What is freewill?

[childeye 2]

All arguments ultimately come down to either a dogmatic statement or a circular argument. Supposedly there's an infinite regress, but I've yet to actually encounter anyone who doesn't come to one or the other.

So, If I said that whatever is true doesn't disprove itself, is that dogmatic or circular? Negative prejudice manifests hypocritical judgment and positive prejudice doesn't.

The problem here is that the term free will is unstable when it's an equivocation. We need to qualify the term before we claim to know what it means. Conflating choice/option with choice/decision is an error in reasoning.

 

[Fervent]

So, If I said that whatever is true doesn't disprove itself, is that dogmatic or circular? Negative prejudice is hypocritical and positive prejudice isn't.

Seems to be dogmatic, if the only reason you think the statement should be accepted is on its apparent truth. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence, could you explain?

The problem here is that the term free will is unstable when it's an equivocation.

Free will can really only be understood in experiential terms, rather than philosophic ones. The experience of making choices is basic, so it's a more reasonable conclusion that there's a genuine ability than that our base experiences are illusion.

The moral implications are where philosophy comes in, rather than the ontological question. Because those who want to deny free will must also deny that we have any responsibility for our choices. If we play no active role in the making of the choice, but instead the choice is thrust upon us from some other source, then the responsible party is the source of the decision. If we are simply instrumentally involved, then we bear no responsibility for our actions any more than an inanimate object bears responsibility for how it is used.

 

[childeye 2]

Seems to be dogmatic, if the only reason you think the statement should be accepted is on its apparent truth. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence, could you explain?

My dogmatism is that it's better to define faith as trust in an incorruptible Love that is Eternal, rather than trust in a corruptible love, so that righteousness is by grace through faith rather than through cynicism. Negative prejudice manifests hypocritical judgment and positive prejudice doesn't. Hence through negative prejudice a person can find fault where there isn't any. Wherefore free will could be parsed accordingly.

To elaborate, Love others as you would want to be loved dictates that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to presuming someone guilty until proven innocent. In parsing semantics, the truth must precede the lie because the lie exists to undermine the truth.

Free will can really only be understood in experiential terms, rather than philosophic ones. The experience of making choices is basic, so it's a more reasonable conclusion that there's a genuine ability than that our base experiences are illusion.

The term 'will' by definition denotes a desire along with the 'ability to reason' without the term 'free' even being added. Every moment is a choice to either be doing something or not be doing that something, by doing something else. It's therefore a strawman argument to debate whether we experience making decisions or not when defining what free will means since it would just mean we're alive and sentient. I don't care about exploring the impetus that causes me to sit or stand or what to eat or drink. I'm focused on the moral/immoral decision and the impetus of the will/desire to care or not care how our actions affect others. For some, it may be the fear of punishment that motivates good behavior, but for others it may be altruistic.

Having said that, it's when we add the adjective 'free' to describe the will, then the term free needs to be qualified as free from something to be coherent, otherwise it's redundant. So, when you say free will can be understood in experiential terms, it suggests to me that it could mean that learning from one's mistakes is a form of acquiring a freedom from ignorance in our will that comes through experiencing the consequences of our bad decisions upon others.

The moral implications are where philosophy comes in, rather than the ontological question. Because those who want to deny free will must also deny that we have any responsibility for our choices.

This is why free will becomes an unstable term lost in semantics. If I come to understand what it's like to make stupid choices that hurt others, through the experience of having done so, I can also forgive and not hold a person responsible for their ignorant choices that led to my being hurt. Hence the only coherent definition of free will I've ever seen is a will free from sin, even because the temptation to sin is deceptive.

If we play no active role in the making of the choice, but instead the choice is thrust upon us from some other source, then the responsible party is the source of the decision.

I don't want to conflate choice/option with choice/decision. In other words, just being alive and sharing the planet with others means we are forced to make moral/immoral decisions as a matter of circumstance.

If I say that knowledge is the source of a good decision and ignorance is the source of a bad decision that makes perfect sense to me. But when it comes to caring about how my actions affect others so as to be proactive in loving others as I would want to be loved, I don't attribute that love to the will of mankind or the flesh, but to the Spirit of God. It's in knowing God that I know brotherly Love, therefore I acknowledge God as the Eternal Spirit, lest I become vain through an un-thankfulness to God. Romans 1:21

If we are simply instrumentally involved, then we bear no responsibility for our actions any more than an inanimate object bears responsibility for how it is used.

Similarly, Jesus said that if I wish to escape judgment, then I should not judge others, for what measure I use to judge others will be used to judge me. The merciful will receive mercy. That makes sense. If God is using the temporal existence of flesh and blood beings to prove that His Spirit alone is what makes the creature righteous/moral on the inside, then to claim it was our ability to choose freely, would be like denying that God's Word is the light and life of our souls.

Why else would God give the law that condemned all of mankind as sinners so as to shut all mouths, that presumably accuse others in hypocritical judgment?

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

[Grip Docility]

Consider the summation brought forth by @Grip Docility : This hinges on the very phrase… “He who is forgiven much, Loves much”. The philosophical term Free will implying responsibility for one's actions gets lost in semantics when those who are forgiven much, love much, and those forgiven little, love little.

This is lost in semantics---> Many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first.
This is lost in semantics---> The Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind.
This is getting lost in semantics---> A defiled conscience could find fault where there actually isn't any and think of it as a meticulous high standard of justice. A person could be easily offended mistaking the exposing of their pride as offending their honor. The omission of a more righteous act that could have been done in lieu of the righteous act that was performed, could be counted as sin, etc...

Before I say what I'm about to say in response to your articulate words, I want to take the time to express something many don't know that I personally believe.

I specify this not to insinuate that you or anyone else on this thread has suggested it, but to clarify my position in this discussion. There is a "Doctrine" of man that calls the SON, the Subordination. I FULLY DISAGREE with this doctrine in any shape, form or insinuation. It steam rolls over the very revelations of Jesus Christ, which is the very revelation of God unto mankind. It is so sacred in form that it is referred to in Revelation two fold with one title. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". This is a twofold reference to John 5:39. The LIFE of Jesus Christ fully reveals the working mechanisms of THE FATHER. The second reference is to say that The Holy Spirit of Christ, WHO seals us unto Salvation by His literal tabernacle within retched us is the very "Testimony of Jesus Christ" within us.

Now, first things first. Jesus was the very presence of THE Godhead Bodily. He never GLORIFIED Himself, but always gave glory to His Father, Who likewise didn't Glorify Himself, but gave Glory to His Son. God Glory's THE BODY of Christ (BRIDE), while the BRIDE Glory's God. It's literally that simple. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is genuine and it does play out and receive ultimate exposition by Jesus and the writings that follow the Gospels. But, back to Jesus Christ while He walked this earth.

He could have torn this universe in twain with the very application of one single thought within His mind. He could have rained fire on all humanity at the single inclination of His "HEART". He didn't have to "submit" to the authorities of this universe and the petty human rulers. He Chose to operate within the very Constraints of LOVE. He made manifest that the very Omnipotent Creator of Omnis Everything is about LOVE before Power, Humility before Pride, Compassion before Authority... etc etc

Now, this said, Jesus is a very REBELLION against the fallen IMAGE of God that man had adopted as early as the lineage of Eve began to struggle.

If you take the very Hebrew word that God gave man "Full Autonomous Self Sovereignty" through "Rajah"... Active Verb... and by the very Hebrew Conjugate that "VERB".... which denotes God's Blessing and Active provision of the Noun Sultan over the earth and themselves, who were created to be the very Spiritual Bride of God, bound to Him through Mutual Love and Respect... it conjugates to the very Hebrew word for REBELLION.

Within this Earth (Universe), Mankind is actively granted Autonomous Will. That will was fully culpable and capable of perfect relationship with God. The only time that this "Full blown Autonomous Self Sovereignty" was considered bad, was when one desired to stand in place of God, Himself. It's exactly how the Hebrew Renders. This also makes Isaiah 14:14 all that much more potent. This is why I continue to insist that we were given the ability to "Rebel against God", by God. It was the very first Command or Choice. The Tree of Life was to remain in Loving relationship with God, trusting Him as the One True Arbitrator of Omnis Creation.

Satan was the one that usurped the position of Arbitrator, which is why he is charged with the Rebellion of abandoning his assigned position of authority. Eve was deceived to do so, but only under the DISHONEST authority of Satan.

I perpetually emphasize "Rebellion" in the discussion of this matter because we are born under the Rebellion of Satan, in this world. This doesn't mean that our flesh is born rebellious, but that the surrounding system of this world is indeed subject to the decay and pain of a world not under the PHYSICALLY PRESENT Kingship of God. We, not being God, fail within this system. Because of Jesus' work, we can turn to Him and thus be "Grafted in to" the very BRIDE (Body of Jesus Christ). This initial TURNING is also known as "Repentance". It is to "Change our Mind" from dependence on self for relationship with God, unto God Himself. This Repentance is our Widows Mite. It is not a "Righteous Act". It remains exactly what it is, though necessary. It is an Act of Rebellion against the Present yet invisible Spiritual Authority of this Earth who works through fallen angels and men willing to be summited to such authority by deception or genuine desire. Though Satan is bound in power to this earth by the very invisible presence of Jesus Christ who dwells within believers, he (Satan) is very capable of maintaining a system of hatred, death and pride within this world that the very Invisible Body of Christ is perpetually at Spiritual Warfare against. Just as God's Body dwells within and without the Brick and mortar buildings of Jesus Christ, so does the Evil Authority.

Our very necessary act of Surrender to Jesus' Salvational Sufficiency is a two fold act of Rebellion against the lowercase god of this world and a simultaneous act of contrition and open acknowledgment of our Rebellion against God by struggling to accept that He Alone is Sufficient to Save us.

Not only does "Our righteousness is unclean rags" mean that our carnal efforts are failures, but it also means that even our very first act of Surrender to Jesus is an act of selfishness or "Rebellion". This is why the matter of Faith only comes to reality, when we finally admit to God that even our first genuine act is an admission of our human comfort with dishonest acts of Hypocrisy. This makes us sincere before God and the bang of the Gospel is now free to penetrate our very Souls. God can't dwell in the midst of Hypocrisy. We have to be honest with Him to re-connect with Him.

Job 13:16 Yes, this will result in my deliverance, for no godless person can appear before Him.

Original Word: חָנֵף, Part of Speech: Adjective, Transliteration: chaneph, phonetic Spelling: (khaw-nafe')​

Definition: profane, irreligious​

This is the root Hebrew for the word that Hypocrite is derived from. The KJV tends to interpret this word as Hypocrite.​

​

In final frame... the actual completed act of Repentance to God is our literal admission to God of our perpetual Wickedness and Hypocrisy. It's us giving up on us and Turning to Him.

This "Mechanism of Rebellion" was installed by God! It allows us, who are not Divine, to either Turn away from God, or Turn to God. I personally see this "Mechanism" as a genius act of Love on God's part.

When this is against God, it is scripturally defined as Rebellion. When it is turned to God, it is seen through the eyes of God's Compassion as Repentance.

Which brings it all back to your excellent articulated points of scriptural honesty.

We turn to God ready to get what we deserve, in a manner that is full of fear and trembling, yet;

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears is not complete in love.​

​

And again

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins​

​

And, where I initially followed the subtext of your articulate words;

Luke 7:47 "He who is forgiven much loves much" ​

Or more completely​

"Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little"​

​

Jesus forgives our entire Life Debt of Sin, or more accurately, has already forgiven our entire Life Debt of sin. The person who embraces this is joyful and Loving, void of judgment to the fellow flesh of mankind, in respects to the Stone Covenant. They have had their sins cast from East to West... thus the multitude of these sins is as a speck within their eye, or as a Mountain of Sin that has been moved by God! In contrast, the person that takes this to be a past forgiveness of sin, is still subject to the very Mountain of Sin they will most assuredly accrue in each single day to follow, which is as a very Log or Tree of Sin, sticking out of their very eye. They will still be focused on themselves in such a way that they still judge by the Stone Covenant, not only themselves, but others.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, who is indeed in Jesus Christ, who is within you.

 

[childeye 2]

This "Mechanism of Rebellion" was installed by God! It allows us, who are not Divine, to either Turn away from God, or Turn to God. I personally see this "Mechanism" as a genius act of Love on God's part.

Since God is Holy, to have the will/desire to "Rebel against God", by definition conveys there is a subjective negative image of god in one's heart.

 

[Grip Docility]

Since God is Holy, to have the will/desire to "Rebel against God", by definition conveys there is a subjective negative image of god in one's heart.

I can't emphasize this enough... it is a NEGATIVE IMAGE of God to insinuate otherwise. God didn't command us to not eat of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because we "Couldn't" eat of it. He Loves us and wants the best for us! Satan knew what he was doing when he, a perfect being Rebelled. The very Command denotes the given ability to REBUKE the Command! The ability to Rebuke the Command denotes that we had the ability to Rebel against the very ONE that didn't desire us to Rebuke the command.

It is the very definition of will that is free. God doesn't desire insincere devotion. We can turn away from His Majesty by our own choice and turn back, likewise. God is relationship oriented above all things. It is the very sum of the reason that God is directly equated with LOVE.

Of all the Names of God... it is within John's writings that we see something beyond a name, given to God. John writes that more than a name or idea about God, God is Love.

To be direct...

One is a picture of a man grabbing a woman's face by the chin and forcing her to look at him.
The Other is a picture of a Woman and Man in mutual Love with one another.

I mean this kindly, but by insisting that God didn't provide this ability, it is ignoring the fact that UNFALLEN Angels and Men, as created by God.... and deemed a Good work of God...... actually fell.

God is ordered in the Mathematical Precision of Creation.

However, when it comes to the matter of LOVE and Romancing that which He created... He brought forth a true form of CHAOS. Had all of Creation not rebelled, there would be Order and God would have been all of Mankind's TEACHER. Where is the Onus placed for the Chaos? Creation. The given ability doesn't denote Onus of Chaos, as the MOTIVE for the provision makes the very provision GOOD. It didn't work out in the direction of ORDER. God, the Romantic beyond comprehension desired the possibility of personal pain over the idea of FORCED devotion. He's so much more than theology tends to comprehend. No poet or song can capture the TRUTH. He is truly WORTHY and Magnificent.

I find this song difficult for some to stomach, yet it is true!

 

[Grip Docility]

Since God is Holy, to have the will/desire to "Rebel against God", by definition conveys there is a subjective negative image of god in one's heart.

This isn't complicated. Let us place this in simple question format.

Q: Did God deem the way He created ALL of Creation the very Good work of his Hands?
A: Yes

Q: Did God desire Creation to experience pain or for Himself to experience pain?
A: No

Q: Was Satan created PERFECT
A: Yes

Q: Did Satan Rebel against God to step away from his initial state of Perfection?
A: Yes

Q: Who is the Onus on for Satan's poor decision?
A: Satan

Q: Did God warn and command that Man not eat of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
A: Yes

Q: Is a command given if the ability to Rebuke the Command isn't present?
A: No

Q: Does the very command infer directly that there is an option to Rebuke the Command and thus Rebel against the Command Giver?
A: Yes

Is that dishonest?

 

[childeye 2]

It is the very definition of will that is free.

To me it's the definition of a will/desire reasoning upon a false image of god. I do not will/desire to rebel against the brotherly Love of Jesus. Subsequently, I don't see being free to be duped (gullible) as equal to being set free from being duped (enlightened). I don't equate Light with darkness in my psycholinguistics.

God doesn't desire insincere devotion.

I agree, which is why He doesn't desire that I accept corrupt images of god that want their butt kissed.

We can turn away from His Majesty by our own choice and turn back, likewise.

Jesus said we can't serve two masters.

God is relationship oriented above all things. It is the very sum of the reason that God is directly equated with LOVE.

Of all the Names of God... it is within John's writings that we see something beyond a name, given to God. John writes that more than a name or idea about God, God is Love.

To be direct...

One is a picture of a man grabbing a woman's face by the chin and forcing her to look at him.
The Other is a picture of a Woman and Man in mutual Love with one another.

I underscored where I think you mean to describe being forced to acknowledge God through a brute FORCE.

I addressed that sentiment earlier with this:

"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."

I mean this kindly, but by insisting that God didn't provide this ability, it is ignoring the fact that UNFALLEN Angels and Men, as created by God.... and deemed a Good work of God...... actually fell.

The term used in scripture is vanity.
Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

[Grip Docility]

To me it's the definition of a will/desire reasoning upon a false image of god. I do not will/desire to rebel against the brotherly Love of Jesus. subsequently, I don't see being free to be duped (gullible) as equal to being set free from being duped (enlightened). I don't equate Light with darkness in my psycholinguistics.

Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice?

I agree, which is why He doesn't desire that I accept corrupt images of god that want their butt kissed.

So, Is your position that God Created Creation WITHOUT the ability to Rebel?

Jesus said we can't serve two masters.

Right. We can only choose 1 and serve that 1.

I underscored where I think you mean to describe being forced to acknowledge God through a brute FORCE.

I don't have a "Desire" to rebel against God, either. Why would I? I LOVE Him.

Again... Is it your position in discussion that God Created Creation and deemed it Good by His Hands.... WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO REBEL?

I addressed that sentiment earlier with this:

"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."

Does not scripture speak of those who willingly Turn Away?

The term used in scripture is vanity.
Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

So, if Creation was deemed Good by God in the state He created it.... and you clearly insist that God giving full unfettered free will would make Him a false image.... How exactly did Creation accomplish Rebelling?

 

[childeye 2]

This isn't complicated. Let us place this in simple question format.

Q: Did God deem the way He created ALL of Creation the very Good work of his Hands?
A: Yes

Q: Did God desire Creation to experience pain or for Himself to experience pain
A: No

Q: Was Satan created PERFECT
A: Yes

Q: Did Satan Rebel against God to step away from his initial state of Perfection?
A: Yes

Q: Who is the Onus on for Satan's poor decision?
A: Satan

Q: Did God warn and command that Man not eat of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
A: Yes

Q: Is a command given if the ability to Rebuke the Command isn't present?
A: No

Q: Does the very command infer directly that there is an option to Rebuke the Command and thus Rebel against the Command Giver?
A: Yes

Is that dishonest?

I wouldn't say it's dishonest. But I do think the command to not eat of the forbidden knowledge had to be given because God wants to show He didn't want us to die.

 

[Grip Docility]

I wouldn't say it's dishonest. But I do think the command to not eat of the forbidden had to be given because God wants to show He didn't want us to die.

Your statement agrees with this statement.
"Q: Did God desire Creation to experience pain or for Himself to experience pain?
A: No"

I fully agree! When people try to give some Determinist explanation to relatives that lose family... I literally have to bite my tongue to keep from jumping out of my own skin about the matter!

When some Dilbert tells family that lost an 8 year old girl to cancer that it is because it was God's will, trying to be "loving"... I don't take it well, to say the least.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Clare73 said:
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).

What does the word, "granted", mean? I see no reference to "given the opportunity to believe", here, nor in context. You are lensing it. And, yes, to suffer for him is indeed a gift, in spite of your scorn of the notion. Paul says many things that go against your standard of, "who has ever heard of...", for affirmation of truth and meaning.

The idea that it's talking about being granted the opportunity to believe and to suffer for Christ is there in the context. I don't get the sense that you made any effort at all to see if it might be there in the context. No one is made to suffer on behalf of Christ as if they have no choice in the matter just as no one is made to believe in Christ as if they have no choice in the matter. If that was the case, why do we see a scripture like this:

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Why would Paul need to urge people to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice, which can lead to suffering for Christ, if the only way someone will do so is if God makes them do so with them having no choice in the matter? That would make no sense. So, you are wrong that granting the opportunity to suffer for Christ is not in the context of Philippians 1:29. Based on what scripture teaches as a whole, it has to mean that. Saying that faith is a gift and suffering for Christ is a gift that God gives people with them having no choice in the matter contradicts a lot of other scirpture, so why not take that other scripture into account when interpreting Philippians 1:29?

You apparently haven't noticed that @Clare73 doesn't take verses out of context, though she may quote shortened passages, or even give just the references for the sake of brevity. (Compare her post to your 'wall-of-text'. You should be honored if she even took you seriously enough to bother to read it.

LOL. Are you being serious here? Do you think just referencing the verses is enough to prove anything? My 'wall-of-text? LOL. Do you have a short attention span? My so-called 'wall-of-text is really not that long. It takes text to give an explanation of what a verse means. Excuse me for actually backing up my view instead of just posting verse references and thinking that's enough to prove something. Why is it that people don't like to read more than a paragraph nowadays? Maybe I should blame Twitter/X.

Every one of these she has considered WAS considered in context, and in a simple, logical hermeneutic.

I disagree. I'm not seeing that at all.

Your interpretation and use of them, however, consistently takes them, and some parts of their contexts, as only seen through your lens of self-determination. That is, you assume things —that the world revolves around your choices, and other similar, related notions— before bending the text to fit what you believe. Examples of this is demonstrated farther below.*

Absolutely false. I don't believe you have any idea of what you're talking about. None.

Clare73 doesn't claim that anyone makes decisions automatically, or against "their own volition". That is a strawman you have manufactured to beat down; I only hope you didn't build it too strongly.

Is she unable to speak for herself? Tell me, for those who have their faith in Christ and belong to Him, was there any chance that they could have decided to reject Christ instead and never put their faith in Him? For those who never put their faith in Christ and have died, was there any chance while they were alive that they could have put their faith in Christ? Your answer to these questions will reveal whether or not you are sincere about her claim (and I assume your claim as well) that people don't "make decisions automatically". And we're talking about decisions in relation to Jesus Christ, of course, and not decisions regarding which brand of toothpaste you want to use.

*What do you assume "grace" means? Why the strawman that claims "grace" means "automatic"?

I don't know what you're talking about here. Where did I say grace means automatic? I didn't. It clearly doesn't because scripture says "the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people", and yet not all people are saved. That clearly shows that grace is not automatic if we're talking about grace automatically leading to salvation.

True that you don't get it. Calvinism, (which, BTW, is not @Clare73 ), does not deny that God's grace can be resisted and rejected.

In case you couldn't tell (I'm not sure why not), throughout my post I was talking in terms of salvation. So, I'm saying that God's grace in relation to leading people to salvation can be resisted and Calvinism denies that. What else can we conclude when scripture says ""the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people" and yet not all people are saved except that God's grace that offers salvation to all people can be resisted?

It claims that the one specific grace, i.e. regeneration, is done apart from advice, permission or even consultation with the will of the recipient of God's mercy.

Regeneration occurs after someone has put their faith in Christ. Calvinism has it in the wrong order. Surely, regeneration, which is an act of the Holy Spirit within a person when He comes to dwell within a person. Paul gave us the order here:

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

*But, what do you think Calvinism claims that "offer" means, here? And have you not considered what "all people" can mean? Calvinism doesn't deny that nobody has any excuse for rejecting the offer.

This illustrates why Calvinism sometimes cannot be taken seriously. It can't even accept what a very straightforward verse like Titus 2:11 indicates. Instead of just accepting what it obviously says (no symbolism there, no reference to an OT passage, no reason to not take it straightforwardly), you try to change the definitions of "offer" and "all people". It's just sad.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Anyway, as for your questions, I don't know what Calvinism claims that "offer" means here. It's obvious to me that when something is offered to someone, they have the choice to either accept it or reject it while possessing the ability to either accept or reject it. Does Calvinism understand the word "offer" differently here?

As for considering what "all people" can mean here, of course I've considered it and it's quite obvious to me that it means literally all people. Why wouldn't it when taking God's character and other scripture into account? Other scripture says God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). We know repentance leads to salvation (2 Cor 7:10), so would He command all people to repent without also offering salvation to all people? That would not make any sense.

Your asserting so doesn't make it so.

No one's assertions here make anything so. I thought that went without saying. We're sharing our interpretations here. I believe strongly that my interpretations are correct and you feel the same about your interpretations. That's no secret.

However, you may be surprised someday to find that both saving faith and —what do you call it?— Christian faith, are, or at least should be, the same thing —and both are a gift of God. *Common modern USE of the term "the Christian faith" has no authority over Scriptural use of the notion.

You competely missed what I was saying, so I will try to clarify it. I'm talking about the Christian faith as a synonym for Christianity. In contrast to the Muslim faith, for example. So, there is a sense in which the Christian faith/Christianity is a gift in that we can share in all of its blessings by way of fellowship with other Christians and having the contentment that it brings and the hope of eternal life and so on.

That is circular reasoning. You can't prove that a verse does not teach that saving faith is given to us by God, by saying that scripture does not teach that saving faith is a gift of God.

I actually agree with this which is why I took the time on most of the verses to actually explain what they mean. Yet, you complained that I was too wordy. I can't win with you, apparently. I guess you have a certain amount of words in mind that I should use and I didn't hit that sweet spot for you.

I'll leave alone for now arguments against your use of "God wants", "all people" and "for"...

Once again, you may be surprised to find that the faith that we can increase and subdue is indeed the same faith by which we are saved. Note that I am not teaching that it IS the same, but we know that it is of the same source and, in its pure form (that is, not polluted by our notions) it is of the same power. The quality of the faith given in differing measure is altogether powerful, and is not of human derivation (nor even of human measure). It is a GIFT of God.

*Saving faith is not a question of how WE hold to it, but of its nature. The measure of saving faith is irrelevant as to its power. You say, "You either believe and trust in Christ or you don't." True enough, but it is not because saving faith is a lot of faith, but because of who gives it. It is not generated by the recipient of God's grace. God gives it, or God doesn't, according to HIS mercy, not OUR effort.

I see your words here, but no scriptural support to back them up. I don't find your words to be convincing.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I couldn't even begin to address this as eminently well as @Mark Quayle did in post #131.

Sorry, but I have to disagree that he addressed it well.

You want thoroughness?. . .You got it there!

Hmmm. If you want to think so, then so be it.

And by the way, in addition to keeping me from having to labor the obvious, he also expressed my view with eloquence, as usual.

Then consider my response to his post my response to you as well.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If that is all 'free will' means —'responsible choice'— then I fully agree. But if it means 'uncaused', I vehemently disagree.

How can a "responsible choice" be caused and what does that even mean?

 

[childeye 2]

Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice?

God is Love, unconditional love that exists Eternal. For us it's a matter of faith not choice.

So, Is your position that God Created Creation WITHOUT the ability to Rebel?

No, I'm saying that there is a vanity born out of an ignorance of God that forms false imagery.

Right. We can only choose 1 and serve that 1.

I think we grow out of a carnal mind into a spiritual mind through the Holy Spirit. It's built on faith, and I can't actually say it's a decision I've made because it's the Holy Spirit that convicts me of sin, not myself.

I don't have a "Desire" to rebel against God, either. Why would I? I LOVE Him.

Again... Is it your position in discussion that God Created Creation and deemed it Good by His Hands.... WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO REBEL?

I believe it's already false imagery to ponder that I have a choice to rebel against the Creator Who created all things including me. So, it's my position that if I will/desire to rebel, I'm rebelling against a false image that isn't even GOD.

Does not scripture speak of those who willingly Turn Away?

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not being misled. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,

So, if Creation was deemed Good by God in the state He created it.... and you clearly insist that God giving full unfettered free will would make Him a false image.... How exactly did Creation accomplish Rebelling?

I didn't insist that God giving full unfettered free will would make Him a false Image. I'm saying a fully unfettered free will would be a will unfettered with a false image. The only definition of a free will I see as coherent, is a will free from sin.

 

[childeye 2]

Your statement agrees with this statement.
"Q: Did God desire Creation to experience pain or for Himself to experience pain?
A: No"

I fully agree! When people try to give some Determinist explanation to relatives that lose family... I literally have to bite my tongue to keep from jumping out of my own skin about the matter!

When some Dilbert tells family that lost an 8 year old girl to cancer that it is because it was God's will, trying to be "loving"... I don't take it well, to say the least.

I see, so that's what this is all about? You have a problem with the term determinism?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice?

I know you weren't asking me, but I'd like to answer this question. No, it cannot. That is impossible. Is a puppet or robot capable of love? No. Love involves reason and a person's will. It has to be a choice or else what kind of "love" is it? It would be manufactured and forced if there is no choice in the matter. Love can't be manufactured or forced.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

God is Love, unconditional love that exists Eternal. For us it's a matter of faith not choice.

How does this answer the question you were asked, which was "Can Love Exist Genuinely apart from Sincere Choice?".

What is your answer to that question? Yes or no? You say "for us it's a matter of faith not choice". Don't we have to choose to have faith or not? How can faith that leads to a love of God not involve a choice? Can faith be forced?

If you look at Acts 17 and 18 it talks about Paul going around to different places and preaching in synagogues trying to persuade people to believe the gospel. If faith doesn't involve a choice then why did Paul try to persuade people to believe? Persuasion involves influencing people to change their minds by using reason and appealing to their wills. How else do people change their minds except that they choose to do so, particularly when it comes to the gospel? If faith doesn't come about by choice, then trying to persuade people to believe would be a complete waste of time. But, I don't believe Paul was wasting his time.

 

[Grip Docility]

God is Love, unconditional love that exists Eternal. For us it's a matter of faith not choice.

Who's Onus do you place the fate of the UNKNOWN Eternally Damned on? God or the Eternally Damned?

No, I'm saying that there is a vanity born out of ignorance.

So, Satan was IGNORANT to his "Iniquity", thus making his Vain act of "Rebellion" and innocent one?

I think we grow out of a carnal mind into a spiritual mind through the Holy Spirit. I can't say it's a decision because it's the Holy Spirit that convicts me of sin.

Who are the saints? Did at any point, these Saint's Repent of their own volition? Or, do you simply assert that they and they alone were Chosen, just as the Damned, before Creation?

I believe it's already false imagery to ponder that I have a choice to rebel against the Creator Who created all things including me. So, it's my position that if I will/desire to rebel, I'm rebelling against a false image that isn't even GOD.

I don't like to talk about it either. I keep trying to assert that God waits for us to LOVE HIM BACK, of our own imperfect Love before the fire starts. At some point, we all have to look at the weight of the STONE LAW and decide if we can accomplish it... or Choose God and God alone as our way Home.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not being misled. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,

Of coarse deception is part of it. Here's the million dollar question. Satan was the first to "Fall". In his perfect state, he fell. Are you suggesting that Satan's fall was an innocent matter of ignorance and vanity? I'm curious not for a set up rebuttal, which I can be guilty of in discussion, but not this time.

I didn't insist that God giving full unfettered free will would make Him a false Image. I'm saying an unfettered free will would be one unfettered with a false image. The only definition of a free will I see as coherent, is a will free from sin.

Yet what is sin? Sin is essentially deviation from God's being. We are different than God. We weren't created to take God's place, but instead to experience life and eventually Love and be Loved by God. This begs the question... that you actually answered earlier.

Is it not the accusations of Satan that define sin according to deviations from the perfection of God (The Law)? Does God accuse? No. God leads, guides and corrects... Lovingly.

So, let's start at original sin... How would you describe Satan's ability as a Perfect Creation to have iniquity rise up from within him? Not a loaded question. Theological curiosity motivates this one.

 

[Grip Docility]

I see, so that's what this is all about? You have a problem with the term determinism?

Divine Determinism is a Theosophical concept that is manmade.

Theosophy: any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations,

What this means is any means of interpreting scripture apart from God or Scripture.

When scripture uses the words 2919. krinó and all variants that draw from this root Greek word, and the Hebrew equivalent 2852. chathak and all variants that draw from this root Hebrew word.... it has absolutely no connection to the theosophical musings of mankind. They are Apples and Oranges.

This said...

Do you deny that Satan had the faculty, facilitated by God's specific design within all creation to Rebel against God of his own personal volition within his initial state of perfection?