What does “Free Will” mean?

[childeye 2]

I don't know what that means.

It's basically a branch of semantics focused on how we deduce/infer the meanings of words in thought. For a very basic example: Two brothers share an apartment and one is a paraplegic in a wheelchair. The other brother works in town and he leaves for work, but then shortly returns and says, "I missed my bus, now I'll have to walk". The paraplegic responds, "I wish I could walk". In this example the word 'walk' has a negative denotation and a positive denotation, both legitimate but only in their proper perspective. While it's easy to deduce the source of these psycho semantics, more sophisticated understanding of psycho semantics use induction to manipulate thought patterns through sophistry, such as in political propaganda. Hence one can use words to turn bad things into good things or visa versa in the mind of a listener.

Subsequently, the use of a false premise is also a potent form of mind control, wherein a perspective is implanted in the subconscious through using words that can only be accepted from that perspective. For example: If I asked you candidly, "Do you think God will forgive my neighbor for sneaking into my home and stealing from me?" I will set in motion patterns of thought that will produce a certain conviction. Whether you answer yes or no or I don't know, you will have subconsciously accepted that my neighbor is a thief.

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.

There has always been a third option. I believe we simply have a will subject to knowledge and ignorance. That is meant to imply that free will is a form of sophistry. I believe that the question of whether God pre-determined our choices or whether we have a free will can only be posed in the ignorance of what is vanity and how it formed in the creation.

 

[Radagast]

It's basically a branch of semantics focused on how we deduce/infer the meanings of words in thought.

If you're intending it as a technical term, shouldn't there be a hyphen? And shouldn't you be referring to textbooks or other scholarship?

That is meant to imply that free will is a form of sophistry.

Oh, I don't think so. I think that standard compatibilist free will is consistent with everything the Bible says.

 

[childeye 2]

If you're intending it as a technical term, shouldn't there be a hyphen? And shouldn't you be referring to textbooks or other scholarship?

I'm not a psychologist, I'm not a linguist, and I do not have a degree in English or anything else. I am a carpet cleaner who thinks a lot posting what I see as self evident. I use the term as a description of the topic of how semantics work in the mind. I found the term online and there are some books on the subject but I have not read any of them.

Oh, I don't think so. I think that standard compatibilist free will is consistent with everything the Bible says.

Perhaps you're right depending upon how you apply the term. No doubt I can move my finger of my own free will. Regardless, free is a subjective and relative term, it is only qualified by what it's free from.

 

[Radagast]

Perhaps you're right depending upon how you apply the term. Regardless, free is a subjective and relative term, it is only qualified by what it's free from.

But when it comes to free will, the main options are:

1. libertarian free will: I could have done something different
2. compatibilist free will: I did the thing that I wanted to do

 

[childeye 2]

But when it comes to free will, the main options are:

1. libertarian free will: I could have done something different
2. compatibilist free will: I did the thing that I wanted to do

What about the moral and immoral desire question of whether I can will whatever I will to will?

 

[Radagast]

What about the moral and immoral desire question of whether I can will whatever I will to will?

I'm afraid that that question makes no sense to me. Can you give a concrete example?

 

[childeye 2]

I'm afraid that that question makes no sense to me. Can you give a concrete example?

For example I cannot will to want to be a homosexual. I can't will to want to harm others. This issue becomes more complicated if I start thinking of sins of omission.

 

[Radagast]

For example I cannot will to want to be a homosexual. I can't will to want to harm others. This issue becomes more complicated if I start thinking of sins of omission.

It seems to me that I simply want what I want.

 

[childeye 2]

It seems to me that I simply want what I want.

I feel that this is the issue that would need to be addressed for a will/desire to be free.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

[Radagast]

I feel that this is the issue that would need to be addressed for a will/desire to be free

Now you are using the word "free" with different meanings. Christianity teaches that "free will" in the sinner is bound by sin.

 

[Neogaia777]

Now you are using the word "free" with different meanings. Christianity teaches that "free will" in the sinner is bound by sin.

The sinning restricts and severely limits your free will...?

God Bless!

 

[CleanSoul]

I have to apologize as I'm trying to type and be on here ''one-handed" right now... my other arm, elbow, left forearm, I had to have emergency surgeries on twice last week and spent a week in hospital after a pretty bad biking accident, and while I am lucky that it was only my left arm and hand only for the most part, cause it could have been much worse, I just got back home and have my whole left arm in a cast, after breaking it in three places, and completely fracturing and shattering some bones in that arm that poked out and bled a lot, and them having to do some emergency reconstructive surgery on it, ect, I am now home with in a cast, typing with one hand, or trying to anyway, but just don't know how much i will do or be able to do as I'm in a lot of pain and taking some pretty strong pain meds waiting for my arm and left hand to heal up enough to use it/them again, and they cannot tell me exactly how long that will be yet, but the bones have to fuse to the new parts (screws and metal pins and brackets, joints, ect) they put in, which can take some time...

He talked about as little a six to as long as up to 12 weeks ect, might be physical therapy involved, ect...

anyway, thought I'd just explain that up front...

anyway, if you do not see me one here very much you'll know why, k...? (this is only day 3 so far)

Having only one hand and arm to use (for anything and everything all by yourself all the time), kind of bites, to say the least...

God Bless!

^This is why we need to play nice on these forums. You never know what someone is going through.

I'll pray for your recovery.

 

[childeye 2]

Now you are using the word "free" with different meanings. Christianity teaches that "free will" in the sinner is bound by sin.

Actually the bible doesn't use the tern free will as a noun. The term freewill appears as an adjective in scripture describing a certain type of offering and I believe once as an adverb.

Having said that, it sounds like you're implying that the will God gave Adam was free to begin with because he was made in God's image. However unlike God, Adam was corruptible according to scripture, and I believe this applies to his will/desire. Whether he lost what was free in some degree is reasonable, since after partaking of the knowledge of good and evil he did feel shame and had a desire to hide his nakedness from God, which he never had done before.

So I don't believe that I'm changing the term free if that is the case, since I am qualifying free as free from sin, since the desires I am referencing as pertains to the will are sinful desires that altered Adam's will.

To be clear I believe that the Truth sets a man free from the slavery of sin, just like Jesus said. I don't use the term free will as an equivocation, because it ends in a contradiction.

 

[childeye 2]

3

 

[Radagast]

Whether he lost what was free in some degree is reasonable

This, of course, is the whole point of Luther's book On the Bondage of the Will.

It concerns me that you're trying to reinvent answers to theological questions that were answered centuries ago.

And you're still, it seems to me, using "free will" in multiple senses.

 

[bling]

Test our faith.

Do you feel God does not know how strong our faith is without it being tested?
Do you feel this "testing" experience is a faith growing opportunity for us?

 

[CleanSoul]

I think I messed up my post, (this is not what bling said) I will try again.

CleanSoul

 

[CleanSoul]

God can certainly keep any being from making a choice, so does allowing the being to make the choice mean God is not “controlling” or “over” the universe?

God doesn't make anyone go to Heaven who doesn't want to be there. To do so would not be the act of a just and loving God.

Sirach chapter 15:11-20 talks specifically about free will, (It is one of those books that some non-Catholics think Catholics added to the Bible).

To look it up, Google, or whatever, Sirach chapter 15 usccb.

 

[childeye 2]

This, of course, is the whole point of Luther's book On the Bondage of the Will.

Luther never actually denied or acknowledged free will, but yes he did point out that the will had been corrupted.

It concerns me that you're trying to reinvent answers to theological questions that were answered centuries ago.

I would appreciate if you would provide what answer you perceive me as trying to reinvent. Respectfully, I was only agreeing with you that Christianity teaches that the will is bound by sin, (see post #170).

And you're still, it seems to me, using "free will" in multiple senses.

I can appreciate why you feel that way, but it only helps make my point that there are semantics to deal with. The record shows that we're discussing multiple concepts of free will constructed with differing definitions of free and will, Compatibilism, being one of them. But I've only identified one that I feel is sensible according to the semantics, A will/desire free from sin which on record you claimed is what Christianity teaches.

 

[Radagast]

Luther never actually denied or acknowledged free will, but yes he did point out that the will had been corrupted.

My point exactly.

I would appreciate if you would provide what answer you perceive me as trying to reinvent.

I think it would help if you would read some of the masses of stuff written on the subject, before you start teaching your own beliefs. See, for example, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, pages 330 and 331.

There seems to be a confusion between "free will" in the philosophical sense (libertarian vs compabilist) and the idea of the will being bound by sin. The will being bound by sin can still coexist with "free will" regarding the choice between sinful actions.