With the law of averages being what they are, I was bound to get something right among 40-odd thousand posts.
Free Will
- Thread starter Aetheryn
- Start date
With the law of averages being what they are, I was bound to get something right among 40-odd thousand posts.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Of course an initiator or one calling must first do the calling, but those who hear the call are free to 'respond' in whatever manner they will. Man has 'response-ability',.....I think we covered this
- You're conflating man's ability to respond as some forced application, it is not.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
God calls, man responds (this 'response' includes all possibilities granted within his freedom of choice).
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Stripe's One Liner Is Nice Eye Candy...Until Unpacked
Stripe's One Liner Is Nice Eye Candy...Until Unpacked
Most people are still using the term without having defined it.
1. Man has a will—that is, the ability to make choices of his own volition.
2. This will can be described in one of two ways:
5. However, this is problematic, because 2b (caused) is the way in which Calvinists define the will. Men may make their own choices, but those choices are always causally related to their motivating factors.
6. Therefore, 2b (caused) is not an acceptable definition of "free will" for anyone who proposes that Calvinism is in error. Yet, 2a (uncaused) is not an acceptable definition either.
7. The way that many attempt to get around this is by proferring a modified form of 2b (caused). Basically, they admit that man's choices are always causally related to their underlying motives, but they argue that those motives can originate within the man himself, and do not necessarily have to originate in God's decree.
By "causally related" I mean that one's choices are directly the result of the motives that influence them. That includes their desires, their emotions, their reasoning, their environment and upbringing, etc. By "caused" here all I mean to say is that choices are not arbitrary and random. Rather, they are definitely and necessarily impacted by motives. As far as 2b (caused) is concerned, Calvinists and Arminians both fit that perspective.
8. The major problem with this view[FONT="]—[/FONT]2b, caused[FONT="]—[/FONT]is that when it comes to choosing Christ, this means that the reason some choose Christ and some do not—that is, the reason for the difference—rests in the character or personality of the individuals themselves, and not in God's grace. Which is to say, the reason some people are Christians and some people are not is because some people are better people. They succeeded in improving upon God's grace, where others failed, despite having the same opportunity, to wit:
Surely no one, other than Robert Pate, would hold to such a view.
9. Thus, we are left with three options: (A) "Free will" is a myth, (B) "free will" simply refers to the Calvinist understanding of the will, and therefore there is nothing to debate, or (C) "free will" implies works-righteousness.
Choose the form of the Destructor...
AMR
Stripe's One Liner Is Nice Eye Candy...Until Unpacked
It is a nice sound bite until unpacked. :AMR:
Most people are still using the term without having defined it.
1. Man has a will—that is, the ability to make choices of his own volition.
2. This will can be described in one of two ways:
2a. Uncaused - Underlying motivating factors, if any exist, do not necessarily determine the choice made.
2b. Caused - There are always underlying motivating factors, and they necessarily determine the choice made.
3. If by "free will" it is meant that the will is "uncaused" (2a), then "free will" is a myth, for at least the following three reasons:2b. Caused - There are always underlying motivating factors, and they necessarily determine the choice made.
3a. Given that there would be no way of distinguishing the will from a random process, we would lose all basis for trusting others.
3b. Choices would be meaningless and thus necessarily insincere, because they would be arbitrary rather than purposed acts.
3c. We could not hold anyone responsible for their choices, because they could not legitimately be said to be their own.
4. Thus, 2b (caused) is the only coherent way of defining "free will."3b. Choices would be meaningless and thus necessarily insincere, because they would be arbitrary rather than purposed acts.
3c. We could not hold anyone responsible for their choices, because they could not legitimately be said to be their own.
5. However, this is problematic, because 2b (caused) is the way in which Calvinists define the will. Men may make their own choices, but those choices are always causally related to their motivating factors.
6. Therefore, 2b (caused) is not an acceptable definition of "free will" for anyone who proposes that Calvinism is in error. Yet, 2a (uncaused) is not an acceptable definition either.
7. The way that many attempt to get around this is by proferring a modified form of 2b (caused). Basically, they admit that man's choices are always causally related to their underlying motives, but they argue that those motives can originate within the man himself, and do not necessarily have to originate in God's decree.
By "causally related" I mean that one's choices are directly the result of the motives that influence them. That includes their desires, their emotions, their reasoning, their environment and upbringing, etc. By "caused" here all I mean to say is that choices are not arbitrary and random. Rather, they are definitely and necessarily impacted by motives. As far as 2b (caused) is concerned, Calvinists and Arminians both fit that perspective.
8. The major problem with this view[FONT="]—[/FONT]2b, caused[FONT="]—[/FONT]is that when it comes to choosing Christ, this means that the reason some choose Christ and some do not—that is, the reason for the difference—rests in the character or personality of the individuals themselves, and not in God's grace. Which is to say, the reason some people are Christians and some people are not is because some people are better people. They succeeded in improving upon God's grace, where others failed, despite having the same opportunity, to wit:
“Lord, I thank thee that I am not like these poor, presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with a power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace as I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know that thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves… it was not thy grace that made us differ… I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”
Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40 “Free Will a Slave” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.
Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40 “Free Will a Slave” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.
Surely no one, other than Robert Pate, would hold to such a view.
9. Thus, we are left with three options: (A) "Free will" is a myth, (B) "free will" simply refers to the Calvinist understanding of the will, and therefore there is nothing to debate, or (C) "free will" implies works-righteousness.
Choose the form of the Destructor...
AMR
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
What is sown is what is reaped.......
What is sown is what is reaped.......
Do note, that it is from man's freedom of choice, that he reaps what he sows (as being vessels of honor or dishonor),....whether good or evil,...and by universal law, harvests the consequences of his actions (the law of retribution, consequence, karma).
This concept was covered and answered in my post concerning Lamentations 3:38-41 here. Here we see all happens within the providence of 'God', since nothing actually or potentially can exist outside the Infinite,...therefore all potentials and possibilities of good and evil exist within any given space or time when such conditions allow for their bearing fruit. All judgments, checks and balances, cause and effects are governed or ordained by heavenly laws or decrees. However,...even as this is so,...a man cannot complain to God over the consequences of his sin, because of the very fact of free will. The wages of sin is death, and only by way of atonement and/or repentance, is the way to life restored.
All things in their potential exist within divine providence,...but man alone bears the consequences for his sin by universal law (law of karmic compensation), and this is by lawful ordinance, and NOT because God is the one causing evil, and therefore enforcing its punishment, since the very 'sin' (transgression of law) is the punishment itself. In this context,...all good and evil potential and possibilities exist within the choosing of man, and their consequences are inherent in themselves,...as every seed planted bears its own kind of fruit. Is God then to be blamed for the the suffering, disintegration, demise and death of the wicked? These are very fundamental questions.
What is sown is what is reaped.......
Do note, that it is from man's freedom of choice, that he reaps what he sows (as being vessels of honor or dishonor),....whether good or evil,...and by universal law, harvests the consequences of his actions (the law of retribution, consequence, karma).
This concept was covered and answered in my post concerning Lamentations 3:38-41 here. Here we see all happens within the providence of 'God', since nothing actually or potentially can exist outside the Infinite,...therefore all potentials and possibilities of good and evil exist within any given space or time when such conditions allow for their bearing fruit. All judgments, checks and balances, cause and effects are governed or ordained by heavenly laws or decrees. However,...even as this is so,...a man cannot complain to God over the consequences of his sin, because of the very fact of free will. The wages of sin is death, and only by way of atonement and/or repentance, is the way to life restored.
All things in their potential exist within divine providence,...but man alone bears the consequences for his sin by universal law (law of karmic compensation), and this is by lawful ordinance, and NOT because God is the one causing evil, and therefore enforcing its punishment, since the very 'sin' (transgression of law) is the punishment itself. In this context,...all good and evil potential and possibilities exist within the choosing of man, and their consequences are inherent in themselves,...as every seed planted bears its own kind of fruit. Is God then to be blamed for the the suffering, disintegration, demise and death of the wicked? These are very fundamental questions.
beloved57
Well-known member
Of course an initiator or one calling must first do the calling, but those who hear the call are free to 'respond' in whatever manner they will. Man has 'response-ability',.....I think we covered this
So man can't come to Christ by his own freewill! Yes or No
beloved57
Well-known member
What scripture says that? Scripture says that men can't come to Christ unless the Father draws him, not calls him. And them that God calls they are Justified and Glorified Rom 8:28-30, they don't have a choice, it's been predestined.
beloved57
Well-known member
More lies. What scripture says that men have a freewill?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
More factors involved in the greater context of final destiny.........
More factors involved in the greater context of final destiny.........
If a soul hears a call, he may respond to that call in any manner of ways. He may fully accept or fully reject,...or some other variation or alternative, if those options are also present. If there is a calling or a drawing,... a response is a reaction to that original influence. This is a logical observation of a call/answer response-ability. Love draws,.....love concludes,.....love fulfills. Love is its own means and end. However, if a soul can choose to reject the calling/drawing of love, responding in a negative fashion...and thereby choose death and destruction for itself,...it will have done so by the powers of determination both within and without, but never against the individual determination of the soul itself.
More factors involved in the greater context of final destiny.........
If a soul hears a call, he may respond to that call in any manner of ways. He may fully accept or fully reject,...or some other variation or alternative, if those options are also present. If there is a calling or a drawing,... a response is a reaction to that original influence. This is a logical observation of a call/answer response-ability. Love draws,.....love concludes,.....love fulfills. Love is its own means and end. However, if a soul can choose to reject the calling/drawing of love, responding in a negative fashion...and thereby choose death and destruction for itself,...it will have done so by the powers of determination both within and without, but never against the individual determination of the soul itself.
beloved57
Well-known member
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
What is predestined in the greater cosmological context of all outcomes are the natural consequences of choice in response to God's call for salvation,....and these are determined by choice! I think we have a peculiar reversal of things here. Predestination does not nullify freedom of choice, since all possible destinies are already 'preordained'/'predestined' by CHOICE
- they just happen to already be in the MIND of God,...since all potentials/possibilities/contingencies are already known by him, as they exist, and as they come into being.
beloved57
Well-known member
More lies not found in scripture!What is predestined in the greater cosmological context of all outcomes are the natural consequences of choice in response to God's call for salvation,....and these are determined by choice! I think we have a peculiar reversal of things here. Predestination does not nullify freedom of choice, since all possible destinies are already 'preordained'/'predestined' by CHOICE
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Lets see, we've been thru quite a many scriptures already....do you not read our posts? How many more would convince you? Readers profit as well in these discussions, hence their value. If you have no freedom to choose or respond to anything, within any given situation or circumstance, you are not free. Where there is no freedom, there can be no creativity or love.
beloved57
Well-known member
What scripture says that man has a freewill?
Men can't come to Christ unless the Father draws him. Jn 6:44, the word can't means inability.
Those in the flesh can't please God Rom 8:8, so man has no freewill to please God.
Man can't be subject to the Law of God Rom 8:7
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Relax....and reconsider
Relax....and reconsider
Just observations of logic and truth - free will is a complex subject in itself, even beyond the few passages of Paul used to support a hyper-view of predestination.
Go here for starters.
My own view is probably more within a 'compatibilist' context,...since while I uphold freedom of choice, we cannot deny that some things are predetermined by various factors, of course...in any given event. - this however does not annul freedom to choose. I'm exploring/researching more of a middle ground inbetween 'determinism' and 'indeterminism'. New studies in free will are even bringing up new term-catagories, as to make things even more complicated.
See: The Problem of Free Will
Relax....and reconsider
Just observations of logic and truth
- free will is a complex subject in itself, even beyond the few passages of Paul used to support a hyper-view of predestination.Go here for starters.
My own view is probably more within a 'compatibilist' context,...since while I uphold freedom of choice, we cannot deny that some things are predetermined by various factors, of course...in any given event. - this however does not annul freedom to choose. I'm exploring/researching more of a middle ground inbetween 'determinism' and 'indeterminism'. New studies in free will are even bringing up new term-catagories, as to make things even more complicated.
See: The Problem of Free Will
beloved57
Well-known member
So your religion is of natural mind human logic and not Divine Inspiration. So here's my response Prov 14:12Just observations of logic and truth
Go here for starters.
My own view is probably more within a 'compatibilist' context,...since while I uphold freedom of choice, we cannot deny that some things are predetermined by various factors, of course...in any given event. - this however does not annul freedom to choose. I'm exploring/researching more of a middle ground inbetween 'determinism' and 'indeterminism'. New studies in free will are even bringing up new term-catagories, as to make things even more complicated.
See: The Problem of Free Will
There is a way which seemeth*right*unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of*death.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Why can't it just be true?
Agreed. Some, however, define it too much.
Agreed. And it must always be free.
Again, "free will" is a tautology. "The will must be caused" is enough.
It's not problematic for me. :idunno:
It sounds like your reasoning is that because a Calvinist believes something, nobody else can.
I believe men's choices are caused by stuff. I'm not a Calvinist.
beloved57
Well-known member
He made some people to be the seed of the serpent, Children of the devil or of the wicked one. They are also called vessels of wrath fitted for destruction! Now God made them that way and they can't change it! So yes from that perspective God has commanded it, determined it!
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
