don't know.

cvanwey said:

Many theists claim a requirement for God's grace is your love for Him.

Click to expand...

This could help clarify what appears a miscommunication there -- It's a well known theme in the New Testament, many of us know, that He loved us before we loved Him.

Perhaps even more helpful:
Romans 5:8 But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

So, it's only after we have been changed, by Him, that we might start to begin to return some real love towards Him.

We are free to choose whether to love in return. If we do not do as Christ says though, then eventually, after time, we'd end up with the outcome He says will happen: Matthew 7:24-27

About why God chooses to help some and not others, scripture says:

"God resists the proud, but 'gives grace to the humble'."
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

cvanwey said:

Your answer implies that these particular individual's free will have been removed. If God deems one humble, God imposes His will upon them?

Click to expand...

That would be as you say if it were that being humble is totally an involuntary state, like an inherent genetic condition.

But it seems very clear to me being humble is entirely a voluntary choice. Since I've been both ways, and have seen I can be both ways.

So, therefore you choose whether you are humble.

cvanwey said:

Can you truly choose or will whom you love? (yes or no)? I'm sure cases can be made for both conclusions?

Many theists claim a requirement for God's grace is your love for Him.

Click to expand...

I understand that my character has a lot to do with what I am capable of choosing and doing.

If we are talking about loving God > I think of this > my character can effect if I love Him in the right way or in a selfish way.

Therefore, if I am self-dependent and self-seeking, my selfish nature can keep me from the good of His grace which works in His love.

By the way > it appears to me, how a number of people are being told they are free to will to do what God will bless, but what they are told to do is mainly in order to get things for their own selves; they are not about being all-loving. But if we do what God has us doing, we are operating in His all-loving kingdom so there can be His all-loving benefits of what He has us doing > like happened when Abraham obeyed our all-loving God >

"'In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.'" (Genesis 22:18)

So, I would say if our choosing and doing is in God's grace all-loving, we are doing what God uses to bless others as well as ourselves. We are not just concerned about our own selves and certain favorite people.

But if someone could be in control of one's own will (which is a questionable possibility, considering Ephesians 2:2), this would be apart from God . . . in separation from God living in and working the person's will. And ones say separation from God is sin. But grace has us in intimate sharing with God working in our wills and our actions >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, why would anyone want to be in total control of their own wills - - if this were possible (Ephesians 2:2)??

cvanwey said:

My point is that God deems some humans humble enough to impose His will upon them. He is then essentially taking away their free will. Right?

Click to expand...

I would say a humble person does not want to have his or her will free from God. But we desire to share with God in everything, in submission to how He personally rules our wills and actions in His own peace > Colossians 3:15.

Also >

"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble,"
. . . . . . . . . . . . we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5.

So, if a person is humble, God is blessing the person with grace . . . not imposing on the person. Grace changes our nature so it becomes natural for us to submit to God and to will in sharing with Him.

Therefore, the one who meets with imposition is the proud person who has the personal communication of God's resistance!!

cvanwey said:

When speaking to theists about their beliefs, many roads ultimately lead to 'free will'. I myself wrestle with whether or not we truly have "free will"? In this sense, when I mention 'free will', I mean (the ability to control or will your desires and emotions; as well as the ability to change a current belief or apprehension, for which you currently hold as 'true', without any sort of newly presented catalyst).

"Free will" can be defined in several ways, I reckon. "Free will" is most certainly used differently, in differing contexts. But for the purposes of this discussion, I would like to use it as defined above.

Let's start by focusing on 'love', as it relates to 'free will'. Can you truly choose or will whom you love? (yes or no)? I'm sure cases can be made for both conclusions?

Many theists claim a requirement for God's grace is your love for Him. Hence, this brings up a question, a (false dichotomy if you will), which looks to not have alternative/additional choices

It is said we are free to choose whether or not we love YHWH. But, if we are truly free, this implies we have a choice in the matter.

A) We are free to choose whether or not we love YHWH.

Or...

B) Some are inexorably drawn to YHWH.

If your answer is A), please explain, as it relates to my given definition of 'free will' above.

If the answer is B), not only does this negate the 'free will' argument, but also implies that God imposes His own will on some, to be drawn to Him, and not others. Why not impose on all humans?

Thank you, in advance, for your replies!

Click to expand...

First off, I believe in free will, but not how you have defined it. The classical definition of Libritarian Free Will (LFW), is something like, "The ability to do otherwise" Which I think causes all sorts of problems. Sure, it might LOOK like no one is responsible for their actions without LFW, but this misses the point of willing something yourself. You can very well will some wrong on someone, not be able to do otherwise, and it STILL be wrong for you to do it. For example, if someone has a brain tumor that causes them to be violent and they kill an innocent person, they still should not have killed someone even if they didn't actually have the ability to do otherwise.

Secondly, I think pretty much all of our BELIEFS are based on preconceived notions of things. I made a whole YouTube series on this. Here's the last video that largely sums up my thoughts on the subject. The long and short of it is that we only enact our Free Will when we come across NEW information, that we haven't come across before. Rather than thinking about everything we come across being NEW, let's instead think about it in terms of relevance to the subject.

So I would say B, undoubtedly, but this doesn't mean we don't have Free Will, as I have said it in my Video.

cvanwey said:

When speaking to theists about their beliefs, many roads ultimately lead to 'free will'. I myself wrestle with whether or not we truly have "free will"? In this sense, when I mention 'free will', I mean (the ability to control or will your desires and emotions; as well as the ability to change a current belief or apprehension, for which you currently hold as 'true', without any sort of newly presented catalyst).

"Free will" can be defined in several ways, I reckon. "Free will" is most certainly used differently, in differing contexts. But for the purposes of this discussion, I would like to use it as defined above.

Let's start by focusing on 'love', as it relates to 'free will'. Can you truly choose or will whom you love? (yes or no)? I'm sure cases can be made for both conclusions?

Many theists claim a requirement for God's grace is your love for Him. Hence, this brings up a question, a (false dichotomy if you will), which looks to not have alternative/additional choices

It is said we are free to choose whether or not we love YHWH. But, if we are truly free, this implies we have a choice in the matter.

A) We are free to choose whether or not we love YHWH.

Or...

B) Some are inexorably drawn to YHWH.

If your answer is A), please explain, as it relates to my given definition of 'free will' above.

If the answer is B), not only does this negate the 'free will' argument, but also implies that God imposes His own will on some, to be drawn to Him, and not others. Why not impose on all humans?

Thank you, in advance, for your replies!

Click to expand...

Free will makes no sense. Free will is the notion that effects occur without a cause.

What is free will? The cause of my actions.

What is the cause of my actions? Free will.

But what is it?

Let's have a thought experiment about thought. Suppose you close your eyes and are told to say the first color that comes to mind.

Your "free will" is that you could maybe say whatever you want. If blue is the color you actually thought of, you could still lie and say red. This is what people think free will is. But then what is the thing that caused you to think of blue in the first place? Where did that come from? What was the cause of that thought?

Thoughts are the precursor to our actions. There is a filter between our thoughts and our actions, sure, but there is definitely a link as well. We are totally unable to describe where these seemingly random thoughts come from except in a deterministic framework.

Nihilist Virus said:

Thoughts are the precursor to our actions. There is a filter between our thoughts and our actions, sure, but there is definitely a link as well. We are totally unable to describe where these seemingly random thoughts come from except in a deterministic framework.

Click to expand...

I don't think your conclusion is entirely accurate. The part I take issue with is when you say, "except in a deterministic framework" meaning, I presume, that our decisions only make sense in a deterministic framework. You will notice I used the word "decisions" here instead of "choice". While it might look like these two things mean the same thing, I would argue there is a very pivotal difference between them. A decision is something you have decided on, where as a choice has to do with picking between two options. So in my view, we have "Free Will" in that we decide things all the time, but that this deciding is independent of choice. For example, you can have chicken or steak for dinner, but it's not likely you would have both. So you would decide to have one option over the other based on your preferences (which can and do change from time to time). So your choice to have one option over the other does not detract from the fact that your preferences pushed the needle in one direction over the other. But this doesn't actually mean you did not will to have one option over the other. Hence, we do have Free Will, just perhaps not Libertarian Free Will. This is why I am a compatibilist and not a determinist.

cvanwey said:

If God causes some to be inexorably drawn to Him, then you have no choice.

So, can you choose to love Him, or, does He cause some to be inexorably drawn to Him? You can't have both

Click to expand...

This is a non sequitur. Why can't it be both, in your opinion? I've given my side which is basically that we have to choose what we do with NEW information, but that is largely where our Free Will ends, but this doesn't actually stop us from DOING things all the time, which is a matter of our willful volition. Now, I am looking for a logical case from you on why it can't be both, not word salad. Can you do it?

cvanwey said:

We may be speaking passed one another. I'm not even arguing as to whether or not humility is a choice.

My point is that God deems some humans humble enough to impose His will upon them. He is then essentially taking away their free will. Right?

Click to expand...

If a businessman chooses whether or not to hire you into his company, is he by making his choice about that 'essentially taking away your free will'?

If he hires you and then gives you training that helps you do a better job, is that 'essentially taking away your free will'?

I think you'd say 'no'.

cvanwey said:

I honestly tried to watch it, but grew tired of watching you read from a script. Sorry. But I think you finally answered the question below anyways, for which I will address.

Click to expand...

Perhaps next time you will engage with the information instead of the presentation. Or not. Whatever. If you'd rather watch TV commercials, that's your choice.

@cvanwey, I would also suggest you read everything else I have said in this thread so far so you get a clear picture of what my position actually is. Then you can try and stealman my position and then poke holes in it if you wish. Just don't be childish and strawman me here because I have put a LOT of thought into this.