An Example?

[Forest]

The question is not logical. If you did it then it wasn't impossible. If it's impossible, you cannot do it.

My position is that, if a person is unwilling to do something, their unwillingness makes it impossible for them to do. Now, we may not enjoy doing something. In a moment of clarity we may be able to say, "Well, I don't want to sin." Regardless, when we are tempted to sin, the reason we may not is because we have a greater desire to obey God. If that is not the case, then we submit to our flesh and sin. It is for this very reason that we are encouraged to nurture our faith, that it be the force that drives us when we are tempted.

I don't know why you think it would be an oxymoron. Can you explain?

Thanks,
God bless

If unwillingness makes someone unable to do something, then what is the difference between unwilling and impossible? Unwilling = impossible.

It sounds to me that when you say that "someone cannot do that which they are unwilling to do" is the same as saying "someone cannot do that which they cannot do". You are right, it is illogical.

Here's a choice Reformationist...

Choose to click on this or not.

Spoiler: choice

free will

How could your choice be anything other than an exercise of your free will? I don't see how you could be "unwilling" to make the choice you did not make, but rather it was just a choice driven by free will.

 

[Forest]

In light of something that Forest said, I would just like to offer some food for thought. He mentioned that his choices may be emotional in nature rather than rational. The problem with such a claim, if one is using it to prove the freedom of man's will, is that it is actually contrary to that position. If someone's will controlled by one's emotions then one's will is not actually free, at least not in the way that the phrase, "free will," is often employed. Either your will is truly free or it is influenced to the degree that it is controlled. The Apostle Paul touches upon this incongruity a number of times. For instance, instead of proclaiming the freedom of man's will, he acknowledges that we are slaves to whatever we submit to:

Romans 6:16
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

God bless

Choices are not always emotional and they are not always rational. Neither one controls all the time. No doubt our choices are inflluenced by our desires, but not controlled.

 

[repoland2]

I more or less agree, except that I don't think it is quite accurate to equate the ability to make a choice to a God like ability to make a choice, for God does not contend with sin as we do so His choices are always in accord with His perfect nature. I understand that you recognize the weakness of this analogy but I just wanted to qualify my agreement.

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're saying here, can you please re-word this?

You see, this is the unintentional catch-22 of the question I ask. You say you were "unwilling" to do something your wife asked yet you submit that you did it. It doesn't sound like she forced you to do it so, even though you may have found it displeasing to do so, your desire to show your love for your wife overruled your desire to refrain from doing what she asked. In fact, your love for your wife is what made you willing, dispite your misgivings.

You see repoland2, you were not unwilling to do it because you did do it. If you were truly unwilling, you wouldn't have done it.

For instance, would you be willing or unwilling to forsake Christ for earthly comforts?

I understand what you're saying completely. I now agree with your origional statement that Men (and women) are not capable of commiting an act that they are unwilling to perform.

 

[Reformationist]

If unwillingness makes someone unable to do something, then what is the difference between unwilling and impossible?

In my explanation of how the desires of one's heart influence the will there is no difference. Hence, this thread.

Unwilling = impossible.

That is my contention, yes.

It sounds to me that when you say that "someone cannot do that which they are unwilling to do" is the same as saying "someone cannot do that which they cannot do". You are right, it is illogical.

That's what I'm asking. How does someone defend the notion that people can do something they are unwilling to do. At some point, for whatever reason, they must become willing to do it, else they won't.

Here's a choice Reformationist...

Choose to click on this or not.

How could your choice be anything other than an exercise of your free will?

I don't disagree that it is an exercise of my will. My position isn't purposed to deny that man's actions are in accord with his will. I am merely acknowledging that man's will is subject to man's desires when choosing. For instance, I desired to see what your spoiler said, so I clicked on it. Had I had no desire to see it, or had my desire to not look at it been stronger than my desire to see what it said, I would have refrained.

I don't see how you could be "unwilling" to make the choice you did not make, but rather it was just a choice driven by free will.

It was a choice driven by my desire to see what the spoiler said. The will is nothing more than the mind choosing. It isn't the power behind the choice. It is the choice. What is the power behind man's choices?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Choices are not always emotional and they are not always rational. Neither one controls all the time.

You speak of emotion and rationale as if they are mutually exclusive motivators. On the contrary, because of my love for God, I rationally choose to obey Him.

No doubt our choices are inflluenced by our desires, but not controlled.

Okay, so give me an example of a time you chose contrary to your greatest desire at the moment of choice and let's put this topic to bed. I've yet to see such an example. All I've seen are examples of people doing things they didn't want to do. When asked why they chose that way, they will always have a reason that exerted a greater influence over their will than did their desire to not do something. In admitting such a force they support my position, for they chose according to their strongest desire.

God bless

 

[repoland2]

If unwillingness makes someone unable to do something, then what is the difference between unwilling and impossible? Unwilling = impossible.

It sounds to me that when you say that "someone cannot do that which they are unwilling to do" is the same as saying "someone cannot do that which they cannot do". You are right, it is illogical.

Here's a choice Reformationist...

Choose to click on this or not.

Spoiler: choice

free will

How could your choice be anything other than an exercise of your free will? I don't see how you could be "unwilling" to make the choice you did not make, but rather it was just a choice driven by free will.

He knows this, He wanted people's opinions on freewill, that's it.

 

[Reformationist]

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're saying here, can you please re-word this?

Sure. I merely meant that I agreed that man, be he pre or post-Fall, has the ability to choose according to what is most pleasing to him. The problem with comparing it to a "God like ability to make choices" is that what we find most pleasing is often sinful. In light of that, I just didn't think it is entirely accurate to equate such an ability with God's ability to make choices because God never desires to sin. However, you are right that God also chooses according to what He most desires. This is a bit redundant, of course, because both the exclusive and strongest desire of God is, ultimately, righteous.

I understand what you're saying completely. I now agree with your origional statement that Men (and women) are not capable of commiting an act that they are unwilling to perform.

Thanks repo. I appreciate your input.

God bless

 

[repoland2]

There's always one that takes what people say the wrong way and makes a negative argument out of it.

 

[Forest]

That's what I'm asking. How does someone defend the notion that people can do something they are unwilling to do. At some point, for whatever reason, they must become willing to do it, else they won't.

The only way to defend that would be to define "unwilling" in a different way such as unwilling=reluctant.

 

[Reformationist]

The only way to defend that would be to define "unwilling" in a different way such as unwilling=reluctant.

What would be the purpose in that?

Unwilling doesn't mean "reluctant."

God bless

 

[repoland2]

Sure. I merely meant that I agreed that man, be he pre or post-Fall, has the ability to choose according to what is most pleasing to him. The problem with comparing it to a "God like ability to make choices" is that what we find most pleasing is often sinful. In light of that, I just didn't think it is entirely accurate to equate such an ability with God's ability to make choices because God never desires to sin. However, you are right that God also chooses according to what He most desires. This is a bit redundant, of course, because both the exclusive and strongest desire of God is, ultimately, righteous.

Thanks repo. I appreciate your input.

God bless

Ahhh, this makes sense. I AGREE with that, and I take that back. What I meant by my statement was that we were made in God's image origionally... and with that, we have free will, which is something God CAN do. Of course, we are cursed with sin and He is sinless. However, we as humans who Love God, can make rightous choices with our free will.... does that make it any less rightous in the eyes of God if we are with sin?

 

[Forest]

Okay, so give me an example of a time you chose contrary to your greatest desire at the moment of choice and let's put this topic to bed. I've yet to see such an example. All I've seen are examples of people doing things they didn't want to do. When asked why they chose that way, they will always have a reason that exerted a greater influence over their will than did their desire to not do something. In admitting such a force they support my position, for they chose according to their strongest desire.

God bless

I think I agree with you here. What do you say this leads to in regard to free will?

 

[Forest]

There's always one that takes what people say the wrong way and makes a negative argument out of it.

 

[Reformationist]

Ahhh, this makes sense. I AGREE with that, and I take that back. What I meant by my statement was that we were made in God's image origionally... and with that, we have free will, which is something God CAN do. Of course, we are cursed with sin and He is sinless. However, we as humans who Love God, can make rightous choices with our free will.... does that make it any less rightous in the eyes of God if we are with sin?

Thanks again repo.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I think I agree with you here. What do you say this leads to in regard to free will?

In my opinion it leads to the conclusion that man's will is not "free," as so many contend, but rather, subject to his desires.

This is why it is so important for us to continually pray and focus on the holiness of God. For when we focus on the Lord we tend to desire to be righteous, as He is righteous. Even very devout people fail to place God at the forefront on occasion and it is in those instances that they often sin, for when the desire to do contrary to what God commands becomes greater than their desire to obey Him, they, like us, sin freely.

God bless

 

[Forest]

In my opinion it leads to the conclusion that man's will is not "free," as so many contend, but rather, subject to his desires.

This is why it is so important for us to continually pray and focus on the holiness of God. For when we focus on the Lord we tend to desire to be righteous, as He is righteous. Even very devout people fail to place God at the forefront on occasion and it is in those instances that they often sin, for when the desire to do contrary to what God commands becomes greater than their desire to obey Him, they, like us, sin freely.

God bless

Then that begs the question, can we control our desires. If we can control, change and manipulate our desires then would you say there is free will?

 

[Asaph]

Well, it seems you are clearly distraught over whatever happened and I pray that the Lord gives you peace my brother, but, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.

God bless

I had one of those God moments that illustrates your point.

I was in conversation with a co-worker and I let stand a misconception that I should have corrected. Right at that moment God chose to reveal to me where my loyalty was, and it was not with Him. He showed me clearly that I had just sinned against Him because I wanted the approval of my co-worker over the approval of my Lord and Saviour. My "freewill" was not free at all. It was entirely in subjection to that which I had most desired at that point. Pride.

It was devastating and I was stunned that I could have done such a thing.

Asaph

 

[awildflowerlady]

In my opinion it leads to the conclusion that man's will is not "free," as so many contend, but rather, subject to his desires.

In taking on the simple meaning of the word will we have the following:

To decide on; choose.

To yearn for; desire: “She makes you will your own destruction”

To decree, dictate, or order.

To resolve with a forceful will; determine.

To induce or try to induce by sheer force of will: We willed the sun to come out.

To grant in a legal will; bequeath.

I would have to agree that your statement in the quote above has merit, but in due time. Will seems to be an orderly process, with a few steps before conclusion.

For will to take place, first a decision has to be made. Then the desire sets in. You may not know the desire when you first set your will, but I think desire helps to keep will on track.

It seems to me that your understanding of this allows for the interchange of words, will and desire. In reading your statement I get the feeling you are using either word to describe the action. I am not sure that is how the action takes place, as I describe above.

I think of a selfish man saying: I want that woman (oh so he has decided on one, think of Mel Brooks). Then the desire sets in until he gets her (as maybe she does not want him).

I believe it is possible to have a will based on what GOD wants, then fulfilling that will with the use of desire. Will first, then desire.

I think back to the example I gave you on having kids.

I wonder if the following situation might meet the needs you are seeking:

Back in the day, marriages were arranged. At times this happened right when daughters were born. Did her will trump this? Usually not what kind of decision process does a baby have?

A daughter following the Torah understood she was to honor her parents. (a decision that she WILL do this, however finding the desire to do so may not be there, so force could come into play)

So the daughter married whom the parents chose. Can this situation be pleasing to GOD, but against her will? It is possible. She could run away, but if her will was to please GOD to begin with, that would be against her will as well!

I could go on to describe the situation how she had to sleep with a husband she did not want to sleep with, have children she did not want to have - so on and so on.

When I describe free will as mentioned in Christianity to someone who is new to concept I use the follow example:

As a child most of us have read the "choose your own adventure" style books.

We can connect this style of writing to GOD's efforts with man.

From the day you are born, GOD had your book written, as a choose your own adventure genre. Within this book, you make your will known by choice as you progress in life. As with the written page, you come to a choice and stop to decide on something. For this decision turn to such and such page, for that, go here. The book progresses until the end when there are no more decisions to be made as a conclusion has been reached by the path you chose. You demonstrated free will within an already written book.

 

[Forest]

What would be the purpose in that?

Unwilling doesn't mean "reluctant."

God bless

Since "reluctant" is one of the dictionary definitions of "unwilling", many people use the two words interchangeably.

 

[Asaph]

Since "reluctant" is one of the dictionary definitions of "unwilling", many people use the two words interchangeably.

I may be reluctant to say that you are wrong to equate these two words one to another, but I am definately not unwilling.

As I just proved.

Asaph