WHAT ABOUT FREE WILL ?

[Dan Perez]

And many say that today , there is Free Will , really ?

I believe that there are two groups that had FREE WILL !!

One were ANGELS .

The other ones were ADAM and EVE >

Both groups had a lot of pride , like LUCIFER , who felt , he would replace Christ in Isa 14:14 and the other , feel that they don't need Christ .

What say you ?

dan p

 

[sandman]

If thee is not free will ...what is the alternative?

I mean personally.... if I were God ...
I would possess everyone and make them believe....

 

[Greg Cheney]

Love cannot be forced, it must be freely chosen.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @Dan Perez, I think that defining what free will means is essential in any discussion about it.

I believe that free will is our God-given ability to choose what we want/desire the most at a given moment in time. Whenever we are unable to make such a choice, our wills are not free.

Is this how you would define free will as well?

Thanks!!

--David

 

[childeye 2]

Hello @Dan Perez, I think that defining what free will means is essential in any discussion about it.

I believe that free will is our God-given ability to choose what we want/desire the most at a given moment in time. Whenever we are unable to make such a choice, our wills are not free.

Is this how you would define free will as well?

Thanks!!

--David

Does a will deceived into believing it wants something that is bad qualify?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Ask yourself this, would God create people just to turn around and throw them into hell? Is that loving? Why not just make everyone believe? The scriptures say, "God desires all to come to repentance."

 

[St_Worm2]

Is a will deceived into believing it wants something that is bad qualify?

Hello Childeye2, people want what they want Whenever someone is able to freely choose what they want most, I believe that they have what we refer to as free will.

I suppose that a cleverly disguised deception, or lie, could result in someone choosing something that they wouldn't have otherwise chosen if they had access to the truth/all the facts at that time, but their will would still be considered free in such a case (in my estimation anyway), because they chose what they wanted to choose, based upon what they knew, not because someone forced them to (with a gun at their head, for instance).

--David

 

[Petros2015]

What about Free Will?

It just means your car has a steering wheel.
Where are you trying to take it?
Whose directions are you following?
And who is driving?

 

[St_Worm2]

Why not just make everyone believe?

Hello ByTheSpirit, if God did that (forced us to believe) wouldn't that mean that we do NOT have free will?

Thanks!

--David

 

[childeye 2]

Hello Childeye2, people want what they want Whenever someone is able to freely choose what they want most, I believe that they have what we refer to as free will.

I suppose that a cleverly disguised deception, or lie, could result in someone choosing something that they wouldn't have otherwise chosen if they had access to the truth/all the facts at that time, but their will would still be considered free in such a case (in my estimation anyway), because they chose what they wanted to choose, based upon what they knew, not because someone forced them to (with a gun at their head, for instance).

--David

Thanks for the reply.

Have you ever noticed that the term 'will', as in the 'will', is a noun; and as a noun it means the faculty of reasoning and already implies the ability to choose without even adding the adjective 'free'?

And have you considered that when we say "a free will choice" the sentiment 'free will' becomes an adjective; a descriptive term for a certain type of choice (voluntary), and is not a noun?

In other words, to make a voluntary choice does not mean mankind has a free will any more than making an involuntary choice means mankind doesn't have a free will. Funny how that term 'free will' morphed in its meaning. It causes me to ponder how easily the mind can be manipulated.

Finally, please reconsider how a will deceived into wanting something destructive to themselves, would logically not have all the facts, otherwise they would not have been deceived in the first place, much less wanted it. And therefore, such a choice would qualify more as a choice based on determinism and not a choice based on free will.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Hello ByTheSpirit, if God did that (forced us to believe) wouldn't that mean that we do NOT have free will?

Thanks!

--David

That's my point, either we have the free will to decide to follow Christ or not, or God basically forces people to do it and it's not free will at all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is a will deceived into believing it wants something that is bad qualify?

What about if it simply wants something that is bad, whether because of a deception or not. The will of the lost is at enmity with God. It hates God, and doesn't necessarily even know it.

 

[childeye 2]

What about if it simply wants something that is bad, whether because of a deception or not. The will of the lost is at enmity with God. It hates God, .

I hope you know, you're ruining my question Mark. Hmmm, question mark???

Let me rephrase: Mark, you're ruining my question. Because when you say "whether because of a deception or not", it changes the question and creates an alternate possibility.

So, I'm just going to comment on this statement by saying that as articulated, it sounds reasonable to me as a possibility, "The will of the lost is at enmity with God. It hates God, and doesn't necessarily even know it"... with the caveat that there's a difference between being deceived and being unaware. Clearly, 'lost' is meant as a negative in your supposition, but it could equally be said that they don't know they are lost. Saul/Paul comes to mind.

 

[childeye 2]

That's my point, either we have the free will to decide to follow Christ or not, or God basically forces people to do it and it's not free will at all.

It depends on what you mean by Free will. Is it a noun or an adjective/adverb? Is it doublemindedness or singlemindedness? Because I assume you realize those mean two different things. It's hard to discuss this type of theology when people keep changing the meaning of the term in a circular reasoning. We can't just broadly assert that we have proven a will is free because we put the term free in front of will.

Let's look at the semantics and discern the sentiments here. For example, if I say God can't force Himself on anyone, that's rather a moot point, since when He breathed into the dirt it was no imposition upon the dirt for God to make it something more than dirt. Adam was of the earth, and Christ is a quickening Spirit.

In such an instance "free will" actually projects "ungodliness" in my psycholinguistics, because when my testimony is that God can't force a person to Love Him, it suggests I decide if He's worthy of me. May God have mercy on me in that I do not esteem God as God, for we all suffer from Adam and Eve syndrome.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In other words, to make a voluntary choice does not mean mankind has a free will any more than making an involuntary choice means mankind doesn't have a free will. Funny how that term 'free will' morphed in its meaning. It causes me to ponder how easily the mind can be manipulated.

Finally, please reconsider how a will deceived into wanting something destructive to themselves, would logically not have all the facts, otherwise they would not have been deceived in the first place, much less wanted it. And therefore, such a choice would qualify more as a choice based on determinism and not a choice based on free will.

Good thinking. Yes, the mind can be easily manipulated. In fact, that is one of the reasons for self-discipline. I'm glad that God knows everything that goes on, and restrains the vagaries that would otherwise be induced by Satan and the corrupt will. But everyone's mind falls short of the all the facts, and is self-deceived (if not also deceived other ways) as a matter of course. Further, the corrupt will, the sin nature inherited from Adam, and what in the believer is referred to as "the old man", is so bad, that even if a person knows a thing will be bad for them, or even hurt them, they will sometimes do what is wrong for angry rebellion's sake alone, or for immediately self-gratifying reasons alone.

Of course, I take a bit of exception to your apparent notion that determinism and free will are incompatible. To me, that would mean one or both of them carries a false definition, or use.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I hope you know, you're ruining my question Mark. Hmmm, question mark???

Let me rephrase: Mark, you're ruining my question. Because when you say "whether because of a deception or not", it changes the question and creates an alternate possibility.

So, I'm just going to comment on this statement by saying that as articulated, it sounds reasonable to me as a possibility, "The will of the lost is at enmity with God. It hates God, and doesn't necessarily even know it"... with the caveat that there's a difference between being deceived and being unaware. Clearly, 'lost' is meant as a negative in your supposition, but it could equally be said that they don't know they are lost. Saul/Paul comes to mind.

Agreed, so far as you take it...

 

[childeye 2]

Good thinking. Yes, the mind can be easily manipulated. In fact, that is one of the reasons for self-discipline. I'm glad that God knows everything that goes on, and restrains the vagaries that would otherwise be induced by Satan and the corrupt will. But everyone's mind falls short of the all the facts, and is self-deceived (if not also deceived other ways) as a matter of course. Further, the corrupt will, the sin nature inherited from Adam, and what in the believer is referred to as "the old man", is so bad, that even if a person knows a thing will be bad for them, or even hurt them, they will sometimes do what is wrong for angry rebellion's sake alone, or for immediately self-gratifying reasons alone.

You're talking about the heart as being deceptively wicked, the carnal will, the disability to lie to one's self and rationalize wrong as right through a hypocritical cynicism.

Ultimately, that the faith that God is trustworthy is being adulterated by the lie that began in Satan and went around the world; whose spirit of it is the foundation of the kingdom of darkness. In semantics, a corrupt image of god introduced unto the innocent is not invulnerable and cannot last forever even because it is self-condemning and therefore self-defeating in its own hypocrisy.

Of course, I take a bit of exception to your apparent notion that determinism and free will are incompatible. To me, that would mean one or both of them carries a false definition, or use.

Thank you for these statements. I apologize, I don't recall whether you ever told me what your definition of compatible means and same goes with your definition of free will, if you have one. So, without further elaboration all I can say is that as a theist, I can't find sound reasoning in subjective terminology.

The term 'free' in front of 'will' is the more evasive terminology as I've shown, while 'determinism' is reasonable. Because there is no denying that God purposed to make children unto Himself, and the manifestation of their existence is His doing. My view, as one who has my hope in Christ's Spirit, is that the only viable definition of a free will has to be the will that reflects and projects His True Image as He purposed would happen.

 

[childeye 2]

Agreed, so far as you take it...

It can't be taken further because it's not definitive language and will end in futility.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're talking about the heart as being deceptively wicked, the carnal will, the disability to lie to one's self and rationalize wrong as right through a hypocritical cynicism.

Ultimately, that the faith that God is trustworthy is being adulterated, by the lie that began in Satan and went around the world; whose spirit of it is the foundation of the kingdom of darkness. In semantics, a corrupt image of god introduced to the innocent is not invulnerable and cannot last forever even because it is self-condemning and therefore self-defeating in its hypocrisy.


Thank you for these statements. I don't know what your definition of compatible means since I don't know your definition of free will.

The term 'free' in front of 'will' is the more evasive terminology while 'determinism' is reasonable. Because there is no denying that God purposed to make children unto Himself, and the manifestation of their existence is His doing. In my view, as one who believes in Christ is that the only viable definition of a free will has to be the will that ultimately is a son or daughter that reflects His True Image as He purposed.

Interesting discussion.

I am very much like @Clare73 in our thinking concerning free will, but we express it very differently. I say that I allow for or even use, the term "free will", as a concession to the fact that we do indeed have a will and make real choices, with real, even eternal, consequences. Clare works off the dictionary terminology, in which she shows that people's choices are always according to their disposition. She agrees with me concerning real choices, and I agree with her that their choices are according to their disposition. We both deny that those at enmity with Christ can truly choose for Christ, until it is the Spirit within them doing it in them. Faith and regeneration are both the work of the Spirit, alone —a gift, not of the will of man, but of God.

But, yeah, "free" is used in 'free will' to mean all sorts of things, some of which are illogical, and some of which are downright heretical. But I have to say that "determinism" is also based on our blind presumptuous logic, that apparently can't help but consider God as thinking in the kind of mental processes we are familiar with. I find the philosophically developed attributes, particularly these two which I absolutely love: The Aseity of God and The Simplicity of God, to bypass all the noise of our thinking "but that isn't fair", or "but that isn't loving", or "God must have been thinking that..." and so on. But I don't know how to get them across without too long a post, or too vague a post, or too easily misunderstood a post.

This is running long, but I want to try to describe the principle that your last paragraph, and your last sentence brings to mind for me. I have been told by several on this site that the growth of the believer is toward independent self-reliant ability, that that is the meaning of freedom. But what I read shows that our growth is into ever-increasing unity with God, to necessarily include dependence on the One who is our very sustenance, in the end. Apart from him, we can do nothing. Our freedom indeed is IN Christ, not simply because we have a changed will, but a changed nature, John 17 style.

Anyhow, very much enjoyed your thoughts.

 

[childeye 2]

Interesting discussion.

I am very much like @Clare73 in our thinking concerning free will, but we express it very differently. I say that I allow for or even use, the term "free will", as a concession to the fact that we do indeed have a will and make real choices, with real, even eternal, consequences. Clare works off the dictionary terminology, in which she shows that people's choices are always according to their disposition.

But, yeah, "free" is used in 'free will' to mean all sorts of things, some of which are illogical, and some of which are downright heretical. But I have to say that "determinism" is also based on our blind presumptuous logic, that apparently can't help but consider God as thinking in the kind of mental processes we are familiar with. I find the philosophically developed attributes, particularly these two which I absolutely love: The Aseity of God and The Simplicity of God, to bypass all the noise of our thinking "but that isn't fair", or "but that isn't loving", or "God must have been thinking that..." and so on. But I don't know how to get them across without too long a post, or too vague a post, or too easily misunderstood a post.

This is running long, but I want to try to describe the principle that your last paragraph, and your last sentence brings to mind for me. I have been told by several on this site that the growth of the believer is toward independent self-reliant ability, that that is the meaning of freedom. But what I read shows that our growth is into ever-increasing unity with God, to necessarily include dependence on the One who is our very sustenance, in the end. Apart from him, we can do nothing. Our freedom indeed is IN Christ, not simply because we have a changed will, but a changed nature, John 17 style.

Anyhow, very much enjoyed your thoughts.

Thanks for the kind response, Mark.

Determinism is about causality, a flow of energy. God's Word is the energy that created all things and the cause and purpose for our existence. I see determinism referring to God's creative Word unfolding in time. When God's Word became flesh and entered the creation, then the same deterministic power was now on the inside of the creation it created, and able to affect change from within. John 1.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about this. (The Aseity of God and The Simplicity of God). In Him is the life and Light of mankind. In other words, the soul of man is not its own source of light. I see the first lie of the serpent as suggesting the source of virtue was the knowledge of good/evil, which actually contained darkness. Satan presented himself as wise as God, presenting a false image of god in himself. And this lie is a causal negative energy that exalts itself in self-righteousness over the knowledge of God as the Spiritual virtue in mankind.

Adam and Eve were created full of Light in their innocence of any knowledge of good/evil, and in the virtue that is God's Spirit in them, they willed only the good without deliberation, and knew only a trust in God and in each other. They could not conceive of distrust. When the serpent introduced the notion that was contrary to God being the Light, for the first time there was a choice/option imposed upon mankind which caused them to ponder who to trust more, God or the serpent.

So when a person says free will, they are usually referring to this circumstance of having to choose between good and evil. They call it free will, but in reality, it's an alternate determinism because it's a circumstance created by Satan's desire to be as God by competing against God for his own glory in self-righteousness.

This is why it bothers me when people claim that God gave mankind a free will to choose for themselves between good and evil, because it is Satan that dupes us into believing that to be virtuous is a choice we make. Jesus said you can't serve two masters. I believe to know the true shepherd, the true master, we must be single minded not doubleminded.

34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

35 Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.