What does “Free Will” mean?

[Bible Highlighter]

I would think God did have "ultimate free will", but is all the more glorious because God chooses to only do good.

No. 1 John 1:5.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't want to hurt others.

I believe you, this is why I do not agree with what you said here: we can freely want what ever we want.

 

[childeye 2]

You are misquoting me. What I posted was accurate.

This is what I posted.

"Free will (Noun) - The ability to act at one's own discretion.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sh/free%2Bwill

In fact, the origin of the word "will" is especially important to look at, too. It says this..

Will (Verb) - To wish, desire, want, to will, or to choose.

Online Etymology Dictionary​

So you are seeing error where there is none.

I don't see where I misquoted you, and nor did I say you had erred. I simply said you posted the verb will and not the noun will. I also said half of the Oxford definition was missing which I posted.

Just because one of our choices is out of necessity or a requirement does not mean that we cannot freely decide to rebel or go against that choice that is out of necessity. Even if it is a command of God, if we have the ability to act contrary to that command, then we are free to act contrary.

The point I was making is that according to the Oxford definition, the choice to obey God would not qualify as discretionary.

I agree that it does not mean mankind cannot disobey God which is obvious. But when we consider the carnal will as being a slave to sin that cannot be subject to God, it cannot be regarded as a free choice to sin either, nor as an ability, but rather it is a disability. Luke 5:31.

You are falsely equating God's will and desire with ability to act contrary.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I realize that the actions in servitude to the flesh are contrary to God's desire.
I already stated this when I said the carnal mind is in enmity with God.

No doubt from God's desire, we do not have a choice or free will, but in ability we do. People sin every day, so this shows that they are acting contrary to God's commands and contrary to God's will, and they are exercising their free will choice to disobey God.

Your definition of free will is simply any choice made between good or evil. To you, the simple fact that there are two options we can choose from justifies in your mind why the adjective free should be placed in front of the noun will/choice/decide. I feel that Free doesn't carry any meaning in your definition since the will makes decisions all by it's self.

However, I am trying to point out that the more common definition of free will implies that the will/desire, is free/not enslaved, to either good or evil and both are available at one's own discretion.

I'm also saying that I do not believe in such a free will. I don't see two options that we forever choose between, I see two masters and we are going to be subject to either one or the other. For example Jesus taught you cannot serve two masters.

This is why I am saying that according to the psycho semantics the only will/desire that is truly free/not enslaved, is the one that serves the True God who rules through empathy. And therefore the false free will of seeing mankind as a free agent is an equivocation (double mindedness), and the false free will of the false god rules through deception appealing to carnal vanity.

If there was no free will whatsoever for a person to act contrary to God's will, then people would not be able to disobey God. Everyone would perfectly obey.

1 John 3:9

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
​

 

[childeye 2]

"Free will" is a philosophical term. Quoting an ordinary dictionary is unhelpful, you need to quote something like this: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You're probably right, but I'm actually pursuing clarity in the psycho semantics of both terms free and will. For example I believe 'will' actually means desire. I don't desire to hurt anyone so I do not see myself as free to want to.

 

[Radagast]

You're probably right, but I'm actually pursuing clarity in the psycho semantics of both terms free and will. For example I believe 'will' actually means desire. I don't desire to hurt anyone so I do not see myself as free to want to.

Yes, but there's no point trying to invent a new meaning for "free will."

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, but there's no point trying to invent a new meaning for "free will."

I don't believe that I am. I am evaluating which definition is true.

 

[Radagast]

I don't believe that I am. I am evaluating which definition is true.

And to do that, you should run through the different formulations of "free will" (e.g. at Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) and find out which one is correct.

You shouldn't just try and work out what the words "free" and "will" mean and try to combine those meanings.

 

[bling]

I encourage you to read the Book of JOB.
Bible Gateway passage: Job 1 - New King James Version

I have taught adult classes on Job.
Bottom line is God did all He could to help Job grow spiritually and in the end Job became a much better person.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I have taught adult classes on Job.
Bottom line is God did all He could to help Job grow spiritually and in the end Job became a much better person.

Proverbs 17:3
The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts.

 

[1213]

I believe you, this is why I do not agree with what you said here: we can freely want what ever we want.

Please explain why?

 

[childeye 2]

And to do that, you should run through the different formulations of "free will" (e.g. at Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) and find out which one is correct.

You shouldn't just try and work out what the words "free" and "will" mean and try to combine those meanings.

Well somebody did, and here we are discussing what they meant.

Please understand, I'm examining the psycho semantics of the term. I know that "free will" implies individual responsibility for moral/immoral behavior. But what are the implications of believing in it, since we reason upon what we believe to be true? The term or "title", carries with it the suggestion that there is no Spiritual Truth that governs corporately in a spiritual realm and in a spiritual sense. Since by definition, a lie no matter how subtle, exists only to subvert what is true, it follows that the Truth must have come first so as to exist in any Eternal sense.

This is a dichotomy of thought that is formed in words, and when transposed into good and evil, it means that a choice between good and evil, can only happen in the scenario of a lie being presented, where before only the Truth reigned unchallenged. In the big picture, this is not a left and right dichotomy but rather an up and down dichotomy. In other words it is not a fork in the road but a reverse direction on a straight line going forward and back.

So in application free will in mankind would be the symptom of a lie being presented to challenge what was True. And therefore free will could even be the lie being presented in the guise of freedom, in that we have a choice to choose other than what was given us. It would therefore constitute a temptation forming doubt in that which was established on faith to begin with.

Likewise, there is a counter narrative formed from the perspective of being in the darkness of a lie, but this time it is the Truth being presented to challenge the lie. In this scenario all of the terms are reversed in connotation because free will now means a revelation of Truth being presented anew like a light in the darkness, and compelling a person to turn around and come back. Thus creating a New free will to free the person from the Old free will.

Therefore the reason I must examine the word free and it's fundamental connotation, is to ascertain whether the free will being spoken of is going to denote Truth or propaganda.

 

[childeye 2]

Please explain why?

Because you said that you can't/don't want to hurt anyone. It's indicative of Love ruling in your mind and heart. It may help to read my post #151.

 

[Radagast]

Please understand, I'm examining the psycho semantics of the term. I know that "free will" implies individual responsibility for moral/immoral behavior. But what are the implications of believing in it, since we reason upon what we believe to be true? The term or "title", carries with it the suggestion that there is no Spiritual Truth that governs corporately in a spiritual realm and in a spiritual sense. Since by definition, a lie no matter how subtle, exists only to subvert what is true, it follows that the Truth must have come first so as to exist in any Eternal sense.

This is a dichotomy of thought that is formed in words, and when transposed into good and evil, it means that a choice between good and evil, can only happen in the scenario of a lie being presented, where before only the Truth reigned unchallenged. In the big picture, this is not a left and right dichotomy but rather an up and down dichotomy. In other words it is not a fork in the road but a reverse direction on a straight line going forward and back.

So in application free will in mankind would be the symptom of a lie being presented to challenge what was True. And therefore free will could even be the lie being presented in the guise of freedom, in that we have a choice to choose other than what was given us. It would therefore constitute a temptation forming doubt in that which was established on faith to begin with.

Likewise, there is a counter narrative formed from the perspective of being in the darkness of a lie, but this time it is the Truth being presented to challenge the lie. In this scenario all of the terms are reversed in connotation because free will now means a revelation of Truth being presented anew like a light in the darkness, and compelling a person to turn around and come back. Thus creating a New free will to free the person from the Old free will.

Therefore the reason I must examine the word free and it's fundamental connotation, is to ascertain whether the free will being spoken of is going to denote Truth or propaganda.

Sorry, but none of that made any sense at all.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

We have free will to choose God’s will or our own will (within the confines of God’s universe). God can use both good and evil for His greater plan for good, but the Lord still desires us to do what is good and right. The fact that a person can resist God’s will, means that we have free will. We may not have the free Will to shoot lasers out of our eyes or to turn invisible on our own power, but that does not mean we don’t have a free will choice in this life (at some point) to choose God.

I think you may have missed my point. It is abundantly clear that man has a will and can willfully choose his own way both from life and the Scripture.

The author suggested God is said to have given us autonomous freewill.

Since autonomy means to give the right to self-govern I do not believe this is a fit description.

When we self-govern we sin. The point of reconciliation is to return us to God's government through Jesus Christ that we may be saved. God has never given man the right to self-govern. Man's choice to govern himself leads to his destruction since he is disobeying God.

 

[1213]

Because you said that you can't/don't want to hurt anyone. It's indicative of Love ruling in your mind and heart.....

If love rules in me, it is because I want so, not against my will.

 

[childeye 2]

If love rules in me, it is because I want so, not against my will.

If Love rules in us, it rules in our will. We don't just weep at the loss of a loved one because we decide to feel loss.

 

[childeye 2]

Sorry, but none of that made any sense at all.

It's my fault. I didn't articulate it well. Too many thoughts crammed together.
Let me try a simpler approach to what I wish to get across. Here are a couple of smaller bites.

1.I believe that we are in a spiritual warfare. I believe the devil moves people to do what is not in our own interests by using psychological manipulation in the form of psycho semantics. Through words in thought he can convince a person to think something is good that is in reality bad, and what is in reality good he makes look bad. He tempts by appealing to one's vanity, critically comparing one person to another and either lifting up or putting down in the process. This creates desires that we would not have otherwise as we feel we are either inferior or superior. Envy, contempt, contentiousness, covetousness, pride, offense, these would all be symptoms.

2.Assuming that God created the knowledge of good and evil, I must also assume it mirrors what is Godliness and what is ungodliness. And since God is Spirit, then so also is the knowledge of good and evil a spiritual knowledge. Since we were made in God's image, we began with God's character already bequeathed to us. Any change in that character would be to corrupt what was spiritually perfect. Hence if there is a Truth that stands Eternal, it is the image of God that is also Holy. Since that which is Eternal and Holy cannot be proven or disproven by a temporal or created being, then such a conviction must be based upon faith.

3. Therefore if a lie were to be invented, it would have to be a form of disinformation that would attack the Holy Character of God and introduce doubt of the Creator and those made in His image. Subsequently, every choice between good and evil is a choice between a lie and the Truth pertaining to God's Character. Moreover, since a lie must usurp from the truth, then the first choice/option to sin ever presented, is also the first instance where the thought of a free will would be pondered. Such a free will would suggest that every individual can choose to be like God or not according to one's own preference. However it would be semantically hidden from the conscious mind through the terms good and evil. Such a free will would appeal to vanity by introducing critical judgement and self determination to become like God. Such a free will would be based on a false premise, because we already were perfect, like God. Such a free will would only find fault in others and in self and in God.

 

[Radagast]

psycho semantics.

I don't know what that means.

He tempts by appealing to one's vanity

Yes. That is very true.

But I don't see what this has to do with free will. There are, I think, only two logical self-consistent explanations of free will within a Christian context: Calvinism/Thomism and Open Theism. They are so utterly different in their concept of God that the choice between them is easy.

Alternatively, one could try and logically defend a third option. I have not yet seen any one do that successfully.

 

[bling]

Proverbs 17:3
The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts.

Is God "testing" to find out something about a person or to provide an opportunity for the person to succeed or learn something?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Is God "testing" to find out something about a person or to provide an opportunity for the person to succeed or learn something?

Test our faith.