What is freewill?

[childeye 2]

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.

Thank you for this effort. I think the image of God that one holds to be true defines the terms. When it's an unknown certainty yet to be realized (or never fully realized as an eternal revelation), then it's a matter of faith. If I assume the will God originally gave Adam when he breathed life into him was a free will, then I believe it must begin in faith for God to be a trustworthy image.

To elaborate; It's not logical to infer that the creature was given the autonomy to decide the trustworthiness/untrustworthiness of the Creator, nor even ponder the question, because it's not logical that the Creator is created in the imagery of the creature.

Which brings forth the term corruptible. If the creature in a state of faith is introduced to the idea we choose God, then a corrupt image of god is being introduced as a false premise to ponder, and the will is no longer free. Ironically the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust is a mischaracterization of the circumstance of having to choose in response to the corrupt image being introduced.

On the other hand, a will in a state of corruption can be introduced to the incorruptible image of God and choose God.

 

[Grip Docility]

Which brings forth the term corruptible. If the creature is introduced to a corrupt image of god to ponder, then the will is no longer free. Ironically the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust is a mischaracterization of the circumstance of having to choose once the corrupt image is introduced.

I literally had hit heart eyes as I was reading, but I am curious what you mean by the underlined and emboldened statement.

Would it be fair to say that God Himself went to Deep, Self Sacrificing efforts to reestablish unto all mankind That HIS TRUE IMAGE of His very BEING is not only Trustworthy, more Trustworthy or even Most Trustworthy, but is Infinitely Trustworthy... in such a way that even our "corrupt image" is able to comprehend, if we would just Turn, of our own genuine free will, to the Bronze Serpent on the Pole?

 

[Clare73]

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.

And which faith is not a work of man, but only the gift of the Holy Spirit (Php 1:29, Ac1348, 18;27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3),
for we cannot even see the kingdom of God (much less believe in it) apart from the new birth by the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5),
which itself is as sovereign (unaccountable) as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

 

[childeye 2]

I literally had hit heart eyes as I was reading, but I am curious what you mean by the underlined and emboldened statement.

Would it be fair to say that God Himself went to Deep, Self Sacrificing efforts to reestablish unto all mankind That HIS TRUE IMAGE of His very BEING is not only Trustworthy, more Trustworthy or even Most Trustworthy, but is Infinitely Trustworthy... in such a way that even our "corrupt image" is able to comprehend, if we would just Turn, of our own genuine free will, to the Bronze Serpent on the Pole?

the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust is a mischaracterization of the circumstance of having to choose once the corrupt image is introduced.

Allow me to rephrase: To the innocent the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust God, IS introducing a false image of god.

On the other hand, a will in a state of corruption can be introduced to the incorruptible image of God and choose God.

 

[Grip Docility]

the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust is a mischaracterization of the circumstance of having to choose once the corrupt image is introduced.

Allow me to rephrase: The suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust God is introducing a false image of god.

Do you believe that mankind may Repent of their own Libertarian Volition? IE, their choice?

 

[childeye 2]

Do you believe that mankind may Repent of their own Libertarian Volition? IE, their choice?

To the innocent the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust God, IS introducing a false image of god.

To the will in a state of corruption, it can be introduced to the incorruptible image of God and choose God through faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Grip Docility]

A will in a state of corruption can be introduced to the incorruptible image of God and choose God through faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Do you believe that God Loved All Mankind in this manner, that He Gave the Blood of His Only Begotten Son for All born of the lineage of Eve, that whosoever would believe, shall not perish but have everlasting life?

 

[childeye 2]

To the innocent the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust God, IS introducing a false image of god.

To the will in a state of corruption, it can be introduced to the incorruptible image of God and choose God through faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

The will has reasoning and desire, mind and heart. The difference is we reason with the mind, but we believe from the heart.

 

[childeye 2]

Do you believe that God Loved All Mankind in this manner, that He Gave the Blood of His Only Begotten Son for All born of the lineage of Eve, that whosoever would believe, shall not perish but have everlasting life?

I do, but I see the verse above as God sifting and refining so as to establish an eternal kingdom, having mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardening whom He will harden for this purpose.
How do you see this verse?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

​

 

[Grip Docility]

I do, but I see the verse above as God sifting or refining, having mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardening whom He will harden.
How do you see this verse?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

​

You quoted Romans 9 at a very specific place. This place that you quote is identical to Steven's swan song, where he is speaking to unbelieving Israel, which isn't a coincidence. It spans MANY passages of scripture to support the coming 2 chapters that follow it's writing. If this chapter is taken as a verse by verse source by doctrine, without full scriptural exegesis, it can be a very precarious place.

The King was on this earth in person and Sinners had no issue with him, nor did He have issues with Sinners. He only addressed the proud and hard hearted aggressively. He even told a very specific group very stern things because they limited the reach of God to only themselves and because this group demanded that they were the "chosen" of God. This verse is about those that mishandle the character of God towards man, in my opinion. It is also a warning that even our worst enemies should be viewed as the very presence of God, before us. Poor, Needy, Sinful, Enemies.... we are challenged to Love and Provide for these people as much as we possibly can.

As for God... and John 3:16... I take it at face value. God demonstrated Who He is and what specifically distinguishes Him from us. He does not do things for reward or to reward. He does what He does out of genuine, sincere, Unconditional Love.

 

[Grip Docility]

To the innocent the suggestion that it's our freedom to choose to trust or not trust God, IS introducing a false image of god.

To the will in a state of corruption, it can be introduced to the incorruptible image of God and choose God through faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

The will has reasoning and desire, mind and heart. The difference is we reason with the mind, but we believe from the heart.

I disagree with this statement.

God beckons us to Repent. He actively bids us to repent. If Salvation is "Forced" onto mankind, it wouldn't be an act of Love, but instead a one sided relationship.

God speaks about relationship and mutual Love, all throughout scripture. If God doesn't seek sincere hearts, but forces CHOICE or BYPASSES human choice, it would be so much less than it is.

In my opinion.

 

[childeye 2]

I literally had hit heart eyes as I was reading, but I am curious what you mean by the underlined and emboldened statement.

Would it be fair to say that God Himself went to Deep, Self Sacrificing efforts to reestablish unto all mankind That HIS TRUE IMAGE of His very BEING is not only Trustworthy, more Trustworthy or even Most Trustworthy, but is Infinitely Trustworthy... in such a way that even our "corrupt image" is able to comprehend, if we would just Turn, of our own genuine free will, to the Bronze Serpent on the Pole?

My answer is Yes.

 

[childeye 2]

I disagree with this statement.

God beckons us to Repent. He actively bids us to repent. If Salvation is "Forced" onto mankind, it wouldn't be an act of Love, but instead a one sided relationship.

God speaks about relationship and mutual Love, all throughout scripture. If God doesn't seek sincere hearts, but forces CHOICE or BYPASSES human choice, it would be so much less than it is.

In my opinion.

When God revealed to me that His son allowed himself to be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, scourged, beaten, and nailed to a cross to die in agony so that I who was dead in sin may live; it forced me to love him far beyond I could have ever imagined according to my own blind discretion. Hence True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and it is the everlasting goodness of God that led me to a change of mind.

 

[Grip Docility]

When God revealed to me that His son allowed himself to be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, scourged, beaten, and nailed to a cross to die in agony, it forced me to love him far deeper than I ever could have according to my discretion. Hence True worship is drawn out by the object of worship.

You do understand why I am asking so many questions?

This statement taken at face value is indeed beautiful. I frequently ask questions to discern the heart of the words. Do you believe that God desires and intends this to happen to all born of Adam and Eve, despite their presence of response or lack thereof?

 

[Clare73]

I do, but I see the verse above as God sifting and refining so as to establish an eternal kingdom, having mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardening whom He will harden for this purpose.
How do you see this verse?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of
the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

The brethren of Christ being the children of God, born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, nor of a husband's will, but
born of God (Jn 1:12-13).

 

[childeye 2]

The brethren of Christ being the children of God, born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, nor of a husband's will, but
born of God (Jn 1:12-13).

I recall Jesus pointing to love your neighbor as yourself. Someone asked who is my neighbor?

 

[Grip Docility]

I recall Jesus pointing to love your neighbor as yourself. Someone asked who is my neighbor?

I would respond... "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect"

 

[Clare73]

I recall Jesus pointing to love your neighbor as yourself. Someone asked who is my neighbor?

In the light of the NT (Jn 1:12-13), neighbor and brethren are not the same thing.
All brethren are neighbors, but not all neighbors are brethren.

 

[Grip Docility]

Luke 10:30 :A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers.

Luke 10:31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.

Luke 10:32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

Luke 10:33 But a Samaritan (Despised by the Jews), as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

Luke 10:36,37 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

Odd question... Why didn't Jesus specify the Race, Religion or any other information about who the mysterious man was that was attacked?

 

[childeye 2]

You do understand why I am asking so many questions?

I figure you seek clarity.

Do you believe that God desires and intends this to happen to all born of Adam and Eve, despite their presence of response or lack thereof?

The way this is worded it's tough to answer. Honestly, it's above my pay grade. It's easier to say I don't believe God will have to prove Himself forever, and even dead wood is useful for a fire.