A Way to Look At Free Will is to Consider What Merely Actually Happens.

[Mark Quayle]

Before I begin, I want to mention that the reason I identify myself as Reformed is not because I agree with them, but that what they believe more closely resembles what I believe than any other theological line does. Please do not judge what I mean to write by the nomenclature.

There is something that has been obvious to me for years, yet I am still unable to get it into words, and I feel like it would be very useful in understanding and debate, concerning the matter of Predestination and Free Will. I will try again now to get it into words.

(One poster here has said something to the effect that if we could drop the notion of free will, and simply call it will, assuming whatever is true about it is true, instead of insisting on words that we spend hours arguing over, such as "free". I wish I could find it, because it was useful to me.)

My attempt here is to make it plain that there is no need of some 'point of tension' between the two (Predestination vs. Free Will). What we do and what God does work together in perfect fact (I would say "in perfect harmony", but that would imply, in the minds of some, willful cooperation (i.e. obedience or at least good intention) on our part.). What God intends does not at some point let off to allow us to operate. To perhaps make it more plain, what we do, is part of what God is doing (whether through obedience or disobedience, or if some reader here supposes, even through no relation to cooperation or opposition to God).

Regardless of means, motive or method, we do choose and we do act, however limited in scope or influence our choices may be; we do WILL to do what we choose to do. Whatever else happens outside of the scope of our intentions or influence is still going to happen, and like what we as agents choose and do, is replete with the will, choices and intentions of other agents --our part is no different, no more 'in and of itself' than theirs is. And it is all governed by what God is doing.


We do what we do, and God does what he does. To arrange a point of tension between the two, in our minds, is to construct something that is not there. We may demand intellectual satisfaction but our point of view, our worldview, is irrelevant to the facts. ONLY God's point of view is relevant. To perhaps say that better, the facts do not depend on our point of view, but they do completely depend on God's point of view, or he is not God.

We do choose, willfully, and God does predestine, with purpose. And what is going to happen is indeed going to happen. --Is this not all within God's purvue? Is it possible for something to happen that God did not know? (I say that, without respect to by what means he knows --such is not the point of this OP).

So I say, (quite hypocritically, in fact), give up with Point Of View, and leaning on one's own understanding.

Go with God. --MQ

 

[childeye 2]

Before I begin, I want to mention that the reason I identify myself as Reformed is not because I agree with them, but that what they believe more closely resembles what I believe than any other theological line does. Please do not judge what I mean to write by the nomenclature.

There is something that has been obvious to me for years, yet I am still unable to get it into words, and I feel like it would be very useful in understanding and debate, concerning the matter of Predestination and Free Will. I will try again now to get it into words.

(One poster here has said something to the effect that if we could drop the notion of free will, and simply call it will, assuming whatever is true about it is true, instead of insisting on words that we spend hours arguing over, such as "free". I wish I could find it, because it was useful to me.)

My attempt here is to make it plain that there is no need of some 'point of tension' between the two (Predestination vs. Free Will). What we do and what God does work together in perfect fact (I would say "in perfect harmony", but that would imply, in the minds of some, willful cooperation (i.e. obedience or at least good intention) on our part.). What God intends does not at some point let off to allow us to operate. To perhaps make it more plain, what we do, is part of what God is doing (whether through obedience or disobedience, or if some reader here supposes, even through no relation to cooperation or opposition to God).

Regardless of means, motive or method, we do choose and we do act, however limited in scope or influence our choices may be; we do WILL to do what we choose to do. Whatever else happens outside of the scope of our intentions or influence is still going to happen, and like what we as agents choose and do, is replete with the will, choices and intentions of other agents --our part is no different, no more 'in and of itself' than theirs is. And it is all governed by what God is doing.


We do what we do, and God does what he does. To arrange a point of tension between the two, in our minds, is to construct something that is not there. We may demand intellectual satisfaction but our point of view, our worldview, is irrelevant to the facts. ONLY God's point of view is relevant. To perhaps say that better, the facts do not depend on our point of view, but they do completely depend on God's point of view, or he is not God.

We do choose, willfully, and God does predestine, with purpose. And what is going to happen is indeed going to happen. --Is this not all within God's purvue? Is it possible for something to happen that God did not know? (I say that, without respect to by what means he knows --such is not the point of this OP).

So I say, (quite hypocritically, in fact), give up with Point Of View, and leaning on one's own understanding.

Go with God. --MQ

I agree that the term free in front of will is redundant when meaning we choose and not somebody else chooses for us. The term 'will' by it's self denotes that we choose and each have our own will. Using the term 'will' alone still presents the issue of drawing a distinction between 'desire' and 'the faculty of reasoning', before we can understand how much our will/desire is restrained or compelled by information and disinformation we reason upon. The term 'free' therefore would be applicable in the sense that the Truth sets one free. Your definitive conclusion of go with God could not support a corrupt image of God, which is why the conclusion points to faith.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree that the term free in front of will is redundant when meaning we choose and not somebody else chooses for us. The term 'will' by it's self denotes that we choose and each have our own will. Using the term 'will' alone still presents the issue of drawing a distinction between 'desire' and 'the faculty of reasoning', before we can understand how much our will is restrained or compelled by information and disinformation.

Agreed; we can get into that here if we wish, and I am hoping the readers can get some notion of God's authority over fact. It simply does not exist apart from him --such is the scope of a valid definition of 'God'. I was hoping to hint, that this can be found, (at least I believe it can), by studying mere fact, as much as can be possibly done without prejudice, preconceptions and agenda.

IOW, I think God's authority over fact, and its complete dependence on him, can be found, not only by presupposing his authority as according to his definition as God, assuming he exists, but by study of the mere nature of fact itself. I don't think it can be proven --at least, I don't think *I* can prove it-- but I think it is there to be found.

 

[childeye 2]

Agreed; we can get into that here if we wish, and I am hoping the readers can get some notion of God's authority over fact. It simply does not exist apart from him --such is the scope of a valid definition of 'God'. I was hoping to hint, that this can be found, (at least I believe it can), by studying mere fact, as much as can be possibly done without prejudice, preconceptions and agenda.

IOW, I think God's authority over fact, and its complete dependence on him, can be found, not only by presupposing his authority as according to his definition as God, assuming he exists, but by study of the mere nature of fact itself. I don't think it can be proven --at least, I don't think *I* can prove it-- but I think it is there to be found.

We can only start by defining God first before we can say definitively God exists as God. The problem is navigating the semantics. I can't prove anything Eternal, by definition. I know God exists because He is Love/empathy, wherefore that is how I know Him in a metaphysical and therefore a personal introspect.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. There's no ambiguity here in this approach to the Gospel. This in bold was from a prior post written to an agnostic. In the interest of hoping readers can get some notion of God's authority over fact, would you like to see the whole post?

 

[Mark Quayle]

We can only start by defining God first before we can say definitively God exists as such. The problem is navigating the semantics. I can't prove anything Eternal, by definition. I know God exists because He is Love wherefore that is how I know Him in a metaphysical and therefore a personal sense.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. There's no ambiguity here.

Do you consider that, in the end, to be THE one main logical implication of the Gospel? Does not what one (with or without accepting the existence of God) considers 'love' to be, fall short of conviction concerning God himself?

What came to mind, reading your answer, is that fundamentally, the Gospel presents a lot more than just that --and I say that not to belittle the huge aspect you mentioned. In a manner of speaking, it IS the all-encompassing description of God, but I don't consider any of us able to even begin to sound the depths of the facts and their implications there. Further, what you describe does fit within "fact".

 

[Mark Quayle]

We can only start by defining God first before we can say definitively God exists as God. The problem is navigating the semantics. I can't prove anything Eternal, by definition. I know God exists because He is Love/empathy, wherefore that is how I know Him in a metaphysical and therefore a personal introspect.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. There's no ambiguity here in this approach to the Gospel. This in bold was from a prior post written to an agnostic. In the interest of hoping readers can get some notion of God's authority over fact. Would you like to see the whole post?

Sure. Post it.

 

[childeye 2]

Sure. Post it.

Faith comes by hearing the Gospel, which means understanding the Gospel in a spiritual introspect.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. Which is why I must perceive that to understand God as a Spirit in me, there is nothing in the moral/immoral purview that can be thought or said that did not in some degree affirm Him in the positive or the negative as in moving towards Him or away from Him. The determination I make will define all the moral terms I reason upon and the conclusions and demeanor that will result when I deliberate on them. An important thing to note is that in either case, Love/empathy is a positive valued as the highest virtue, but only in the worship of self does it become vain and corruptible. Moreover, the self sacrificial Love I see in the Christ is an extreme display of endurance and perseverance unto death all for the sake of forgiveness, according to the Gospel. It is pure and moving towards wanting to believe/trust in purity, and not corruption. Which is why the only suitable avenue for unbelief to take, is to either count Jesus crazy, or to deny the story ever happened as told all together.

Negatives usurp from positives. Positives do not usurp from negatives. Truth is a constant. Something is greater than nothing. In other words, Truth precedes a lie in existence hence a lie corrupts what is good, such as wanting to believe in something pure. Sure, I know there's a voice/thought inside of me that says, You don't know if the Gospel account is even real. It's a response to the Gospel that looks true enough when appealing to honesty, but in practical application is no different than, I don't know it's not real. What matters is whether I view the Love I see on the cross as coming from somewhere higher than ourselves, and the doubt only serves to not make that distinction. Since the doubt serves to dismiss out of hand rather than leans towards seeking to understand what is being presented, it is illogical. Therefore the voice or thought is sowing a doubt based on a negative prejudice not logic or evidence. The doubt is using the sentiment of 'lack of evidence' (occasion of ignorance), to avoid evaluating what is self evident in The Gospel including the atheism presented therein.

Respectfully, the application of faith in your commentary is inaccurate in the sense that it seems that it's my faith that establishes certain facts other than my faithfulness. It's actually the certain facts and logic that support the reasoning for faith so that I may be faithful (become filled with faith).

Consider the analogy of needing three points to navigate the seas. We need to know where we're coming from and where we're going to, and one constant relative to both which we can trust in. So it's inescapable that when I reason upon the Spiritual knowledge of God I am also discerning atheism in the process, whereas atheism could not make that same claim being disabled in it's carnal terminology of psycholinguistics. Wherefore I can tell you assuredly that the term 'faith' in Christianity can only be pointed at God when seeing Christ as a trustworthy person, which is why faith must be pointed at an established positive that is reliably constant and pure wherein all people will not be diminished in our hope thereof. When pointed towards the negative it is unbelief/distrust, and when pointed at something that does not exist or is myth, it is actually superstition having nothing to do with faith at all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Faith comes by hearing the Gospel, which means understanding the Gospel in a spiritual introspect.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. Which is why I must perceive that to understand God as a Spirit in me, there is nothing in the moral/immoral purview that can be thought or said that did not in some degree affirm Him in the positive or the negative as in moving towards Him or away from Him. The determination I make will define all the moral terms I reason upon and the conclusions and demeanor that will result when I deliberate on them. An important thing to note is that in either case, Love/empathy is a positive valued as the highest virtue, but only in the worship of self does it become vain and corruptible. Moreover, the self sacrificial Love I see in the Christ is an extreme display of endurance and perseverance unto death all for the sake of forgiveness, according to the Gospel. It is pure and moving towards wanting to believe/trust in purity, and not corruption. Which is why the only suitable avenue for unbelief to take, is to either count Jesus crazy, or to deny the story ever happened as told all together.

Negatives usurp from positives. Positives do not usurp from negatives. Truth is a constant. Something is greater than nothing. In other words, Truth precedes a lie in existence hence a lie corrupts what is good, such as wanting to believe in something pure. Sure, I know there's a voice/thought inside of me that says, You don't know if the Gospel account is even real. It's a response to the Gospel that looks true enough when appealing to honesty, but in practical application is no different than, I don't know it's not real. What matters is whether I view the Love I see on the cross as coming from somewhere higher than ourselves, and the doubt only serves to not make that distinction. Since the doubt serves to dismiss out of hand rather than leans towards seeking to understand what is being presented, it is illogical. Therefore the voice or thought is sowing a doubt based on a negative prejudice not logic or evidence. The doubt is using the sentiment of 'lack of evidence' (occasion of ignorance), to avoid evaluating what is self evident in The Gospel including the atheism presented therein.

Respectfully, the application of faith in your commentary is inaccurate in the sense that it seems that it's my faith that establishes certain facts other than my faithfulness. It's actually the certain facts and logic that support the reasoning for faith so that I may be faithful (become filled with faith).

Consider the analogy of needing three points to navigate the seas. We need to know where we're coming from and where we're going to, and one constant relative to both which we can trust in. So it's inescapable that when I reason upon the Spiritual knowledge of God I am also discerning atheism in the process, whereas atheism could not make that same claim being disabled in it's carnal terminology of psycholinguistics. Wherefore I can tell you assuredly that the term 'faith' in Christianity can only be pointed at God when seeing Christ as a trustworthy person, which is why faith must be pointed at an established positive that is reliably constant and pure wherein we will not be diminished in our hope thereof. When pointed towards the negative it is unbelief/distrust, and when pointed at something that does not exist or is myth, it is actually superstition having nothing to do with faith at all.

It will take me some time to wade through this. Thanks for responding. I'm not very good at intuitively extracting what a person meant by what they say.

 

[childeye 2]

Do you consider that, in the end, to be THE one main logical implication of the Gospel?

To me there is nothing in the Gospel Higher in meaning, than the self sacrificial Love displayed upon a cross for the sake of forgiving those who would crucify the innocence of it. There is where I derive the reasoning for faithfulness. The reason I addressed the Gospel in such a rudimentary fashion is only to pose an either/or implication of the Higher meaning, so that I can establish a context where I can logically argue against self worship, so that I can establish the definition of faith as the reasonable course for all people.

Does not what one (with or without accepting the existence of God) considers 'love' to be, fall short of conviction concerning God himself?

I think the whole point is to value Love/empathy in me as not of myself. I need to see how lies can corrupt my thinking and subsequently my empathy, and that all immoral thought is bent on exactly that. I believe that true worship is drawn out of the worshipper by the Object of worship, as in being recognized as precious in that which makes me holy as a temple and not the other way around. For example, the wrath of God is portrayed in contrast to the Gospel in Romans 1. And the wrath says that we don't esteem God as God, we are unthankful and therefore become vain when thinking wisdom comes from ourselves. And we made false images of god like unto corruptible man, and worshipped the creature over the Creator.

 

[childeye 2]

It will take me some time to wade through this. Thanks for responding. I'm not very good at intuitively extracting what a person meant by what they say.

Reply if you have any questions.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Traditional Theology to Soteriology.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[fhansen]

Regardless of means, motive or method, we do choose and we do act, however limited in scope or influence our choices may be; we do WILL to do what we choose to do.

IMO, leave it there, that’s all we can really know. So we must strive, we must persevere, etc, either way. From there exactly whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not is known perfectly only by God, alone. Anything more is unnecessary speculation as I see it, and putting the cart ahead of the horse. The elect will all end up saved, of course, but that’s a rather moot theological point from our perspective on this side of heaven.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I agree with you, OP.

Free Will and God's Sovereignty need not be at odds.

The way I have proposed it elsewhere is like this:

It is, of course a matter of perception insofar as our Free Will is concerned. We must understand that there is a certain "chain" of operation in our psyche that ends up being in reference to how "Free" we actually are.

First of all in the chain, is the senses. For that is all that we have to us to pick up information. The second in the chain, I believe, to be what I call "Ideas". Those would be our questions and intellection and that sort of thing. upon going though this intellection, we cement our Ideas as "Conclusions" which make up our world view. I would add here that I do not believe as Arminians do that what I have for breakfast is completely within my control as far as LFW is concerned insofar as there are many things that lead up to choosing what you had for breakfast including what price range you are looking at, how healthy you want to be, as well as many other factors that are more or less predetermined outside of yourself just as the world functions. I say here that we might also have Ideas about our Conclusions, which are more or less "set in stone" as far as our biases are concerned. But I do believe in a manner of Free Will and that's where I would say it is not in the "everyday" choices we make that we possess our Free Will, but only upon coming across completely new information where we have to "decide" what to do with that information. We might consider this hearing the Gospel, for example... But just as one might initially "decide" they disagree with the Gospel, one might question that position of our Conclusions with Ideas, and then, as might happen, a catalyst might be the "new information" that we need to become a believer.

So, if I might say this in broad terms, we do have Free Will, it is just that whatever we Will is precisely what God Wills for us.

Perhaps you agree with this or perhaps not. I offer it nonetheless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

To me there is nothing in the Gospel Higher in meaning, than the self sacrificial Love displayed upon a cross for the sake of forgiving those who would crucify the innocence of it. There is where I derive the reasoning for faithfulness. The reason I addressed the Gospel in such a rudimentary fashion is only to pose an either/or implication of the Higher meaning, so that I can establish a context where I can logically argue against self worship, so that I can establish the definition of faith as the reasonable course for all people.

I think the whole point is to value Love/empathy in me as not of myself. I need to see how lies can corrupt my thinking and subsequently my empathy, and that all immoral thought is bent on exactly that. I believe that true worship is drawn out of the worshipper by the Object of worship, as in being recognized as precious in that which makes me holy as a temple and not the other way around. For example, the wrath of God is portrayed in contrast to the Gospel in Romans 1. And the wrath says that we don't esteem God as God, we are unthankful and therefore become vain when thinking wisdom comes from ourselves. And we made false images of god like unto corruptible man, and worshipped the creature over the Creator.

I agree with you about the need or value of Love (or any goodness, for that matter) in me as NOT OF MYSELF. That is huge, and likewise what you say about worship --I like that very much, that the object of worship is what draws the worship out, not our ability to project worship, but rather, God's work in me as part and parcel of the focus of worship.

But you are speaking of the Gospel in terms of meaning, or some such abstraction, like a lesson learned from the Gospel or other use of the Gospel, rather than the bare fact of what happened --of what Christ did, of what the Holy Spirit does, of the work of God in us, and in his whole plan for Creation. I would, instead of talking about meaning or use, as if we had to come up with the best 'spiritual use' or 'spiritual application' of the Gospel, say that the Gospel is "what happened" and "God's plan" --at the most abstract, "the nature of God" --not the application of the nature of God. The Gospel is the work of God, by grace, in redeeming the unworthy elect, and that for his own sake. Not at all to distract from your point, but to my mind, that is the higher meaning of the Gospel, above even his kind intention toward us.

He did not save us so that we could learn how to be loving --though of course it does that-- but to take us to be his dwelling place.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Reply if you have any questions.

Haha I have 22 alerts at the moment, to check out and answer, so, well, we'll see....

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree with you, OP.

Free Will and God's Sovereignty need not be at odds.

The way I have proposed it elsewhere is like this:

It is, of course a matter of perception insofar as our Free Will is concerned. We must understand that there is a certain "chain" of operation in our psyche that ends up being in reference to how "Free" we actually are.

First of all in the chain, is the senses. For that is all that we have to us to pick up information. The second in the chain, I believe, to be what I call "Ideas". Those would be our questions and intellection and that sort of thing. upon going though this intellection, we cement our Ideas as "Conclusions" which make up our world view. I would add here that I do not believe as Arminians do that what I have for breakfast is completely within my control as far as LFW is concerned insofar as there are many things that lead up to choosing what you had for breakfast including what price range you are looking at, how healthy you want to be, as well as many other factors that are more or less predetermined outside of yourself just as the world functions. I say here that we might also have Ideas about our Conclusions, which are more or less "set in stone" as far as our biases are concerned. But I do believe in a manner of Free Will and that's where I would say it is not in the "everyday" choices we make that we possess our Free Will, but only upon coming across completely new information where we have to "decide" what to do with that information. We might consider this hearing the Gospel, for example... But just as one might initially "decide" they disagree with the Gospel, one might question that position of our Conclusions with Ideas, and then, as might happen, a catalyst might be the "new information" that we need to become a believer.

So, if I might say this in broad terms, we do have Free Will, it is just that whatever we Will is precisely what God Wills for us.

Perhaps you agree with this or perhaps not. I offer it nonetheless.

An interesting read. Some really good thoughts; I'm not sure that in deciding, the difference as to LFW is between when we do and when we don't receive information new to us. Truth is, (seems to me), we are always 'streaming' new information, just maybe not noticeably new and revealing.

I completely agree with you here: "So, if I might say this in broad terms, we do have Free Will, it is just that whatever we Will is precisely what God Wills for us."

This isn't your use of 'for us' I know, by which I think you meant something like, 'concerning us' or 'for us to do' but the thought comes: It might not feel as pretty as 'for you' in Jeremiah 29:11 sounds, because the road to that place may be full of pain.

But you are exactly right, which I wanted to say and never really got to it before I had decided I had written enough for now, that what we decide is what God has already decided. What is amazing to me is that he doesn't seem to hold it against us that we don't understand that. I disagree with those who say the very fact that he doesn't drive that fact into us is evidence it is not true.

 

[Clare73]

Before I begin, I want to mention that the reason I identify myself as Reformed is not because I agree with them, but that what they believe more closely resembles what I believe than any other theological line does. Please do not judge what I mean to write by the nomenclature.

There is something that has been obvious to me for years, yet I am still unable to get it into words, and I feel like it would be very useful in understanding and debate, concerning the matter of Predestination and Free Will. I will try again now to get it into words.

(One poster here has said something to the effect that if we could drop the notion of free will, and simply call it will, assuming whatever is true about it is true, instead of insisting on words that we spend hours arguing over, such as "free". I wish I could find it, because it was useful to me.)

My attempt here is to make it plain that there is no need of some 'point of tension' between the two (Predestination vs. Free Will). What we do and what God does work together in perfect fact (I would say "in perfect harmony", but that would imply, in the minds of some, willful cooperation (i.e. obedience or at least good intention) on our part.). What God intends does not at some point let off to allow us to operate. To perhaps make it more plain, what we do, is part of what God is doing (whether through obedience or disobedience, or if some reader here supposes, even through no relation to cooperation or opposition to God).

Regardless of means, motive or method, we do choose and we do act, however limited in scope or influence our choices may be; we do WILL to do what we choose to do. Whatever else happens outside of the scope of our intentions or influence is still going to happen, and like what we as agents choose and do, is replete with the will, choices and intentions of other agents --our part is no different, no more 'in and of itself' than theirs is. And it is all governed by what God is doing.


We do what we do, and God does what he does. To arrange a point of tension between the two, in our minds, is to construct something that is not there. We may demand intellectual satisfaction but our point of view, our worldview, is irrelevant to the facts. ONLY God's point of view is relevant. To perhaps say that better, the facts do not depend on our point of view, but they do completely depend on God's point of view, or he is not God.

We do choose, willfully, and God does predestine, with purpose. And what is going to happen is indeed going to happen. --Is this not all within God's purvue? Is it possible for something to happen that God did not know? (I say that, without respect to by what means he knows --such is not the point of this OP).

So I say, (quite hypocritically, in fact), give up with Point Of View, and leaning on one's own understanding.

Go with God. --MQ

Free will in the Biblical sense is man's ability to choose voluntarily, without constraint, according to his disposition.
Edit: voluntarily without external constraint

And therein is the hitch. His nature is now fallen, and his disposition is to self, rather than God.
He does not have the ability to make all moral choices; e.g., a choice to be sinless.
His free will is limited.

Predestination is not related to man's free will. Man's limited free will still chooses voluntarily according to its moral capabilities.

 

[Mark Quayle]

IMO, leave it there, that’s all we can really know. So we must strive, we must persevere, etc, either way. From there exactly whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not is known perfectly only by God, alone. Anything more is unnecessary speculation as I see it, and putting the cart ahead of the horse. The elect will all end up saved, of course, but that’s a rather moot theological point from our perspective on this side of heaven.

You may have a point, but the point I am hoping to get across concerns the fact that it is silly to think that God causing all things means we are without choice or responsibility. As humans, we absolutely DO choose, and our wills ARE involved. Like Shakespeare's MacBeth, we cause what happens --irrevocably what God causes.

My biggest problem with Arminian-leaning, particularly Pelagian, Christianity is the notion that we are anything of worth or ability in and of ourselves, apart from God. We are not even complete beings until we are what he made us for when we see him as he is in Heaven. Why the notion, then, that the very one who upholds all creation by his own power, is considered irrelevant as far as our will is concerned, is beyond me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Free will in the Biblical sense is man's ability to choose voluntarily, without constraint, according to his disposition.
And therein is the hitch. His nature is now fallen, and his disposition is to self, rather than God.
He does not have the ability to make all moral choices; e.g., a choice to be sinless.
His free will is limited.

Predestination is not related to man's free will. Man's limited free will still chooses voluntarily according to its moral capabilities.

Is not 'without constraint' contradictory to 'according to his disposition', since creatures are not sovereign? Does not one's disposition constrain him?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Faith comes by hearing the Gospel, which means understanding the Gospel in a spiritual introspect.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. Which is why I must perceive that to understand God as a Spirit in me, there is nothing in the moral/immoral purview that can be thought or said that did not in some degree affirm Him in the positive or the negative as in moving towards Him or away from Him. The determination I make will define all the moral terms I reason upon and the conclusions and demeanor that will result when I deliberate on them. An important thing to note is that in either case, Love/empathy is a positive valued as the highest virtue, but only in the worship of self does it become vain and corruptible. Moreover, the self sacrificial Love I see in the Christ is an extreme display of endurance and perseverance unto death all for the sake of forgiveness, according to the Gospel. It is pure and moving towards wanting to believe/trust in purity, and not corruption. Which is why the only suitable avenue for unbelief to take, is to either count Jesus crazy, or to deny the story ever happened as told all together.

Negatives usurp from positives. Positives do not usurp from negatives. Truth is a constant. Something is greater than nothing. In other words, Truth precedes a lie in existence hence a lie corrupts what is good, such as wanting to believe in something pure. Sure, I know there's a voice/thought inside of me that says, You don't know if the Gospel account is even real. It's a response to the Gospel that looks true enough when appealing to honesty, but in practical application is no different than, I don't know it's not real. What matters is whether I view the Love I see on the cross as coming from somewhere higher than ourselves, and the doubt only serves to not make that distinction. Since the doubt serves to dismiss out of hand rather than leans towards seeking to understand what is being presented, it is illogical. Therefore the voice or thought is sowing a doubt based on a negative prejudice not logic or evidence. The doubt is using the sentiment of 'lack of evidence' (occasion of ignorance), to avoid evaluating what is self evident in The Gospel including the atheism presented therein.

Respectfully, the application of faith in your commentary is inaccurate in the sense that it seems that it's my faith that establishes certain facts other than my faithfulness. It's actually the certain facts and logic that support the reasoning for faith so that I may be faithful (become filled with faith).

Consider the analogy of needing three points to navigate the seas. We need to know where we're coming from and where we're going to, and one constant relative to both which we can trust in. So it's inescapable that when I reason upon the Spiritual knowledge of God I am also discerning atheism in the process, whereas atheism could not make that same claim being disabled in it's carnal terminology of psycholinguistics. Wherefore I can tell you assuredly that the term 'faith' in Christianity can only be pointed at God when seeing Christ as a trustworthy person, which is why faith must be pointed at an established positive that is reliably constant and pure wherein all people will not be diminished in our hope thereof. When pointed towards the negative it is unbelief/distrust, and when pointed at something that does not exist or is myth, it is actually superstition having nothing to do with faith at all.

I tried. I read it again. I don't know what to tell you, but you and I seem to be talking about two completely different subjects. They may be tangent but that is about all I can make of what you are saying, as relates to the OP.

Before I wrote the OP, my hope was to get across something like what another poster,True Counterphobia, said more simply than I: "So, if I might say this in broad terms, we do have Free Will, it is just that whatever we Will is precisely what God Wills for us." I am reminded of highschool lit class, and Shakespeare's MacBeth, where trying to avoid what the fates had declared for him, MacBeth accomplishes exactly what they said would happen. No matter how we look at it, no matter the motives or methods or sequences, it always turns out that what happens is exactly what God planned and we chose.