Freewill Offerings Are Evidence of Free Will

[Dale]

From time to time on CF, Calvinists or predestinationists tell us that there is no such thing as free will. We are told that belief in free will is the result of muddled theology, poor scholarship and bad philosophy.

Despite these claims, the term "freewill," spelled as one word, occurs a number of times in the Old Testament in connection with freewill offerings. A freewill offering means exactly what it says, the believer chooses to make an offering. There are freewill offerings which are offerings of food, as is clear from the directions given in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There are also freewill offerings which are gifts of money. Exodus indicates that the Tabernacle was made with gifts which were freewill offerings. The rebuilding of the Temple at the time of Ezra was also accomplished with freewill offerings. It is reasonable that the preparation and building of the first Temple at the time of David and Solomon was also made possible by freewill offerings, although I am not aware of any passage that spells that out.



Exodus tells us that the Tabernacle was made using freewill offerings of money and other valuables, as opposed to food offerings.


29 All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the Lord freewill offerings for all the work the Lord through Moses had commanded them to do.
--Exodus 35: 29 NIV

3 They received from Moses all the offerings the Israelites had brought to carry out the work of constructing the sanctuary. And the people continued to bring freewill offerings morning after morning.
Exodus 36:3 NIV


Leviticus gives directions on freewill offerings as a form of food offering.

16 “‘If, however, their offering is the result of a vow or is a freewill offering, the sacrifice shall be eaten on the day they offer it, but anything left over may be eaten on the next day.
Leviticus 7:16 NIV

18 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: ‘If any of you—whether an Israelite or a foreigner residing in Israel—presents a gift for a burnt offering to the Lord, either to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, 19 you must present a male without defect from the cattle, sheep or goats in order that it may be accepted on your behalf.
Leviticus 22: 18-19 NIV

21 When anyone brings from the herd or flock a fellowship offering to the Lord to fulfill a special vow or as a freewill offering, it must be without defect or blemish to be acceptable. 22 Do not offer to the Lord the blind, the injured or the maimed, or anything with warts or festering or running sores. Do not place any of these on the altar as a food offering presented to the Lord.23 You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep that is deformed or stunted, but it will not be accepted in fulfillment of a vow.
Leviticus 22: 21-23 NIV

38 These offerings are in addition to those for the Lord’s Sabbaths and in addition to your gifts and whatever you have vowed and all the freewill offerings you give to the Lord.)
Leviticus 23: 38 NIV


Numbers continues to give directions for these offerings and says that they will continue in the Promised Land.

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘After you enter the land I am giving you as a home 3 and you present to the Lord food offerings from the herd or the flock, as an aroma pleasing to the Lord—whether burnt offerings or sacrifices, for special vows or freewill offerings or festival offerings— 4 then the person who brings an offering shall present to the Lord a grain offering of a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of olive oil.
Numbers 15: 1-4 NIV


39 “‘In addition to what you vow and your freewill offerings, offer these to the Lord at your appointed festivals: your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink offerings and fellowship offerings.’”
Numbers 29:35 NIV

Deuteronomy tells us that freewill offerings will be taken to "the place the Lord your God will choose," which is the Temple in Jerusalem.

5 But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go;6 there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks.
Deuteronomy 12: 5-6 NIV

17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts.
Deuteronomy 12: 17 NIV

10 Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you.
Deuteronomy 16: 10 NIV


Chronicles makes it clear that many freewill offerings were received by the priests during this time period, even naming an official among the priests who was in charge of them.

14 Kore son of Imnah the Levite, keeper of the East Gate, was in charge of the freewill offerings given to God, distributing the contributions made to the Lord and also the consecrated gifts.
II Chronicles 31: 14 NIV

Freewill offerings played an important role in the rebuilding of the Temple at the time of Ezra.

2 “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
“‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 3 Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them. 4 And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem.’”
5 Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites—everyone whose heart God had moved—prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. 6 All their neighbors assisted them with articles of silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with valuable gifts, in addition to all the freewill offerings.
Ezra 1: 2-6 NIV


68 When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site. 69 According to their ability they gave to the treasury for this work 61,000 darics of gold, 5,000 minas of silver and 100 priestly garments.
Ezra 2: 68-69 NIV

5 After that, they presented the regular burnt offerings, the New Moon sacrifices and the sacrifices for all the appointed sacred festivals of the Lord, as well as those brought as freewill offerings to the Lord.
Ezra 3:5 NIV

26 I weighed out to them 650 talents[c] of silver, silver articles weighing 100 talents, 100 talents of gold, 27 20 bowls of gold valued at 1,000 darics, and two fine articles of polished bronze, as precious as gold.
28 I said to them, “You as well as these articles are consecrated to the Lord. The silver and gold are a freewill offering to the Lord, the God of your ancestors. 29 Guard them carefully until you weigh them out in the chambers of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem before the leading priests and the Levites and the family heads of Israel.” 30 Then the priests and Levites received the silver and gold and sacred articles that had been weighed out to be taken to the house of our God in Jerusalem.
Ezra 8: 26-30 NIV


I will sacrifice a freewill offering to you;
I will praise your name, Lord, for it is good.
Psalms 54:6 NIV


The prophet Ezekiel sees freewill offerings as part of a restored Israel in the future.

12 “‘When the prince provides a freewill offering to the Lord—whether a burnt offering or fellowship offerings—the gate facing east is to be opened for him.
Ezekiel 46:12 NIV


The prophet Amos warns people not to brag about freewill offerings.

Burn leavened bread as a thank offering
and brag about your freewill offerings—
boast about them, you Israelites,
for this is what you love to do,”
declares the Sovereign Lord.
Amos 4:5 NIV

 

[childeye 2]

The term "freewill" in the phrase "freewill offering" is an adjective, meaning "voluntary offering", and sometimes an adverb, meaning "offering voluntarily". But the term "free will" that is the cause for controversy is a noun, and it does not appear in scripture. To have volition simply means to use your will and is not proof that the noun "free will" exists.

The noun free will describes a will that is free from something or someone. But what that something or someone is becomes subjectively vague and contradictory when applied to the moral/immoral dichotomy. Proponents of free will sometimes turn to the term free agent to help describe a free will. The term free agent implies being uncommitted or equivocating between what is the moral and the immoral, and it does not appear in scripture either. However free agent in the moral/immoral purview carries the same meaning implied by what the scripture calls being double-minded.

The term "will" as in the will of man or the will of the flesh, can imply both to desire and to decide, but the primary emphasis in meaning is usually to desire. So "to will", is "to desire". Hence to say "I can desire whatever I want to" or "I can will whatever I will" is a circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

 

[bcbsr]

The term "freewill" in the phrase "freewill offering" is an adjective, meaning "voluntary offering", and sometimes an adverb, meaning "offering voluntarily". But the term "free will" that is the cause for controversy is a noun, and it does not appear in scripture. To have volition simply means to use your will and is not proof that the noun "free will" exists.

The noun free will describes a will that is free from something or someone. But what that something or someone is becomes subjectively vague and contradictory when applied to the moral/immoral dichotomy. Proponents of free will sometimes turn to the term free agent to help describe a free will. The term free agent implies being uncommitted or equivocating between what is the moral and the immoral, and it does not appear in scripture either. However free agent in the moral/immoral purview carries the same meaning implied by what the scripture calls being double-minded.

The term "will" as in the will of man or the will of the flesh, can imply both to desire and to decide, but the primary emphasis in meaning is usually to desire. So "to will", is "to desire". Hence to say "I can desire whatever I want to" or "I can will whatever I will" is a circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

Changing the definition of a word mid-sentence is not a logical fallacy. But claiming that it is, is itself a logical fallacy.

Free will is not talking about one's desires, but rather one's decisions. "Free will" is not the same as "Free wants". The Calvinist puppet theology discards the concept of free will when it comes to moral decisions. As such they hold that people are held accountable for things over which they have no control, which is kind of the definition of injustice. And who is the puppet master but God. So when a person sins, it's really God sinning through them. Calvinists insist that God must be in control of everything in puppet like fashion else He's not God. But they kind of get themselves in trouble in the matter of sin.

 

[childeye 2]

Changing the definition of a word mid-sentence is not a logical fallacy. But claiming that it is, is itself a logical fallacy.

It is unclear to me what you're alluding to. I did not see where I claimed that changing a definition of a word mid-sentence was circular reasoning. These following statements are some simple examples of what a circular reasoning looks like, and it is the circular reasoning that is a logical fallacy, "I can want what I want", "I can choose because I can choose", "the reason he did it is because he could", "The proof that I choose is because I can choose."

Free will is not talking about one's desires, but rather one's decisions. "Free will" is not the same as "Free wants".

I respectfully disagree. If I may point out, a person's choice between what is moral and immoral is always going to be indicative of their desire, whether it be a selfish carnally driven desire or a compassionate spiritually driven desire. In either case the will is either free from one yet enslaved to the other. Otherwise every choice between what is moral and immoral would be the product of random chance rather than the product of some foundation of reasoning. Hence if a person could choose anything in the entire moral immoral dichotomy by random chance, then they would be counted as amoral.

The Calvinist puppet theology discards the concept of free will when it comes to moral decisions. As such they hold that people are held accountable for things over which they have no control, which is kind of the definition of injustice. And who is the puppet master but God. So when a person sins, it's really God sinning through them. Calvinists insist that God must be in control of everything in puppet like fashion else He's not God. But they kind of get themselves in trouble in the matter of sin.

I cannot speak for Calvinist theology, but your personally expressed line of reasoning indicates a premise that there must be a free will otherwise God is responsible for men sinning. Therefore that premise would ultimately be misleading if say God foreknew that sin would arise in the creation through the taking of God for granted in vanity. Three examples of this in scripture would be Satan's incomprehension of why he could never be equal in stature to his Creator, Eve's not knowing how good they had it in finding something wrong in paradise, and mankind taking God's wisdom for granted by counting themselves as wise in vanity and un-thankfulness to God.

 

[JIMINZ]

The term "will" as in the will of man or the will of the flesh, can imply both to desire and to decide, but the primary emphasis in meaning is usually to desire. So "to will", is "to desire". Hence to say "I can desire whatever I want to" or "I can will whatever I will" is a circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

.
Scripture itself discounts (Free Will) as a viable Theology.

Rom 7:18-23
18) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Therefore NO FREE WILL.

 

[JIMINZ]

Despite these claims, the term "freewill," spelled as one word, occurs a number of times in the Old Testament in connection with freewill offerings. A freewill offering means exactly what it says, the believer chooses to make an offering. There are freewill offerings which are offerings of food, as is clear from the directions given in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There are also freewill offerings which are gifts of money. Exodus indicates that the Tabernacle was made with gifts which were freewill offerings. The rebuilding of the Temple at the time of Ezra was also accomplished with freewill offerings. It is reasonable that the preparation and building of the first Temple at the time of David and Solomon was also made possible by freewill offerings, although I am not aware of any passage that spells that out.

Despite the claims, the term (Freewill or Free Will) find itself in the term which God Himself gave to men.

DOMINION, Dominion is the ability of man to make his own autonomous decisions concerning how he is going to live his life.

Mankind has Dominion over everything on the Earth, that is why we have had Wars, Famines, Pestilences, it is also the reason mankind chooses what color of socks to wear each day, what kind of car to drive, what to eat.

But the term Free Will only refers to Mankind's ability to Choose to sin or not,
and in that aspect, Mankind does not have a Free Will at all.

Rom. 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom. 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom. 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom. 3:12
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now there is a word, (SERVANT), this word is used in conjunction with Non-Believers as well as Believers.

Both Non-Believers and Believers are Servants, Denoting the Lack of a person having a Free Will of their own.



SERVANT: Greek
G1401
δοῦλος
doulos
doo'-los
From G1210; a slave (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily; frequently therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency): - bond (-man), servant.

G1210
δέω
deō
deh'-o
A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind.



John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.


Tit. 1:1
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Jas. 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Rev. 15:3
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

 

[Dale]

The term "freewill" in the phrase "freewill offering" is an adjective, meaning "voluntary offering", and sometimes an adverb, meaning "offering voluntarily". But the term "free will" that is the cause for controversy is a noun, and it does not appear in scripture. To have volition simply means to use your will and is not proof that the noun "free will" exists.

The noun free will describes a will that is free from something or someone. But what that something or someone is becomes subjectively vague and contradictory when applied to the moral/immoral dichotomy. Proponents of free will sometimes turn to the term free agent to help describe a free will. The term free agent implies being uncommitted or equivocating between what is the moral and the immoral, and it does not appear in scripture either. However free agent in the moral/immoral purview carries the same meaning implied by what the scripture calls being double-minded.

The term "will" as in the will of man or the will of the flesh, can imply both to desire and to decide, but the primary emphasis in meaning is usually to desire. So "to will", is "to desire". Hence to say "I can desire whatever I want to" or "I can will whatever I will" is a circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

An interesting point is made here, that "freewill" in "freewill offering" is an adjective. Then you go on to conclude that "free will" does not occur in the Bible as a noun.

Adjectives and nouns are not exclusive. Suppose someone says, "There was a boat race." In this sentence, "race" is a noun and "boat" is an adjective. But while "boat" functions as an adjective in this sentence, it is primarily a noun. In the phrase "boat race," the word "boat" is a noun functioning as an adjective. I see the use of "freewill" in "freewill offering" in the same light, it is an important concept being used as a modifier in referring to these offerings.

I'm not sure I get the point made in the next paragraph, when it is said that whatever it is that would restrain free will is subjective. Then it is claimed that the concept of a "free agent" does not appear in Scripture.

I don't see anything subjective about the operation of free will or the forces that would stifle or limit it. Either people are slaves to their upbringing and the culture they live in, and various random experiences they have had, or they are not. There are many examples of people acting in ways that cannot be predicted from their upbringing.

Does the idea of a "free agent" appear in Scripture? Let's go back to Genesis.

And I will put enmity
between you [the serpent] and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
Genesis 3:15 NIV


Here God says that there will be conflict between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and the serpent, who represents temptation. The snake in Eden is a tempter, just as demons are tempters. Yet God tells us that at times, the sons and daughters of Adam will crush the head of the serpent, they will crush the head of the tempter. Doesn't this tell us that God is empowering mortals to prevail against temptation? If God gives the children of Adam and Eve the ability to resist temptation, then they are free agents. Whether mortals always make use of the God-given right to resist temptation is another matter, they may fail to make use of it.

 

[childeye 2]

An interesting point is made here, that "freewill" in "freewill offering" is an adjective. Then you go on to conclude that "free will" does not occur in the Bible as a noun.

Adjectives and nouns are not exclusive. Suppose someone says, "There was a boat race." In this sentence, "race" is a noun and "boat" is an adjective. But while "boat" functions as an adjective in this sentence, it is primarily a noun. In the phrase "boat race," the word "boat" is a noun functioning as an adjective. I see the use of "freewill" in "freewill offering" in the same light, it is an important concept being used as a modifier in referring to these offerings.

I'm not sure I get the point made in the next paragraph, when it is said that whatever it is that would restrain free will is subjective. Then it is claimed that the concept of a "free agent" does not appear in Scripture.

I don't see anything subjective about the operation of free will or the forces that would stifle or limit it. Either people are slaves to their upbringing and the culture they live in, and various random experiences they have had, or they are not. There are many examples of people acting in ways that cannot be predicted from their upbringing.

Does the idea of a "free agent" appear in Scripture? Let's go back to Genesis.

And I will put enmity
between you [the serpent] and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
Genesis 3:15 NIV


Here God says that there will be conflict between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and the serpent, who represents temptation. The snake in Eden is a tempter, just as demons are tempters. Yet God tells us that at times, the sons and daughters of Adam will crush the head of the serpent, they will crush the head of the tempter. Doesn't this tell us that God is empowering mortals to prevail against temptation? If God gives the children of Adam and Eve the ability to resist temptation, then they are free agents. Whether mortals always make use of the God-given right to resist temptation is another matter, they may fail to make use of it.

I appreciate your forthright and thoughtful discourse. To address my statement that "free" in free will is subjective, I would point to your own interpretation of "free" in free agent as one view that you have provided and effectively qualified through further elaboration. And I would add that I have also pointed out, that "free agent" can also imply uncommitted or equivocating. Hence my point is that the "free" in "free agent" and also "free will" is subjective and open to various interpretations and misinterpretations when not qualified. So if the term "free agent" is taken to mean uncommitted or equivocating, then when scripture uses the term "double minded", it calls to mind the same thing, an equivocating and uncommitted will.


Let me recount your elaboration and qualifying of a plausible meaning of "free agent". First you referred to scripture where God says to the serpent that He will place enmity between his offspring and hers,, and how it is plausible that "free agent" could apply if God gives the children of Adam and Eve the ability to resist temptation, but they may or may not use it. Before going further I would say that this is a reasonable interpretation if the offspring of Satan is referring to demons. But if this is the case, then obviously such enmity put forth by God is necessary for a free agent to exist, and also that God Himself would have a purpose for which He has made Demons tempt mankind. And finally wouldn't the will that chose not to use the power God had given to defeat temptation be one that has already fallen to temptation?

Here is what I am confident of. I am convinced that temptation is based upon some carnal expectation of improving upon one's own stature, and that through the power of suggestion the tempter forms in the imagination of the tempted, an imaginary outcome that appeals to one's vanity. I must add that the will is always subject to the tempter at the time of the temptation, or in other words the will does not volunteer to be tempted or tempts it's own self.

I am also convinced that the Holy Spirit is the power that provides the Truth upon which one would reason, so as to overcome vanity. To be clear, the Holy Spirit has no vanity because it seeks the lifting up of others over one's own self rather than the lifting up of one's own self over others. So as I believe this is indeed the case, then those who have been given the power to become the children of God are in a transformation from the carnal mind that serves one's own vanity, to the spiritual mind that serves the best interests of all, or Godly Love.

So respectfully, in my view, free agent is a misleading way of saying doubleminded. To me "Free agent" does not portray the will and mind itself as needing to be transformed so as to be enabled to serve God. Nor does it portray a transition from one master to the other. Rather than depicting the existence of a will that has utterly succumbed to sinfulness, to me it puts forth a counter narrative that strokes one's vanity, so that after falling victim to temptation, it can claim I meant to do that.

 

[Dale]

I appreciate your forthright and thoughtful discourse. To address my statement that "free" in free will is subjective, I would point to your own interpretation of "free" in free agent as one view that you have provided and effectively qualified through further elaboration. And I would add that I have also pointed out, that "free agent" can also imply uncommitted or equivocating. Hence my point is that the "free" in "free agent" and also "free will" is subjective and open to various interpretations and misinterpretations when not qualified. So if the term "free agent" is taken to mean uncommitted or equivocating, then when scripture uses the term "double minded", it calls to mind the same thing, an equivocating and uncommitted will.


Let me recount your elaboration and qualifying of a plausible meaning of "free agent". First you referred to scripture where God says to the serpent that He will place enmity between his offspring and hers,, and how it is plausible that "free agent" could apply if God gives the children of Adam and Eve the ability to resist temptation, but they may or may not use it. Before going further I would say that this is a reasonable interpretation if the offspring of Satan is referring to demons. But if this is the case, then obviously such enmity put forth by God is necessary for a free agent to exist, and also that God Himself would have a purpose for which He has made Demons tempt mankind. And finally wouldn't the will that chose not to use the power God had given to defeat temptation be one that has already fallen to temptation?

Here is what I am confident of. I am convinced that temptation is based upon some carnal expectation of improving upon one's own stature, and that through the power of suggestion the tempter forms in the imagination of the tempted, an imaginary outcome that appeals to one's vanity. I must add that the will is always subject to the tempter at the time of the temptation, or in other words the will does not volunteer to be tempted or tempts it's own self.

I am also convinced that the Holy Spirit is the power that provides the Truth upon which one would reason, so as to overcome vanity. To be clear, the Holy Spirit has no vanity because it seeks the lifting up of others over one's own self rather than the lifting up of one's own self over others. So as I believe this is indeed the case, then those who have been given the power to become the children of God are in a transformation from the carnal mind that serves one's own vanity, to the spiritual mind that serves the best interests of all, or Godly Love.

So respectfully, in my view, free agent is a misleading way of saying doubleminded. To me "Free agent" does not portray the will and mind itself as needing to be transformed so as to be enabled to serve God. Nor does it portray a transition from one master to the other. Rather than depicting the existence of a will that has utterly succumbed to sinfulness, to me it puts forth a counter narrative that strokes one's vanity, so that after falling victim to temptation, it can claim I meant to do that.

I see the term "free agent" used a number of times in this post. I am not the one who introduced that term into the discussion.


Childeye2: << So if the term "free agent" is taken to mean uncommitted or equivocating, then when scripture uses the term "double minded", it calls to mind the same thing, an equivocating and uncommitted will. >>

Childeye2: << So respectfully, in my view, free agent is a misleading way of saying doubleminded. >>


Dictionaries don't seem to have an entry for "free agent" as a phrase. I checked a legal dictionary and drew a blank on "free agent" as well. Is there any source that would back up this notion that "free agent" means "double minded"? I have never heard the term used that way.

To call someone a "free agent" simply means that the person is able to make a choice, able to make a contract. A free agent has one or more choices before them. There is nothing derogatory about calling someone a "free agent." There is something derogatory about saying that someone is "double minded."

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Despite these claims, the term "freewill," spelled as one word, occurs a number of times in the Old Testament in connection with freewill offerings.

I've never seen a Calvinist that did not believe in that kind of free will. As usual, your side is arguing the existence of one kind of free will, which is not the same kind of free will that the Calvinists disbelieve. I would try to explain it, but you say you've been reading these threads, so it's useless.

When a Calvinist says there's no free will, you imagine a finite God playing puppet master to a finite human. I don't know if the deficiency is in your view of God, or if it's in your assumption of how you think Calvinists view God.

 

[childeye 2]

I see the term "free agent" used a number of times in this post. I am not the one who introduced that term into the discussion.


Childeye2: << So if the term "free agent" is taken to mean uncommitted or equivocating, then when scripture uses the term "double minded", it calls to mind the same thing, an equivocating and uncommitted will. >>

Childeye2: << So respectfully, in my view, free agent is a misleading way of saying doubleminded. >>


Dictionaries don't seem to have an entry for "free agent" as a phrase. I checked a legal dictionary and drew a blank on "free agent" as well. Is there any source that would back up this notion that "free agent" means "double minded"? I have never heard the term used that way.

To call someone a "free agent" simply means that the person is able to make a choice, able to make a contract. A free agent has one or more choices before them. There is nothing derogatory about calling someone a "free agent." There is something derogatory about saying that someone is "double minded."

I agree that the term double-minded in scripture is meant to be derogatory. The term free agent is used oftentimes as another way of saying free will but it actually means uncommitted. Above you have defined it as able to make a choice, and you further qualified that choice with, "able to make a contract". So uncommitted fits well with what is implied by "able to make a contract", since one who is not committed to any contract is a free agent.

So when we apply the term free agent to the moral/immoral dichotomy, it means to be uncommitted to one power or the other. Hence Jesus says that you cannot serve two masters for you will love one and despise the other. And elsewhere Paul says to believers in Christ, Do you not know that whomever you offer yourselves to serve as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you're slaves to sin or slaves towards righteousness. For the gift from God is life, but the wages of sin are death. Hence a free agent in the mora/immoral purview would be denoting no commitment to either sin or righteousness and would subsequently exemplify being doubleminded.

 

[Dale]

I've never seen a Calvinist that did not believe in that kind of free will. As usual, your side is arguing the existence of one kind of free will, which is not the same kind of free will that the Calvinists disbelieve. I would try to explain it, but you say you've been reading these threads, so it's useless.

When a Calvinist says there's no free will, you imagine a finite God playing puppet master to a finite human. I don't know if the deficiency is in your view of God, or if it's in your assumption of how you think Calvinists view God.

Nonaero: << I've never seen a Calvinist that did not believe in that kind of free will. >>

Really? In a Christian chat room, I once said, "Christians believe in free will." You wouldn't believe that flak I got from saying that.


Perhaps Calvinists believe there is free will in small decisions but not in large decisions? I'm not sure the decision to make a Freewill Offering is an unimportant spiritual decision. In any case, Jesus gave us the answer to that. Jesus said that he who is faithful over a few things is faithful also in many.

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.Come and share your master’s happiness!’
Matthew 25:21-23 NIV

 

[Dale]

Despite the claims, the term (Freewill or Free Will) find itself in the term which God Himself gave to men.

DOMINION, Dominion is the ability of man to make his own autonomous decisions concerning how he is going to live his life.

Mankind has Dominion over everything on the Earth, that is why we have had Wars, Famines, Pestilences, it is also the reason mankind chooses what color of socks to wear each day, what kind of car to drive, what to eat.

But the term Free Will only refers to Mankind's ability to Choose to sin or not,
and in that aspect, Mankind does not have a Free Will at all.

Rom. 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom. 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom. 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom. 3:12
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now there is a word, (SERVANT), this word is used in conjunction with Non-Believers as well as Believers.

Both Non-Believers and Believers are Servants, Denoting the Lack of a person having a Free Will of their own.



SERVANT: Greek
G1401
δοῦλος
doulos
doo'-los
From G1210; a slave (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily; frequently therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency): - bond (-man), servant.

G1210
δέω
deō
deh'-o
A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind.



John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.


Tit. 1:1
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Jas. 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Rev. 15:3
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

JIMINZ: << Rom. 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; >>

JIMINZ: << Rom. 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: >>

JIMINZ: << Rom. 3:12
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. >>

I don't see what any of this has to do with the question of free will. No one is trying to say that anyone besides Jesus is perfect.