What is freewill?

[tonychanyt]

How to define freewill?

As an ontological question, there is no consensual answer to this among philosophers. In practice, however, I know I have my freewill. I can sense it. OT mentions it in Exodus 35:

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.

[shall be] willing
נְדָבֹת֮ (nə·ḏā·ḇōṯ)
Noun - feminine plural
Strong's 5071: Spontaneity, spontaneous, a spontaneous, abundant gift

Berean Standard Bible:

Your people shall be willing [H5071] on Your day of battle. Arrayed in holy splendor, from the womb of the dawn, to You belongs the dew of Your youth.

The Bible assumes the existence of freewill. 1 Corinthians 7 talks about freedom and will:

37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.

A similar concept is expressed in (BSB) Philemon 1:

14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness will not be out of compulsion, but by your own free will.

On the other hand, Paul talks of God's influencing our will in Philippians 2:

13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Ephesians 1:

5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will/

I would define freewill concretely as our freewill faculty/organ in our brain that makes choices when presented with alternatives. Mathematically, let V1 be the function of this freewill volitional faculty. The inputs to V1 are a question (q1) and its possible answers (a1, a2, … a_n). The output is one (a*) of these possible answers.

V1(q1, a1, a2, … a_n) ↦ a*

With V1, I divorce the complicated causes and reasonings from the act of choosing. It is up to us to choose. I agree that this definition of freewill is a bit misleading, as if it is totally free from all external factors and influences. Alternatively, instead of "freewill", one can speak of "sovereign will" or "independent volition". I have my volitional faculty if not my "freewill". Basically, instead of talking about the ontological nature of free will, I restrict myself to only talking about its functional aspect.

Is there freewill in heaven?

Yes, I will still possess my own volitional faculty or independent volition.

By my definition, the volition organ is part of the soul, and the soul is formed when God's breath (spirit) interacts with the body. According to this definition, AIs do not have a freewill unless God breathes on them.

See also

• Do we choose to repent?
• Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

 

[Clare73]

As an ontological question, there is no consensual answer to this among philosophers.

There is in what the Bible shows.

The will is governed by one's preference.
"Free will" on earth is simply the power to choose what one prefers.
We are born preferring self over God.
That doesn't change until one is born again by the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5),
who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8), and who gives us to prefer God over self and to believe.

 

[Grip Docility]

One CAN'T Be Born again, unless they REPENT!

The Greek word for this is metanoia: and means the following: change of mind, repentance
Original Word: μετάνοια, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: metanoia
Phonetic Spelling: (met-an'-oy-ah)
Definition: change of mind, repentance
Usage: repentance, a change of mind, change in the inner man.

This word occurs 22 times in the New testament and is ALWAYS referenced from the POINT of man, of HIS OWN Volition, CHANGING HIS MIND TOWARDS GOD!

The HEBREW word for REPENT in the Old Testament is šu·ḇū
It has 1056 occurrences and binds to PERSONAL VOLITION of HUMAN WILL in its perpetual usages when referenced accordingly so to HUMANS!

Jesus is the Drawing of God unto Omnis men!

"John 3:16 in Latin is Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret: ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam"

The Latin Vulgate, also known as the editio vulgate or Biblia Vulgata, is a Latin translation of the Bible that was completed in the late 4th century. Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to create the translation in 382, and Jerome finished it around 400. Jerome's version was based on original Greek manuscripts and earlier Vulgate versions, and used the common language of the time. The Vulgate was the official Bible of the Catholic Church for over a thousand years and was the standard version during the Middle Ages.

This version of the Bible was the most sacred version of scripture available only 300 or so Years after the Eye witnesses and is known to be a Hard and Stringent reference for Scholars! It is a trump card in many disputes!

But, if that's not enough.... John 3:16 was NOT ACTUALLY SPOKEN IN Koine GREEK!

It was Spoken in the Galilean dialect of Aramaic! In Aramaic the word used for WHOSOEVER had no other choice to be "(Aramaic) or renash (Aramaic)"... which literally means... MANKIND!

It is known that there were Aramaic texts that the Koine Greek writings were checked against in the First Century AD!

And... To finally bury this silly straining of the Koine Greek word PAS..... There is a biblical fact that FEW NON-Scholars ever study out!

The physical BLOOD LINE of Messiah PER the Synoptic Gospels!

Matthew's Bloodline is a SPIRITUAL Bloodline that goes all the way back to Abraham and Stops... Because it is JOSEPH'S Blood line of Semite origin, through DAVID.

Luke the Physician's Bloodline IS JESUS' actual HUMAN BLOODLINE through MARY!

Luke 23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

It goes all the way through EVE the Created MOTHER of ALL Carnal LIFE!

Jesus' Blood, according to LUKE is literally intended for ALL OF MANKIND, just as Jesus said in HIS Native Tongue!

Good Luck to anyone that tries to Biblically tamper with that Scriptural point of DNA!

 

[Mark Quayle]

As an ontological question, there is no consensual answer to this among philosophers. In practice, however, I know I have my freewill. I can sense it. OT mentions it in Exodus 35:

The Bible assumes the existence of freewill. 1 Corinthians 7 talks about freedom and will:

Is your definition of 'freewill' what Exodus 35 refers to? Because Exodus 35's freewill offering (as I read it) is simply a voluntary offering, as opposed to a necessary or commanded offering.

1 Corinthians 7 sounds similar, though it doesn't use the word, "freewill". It talks about being free to choose, in the sense that one may choose as one wishes, in the case where command is not given. Though those two references don't deal with the question of "libertarian free will".

As for being free to choose, we always choose according to our inclinations, even if only for that moment of choice, except we do so even when command is given; thus, it is a different thing being referred to.

I don't see how either of those references demonstrate what is commonly called "libertarian free will".

 

[childeye 2]

As an ontological question, there is no consensual answer to this among philosophers. In practice, however, I know I have my freewill. I can sense it. OT mentions it in Exodus 35:


The Bible assumes the existence of freewill. 1 Corinthians 7 talks about freedom and will:


A similar concept is expressed in (BSB) Philemon 1:


On the other hand, Paul talks of God's influencing our will in Philippians 2:


Ephesians 1:


Our free will is a faculty/organ in our brain that makes choices when presented with alternatives. It is up to us to choose. The term freewill, however, is a bit misleading as if it is totally free from all external factors and influences. Alternatively, instead of "freewill", one can speak of "sovereign will" or "independent volition". I have my volitional faculty. That's what I call my freewill.

Is there freewill in heaven?

Yes, I will still possess my own volitional faculty or independent volition.

By my definition, the volition organ is part of the soul, and the soul is formed when God's breath (spirit) interacts with the body. According to this definition, AIs do not have a freewill unless God breathes on them.

See also

• Do we choose to repent?
• Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

I'd like to participate in this discussion @tonychanyt.

The term "Will", as in "The Will" is a noun. Freewill means voluntary and it's an adjective or adverb, not a noun. It describes a certain type of choice/decision.

You said, "I know I have my freewill. I can sense it". But it doesn't make sense to say, "I have my voluntary". Perhaps you mean free will?

The only definition of a free will I have ever found to be coherent, is the will that is free from sin. That is to say that the definition of free will that I can base sound reason upon is in the moral/immoral paradigm.

So, if you're saying you know you have a free will you can sense it, what are you saying your will is free from?

 

[tonychanyt]

Is your definition of 'freewill' what Exodus 35 refers to?

I did not offer an ontological definition. I added to clarify. Thanks

Because Exodus 35's freewill offering (as I read it) is simply a voluntary offering, as opposed to a necessary or commanded offering.

Good point.

1 Corinthians 7 sounds similar, though it doesn't use the word, "freewill". It talks about being free to choose, in the sense that one may choose as one wishes, in the case where command is not given. Though those two references don't deal with the question of "libertarian free will".

What is libertarian free will?

As for being free to choose, we always choose according to our inclinations,

I do not always choose according to my inclinations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I did not offer an ontological definition. I added to clarify. Thanks


Good point.


What is libertarian free will?

It is the term I often get from those I press for an answer as to difference between their use of the term, "freewill", and the use the Calvinist makes of it (—if the Calvinist uses it in a positive manner). The dictionary says free will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion", which (to me) is a vague way to walk both sides of the fence. The determinist, (such as myself, to the degree that that word fits me, haha), can accept that definition, but so can the self-determinist, each thinking it means what he means.

But when I insist on a tighter definition, most free-willers insist that all options from which choices are made are, (at least generally), actually possible and available and not just available for consideration. They will not usually go so far as to say "uncaused", but only because they don't answer me when I press them on the point. These are they who cling to the term, "libertarian".

I do not always choose according to my inclinations.

I think that you are thinking of general inclinations, but not base inclinations. For example, you are instinctively inclined to live rather than to die, even if you wish to die. If, (RC Sproul's example), you are held at gunpoint and your money demanded, you may FEEL inclined to resist, but you will probably be more inclined at that moment of decision to give up your money than to lose your life and still lose your money too! Both the believer and the non-believer always choose according to their inclinations, even if it is only for that moment the inclination most prevalent.

Whether one chooses sanely and circumspectly, or with hardly a thought, or as a madman, or as merely instinctively, their inclination at that instant of decision, is what prevails. Maybe there is a better word than inclination, but I use the term "inclination" in part because of the use the Bible makes of the term, in Genesis 6:5, "...every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." This use of the term I discuss in the next paragraph.

There is another sort of "inclination" that needs to be pointed out. Comparing the choice to, let's say, "accept Christ into their heart": The unbeliever, dead in his sins, always inclined toward evil, makes the choice to do so for the wrong reasons, much as "you ask but do not receive because you ask for the wrong motives"; but the regenerate, his will (and inclinations) changed, whether he knows it is so or not, blinding himself to the horror of contradiction within himself, may even reject the altar call and repeated opportunities to choose to accept Christ, only to eventually succumb to willingly repent and give himself to Christ. That is, every choice the unregenerate makes has sin at its core, but every choice the regenerate makes has been opened up to include the inclination to do what is right by faith that has been "installed" by the Spirit of God. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." —This paragraph's discussion of inclinations, to me, works against the notion of "libertarian free will", but it is another discussion from the first paragraph.

 

[Grip Docility]

It is the term I often get from those I press for an answer as to difference between their use of the term, "freewill", and the use the Calvinist makes of it (—if the Calvinist uses it in a positive manner). The dictionary says free will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion", which (to me) is a vague way to walk both sides of the fence. The determinist, (such as myself, to the degree that that word fits me, haha), can accept that definition, but so can the self-determinist, each thinking it means what he means.

But when I insist on a tighter definition, most free-willers insist that all options from which choices are made are, (at least generally), actually possible and available and not just available for consideration. They will not usually go so far as to say "uncaused", but only because they don't answer me when I press them on the point. These are they who cling to the term, "libertarian".

I think that you are thinking of general inclinations, but not base inclinations. For example, you are instinctively inclined to live rather than to die, even if you wish to die. If, (RC Sproul's example), you are held at gunpoint and your money demanded, you may FEEL inclined to resist, but you will probably be more inclined at that moment of decision to give up your money than to lose your life and still lose your money too! Both the believer and the non-believer always choose according to their inclinations, even if it is only for that moment the inclination most prevalent.

Whether one chooses sanely and circumspectly, or with hardly a thought, or as a madman, or as merely instinctively, their inclination at that instant of decision, is what prevails. Maybe there is a better word than inclination, but I use the term "inclination" in part because of the use the Bible makes of the term, in Genesis 6:5, "...every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." This use of the term I discuss in the next paragraph.

There is another sort of "inclination" that needs to be pointed out. Comparing the choice to, let's say, "accept Christ into their heart": The unbeliever, dead in his sins, always inclined toward evil, makes the choice to do so for the wrong reasons, much as "you ask but do not receive because you ask for the wrong motives"; but the regenerate, his will (and inclinations) changed, whether he knows it is so or not, blinding himself to the horror of contradiction within himself, may even reject the altar call and repeated opportunities to choose to accept Christ, only to eventually succumb to willingly repent and give himself to Christ. That is, every choice the unregenerate makes has sin at its core, but every choice the regenerate makes has been opened up to include the inclination to do what is right by faith that has been "installed" by the Spirit of God. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." —This paragraph's discussion of inclinations, to me, works against the notion of "libertarian free will", but it is another discussion from the first paragraph.

Two small questions.

Does God have Individual Autonomous Free Moral Agency?

Is God capable of gifting this very genuine aspect of being to Humanity and Angels?

 

[childeye 2]

It is the term I often get from those I press for an answer as to difference between their use of the term, "freewill", and the use the Calvinist makes of it (—if the Calvinist uses it in a positive manner). The dictionary says free will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion", which (to me) is a vague way to walk both sides of the fence. The determinist, (such as myself, to the degree that that word fits me, haha), can accept that definition, but so can the self-determinist, each thinking it means what he means.

But when I insist on a tighter definition, most free-willers insist that all options from which choices are made are, (at least generally), actually possible and available and not just available for consideration. They will not usually go so far as to say "uncaused", but only because they don't answer me when I press them on the point. These are they who cling to the term, "libertarian".

I think that you are thinking of general inclinations, but not base inclinations. For example, you are instinctively inclined to live rather than to die, even if you wish to die. If, (RC Sproul's example), you are held at gunpoint and your money demanded, you may FEEL inclined to resist, but you will probably be more inclined at that moment of decision to give up your money than to lose your life and still lose your money too! Both the believer and the non-believer always choose according to their inclinations, even if it is only for that moment the inclination most prevalent.

Whether one chooses sanely and circumspectly, or with hardly a thought, or as a madman, or as merely instinctively, their inclination at that instant of decision, is what prevails. Maybe there is a better word than inclination, but I use the term "inclination" in part because of the use the Bible makes of the term, in Genesis 6:5, "...every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." This use of the term I discuss in the next paragraph.

There is another sort of "inclination" that needs to be pointed out. Comparing the choice to, let's say, "accept Christ into their heart": The unbeliever, dead in his sins, always inclined toward evil, makes the choice to do so for the wrong reasons, much as "you ask but do not receive because you ask for the wrong motives"; but the regenerate, his will (and inclinations) changed, whether he knows it is so or not, blinding himself to the horror of contradiction within himself, may even reject the altar call and repeated opportunities to choose to accept Christ, only to eventually succumb to willingly repent and give himself to Christ. That is, every choice the unregenerate makes has sin at its core, but every choice the regenerate makes has been opened up to include the inclination to do what is right by faith that has been "installed" by the Spirit of God. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." —This paragraph's discussion of inclinations, to me, works against the notion of "libertarian free will", but it is another discussion from the first paragraph.

I think knowledge and ignorance is the ultimate determiner of my mental deliberations. But in the moral/immoral decision it's the image of God one holds to be true that defines the terms.

 

[Grip Docility]

I think knowledge and ignorance is the ultimate determiner of my mental deliberations. But in the moral/immoral decision it's the image of God one holds to be true that defines the terms.

Hello Childeye 2,

I noticed that you share Mark's view. Would you be willing to answer these 2 small questions?

Does God have Individual Autonomous Free Moral Agency?

Is God capable of gifting this very genuine aspect of being to Humanity and Angels?

 

[childeye 2]

Hello Childeye 2,

I noticed that you share Mark's view. Would you be willing to answer these 2 small questions?

Does God have Individual Autonomous Free Moral Agency?

Is God capable of gifting this very genuine aspect of being to Humanity and Angels?

I wouldn't go so far as to say I share Marks view since I don't know what his view is. I did find his parsing of the semantics reasonable to the extent he had posted.

Similarly, I would need to know what you mean by Individual Autonomous Free Moral agency to answer your question.

 

[tonychanyt]

I insist on a tighter definition

l would not try to define freewill ontologically. A tight and practical definition is to define it concretely as the faculty of volition located in our brain.

I think that you are thinking of general inclinations, but not base inclinations.

Today, my general and base inclinations are to do the will of God

See also There is no one righteous, not even one. Really? and follow up there.

 

[tdidymas]

How to define freewill?

As an ontological question, there is no consensual answer to this among philosophers. In practice, however, I know I have my freewill. I can sense it. OT mentions it in Exodus 35:


[shall be] willing
נְדָבֹת֮ (nə·ḏā·ḇōṯ)
Noun - feminine plural
Strong's 5071: Spontaneity, spontaneous, a spontaneous, abundant gift

Berean Standard Bible:


The Bible assumes the existence of freewill. 1 Corinthians 7 talks about freedom and will:


A similar concept is expressed in (BSB) Philemon 1:


On the other hand, Paul talks of God's influencing our will in Philippians 2:


Ephesians 1:


I would define freewill concretely as our freewill faculty/organ in our brain that makes choices when presented with alternatives. It is up to us to choose. However, the term freewill is a bit misleading, as if it is totally free from all external factors and influences. Alternatively, instead of "freewill", one can speak of "sovereign will" or "independent volition". I have my volitional faculty. That's what I call my freewill.

Is there freewill in heaven?

Yes, I will still possess my own volitional faculty or independent volition.

By my definition, the volition organ is part of the soul, and the soul is formed when God's breath (spirit) interacts with the body. According to this definition, AIs do not have a freewill unless God breathes on them.

See also

• Do we choose to repent?
• Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

There is a difference between freewill from the human point of view and freewill from the spiritual point of view. Human-human relations seek to make autonomous choices in that regard, and to loathe tyranny or coercion of any kind. However, the nature of our relationship with God as Christians is such that we loathe autonomy and seek to be subject to God's direction. Isn't this what faith is about?

 

[childeye 2]

l would not try to define freewill ontologically. A tight and practical definition is to define it concretely as the faculty of volition located in our brain.

Freewill is an adjective or adverb in scripture, and the faculty of volition is a noun. Did you mean to say the noun free will?

 

[tdidymas]

Freewill is an adjective or adverb. Did you mean to say the noun free will?

I take it, yes, as I did the same thing in response to him. But "free" is also an adjective.

 

[Grip Docility]

There is a difference between freewill from the human point of view and freewill from the spiritual point of view. Human-human relations seek to make autonomous choices in that regard, and to loathe tyranny or coercion of any kind. However, the nature of our relationship with God as Christians is such that we loathe autonomy and seek to be subject to God's direction. Isn't this what faith is about?

If we didn't have Libertarian autonomy that God gave us that allows us to choose between God and Self, to change from self to God, how could we surrender such a thing to God?

 

[childeye 2]

I take it, yes, as I did the same thing in response to him. But "free" is also an adjective.

I hate to be so strict on the terms here, but I think it will be a wasted effort to reason upon unstable terminology. By the way I liked the approach you used in your post. It's thought provoking.

 

[childeye 2]

If we didn't have Libertarian autonomy that God gave us that allows us to choose between God and Self, to change from self to God, how could we surrender such a thing to God?

I believe the poster was indicating Faith.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 

[childeye 2]

I take it, yes, as I did the same thing in response to him. But "free" is also an adjective.

Thank you, yes the will is a noun, and free is definitely an adjective. Which means the meaning of free will is contingent on how the adjective Free is qualified.

Also, the term 'Will' carries two distinct meanings, the faculty of reasoning and the desire (Mind and heart).

 

[Grip Docility]

Thank you, yes the will is a noun and free is definitely an adjective. Which means the meaning of free will is contingent on how the adjective Free is qualified.

The major confusion of the matter comes when the idea that we are not Gifted with "Free Will" is insisted by any party that enters the discussion. The very term is chopped, torn apart and philosophized to a point that it takes volumes of communication to distinguish. It shouldn't be this way.

To properly convey the term under those conditions, I must then Qualify that God Blessed Mankind with Self Sovereignty, which he did in Genesis 1:28. However, it is much simpler to say Free Will, which is supposed to mean that God Created creation with the ability to act in Agency apart from His Will. This is neat and clean, as it follows the very narrative of scripture. However, once this narrative gets challenged, one can find themselves writing out phrases like Individual Autonomous Libertarian Free Moral Agency... just to cover their point, literarily speaking to essentially plow past theosophical chatter that denies that God provides such things.

Individual - a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.
Autonomous - having the right or power of self-government
Libertarian - a person who believes in the doctrine that human beings possess free will.
Free - enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another
Moral - a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
Agency - action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.

If it requires the writing of these words "Individual Autonomous Libertarian Free Moral Agency" to suggest that we have "Free Will", or else complete attempt after attempt will be made to "REDEFINE" the simple term "Free Will" so that man made doctrines are protected... there seems to be a visceral manifestation of unintended cognitive dissonance that keeps trying to strong arm a very elementary matter of scripture that is reinforced from the word "In" of Genesis to the Closing word of Revelation.

All this to say, I never intend to assume anything in discussion, but do my best to see where the source of intense complication and confusion is coming from in any discussion.

My preferred method of communication is to simply say a word and it is understood to be what it actually is. Which sometimes happens in theological discussions and sometimes doesn't.