IS MAN FREE TO CHOOSE?

[GodsGrace]

That definition is vague to the point of uselessness IMO. It fits both Augustine's definition and that of "libertarian free will" which are contradictory. (Aside: there are other definition) It does not address why one chooses or who/what influences determine the choice or what influences would nullify 'free will'.
How much force/influence can God use before my decision is not free? Can He have no influence? Complete influence? When does influence become force and nullify the definition of 'free will'?

Example: Man puts a gun to my head and asks me to kiss his feet or he will shot me. I would freely chose to kiss his feet though someone else might say I was not free to choose depending on their definition of 'free will'. The same man yesterday asked me to kiss his feet and I freely chose to say "no thanks"; but why, because I don't like sandals and does that influence nullify my free choice. Tomorrow Christ comes by and I weep and go to the ground and kiss his feet; was I free to do so or did something influence my decision to the degree that my decision was not free. According to "libertarian free will" I could kiss or not kiss a person's feet in each situation. And if that same situation occurs in the future I could do the opposite.

This is the beauty of "free will". It's meaning is so vague, that it fits nicely into everyone's conversation. You can talk about free will and mean "X" and I can listen and agree because my understanding of what he said means "Y". Ones understanding, even in ones own mind, is vague. It can mean "X" in one circumstance or "X +/-" in another situation or the same situation at another time.

Maybe that's why people refuse to define 'free will' explicitly, because it is central to their theology and an explicit definition might wither if exposed to the light of day.

My definition: We always chose what we desire most at the time. This is empirically proven. It allows for my decision to be influenced. This is an integral part of compatibilism and is the best of both worlds. God can be sovereign in everything (not just most things) by controlling my desire; yet, I get what ever I want/chose. This ensures that everything worketh for good to those that love them because God is in complete control instead of sinful me. Thank you God for controlling all things to the benefit of the ones you love. Sweet harmony.

No FF.
If you have to decide with a gun to your head that IS NOT FREE WILL.
That is coercion of your will.

I've said all along that free will does not have any coercion from outside forces.
(I believe you just don't care to reply to my verses regarding free will)...
(because it's obvious that we have free will).

 

[Fastfredy0]

What is your understanding of what Jacob (James) Arminius taught on free will and election? Please cite Arminius directly.

An administrator told us not to talk about Arminianism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, etc. on this thread. I am trying to respect that request. Seeing Arminius is associated with Arminianism, I best stay quiet though I have never mentioned his name in any post to my knowledge.
If you want to tell me what he thought, works for me.

 

[Fastfredy0]

If you have to decide with a gun to your head that IS NOT FREE WILL.
That is coercion of your will.

You have no stated definition of 'free will', so your thoughts on the subject are without standing IMO. In other words, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[GodsGrace]

An administrator told us not to talk about Arminianism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, etc. on this thread. I am trying to respect that request. See Arminius is associated with Arminianism, I best stay quiet though I have never mentioned his name in any post to my knowledge.

Fastfred....
You COULD talk about free will, but you don't want to.

You should answer OzSpen ....

 

[GodsGrace]

You have no stated definition of 'free will', so your thoughts on the subject are without standing IMO. In other words, I don't know what you are talking about.
Aside: Glad OzSpen said I can put prepostions at the end of a sentence. Save me time.

Ain't is also accepted these days.
It doesn't make it right.

You would have to read Oz's post again.

 

[Fastfredy0]

You would have to read Oz's post again.

Easier to ask him. OzSpen , is it acceptable to put prepositions at the end of a sentence.
(Please say YES .. trying to bias him in my favor.)

Aside: This assumes Oz is an authority on such things. I think he does this sort of thing.

 

[jasonc]

Calvinists don't know if they're saved or not.
They have to persevere till the end, and since THEY didn't choose
§God....He could let them go at any time He wanted to.

Great theology.

How do you like this:

Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness.
The Institutes Book 3 Chapter 24 Paragraph 8


How would someone know they are not one of the above mentioned?
There would be no way of knowing if one is really saved or not.

I was speaking on Arminist who believe in that perseverance of the saints

 

[for_his_glory]

[ACMP=warning]
Here we are on page 19 still discussing Calvinism and Arminianism after I gave a friendly reminder not to do this anymore. None of mans theories and doctrines have anything to do with Biblical facts found in scripture on free-will nor have anything to do with the OP. This needs to cease or this thread will be in danger of being closed.
[/ACMP]

 

[GodsGrace]

I was speaking on Arminist who believe in that perseverance of the saints

I'm not too interested in what Arminiuns think or believe.
I tend to trust what my bible says and what Jesus stated.
Jesus cried over Jerusalem because they "would not go to Him"...
That sounds like free will to me.
This thread is about free will...not some guy named Arminius.

And I posted something by John Calvin because we were discussing
perseverance of the saints....my point is that a calvanist does not know
IF he is saved or not and I posted why.

The why is precisely because of what Calvin taught.

I like what the bible teaches much better.
And I know from God's nature that it's the truth.
I don't know the God Calvin taught.

 

[Link1983]

Hi Link...
I agree with you,,,,but I do wonder how a person could believe that man does not have
free will.

I think it's a good idea to speak about this as long as everyone stays calm and we respect each other.
We're all brothers in Christ and are just speaking what we believe.

It's interesting how two different persons could read the same bible and come to different conclusion.

Absolutely. Discussion is great as long as we have the same goals.
To help and not to be self-righteous but God righteous.

One could say interesting but I would say it is more sad and dividing of those that should do the very opposite.
To agree..
I don't or at least don't want to create my own personal opinions or interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible speaks for itself.
Discussion on understanding what it reads rather than have personal opinions about it.
That is something like pride.. And we know what God feels about the prideful.
Christians should be in complete agreement with each other. Based upon the truth that is the Word of God.
GB L

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Easier to ask him. OzSpen , is it acceptable to put prepositions at the end of a sentence.
(Please say YES .. trying to bias him in my favor.)

Aside: This assumes Oz is an authority on such things. I think he does this sort of thing.

Prepositions?
If you think that's where it is at.

 

[GodsGrace]

Absolutely. Discussion is great as long as we have the same goals.
To help and not to be self-righteous but God righteous.

One could say interesting but I would say it is more sad and dividing of those that should do the very opposite.
To agree..
I don't or at least don't want to create my own personal opinions or interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible speaks for itself.
Discussion on understanding what it reads rather than have personal opinions about it.
That is something like pride.. And we know what God feels about the prideful.
Christians should be in complete agreement with each other. Based upon the truth that is the Word of God.
GB L

I wish this could be true.
But it seems there are too many differing opinions on what exactly the bible teaches.
This doesn't seem to be true in the early church.
There were heresies that tried to contaminate the church,,,but they were rejected.
Today it seems like we can accept everything and anything.
IOW...what IS the truth?
I like to go by what Jesus stated more than what the writers wrote.
I don't think there's any conflict,,,but some sure make it look like there is.

 

[jasonc]

I'm not too interested in what Arminiuns think or believe.
I tend to trust what my bible says and what Jesus stated.
Jesus cried over Jerusalem because they "would not go to Him"...
That sounds like free will to me.
This thread is about free will...not some guy named Arminius.

And I posted something by John Calvin because we were discussing
perseverance of the saints....my point is that a calvanist does not know
IF he is saved or not and I posted why.

The why is precisely because of what Calvin taught.

I like what the bible teaches much better.
And I know from God's nature that it's the truth.
I don't know the God Calvin taught.

I'm not interested in what wondering says.see how that works ,you have your own view ,neither catholoc ,neither reformed,attended a Arminist Nazarene church .

yet im confused ?


look ,since the churches I do ask on osas teach it that way .my,brother explicitly said he is not reformed but arminist.what else am I to say when he can quote and defend his positions ?

or others that state they aren't southern Baptist ministers .if it quacks like a duck ,looks like one .. it must be.
your definition of free will is that you despite if God never even reached out to you ,you would despite that sin proclivity ruling you and enslaving you be able to choose and find God .

or if not that outside of God's pressure to get you to change ,you own your own would ,despite God cursing the soil for mans sake ,making sin consequences .

God having no,ability to shake ,influence your life to bend your Will to his!

im not reformed at all but I don't buy your posotion that men are born without any proclivity to sin ,free from original sin that.we are bent to sin.

ff simply asked for a definition of free and you simply state im free to say no.and call that free will.
our choices are limited by God ,our nature to sin,and satan and others .

you sinply can't see that at all.I can.I don't agree with how far they take limited free will but well try to escape any bad habit ,pray ,fast and naught changes ,God simply allows it for his will.

our ability to choose to good and do it can't be construed to whereby our good works alone make us right .that is what the reformed say by

there is no .not one righteous,none,none seeks God.

 

[jasonc]

I'm not interested in what wondering says.see how that works ,you have your own view ,neither catholoc ,neither reformed,attended a Arminist Nazarene church .

yet im confused ?


look ,since the churches I do ask on osas teach it that way .my,brother explicitly said he is not reformed but arminist.what else am I to say when he can quote and defend his positions ?

or others that state they aren't southern Baptist ministers .if it quacks like a duck ,looks like one .. it must be.
your definition of free will is that you despite if God never even reached out to you ,you would despite that sin proclivity ruling you and enslaving you be able to choose and find God .

or if not that outside of God's pressure to get you to change ,you own your own would ,despite God cursing the soil for mans sake ,making sin consequences .

God having no,ability to shake ,influence your life to bend your Will to his!

im not reformed at all but I don't buy your posotion that men are born without any proclivity to sin ,free from original sin that.we are bent to sin.

ff simply asked for a definition of free and you simply state im free to say no.and call that free will.
our choices are limited by God ,our nature to sin,and satan and others .

you sinply can't see that at all.I can.I don't agree with how far they take limited free will but well try to escape any bad habit ,pray ,fast and naught changes ,God simply allows it for his will.

our ability to choose to good and do it can't be construed to whereby our good works alone make us right .that is what the reformed say by

there is no .not one righteous,none,none seeks God.

I am grateful that God allowed me to falter enough to see how unable I am to be fixed and that only he can heal me of those issues of brokenness from sinful,influence ,and thought patterns and sin choices learned in the army and child hood .

he let me go so far and decided to interupt my life .I'm glad I was in such a state it was worth the offer to be freed from the wages of sin.

facing jail,for my choices ,lying etc ,stealing etc

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not interested in what wondering says.see how that works ,you have your own view ,neither catholoc ,neither reformed,attended a Arminist Nazarene church .

yet im confused ?


look ,since the churches I do ask on osas teach it that way .my,brother explicitly said he is not reformed but arminist.what else am I to say when he can quote and defend his positions ?

or others that state they aren't southern Baptist ministers .if it quacks like a duck ,looks like one .. it must be.
your definition of free will is that you despite if God never even reached out to you ,you would despite that sin proclivity ruling you and enslaving you be able to choose and find God .

or if not that outside of God's pressure to get you to change ,you own your own would ,despite God cursing the soil for mans sake ,making sin consequences .

God having no,ability to shake ,influence your life to bend your Will to his!

im not reformed at all but I don't buy your posotion that men are born without any proclivity to sin ,free from original sin that.we are bent to sin.

ff simply asked for a definition of free and you simply state im free to say no.and call that free will.
our choices are limited by God ,our nature to sin,and satan and others .

you sinply can't see that at all.I can.I don't agree with how far they take limited free will but well try to escape any bad habit ,pray ,fast and naught changes ,God simply allows it for his will.

our ability to choose to good and do it can't be construed to whereby our good works alone make us right .that is what the reformed say by

there is no .not one righteous,none,none seeks God.

You say no one seeks God.
But God said:

SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Matthew 6:33

GOD REWARDS THOSE WHO SEEK HIM
Hebrews 11:6

THOSE WHO SEEK ME DILIGENTLY, FIND ME
Proverbs 8:17

YOU WILL SEEK ME AND FIND ME
Jeremiah 29:13

YOU WILL SEEK THE LORD AND FIND HIM
Deuteronomy 4:29

SEEK AND YOU WILL FIND
Matthew 7:7

GOD LOOKS DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO SEE IF ANY CHILD OF MAN SEEKS HIM
Psalm 14:2

there are many more...

We are expected to seek God
and He will make Himself be found.

 

[GodsGrace]

jasonc

P.S. I'm not interested in what Wondering says either.
I use verses from the bible as much as possible...
even when other posters refuse to answer to them.

 

[jasonc]

jasonc

P.S. I'm not interested in what Wondering says either.
I use verses from the bible as much as possible...
even when other posters refuse to answer to them.

strange one you are .
he can't because you aren't able to define free .

 

[GodsGrace]

strange one you are .
he can't because you aren't able to define free .

Jason,
Everybody knows what free will is.
Philosophers could debate this...
but biblically we cannot because free will
applies to moral choices, and anything else we have to decide.
Vanilla ice-cream or chocolate???

Someone CHANGED the meaning of free will and thus we now have
a problem.

I don't accept the new meaning of free will.
Free will means a will that is free from outside coercion.
If that is not enough, so be it.

The bible teaches free will so it's difficult to speak against it.

How do YOU understand Jesus crying over Jerusalem?
Did the Jews have the choice to go to Him or not to go to Him?
Why would Jesus be crying if, being God's Son, He knew they had no free will choice?

I've asked this many times now with no reply.

 

[jasonc]

You say no one seeks God.
But God said:

SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Matthew 6:33

GOD REWARDS THOSE WHO SEEK HIM
Hebrews 11:6

THOSE WHO SEEK ME DILIGENTLY, FIND ME
Proverbs 8:17

YOU WILL SEEK ME AND FIND ME
Jeremiah 29:13

YOU WILL SEEK THE LORD AND FIND HIM
Deuteronomy 4:29

SEEK AND YOU WILL FIND
Matthew 7:7

GOD LOOKS DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO SEE IF ANY CHILD OF MAN SEEKS HIM
Psalm 14:2

there are many more...

We are expected to seek God
and He will make Himself be found.

so ok asks Paul whk said this and pPaul wrote to the church and those books are written to the jews not to the lost ,first audience is the command given to .
Romans 3:10 to 19

note so that all the world under the law men have no excuse the law of God ,whether as given to the jews or written in mens heart makes it clear ,no one seeks God Romans 3:19
Romans 3:20

are you greater them Paul ?

 

[jasonc]

Jason,
Everybody knows what free will is.
Philosophers could debate this...
but biblically we cannot because free will
applies to moral choices, and anything else we have to decide.
Vanilla ice-cream or chocolate???

Someone CHANGED the meaning of free will and thus we now have
a problem.

I don't accept the new meaning of free will.
Free will means a will that is free from outside coercion.
If that is not enough, so be it.

The bible teaches free will so it's difficult to speak against it.

How do YOU understand Jesus crying over Jerusalem?
Did the Jews have the choice to go to Him or not to go to Him?
Why would Jesus be crying if, being God's Son, He knew they had no free will choice?

I've asked this many times now with no reply.

Jesus wanted to and they rejected him .

you assume because you think otherwuse

everyone knows what free means .

i want ,according to you be holy ,i can because i don't need God .he duesnt even have to act ,i will find him .he wants to be foubd