Free Will
- Thread starter Aetheryn
- Start date
Kind of goes against the idea that I was predetermined before the foundation of the earth to do everything doesn't it.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Respectful dialogue appreciated......
Respectful dialogue appreciated......
I don't know about a 'mirrored response', but Arminius reaction and modification of Calvin's TULIP came by way of his own study (via reasoning, logic, consideration, research), evaluating what he found in the scriptures, plus some things that he admitted have yet to be discovered from a study of the scriptures,...in other words he admitted there being some things not so clear or revealed as of yet. Have you considered the 5 points of classical armininianism and how it compares, how it differs from TULIP? - such a comparison is good in covering the common spectrum of free will/sovereignty issues within Christianity in general. Since I find 'free will' (some measure of genuine free will) most rational, I naturally side to some aspects of Arminianism, but not all. I'm still researching/contemplating.
It makes no difference to truth, how 'rooted' or grounded a former teachers doctrines were popularized or accepted, if there has been a positive reformation of those views, based on certain sound principles, reason and logic. Therefore, I think Arminianism is worth considering and I think some modifications were at least in the right direction for Arminius. - of course other thinkers, leaders and groups have accepted some of his points and expanded further thereon. I don't think its so much an 'obsession with free will' as you presume, but an honest acknowledgement of its existence
- even right now, you and I are choosing to engage in a creative dialogue on the subject, which is subject to many different forms and nuances of terms and meanings. - therefore we are co-creating a new stream of discussion and thought, expanding the context, bringing out various flavors as it were.
And do NOTE,....in all my commentary on free will, I recognize there is a limitation of freedom of choice within a given range and scope (due to our place in finite space and time), but it is there in any given event, no matter how varied any inner or outer influences might be. This is my view currently, it could change. When we consider libertarian free will, at least transpiring in the soul where no prior causation is influencing,...it is there in that 'space' of choosing that is truly 'free', this points to a dimension of freedom that is uncaused, it is wholly original and creative, - this function within the soul is that which is created and made in the image and likeness of God', who is truly free and creative. (this is a nuance I'm looking more into, and it was touched on in my former video post by Rabbi Tatz here, there is even a special Hebrew word for this). At other times influences may be bearing more or less, but one is still free to choose.
What I find odd is that merely recognizing this somehow impinges upon God's sovereignty,...its an absurd assumption, since all things are granted or allowed in divine providence anyways, and we must not forget that Love is God's essential nature and character....and the POWER of God is the enforcing influence of love, which is giving man freedom to choose the ultimates of life or death. Assuming 'God' is going to PASS OVER hundreds if not thousands of souls, and LEAVE THEM to DIE or suffer for eternity is wholly contrary to love, and what is even more irrational is that its admitted that no reason is known why God (who is supposed to be love) chooses some and bypasses others. This 'mystery' borders on a subtle 'cognitive dissonance', where its somehow accepted that "sure, God loves all, the gospel message is preached to all souls",...but God's love is only 'effective' or 'revealed' to some, and this love is given arbitrarily, since the recepients have done nothing to earn it, or influence God in any way to effect its bestowal. - yet those who were predestined to be "passed over", also...have done nothing nothing to choose or influence their fate to be eternally abandoned. - and all the while,...the only justification offered for this strange logic,....is "God can do whatever He wants to,...because He is God". - this is all that can be offered, because the theology cannot logically be held up to the standard of LOVE, this love having a universal will for healing, restoration, salvation,... a love which gives all an 'equal opportunity' to be saved, to enjoy life, blessing and immortality. This 'love' in Calvinism is wholly denied to hundreds of souls, by no choice or effect caused or chosen by themselves, but because 'God' DECREED they be left for dead. - these souls are denied the grace that could save them. - is this kind of 'god' worthy of praise? - worthy to be glorified? Does such an act of en masse abandonment and damnation earn God a genuine heart felt worship? - I cant see how such actions can be appreciated, must less worshipped, as so many souls are deprived of the grace that COULD save them. - But 'God' forbids it, by his decree, by his will. - its insanity.
I think we have a lot of preconceptions/presuppositions here, and granted that many of us have them, its commendable when recognized, so we could look at a greater context. 'Fee will' is a study going on since the dawn of time, when men could contemplate and philosophize about it, so its reality doesn't need a 'chapter and verse' for its existence, although ample passages infer freedom to choose, such liberty being the basis of relational covenants, partnerships and the like, between God and man. Voluntary love and co-operation is at the heart of free enterprise. - these are allowed within the will of God, because they are provisional freedoms.
At any rate,....a response to AMR may be forthcoming, but I still hold that 'preterition' is so contrary to love, as to go without saying. At least Arminius effected a proper reformation in doctrine in the 'right direction' as to recognize the place of 'freedom of choice' and 'personal responsibility' in man's experience, dismissing both the 'hyper' and 'soft' forms of TULIP pioneered by Calvin. - as I might have noted before, I recognize the difference in certain aspects as proposed by AMR earlier. - but even a de-hyperized reformed theology STILL denies saving grace to souls who COULD otherwise be given that grace by God.
Respectful dialogue appreciated......
I don't know about a 'mirrored response', but Arminius reaction and modification of Calvin's TULIP came by way of his own study (via reasoning, logic, consideration, research), evaluating what he found in the scriptures, plus some things that he admitted have yet to be discovered from a study of the scriptures,...in other words he admitted there being some things not so clear or revealed as of yet. Have you considered the 5 points of classical armininianism and how it compares, how it differs from TULIP? - such a comparison is good in covering the common spectrum of free will/sovereignty issues within Christianity in general. Since I find 'free will' (some measure of genuine free will) most rational, I naturally side to some aspects of Arminianism, but not all. I'm still researching/contemplating.
It makes no difference to truth, how 'rooted' or grounded a former teachers doctrines were popularized or accepted, if there has been a positive reformation of those views, based on certain sound principles, reason and logic. Therefore, I think Arminianism is worth considering and I think some modifications were at least in the right direction for Arminius. - of course other thinkers, leaders and groups have accepted some of his points and expanded further thereon. I don't think its so much an 'obsession with free will' as you presume, but an honest acknowledgement of its existence
- even right now, you and I are choosing to engage in a creative dialogue on the subject, which is subject to many different forms and nuances of terms and meanings. - therefore we are co-creating a new stream of discussion and thought, expanding the context, bringing out various flavors as it were.And do NOTE,....in all my commentary on free will, I recognize there is a limitation of freedom of choice within a given range and scope (due to our place in finite space and time), but it is there in any given event, no matter how varied any inner or outer influences might be. This is my view currently, it could change. When we consider libertarian free will, at least transpiring in the soul where no prior causation is influencing,...it is there in that 'space' of choosing that is truly 'free', this points to a dimension of freedom that is uncaused, it is wholly original and creative, - this function within the soul is that which is created and made in the image and likeness of God', who is truly free and creative. (this is a nuance I'm looking more into, and it was touched on in my former video post by Rabbi Tatz here, there is even a special Hebrew word for this). At other times influences may be bearing more or less, but one is still free to choose.
What I find odd is that merely recognizing this somehow impinges upon God's sovereignty,...its an absurd assumption, since all things are granted or allowed in divine providence anyways, and we must not forget that Love is God's essential nature and character....and the POWER of God is the enforcing influence of love, which is giving man freedom to choose the ultimates of life or death. Assuming 'God' is going to PASS OVER hundreds if not thousands of souls, and LEAVE THEM to DIE or suffer for eternity is wholly contrary to love, and what is even more irrational is that its admitted that no reason is known why God (who is supposed to be love) chooses some and bypasses others. This 'mystery' borders on a subtle 'cognitive dissonance', where its somehow accepted that "sure, God loves all, the gospel message is preached to all souls",...but God's love is only 'effective' or 'revealed' to some, and this love is given arbitrarily, since the recepients have done nothing to earn it, or influence God in any way to effect its bestowal. - yet those who were predestined to be "passed over", also...have done nothing nothing to choose or influence their fate to be eternally abandoned. - and all the while,...the only justification offered for this strange logic,....is "God can do whatever He wants to,...because He is God". - this is all that can be offered, because the theology cannot logically be held up to the standard of LOVE, this love having a universal will for healing, restoration, salvation,... a love which gives all an 'equal opportunity' to be saved, to enjoy life, blessing and immortality. This 'love' in Calvinism is wholly denied to hundreds of souls, by no choice or effect caused or chosen by themselves, but because 'God' DECREED they be left for dead. - these souls are denied the grace that could save them. - is this kind of 'god' worthy of praise? - worthy to be glorified? Does such an act of en masse abandonment and damnation earn God a genuine heart felt worship? - I cant see how such actions can be appreciated, must less worshipped, as so many souls are deprived of the grace that COULD save them. - But 'God' forbids it, by his decree, by his will. - its insanity.
I think we have a lot of preconceptions/presuppositions here, and granted that many of us have them, its commendable when recognized, so we could look at a greater context. 'Fee will' is a study going on since the dawn of time, when men could contemplate and philosophize about it, so its reality doesn't need a 'chapter and verse' for its existence, although ample passages infer freedom to choose, such liberty being the basis of relational covenants, partnerships and the like, between God and man. Voluntary love and co-operation is at the heart of free enterprise. - these are allowed within the will of God, because they are provisional freedoms.
At any rate,....a response to AMR may be forthcoming, but I still hold that 'preterition' is so contrary to love, as to go without saying. At least Arminius effected a proper reformation in doctrine in the 'right direction' as to recognize the place of 'freedom of choice' and 'personal responsibility' in man's experience, dismissing both the 'hyper' and 'soft' forms of TULIP pioneered by Calvin. - as I might have noted before, I recognize the difference in certain aspects as proposed by AMR earlier. - but even a de-hyperized reformed theology STILL denies saving grace to souls who COULD otherwise be given that grace by God.
It's the blueprint if life that God designed. You'll always bounce back toward the blueprint of life the way God planned it. The neutron and the photon will bounce back into its proper orbit around the nucleus in the atom. Molecules work that way and you're made of it. The earth will fight to stay in its orbit according to the laws. You are made of those laws and things. God knew where and when things will be. You can't fight it cause the Bible said you're totally depraved just like Calvin said. Calvin got it from God. You think Calvin got things from the devil. You're just stabbing your own self in the back. You follow God's blueprints. You will need water. You will find a way to get water or else. The reformed amazingly got things right cause it's in the Bible in plain view. You'll need sight to see things in plain view but you're blind and complain about nothing just for the sake of hurting others. Being unenlightened, unmindful, you plant fear in others to satisfy your own ego. My guess is you have been married several times
Last edited:
Once again, you're basing your assumption that there is only atoms and molecules and the laws that make them work. Tell me, Tulip, what physical law gives meaning to DNA? In other words, why does the DNA sequence 'ATG' not mean the same as 'GAT', where 'ATG' has to do with hair color, and 'GAT' has to do with how quickly the body produces amino acids? What law decides that?
Also, I don't base my theology on the teachings of man, I base it on the teachings of the Bible, which is so simple a child can understand it, but apparently you can't.
Also, what does my marital status have anything to do with this? Strike two. Once again, you have no idea how my life has proceeded. I have NEVER been married, so your guess is wrong. One more strike, and you're going on my ignore list. And I don't put people on ignored or blocked lists very often.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
You don't know hoot about your deepest being so you invent free will hoping you'll get somewhere.
Now is the time to confess you're not getting anywhere and trust Jesus.
And strike three. You're going on ignore because your skull is so thick as to think that I was lying when I said I got saved in 5th grade. Because you think I don't know myself, yet you do. See you on Judgment day.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
We don't play games when using the Bible. You lied again. Jesus is above Superbowl.
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
How our free will may affect others.....
How our free will may affect others.....
~*~*~
Adding from Rabbi Tatz last video lecture on 'Understanding Free Will' here, I thought to share his insightful lecture on 'Does My Free Will Affect You?' below. It offers insights from a Jewish perspective on how and in what ways our free will can affect others, in their life and destiny paths, and what factors might modify such effects.
(sorry, at the moment the video is not functional for some reason,...not sure if a technical issue or not).
How our free will may affect others.....
~*~*~
Adding from Rabbi Tatz last video lecture on 'Understanding Free Will' here, I thought to share his insightful lecture on 'Does My Free Will Affect You?' below. It offers insights from a Jewish perspective on how and in what ways our free will can affect others, in their life and destiny paths, and what factors might modify such effects.
(sorry, at the moment the video is not functional for some reason,...not sure if a technical issue or not).
We don't play games when using the Bible. You lied again. Jesus is above Superbowl.
Nope, every man does not at heart "hate God" deep inside: that is merely your own perspective.
Perhaps that very statement helps to explain why Calvinists are Calvinists and-or Reformers.
You imagine that all people are just like yourselves but you do not speak for humanity.
popsthebuilder
New member
Zeke
Well-known member
popsthebuilder
New member
Just saying we aren't to revolt or cause violence. Call it what you want.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
LOL, well, you simply did what he said and focused on it, and noticed it was misspelled! Nice!
Zeke
Well-known member
Ah need it all spelled correct to consider that fact. Persona
Sent from my A462C using TheologyOnline mobile app
Sent from my A462C using TheologyOnline mobile app
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Dynamic intercourse is 'creative' in nature and function......
Dynamic intercourse is 'creative' in nature and function......
Yes, this extremism to paint humanity as 'haters of God', assuming 'total depravity' to its ultimate grandness, doesn't agree with the Jewish standard of man's natural ability (God given of course, for what doesn't come from God?) to hear and obey God (this can be enhanced by grace and the holy spirit of course), since they do NOT have any cardinal doctrine of 'original sin', developed later by Christain theologians. This stressed endeavor to emphasize 'total depravity' is but a reactional gesture to magnify the NEED of initializing/empowering grace (who denies this?), to assume 'God' must be the one to begin the drawing process, because of man's inability to come to God on his own. Most religious/spiritual folks already agree however that all is by God's grace, all is afforded by grace, so what of it?
Mind you, BOTH good and evil come from YHWH, as the scripture says, interpret that anyway you like, the fact remains that all potentials and possibilities of good and evil are ALLOWED by God to exist actually and potentially, every quality or property to extend their full fruition and ultimate end. This is all allowed within divine providence. Freedom of choice is also allowed by 'God' as we've expounded here and elsewhere thus far, just like your ability NOW to read these words and effect some response or reaction thereby, which is NOT wholly predetermined or fated by some Deity somewhere, but within your own mind's capacity to determine for yourself. Without this freedom, man would have no enterprise of co-creation, responsibility, moral accountability, stewardship, opportunity of learning or growth in wisdom,....his very freedom enables the full potential of evolution, progress and path towards innovation and perfection to unfold (whereby he fulfills his purpose of being, actualizing potentials of life/immortality). Therefore the sanctity of free will where genuine volition may operate, ensures interaction of life potential, and even more importantly, engagement with God in creation....in dynamic intercourse.
Dynamic intercourse is 'creative' in nature and function......
Yes, this extremism to paint humanity as 'haters of God', assuming 'total depravity' to its ultimate grandness, doesn't agree with the Jewish standard of man's natural ability (God given of course, for what doesn't come from God?) to hear and obey God (this can be enhanced by grace and the holy spirit of course), since they do NOT have any cardinal doctrine of 'original sin', developed later by Christain theologians. This stressed endeavor to emphasize 'total depravity' is but a reactional gesture to magnify the NEED of initializing/empowering grace (who denies this?), to assume 'God' must be the one to begin the drawing process, because of man's inability to come to God on his own. Most religious/spiritual folks already agree however that all is by God's grace, all is afforded by grace, so what of it?
Mind you, BOTH good and evil come from YHWH, as the scripture says, interpret that anyway you like, the fact remains that all potentials and possibilities of good and evil are ALLOWED by God to exist actually and potentially, every quality or property to extend their full fruition and ultimate end. This is all allowed within divine providence. Freedom of choice is also allowed by 'God' as we've expounded here and elsewhere thus far, just like your ability NOW to read these words and effect some response or reaction thereby, which is NOT wholly predetermined or fated by some Deity somewhere, but within your own mind's capacity to determine for yourself. Without this freedom, man would have no enterprise of co-creation, responsibility, moral accountability, stewardship, opportunity of learning or growth in wisdom,....his very freedom enables the full potential of evolution, progress and path towards innovation and perfection to unfold (whereby he fulfills his purpose of being, actualizing potentials of life/immortality). Therefore the sanctity of free will where genuine volition may operate, ensures interaction of life potential, and even more importantly, engagement with God in creation....in dynamic intercourse.
For the most part we fully agree, (except that I do not even believe that "evil" comes from the Father nor do I believe that the Father "knows" evil). One of the most basic precepts comes from the very first words in the Shema, "HEAR, O ISRAEL", and Yeshua himself confirms this by quoting it in Mark 12:29-30 and calling it the first and-or greatest commandment, (which is not even one of the so-called "Ten Commandments" but of course Deut 6:4-5). To say that man cannot HEAR without first having his heart and mind opened by the One who gave this commandment to begin with is to nullify His Word and make it of no effect. Why would a loving Father command his children to hear if He already knows they are not capable of hearing? Indeed the exaltation of "Total Depravity" releases any burden upon the man to actually HEAR, BELIEVE, and ACT accordingly; and thus the proverbial "Calvinist fear of chaos" dictates the doctrine. This thinking is allegorized in the Jebusites who hide behind the blind and lame, that is, "I cannot do what is required because I cannot see, I cannot hear, I cannot take the first step, and therefore I am not responsible." ~ Jebusites, 2 Sam 5:6, 7, 8, and that genos of blind a lame are "hated of David's soul", clearly meaning that this does not concern the literal blind and lame but the spiritually blind and lame. :chuckle:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Evil coming into being thru free will...........
Evil coming into being thru free will...........
I hear you here, since I'm trained in that school as well, that holds 'God' as one who cannot see or know evil, being wholly Good, the eternal and infinite Good Alone, as for being that original, universal, non-dual, indivisible ONE, that cannot be any other than its own singular nature, all holy. But you are aware of the scriptures that do attest YHWH as being the one who creates, allows, makes allowance for both evil(calamity) and good (blessing) {in fact the whole dichotomy of light/darkness; life/death...arises as an interplay in creation}, and this is a matter of translation eh? STILL as I noted,....all potentials/possibilities for good inhere in 'God', but whence comes evil? - even if you say it cannot be derived from Deity, it arose from some inherent potential allowed to exist by God, thru some privation, lack, or shadow contrasted by infinite good and LIGHT, since arising in that duality or light/shadow interplay....is the mystery of evil/iniquity. I'm sure you can bring up many interesting scriptural allusions on this theme - I just thought to bring it up for exploration. - anyways, while on the subject of 'free will', we see how this very faculty allows evil to have a play in human experience. Would you agree then that evil exists and its potential for death and destruction because of 'free will'?
Evil coming into being thru free will...........
I hear you here, since I'm trained in that school as well, that holds 'God' as one who cannot see or know evil, being wholly Good, the eternal and infinite Good Alone, as for being that original, universal, non-dual, indivisible ONE, that cannot be any other than its own singular nature, all holy. But you are aware of the scriptures that do attest YHWH as being the one who creates, allows, makes allowance for both evil(calamity) and good (blessing) {in fact the whole dichotomy of light/darkness; life/death...arises as an interplay in creation}, and this is a matter of translation eh? STILL as I noted,....all potentials/possibilities for good inhere in 'God', but whence comes evil? - even if you say it cannot be derived from Deity, it arose from some inherent potential allowed to exist by God, thru some privation, lack, or shadow contrasted by infinite good and LIGHT, since arising in that duality or light/shadow interplay....is the mystery of evil/iniquity. I'm sure you can bring up many interesting scriptural allusions on this theme
- I just thought to bring it up for exploration. - anyways, while on the subject of 'free will', we see how this very faculty allows evil to have a play in human experience. Would you agree then that evil exists and its potential for death and destruction because of 'free will'?