What is freewill?

[Grip Docility]

I figure you seek clarity.

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.

Ezekiel 33:11 Tell them: As I live”—the declaration of the Lord God—“I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked person should turn from his way and live. Repent, repent of your evil ways!

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Isaiah 55:6-7 “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Should we change these words or take them at face value?

 

[childeye 2]

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?

Yeah, it looks like the brethren are the ones who want to be good neighbors.

 

[Grip Docility]

Yeah, it looks like the brethren are the ones who want to be good neighbors.

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]

Ezekiel 33:11 Tell them: As I live”—the declaration of the Lord God—“I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked person should turn from his way and live. Repent, repent of your evil ways!

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Isaiah 55:6-7 “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Should we change these words or take them at face value?

Yes, I know these scriptures, but these scriptures don't answer your question as I understand it. I thought we were talking in the context of faith in the True Image.

 

[childeye 2]

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

Compassion doesn't think to ask.

 

[Fervent]

How to define freewill?

The ability to make decisions without internal or external constraints.

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:

It's not really an ontological question. The question is epistemic, with ontological and metaphysical implications. But most philosophizing on it is the tail wagging the dog.

[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:

While I agree the Bible assumes the existence of free will, grounding belief in free will on the Bible is questionable. Especially if you're going to talk about the freewill offering, which isn't making a metaphysical statement but a deontological one. Free in that instance means not obligatory.

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:

Which are not contrary to the idea of free will, though they may help us define what it means for us to have it since they establish that it is not without boundaries.

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.

I would define free will as the ability for us to be the efficient cause of our decisions. No need to complicate it by trying to provide a metaphysical foundation to explain it. As the image bearers of a God that is ultimately beyond our capacity to explain, some aspects of our own being will also be beyond explanation.

Is there freewill in heaven?

Why wouldn't there be?

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.

Where did this definition come from? And how does it add to our understanding of free will that it is necessary to provide such a definition?

 

[Grip Docility]

Compassion doesn't think to ask.

That's really beautiful Love that you have, there. Did you get it from your Heavenly Father who got it from His Heavenly Father?

 

[Grip Docility]

Yes, I know these scriptures, but these scriptures don't answer your question as I understand it. I thought we were talking in the context of faith in the True Image.

Does God perpetually use the Romantic analogy of a Husband beckoning His straying wife back, though she is headed into the arms of disaster? Does His Love... Give up? Fail?

 

[Grip Docility]

The ability to make decisions without internal or external constraints.

It's not really an ontological question. The question is epistemic, with ontological and metaphysical implications. But most philosophizing on it is the tail wagging the dog.

While I agree the Bible assumes the existence of free will, grounding belief in free will on the Bible is questionable. Especially if you're going to talk about the freewill offering, which isn't making a metaphysical statement but a deontological one. Free in that instance means not obligatory.

Which are not contrary to the idea of free will, though they may help us define what it means for us to have it since they establish that it is not without boundaries.

I would define free will as the ability for us to be the efficient cause of our decisions. No need to complicate it by trying to provide a metaphysical foundation to explain it. As the image bearers of a God that is ultimately beyond our capacity to explain, some aspects of our own being will also be beyond explanation.

Why wouldn't there be?

Where did this definition come from? And how does it add to our understanding of free will that it is necessary to provide such a definition?

Personally, I'm actually becoming attracted to the words "Volition Organ". Your words don't attempt to surgically remove it, but there are some throughout the green earth that are determined to amputate it from all of creation.

 

[Fervent]

Personally, I'm actually becoming attracted to the words "Volition Organ". Your words don't attempt to surgically remove it, but there are some throughout the green earth that are determined to amputate it from all of creation.

I'm not really a fan, because it attempts to define free will in terms of its composition but from my vantage point it seems better defined in terms of its function. Perhaps there is no free will substance, or rather perhaps the substance of free will is entirely a Divine attribute.

 

[childeye 2]

That's really beautiful Love that you have, there.

I just stated a fact about compassion.

Did you get it from your Heavenly Father who got it from His Heavenly Father?

I believe it's the Eternal Spirit, if that's what you're asking. If I may ask, why do you have a succession of heavenly Father's in your question? Elohim and Most High?

 

[childeye 2]

Does God perpetually use the Romantic analogy of a Husband beckoning His straying wife back, though she is headed into the arms of disaster? Does His Love... Give up? Fail?

In the story of the prodigal son, the father let the son leave knowing he would squander his inheritance. But his love did not fail, the Father runs to greet the repentant son.

The male/female aspect seems to me to be a progression. The woman being a piece of the man was adored by the man but she could not reciprocate because he was not a piece of her. But when she has a child, she will adore that child who also cannot reciprocate, and she will have come full circle.

 

[Grip Docility]

I just stated a fact about compassion.

I believe it's the Eternal Spirit, if that's what you're asking. If I may ask, why do you have a succession of heavenly Father's in your question? Elohim and Most High?

We are knit to (The Son), for the Son is the Bride's Husband and the Bride's Head. The Son revealed Himself to us in such a way that we understand that the Father is His Head and they are ONE. Now, we are "Married" by FAITH to Jesus and in that way Spiritually One Flesh with Him, or Flesh of his Flesh. On the other hand... The Son IS the very Presence of His Father... IE, NO ONE has SEEN the Father, yet to have Seen THE Son, is to have Seen the Father. Philip, have I not been with you all this time? Why do you ask me to "Show" the Father.

Yet... I have no issue saying: Hear Oh Israel The Lord your God is ONE.

 

[Grip Docility]

The story of the prodigal son says no, the father runs to greet the repentant son.

This is a beautiful Story! Though, it is diversionary to my intended question. Oh, man... this is a wonderful story! NO! must... stay... focused

The male/female aspect seems to me a progression.

I'm dumb. Please explain what you mean by progression.

The woman being a piece of the woman was adored by the Man but she could not reciprocate because he was not a piece of her.

Wow, this is deep. I'm dumb. I need crayons. Please help!

But when she has a child, she will adore that child who also cannot reciprocate, and she will have come full circle.

But, doesn't the very toothless smile of that little baby make her heart sing?

 

[Grip Docility]

I'm not really a fan, because it attempts to define free will in terms of its composition but from my vantage point it seems better defined in terms of its function. Perhaps there is no free will substance, or rather perhaps the substance of free will is entirely a Divine attribute.

God is the source of all freedom. God clearly desires simplicity and full on freedom. We had ONE rule in UTOPIA. Some angel just had to prove himself ambitious out of greed and take the candy from the very babes of God. Obviously, all attempts to define it... they are all a metaphor for a clear and present spiritual Truth... , the "organ" idea as well, but... it's simple. The thing is, we have to keep the matter simple. Whatever it is, it is the specific divide between the Evil of Rebellion against God's will and God. It is the very thing that makes the evil within creation upon creation's head and not God's.

It would be nice to just use the term "Free Will", which is in scripture and a 4,000,000,000 page diatribe of human philosophy doesn't present itself to defend doctrines of men. That in no way is towards you, it's just that way sometimes. God is God and We are not Him. God is Perfect Love and we are not. In scripture, it is that simple. Make a simple post about free will and because it threatens manmade doctrines, the whole discussion gets muddled.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm dumb. Please explain what you mean by progression.


Wow, this is deep. I'm dumb. I need crayons. Please help!

LOL, you probably know this, and don't know you do.

God formed mankind from the dust of the ground. And with His Own Breath He breathed into that form the Spirit of life, and the form became a living soul made in the Image of God. Man is a piece of God. And the man did not know how to esteem God, from Whom he was made. And what/who God had bestowed upon him, could only be taken for granted, and God yet felt alone.

So, from the man God took a piece of the man and formed the woman. And having been alone, when Adam saw the woman, she was the greatest of all things ever created that his eyes had ever beheld. And he esteemed her above all things. But the woman, not ever having been alone, could not reciprocate that adoration, for Adam was not a piece of her. Wherefore, the woman regarded the man no greater than all the other wonders her eyes beheld.

When the woman brings forth a child, that child will be a piece of her, and she will love that child above all other things just as the man adored the woman. And that child will not be able to reciprocate just as the woman could not reciprocate the adoration from the man. And the child will take her love for granted, and the woman will come full circle and know what it is like to be the man, and mankind will learn/know what it is like for God, Whose Love is taken for granted.

Male/female are a positive/negative circuit of energy. It indicates that the positive in all moral/immoral terminology can only be defined through experiencing the negative.

In this scenario there is a relationship that is unfair in its mutual give/take. The Man could blame the woman for not reciprocating his adoration, and the woman could find fault in being expected to reciprocate. Just as God could blame mankind for not reciprocating His Love, and mankind could blame God for expecting mankind to reciprocate. I believe the accuser uses this occasion to find fault where there is none.

 

[Fervent]

When the woman brings forth a child, that child will be a piece of her, and she will love that child above all other things just as the man adored the woman. And that child will not be able to reciprocate just as the woman sould not adore the man. The child will take her love for granted, and the woman will come full circle and know what it is like to be the man, and mankind will learn know what it is like for God, Whose Love is taken for granted.

And how would this cycle be able to continue with a male child? Who would proceed from him such that he adores them and that adoration is not reciprocated? Would the cycle not have ended with the first male child or barren female child?

 

[Grip Docility]

LOL, you probably know this, and don't know you do.

God formed mankind from the dust of the ground. And with His Own Breath He breathed into that form the Spirit of life, and the form became a living soul made in the Image of God. Man is a piece of God. And the man did not know how to esteem God, from Whom he was made. And what/who God had bestowed upon him, could only be taken for granted, and God yet felt alone.

So, from the man God took a piece of the man and formed the woman. And having been alone, when Adam saw the woman, she was the greatest of all things ever created that his eyes had ever beheld. And he esteemed her above all things. But the woman, not ever having been alone, could not reciprocate that adoration, for Adam was not a piece of her. Wherefore, the woman regarded the man no greater than all the other wonders her eyes beheld.

When the woman brings forth a child, that child will be a piece of her, and she will love that child above all other things just as the man adored the woman. And that child will not be able to reciprocate just as the woman sould not adore the man. The child will take her love for granted, and the woman will come full circle and know what it is like to be the man, and mankind will learn know what it is like for God, Whose Love is taken for granted.

Male/female are a positive/negative circuit of energy. It indicates that the positive in all moral/immoral terminology can only be defined through experiencing the negative.

In this scenario there is a relationship that is unfair in its mutual give/take. The Man could blame the woman for not reciprocating his adoration, and the woman could find fault in being expected to reciprocate. Just as God could blame mankind for not reciprocating His Love, and mankind could blame God for expecting mankind to reciprocate. I believe the accuser uses this occasion to find fault where there is none.

Some of the other things your were writing... they didn't add up. This is 1000% True! This is now nipping at the Bud! Free Will must be full on true and real... or EXPERIENCE is impossible to accrue.

IE... God is facilitating experience in the Name of Love. He literally DIED to proof the pudding!

Child Eye.... Well said!

P.s. I'm feeling more and more inclined to do a full on study on "Zoe". What say you, is it worth the Stones that might come out?

 

[Grip Docility]

And how would this cycle be able to continue with a male child? Who would proceed from him such that he adores them and that adoration is not reciprocated? Would the cycle not have ended with the first male child or barren female child?

We don't have to worry about the barren thing. Sarah had the child of promise at a ripe old age according to God's promise and Will. We all keep trying to make Ismael. God has plans within plans within plans.

 

[childeye 2]

And how would this cycle be able to continue with a male child? Who would proceed from him such that he adores them and that adoration is not reciprocated? Would the cycle not have ended with the first male child or barren female child?

It's a spiritual terminology of male/female denoting that the male precedes the female in existence, which in turn explains male and female points of view. So that the woman who has a child is actually now the male and the child the female.