Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong. They are not forced. They are not changed against their will. Their will is changed, their heart, their desires, their worldview all changed. They did not decide one thing simultaneously with God deciding against it. The whole being is made new. "Forced??"

You presume a complete self, a being like God who is what he is in and of himself, one capable of dealing with God at his level. You want God to deal with the respect of an equal.



A note here: "Does not make sense TO ME" is not the same thing as "does not make sense." Just saying....

Why use the word, "force"?, is my point. You are antagonistic against "cause", so you say "force".

Anyhow, If God caused, or "forced", since you like that, you to love him, why would he force everyone else to love him? That is not his purpose. Sin opposes him, it lies about him. Why would he not "get upset" at sin? No, it is not a question of what he can do --after all, if it was a question of what he can do, why create at all?-- it is a question of what he WILL do, to accomplish the end he has intended all along --the Bride of Christ.

The Bride of Christ, is a very specific construction of members. It is not "as big as possible", it is not a haphazard jumble, it is not a choosing according to earthly accomplishments and achievements, as though God intended for the Bride will be As Good As Possible. No, She will be PERFECT, without spot or blemish, complete, nothing missing, nothing substituted. Made by God for God, for his own reasons, for his own Glory.

So what is your definition of forced? Can you give me a real world example? How does that not align with the Calvinistic version of god electing dead men who had no choice to be changed? Is not an elimination of choice a forced thing upon you? I am forced to live in an oxygen filled world. This is all a part of the good plan of God. But is my will forced or changed to choose God? No. Scripture has plenty of evidence of God getting upset at sin and desiring men to choose Him and His good ways (When they don't do so). If God elects to make men changed, then why did He not do so for all the times He gets angry at those who sin? It makes no sense. But then again that is Calvinism. Calvinism doesn't make any sense when in light of reading the Bible. I really should not have to tell you this. It's obvious. Kind of like how people believe in the silliness of a flat Earth despite the testimony of the world around them. They have to ignore all the evidence that the world is round. I believe Calvinists have to ignore all the evidence in Scripture that refutes Calvinism (Genesis 4:6-7, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Matthew 23:37, Deuteronomy 30:19, Revelation 22:17).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, i don't wish to debate that nor you. But hopefully clarify it as there are important points, from what you wrote, that i think require further clarification that can lead to a better discernment. But i agree with much of what you wrote. And by clarifying, discussing, REASONING together and NOT debating, with a humble, meek and honest spirit, willing to listen and learn whenever necessary, is how i believe one is edified. If indeed we both seek truth, righteousness, love and God, not just to prove our own beliefs and "validate" our prejudices and worldview to ourselves and everyone else. After all, God's word does not need defendants, because it will never be made invalid by men's beliefs nor by satan's lies and It is the ultimate standard upon which everything else is judged. But what WE need is a true elucidation of It if we are to truly abide and grow in Christ, and not just in our own beliefs and inclinations (which are reflected in our personality).

That is why i asked you first before sharing anything more with you about the "free will" topic, because i am not here to debate nor fight anyone. But hopefully help edify you, and in the process, be edified as well too.

If you agree, i will cobtinue then. Otherwise, then I'll let things be.

Peace, grace and wisdom to you.

Again, I ask you to share your viewpoint on the free will issue. You are simply not choosing to do so now. In fact, don't do it to help me, but do it to help somebody else. For should a lamp be hid under a bushel?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong. They are not forced. They are not changed against their will. Their will is changed, their heart, their desires, their worldview all changed. They did not decide one thing simultaneously with God deciding against it. The whole being is made new. "Forced??"

You presume a complete self, a being like God who is what he is in and of himself, one capable of dealing with God at his level. You want God to deal with the respect of an equal.



A note here: "Does not make sense TO ME" is not the same thing as "does not make sense." Just saying....

Why use the word, "force"?, is my point. You are antagonistic against "cause", so you say "force".

Anyhow, If God caused, or "forced", since you like that, you to love him, why would he force everyone else to love him? That is not his purpose. Sin opposes him, it lies about him. Why would he not "get upset" at sin? No, it is not a question of what he can do --after all, if it was a question of what he can do, why create at all?-- it is a question of what he WILL do, to accomplish the end he has intended all along --the Bride of Christ.

The Bride of Christ, is a very specific construction of members. It is not "as big as possible", it is not a haphazard jumble, it is not a choosing according to earthly accomplishments and achievements, as though God intended for the Bride will be As Good As Possible. No, She will be PERFECT, without spot or blemish, complete, nothing missing, nothing substituted. Made by God for God, for his own reasons, for his own Glory.

Okay think of like this. You know that in Scripture that the church is the bride of Christ, right? (See: Revelation 19:7, Ephesians 5:25-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Matthew 25:1-13).

Now, imagine if a man loved a woman and she did not feel the same way about him. But what if the man made her drink a love potion and she changed to love him? Would this be something that was forced upon her? Would not this love be forced and going against her original will? Sure it would. This would not be true love because her original will was to not love this man. If the effects of the potion wears off, she will go back to no longer loving this man. It is only the potion that is forcing her to love him. This would not be true love. True love is when two people both agree out of their own free will to love each other. If not it is forced love. You want me to believe that God is like a man who puts a woman under a spell to love him. That is not true love, and it is forced love.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So what is your definition of forced? Can you give me a real world example? How does that not align with the Calvinistic version of god electing dead men who had no choice to be changed? Is not an elimination of choice a forced thing upon you? I am forced to live in an oxygen filled world. This is all a part of the good plan of God. But is my will forced or changed to choose God? No. Scripture has plenty of evidence of God getting upset at sin and desiring men to choose Him and His good ways (When they don't do so). If God elects to make men changed, then why did He not do so for all the times He gets angry at those who sin? It makes no sense. But then again that is Calvinism. Calvinism doesn't make any sense when in light of reading the Bible. I really should not have to tell you this. It's obvious. Kind of like how people believe in the silliness of a flat Earth despite the testimony of the world around them. They have to ignore all the evidence that the world is round. I believe Calvinists have to ignore all the evidence in Scripture that refutes Calvinism (Genesis 4:6-7, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Matthew 23:37, Deuteronomy 30:19, Revelation 22:17).

You assume "elimination of choice, therefore, forced"? You choose God because you are changed.

I am repeating myself here now, since you are doing so --Why should God not get angry at sin? And why should he have changed all those who continue in sin? He will have mercy on whom he will. You are like an Atheist, forming what God should be like according to your own notions.

We've already been through your supposed proofs against Calvinism. Can you show me how they defeat Calvinism, instead of merely asserting that they do?

 

[renniks]

Fate is impersonal, what God does is purposed.

We do cause things to happen by our choices. I haven't said otherwise. But our choices are part of the long chain of cause and effect that causes things to happen. God uses means to accomplish his ends.

So you believe a direct contradiction... that our choices cause things, but only because they have already been destined to happen.
Usually these discussions get pretty dry, so in an effort to keep things more interesting: I tend to like some of Bruce Springsteen's music, although I disagree with his politics. Now there's a couple reasons this could be this case. It could be because some of his songs were the soundtrack of my life when I was younger, and they bring back fond memories, even subconsciously. It could be a preference for certain combinations of music and lyrics, but even that has to spring from somewhere. So we get into the nurture versus nature predicament. Did God design me to like some of Springsteen's songs, or did that develop out of other influences that shaped my development of musical lights and dislikes? In other words was I fated by God to like Springsteen way more than say, the Rolling Stones, or did I have some choice in the matter?
I really don't think you can have it both ways. It really doesn't matter what cause and effect God used if it was inevitable. And the reason I can't think that way is because scripture indicates that we always have a choice, and a real choice not one already chosen for us. We are not given temptation, for example, without being given a way of escape. That makes no sense if the sin we commit was already chosen for us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay think of like this. You know that in Scripture that the church is the bride of Christ, right? (See: Revelation 19:7, Ephesians 5:25-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Matthew 25:1-13).

Now, imagine if a man loved a woman and she did not feel the same way about him. But what if the man made her drink a love potion and she changed to love him? Would this be something that was forced upon her? Would not this love be forced and going against her original will? Sure it would. This would not be true love because her original will was to not love this man. If the effects of the potion wears off, she will go back to no longer loving this man. It is only the potion that is forcing her to love him. This would not be true love. True love is when two people both agree out of their own free will to love each other. If not it is forced love. You want me to believe that God is like a man who puts a woman under a spell to love him. That is not true love, and it is forced love.

Ok, let's draw another picture. God created a woman for himself, a wise woman, a woman worthy of his love, his indulgence even, a woman like himself, a woman that could understand his feelings and bear up under the force of them without shrinking away from him in dread. A woman far above and superior to all his pets, friends and servants, a woman made in his likeness in a way that even his friends and servants cannot be. But before she could become that woman, every cell of her body was being formed, going through a process so that she could become God-like, and every part of her had to individually come to know in some way that she cannot be God-like without God himself being the motivation behind her every move.

She is not yet the complete woman she will be. We are only cells in her body. You assume we are individually complete beings, contrary to the pictures drawn in Scripture. God is very specific and precisely loves every individual cell in her body, and relates to each individual cell, she is that precious to him; this is not some random construction. Forced? How irrelevant and presumptive a notion!

It may have taken (to the minds of the individual cells) 7000 years (or 15 billion, if you prefer) to produce this construction, but to timeless God, it was instantaneous, spoken and done. But will one cell assume to be the whole purpose of God concerning it? Of course not! Not even in the end, when we see him as he is, and so certainly not now! Yet we each want to be somebody all by ourselves, free willed agents, that God must deal with and according to our stupid notions.

Again, "without me, you can do nothing."

 

[renniks]

Of course we choose life or death. But, enslaved to sin, we will ALWAYS choose death, until the Spirit of God moves in and changes our hearts.

Not quite. Yes God has to convict us, as he does all people... but we choose to respond or not.

 

[Hawkins]

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.

The problem is nothing secures that the old Reformed circles must be correct. That's actually where the controversy may be coming from.

Freewill is more about the ability where a human brain acts as a computer processor to go though a defined list of options in order to finally pick one out. The decision can be influenced. In reality your decisions are always under influence by people or environment. Say you may reconsider if your decision is rejected by your wife. Adam's decision is under the influence of Eve and subsequently the devil. However in the end, it is a decision made by Adam instead of Eve or the devil. Adam is thus held responsible. That's what freewill is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you believe a direct contradiction... that our choices cause things, but only because they have already been destined to happen.
Usually these discussions get pretty dry, so in an effort to keep things more interesting: I tend to like some of Bruce Springsteen's music, although I disagree with his politics. Now there's a couple reasons this could be this case. It could be because some of his songs were the soundtrack of my life when I was younger, and they bring back fond memories, even subconsciously. It could be a preference for certain combinations of music and lyrics, but even that has to spring from somewhere. So we get into the nurture versus nature predicament. Did God design me to like some of Springsteen's songs, or did that develop out of other influences that shaped my development of musical lights and dislikes? In other words was I fated by God to like Springsteen way more than say, the Rolling Stones, or did I have some choice in the matter?
I really don't think you can have it both ways. It really doesn't matter what cause and effect God used if it was inevitable. And the reason I can't think that way is because scripture indicates that we always have a choice, and a real choice not one already chosen for us. We are not given temptation, for example, without being given a way of escape. That makes no sense if the sin we commit was already chosen for us.

Even apart from God's control, (if such a thing were possible and not merely intellectual play), cause-and-effect is pervasive. Every decision you make is logically caused. You want "free will" to mean unfettered, absolutely 50/50 chance of options or something. That is frankly irrational. I don't mind you feeling that way, as though it was true, but to claim it is true does not make logical sense. Again, cause-and-effect is pervasive.

Now if it is true that God does control all things, how does that change whether or not your decisions are caused?

I hear from Arminian-leaning Christians the usual argument that if God predestines one's choices they are not real. I'm not sure that isn't the reason you continue to pursue this track. So again I repeat myself: Our decisions are ONLY REAL IF GOD IS OUR MOTIVATOR, or maybe even, our motor. That is to say, "without me you can do nothing.".

 

[renniks]

Even apart from God's control, (if such a thing were possible and not merely intellectual play), cause-and-effect is pervasive. Every decision you make is logically caused.

Caused by what? Don't believe that to be the case, and you certainly haven't proven it is. God isn't controlling our choices.

 

[renniks]

hear from Arminian-leaning Christians the usual argument that if God predestines one's choices they are not real. I'm not sure that isn't the reason you continue to pursue this track. So again I repeat myself: Our decisions are ONLY REAL IF GOD IS OUR MOTIVATOR, or maybe even, our motor. That is to say, "without me you can do nothing.".

So God chose every sin I ever committed? More than that... you are saying he caused them to happen. Scripture claims just the opposite.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So God chose every sin I ever committed? More than that... you are saying he caused them to happen. Scripture claims just the opposite.

Are you saying that "God predestines every detail" is the same as "God is the author of evil"? I think you are letting words push your mind around!

 

[childeye 2]

The problem is nothing secures that the old Reformed circles must be correct. That's actually where the controversy may be coming from.

Freewill is more about the ability where a human brain acts as a computer processor to go though a defined list of options in order to finally pick one out. The decision can be influenced. In reality your decisions are always under influenced by people or environment. Say you may reconsider if your decision is rejected by your wife. Adam's decision is under the influence of Eve and subsequently the devil. However in the end, it is a decision made by Adam instead of Eve or the devil. Adam is thus held responsible. That's what freewill is.

I don't believe a free will for Adam is qualified by not trusting God over the woman. What scripture shows is that Adam knew better wherefore it can be inferred that he acted irresponsibly.

But the fact remains that he denied his own self. To explore why he would deny his own self is not even being pursued if the answer is a circular reasoning proposing that 'because he could' is a viable answer.

And if you're saying the inevitable act of making a choice qualifies a free will, then anything living would qualify as having a free will including a paramecium, since life is a series of moment to moment choices. All you're really qualifying is the creature has a will. It has to be qualified as free from something to be a free will and that is why there are several definitions of free will.

 

[renniks]

Are you saying that "God predestines every detail" is the same as "God is the author of evil"? I think you are letting words push your mind around!

Of course that makes him the author of evil. How could it not? If I leave you no other option but to kill your neighbor, I am responsible for your "choice".
And I truly mean no other option, down to what enters your mind, or mine. Can I "allow" words to push my mind around? If that's what's happening then God already decided for it to happen. If that's the case I don't allow anything, I'm just a puppet.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Caused by what? Don't believe that to be the case, and you certainly haven't proven it is. God isn't controlling our choices.

Our choices are ALWAYS caused by antecedent causes. Simple logical application of the Law of Causality. And if God is First Cause, (which he most certainly is -- I will accept no other being to be God), then logically, he has caused all things, including our choices. I suppose you could pretend he isn't paying any particular attention to the details and that he Deistically, just started everything rolling, and Theistically interjects his hand now and then to keep the ship on course, but that doesn't fit with omniscience, nor logically with the very notion that scientists like to wax poetic about --that the seeds of what we have now were sown in the big bang; and they mean that in every particularity.

I will now bring up what I have before, for you to answer: If God, from his higher level of sovereignty and power, granted us a lower-level power of absolute sovereignty or true spontaneity, (and ignoring the careless use of concepts and meanings, there), WHAT exactly does come into play in the difference between those that do repent and turn to him and obey, vs those who do not? Are some persons in and of themselves better than some others? Or is it chance that decides such things? (A note: I have set a trap for you, but I marked it well, so that you can easily see it.) You see, growing up in an Arminian-leaning Christian community, I noticed that even they pray Calvinistically, even though at that time I did not recognize it as such. Truly amazing!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Of course that makes him the author of evil. How could it not? If I leave you no other option but to kill your neighbor, I am responsible for your "choice".
And I truly mean no other option, down to what enters your mind, or mine. Can I "allow" words to push my mind around? If that's what's happening then God already decided for it to happen. If that's the case I don't allow anything, I'm just a puppet.

A major part of the cause of evil deeds (and thoughts) is the fallen nature. This was indeed predestined by God, it is no mistake, but a necessary part of the producing of the Bride of Christ. You think that his use of means to produce his precise and specific results that are also in their place causes of further effects and on and on until evil deeds result, constitutes blame? Are you pretending that these "puppets" are not willed, and do not wholly indulge in the evil they commit?

Calvinism does not claim they are puppets, nor that they do not choose --that is the strawman that opponents prop up for beings that pretend to operate on the same level as God. Balderdash.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem is nothing secures that the old Reformed circles must be correct. That's actually where the controversy may be coming from.

Freewill is more about the ability where a human brain acts as a computer processor to go though a defined list of options in order to finally pick one out. The decision can be influenced. In reality your decisions are always under influence by people or environment. Say you may reconsider if your decision is rejected by your wife. Adam's decision is under the influence of Eve and subsequently the devil. However in the end, it is a decision made by Adam instead of Eve or the devil. Adam is thus held responsible. That's what freewill is.

I don't see how what you said defeats Reformed Theology in the least. Of course our decisions are the result of these many things and more. And of course, if "freewill" is a thing, your description applies. Reformed Theology agrees.

For what it is worth, Reformed Theology does not pretend to be a systematic comprehensive assessment of, or structure for all things. It only exists to help place God into a proper perspective for the mind of man. It is more an answer to Arminianism and the vagrancies of the human theological conversation, an attempt to return to what Scripture says about God, than it is a separate consideration of the nature of God and his creation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not quite. Yes God has to convict us, as he does all people... but we choose to respond or not.

Of course we choose. You keep intimating that I (or Reformed Theology) claims otherwise. Your logic, that if God chooses and causes, we do not choose, is faulty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you believe a direct contradiction... that our choices cause things, but only because they have already been destined to happen.
Usually these discussions get pretty dry, so in an effort to keep things more interesting: I tend to like some of Bruce Springsteen's music, although I disagree with his politics. Now there's a couple reasons this could be this case. It could be because some of his songs were the soundtrack of my life when I was younger, and they bring back fond memories, even subconsciously. It could be a preference for certain combinations of music and lyrics, but even that has to spring from somewhere. So we get into the nurture versus nature predicament. Did God design me to like some of Springsteen's songs, or did that develop out of other influences that shaped my development of musical lights and dislikes? In other words was I fated by God to like Springsteen way more than say, the Rolling Stones, or did I have some choice in the matter?
I really don't think you can have it both ways. It really doesn't matter what cause and effect God used if it was inevitable. And the reason I can't think that way is because scripture indicates that we always have a choice, and a real choice not one already chosen for us. We are not given temptation, for example, without being given a way of escape. That makes no sense if the sin we commit was already chosen for us.

I fail to see a contradiction there. How can our choices NOT cause things? And how can they NOT be themselves the effects of antecedent causes?

You say, "Did God design me to like some of Springsteen's songs, or did that develop out of other influences that shaped my development of musical likes and dislikes? In other words was I fated by God to like Springsteen way more than say, the Rolling Stones, or did I have some choice in the matter?" How does God's design of your liking Springsteen differ in the least from that developing from other influences...etc? It is one and the same. Your "choice in the matter" is part of the causes ("influences" you say) of why you like S better than R, just as God planned.

You say, "It really doesn't matter what cause and effect God used if it was inevitable." Your characterization is a bit faulty, but basically you are right there. You like inevitability as a description, and true, at least from our viewpoint, it is applicable. It makes no difference to us what causes our choices, or where in the chain God places our choices. We blissfully are unaware of such notions. But for God to do what he does in and through and to us, there is only one way he will do that, and IT WILL MOST CERTAINLY HAPPEN. It is inevitable because God is the one doing his plan --it is not because it is inevitable that God does it. It could even be said that WE are not doing it because it is inevitable, because what we are doing is only what God has planned, regardless of our terminology, concepts, understandings, wisdom etc., God's plan will be accomplished in every detail.

 

[renniks]

Our choices are ALWAYS caused by antecedent causes. Simple logical application of the Law of Causality. And if God is First Cause, (which he most certainly is -- I will accept no other being to be God), then logically, he has caused all things, including our choices. I suppose you could pretend he isn't paying any particular attention to the details and that he Deistically, just started everything rolling, and Theistically interjects his hand now and then to keep the ship on course, but that doesn't fit with omniscience, nor logically with the very notion that scientists like to wax poetic about --that the seeds of what we have now were sown in the big bang; and they mean that in every particularity.

I will now bring up what I have before, for you to answer: If God, from his higher level of sovereignty and power, granted us a lower-level power of absolute sovereignty or true spontaneity, (and ignoring the careless use of concepts and meanings, there), WHAT exactly does come into play in the difference between those that do repent and turn to him and obey, vs those who do not? Are some persons in and of themselves better than some others? Or is it chance that decides such things? (A note: I have set a trap for you, but I marked it well, so that you can easily see it.) You see, growing up in an Arminian-leaning Christian community, I noticed that even they pray Calvinistically, even though at that time I did not recognize it as such. Truly amazing!

I see just the opposite, first off. I say Calvinist's constantly pray like they are Arminians. They ask God to do things, when they claim to believe God has already set in stone everything that will ever happen. So, what point is there in asking God to move? God being the first cause doesn't equal God directly controlling literally everything. What you are are promoting is no different than athiesms determinism with God thrown in. You just said as much.
And now you are asking the classic Calvinist non question: Why do some believe and others not believe? The answer is free will. Undetermined, uncaused freedom to make undetermined choices. Yes, we all have influences, but influences don't make choices for us. Have you never chosen against your influences? Have you never followed your conscience, when every influence around you urged you to give in to what 'everyone else' was doing?