Questions Regarding Free WIll

[OzSpen]

It depends on your definition of freewill. But according to the definition of this thread, yes I had a freewill choice.

And I make the smart choice. Her's.

My understanding of free-will is the ability of contrary choice.

Sure sounds like you had that ability and you were a very wise man. You chose to follow her desire in this regard. I hope there are other decisions in which you choose differently to hers.

My wife chooses to listen to and play jazz piano. I enjoy Jim Reeves, Johnny Cash, Marty Robbins & Slim Dusty. Our musical tastes are streets apart. I'm glad about that and my free-will enables me to reject listening to Beegie Adair.

Oz

 

[KaichosMan]

First, I will define free will as the ability for a person to choose to do good or evil, regardless of the influences, for good or for evil, that may work upon them.

I know from posts on this site that a number of writers find this as part of the foundation of their Christian doctrine. I'd like to ask some questions of those people. So let me start with a few:

1. If you believe in free-will and eternal security, how would you explain why a person who chooses to believe in Christ - i.e. is born-again - cannot have the option to stop believing, i.e. stop being born-again. If they walked in the door, shouldn't they be free to walk out?

I think the best answer to your first point comes from the Apostle Peter. Once you have personally experienced the real God, and the True Faith, you come to see all other religious beliefs as pale, empty imitations. Because of what you have seen and heard, as a believer, it becomes virtually impossible NOT to believe:

"So Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?” Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.”
John 6:67-69 Berean Bible

 

[Hospes]

Hopefully to stir the thinking:

The stories of Jesus calling Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Nathaniel, etc. all have them answering the call to follow Jesus. Believing in free will, one would say they used their free will and decided to follow. The interesting thing is that later Jesus states "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide.... (John 15:16 ESV). Also, in His prayer, Jesus tells his father “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:6-9 ESV)

The disciples obviously freely decide to follow Jesus. So how can Jesus say "You did not choose me..." and "yours they were and you gave them to me...", as if the disciples had no affect on the transaction of being given to Jesus by God?

 

[Hospes]

I think the best answer to your first point comes from the Apostle Peter. Once you have personally experienced the real God, and the True Faith, you come to see all other religious beliefs as pale, empty imitations. Because of what you have seen and heard, as a believer, it becomes virtually impossible NOT to believe:

"So Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?” Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.”
John 6:67-69 Berean Bible

Except for the word "virtually", I fully agree. I used to fully agree even with the word left in. Back then, it was inconceivable I could abandon my Lord, though I believed I had the ability to do so.

 

[JLB]

If you believe in free-will and eternal security, how would you explain why a person who chooses to believe in Christ - i.e. is born-again - cannot have the option to stop believing, i.e. stop being born-again. If they walked in the door, shouldn't they be free to walk out?

Those who are born again, born of God, are His sons through faith in Jesus Christ.

The reason we are sons of God, is we are joined to Christ as a woman and man are joined as Husband and wife.

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.”17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 1 Corinthians 6:15-17

and again -

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26


Can a Man divorce His wife if she is unfaithful to Him, and chooses to go and be joined to another man?


JLB

 

[JLB]

Do we lose free-will once we die? If we do not, what keeps one of the multitudes of Christians in heaven from using their free-will to choose to do evil at some point in eternity?

Nothing.

Just as the angels, who are sons of God, chose to be disobedient during the days of Noah, and were cast down to hell.

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 2 Peter 2:4


JLB

 

[JLB]

I see posts that teach God is not responsible for sin because he gave us free-will. But if God gives me the ability and choice to do great evil against the innocent, is He not in some way responsible for the evil I have committed? If I give a person the choice and ability to rob your house and they do just that, am I not in some degree responsible for your loss? I guess I am not seeing free-will as a good argument for getting God off the hook for my evil.

God is not "on the hook" for a person's choice to do evil or good.

If God gave us the freedom to choose to good or evil, why is He to blame for our choice?

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; Deuteronomy 30:19

again

26 “Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28 and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known. Deuteronomy 11:26-28

and again


If we do go astray He is gracious to call us back to Him -


The blessing of choosing to return to God:

“Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you,2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you. 5 Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. 6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Deuteronomy 30:1-5


JLB

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Hopefully to stir the thinking:

The stories of Jesus calling Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Nathaniel, etc. all have them answering the call to follow Jesus. Believing in free will, one would say they used their free will and decided to follow. The interesting thing is that later Jesus states "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide.... (John 15:16 ESV). Also, in His prayer, Jesus tells his father “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:6-9 ESV)

The disciples obviously freely decide to follow Jesus. So how can Jesus say "You did not choose me..." and "yours they were and you gave them to me...", as if the disciples had no affect on the transaction of being given to Jesus by God?

God called Saul to be the first king of Isreal, before David became king. But eventually God saw that Saul was unfit because he did not wait for God, so God let him get worse. Even to the point of hating David when he was serving the king in his kingdom. So in a way, I think by our decisions God directs our paths. Even our bad decisions can be a course for worse ones or, for some, a path of a wake up call to step away from those choices.

In the way that Saul was chosen and then turned away, I think holds the merrit of free will as well as God's sovernity over us. So I can see the point of Jesus saying His disciples were chosen by God, not that they chose by themselves. Also look at John 6:25-69. Jesus taught a very hard lesson that we now understand with communion and the last supper to give us understanding. Many disciples left, but the 12 that are counted as the Apstoles stayed. John 6:65 speaks on this subject of being helped by God to be a disciple.

65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

Because of these I think it is right that God chose the 12 apstoles, and strengthened their faith. If God helps us in this way or in any other way does this mean we don't have free will? I don't think so.

 

[By Grace]

It depends on your definition of freewill. But according to the definition of this thread, yes I had a freewill choice.

And I make the smart choice. Her's.

It is rather careless, and foolhardy to "discuss" a term for which there is no agreed-upon definition. Otherwise, the discussion would amount to speculating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Therefore, in recognition that there are several possible definitions,I propose posting these in order to come to an agreed-upon consensus:

The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate. (See determinism, fatalism, and predestination.)
www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.)...
If there is such a thing as free will, it has many dimensions. In what follows, I will sketch the freedom-conferring characteristics that have attracted most of the attention. The reader is warned, however, that while many philosophers emphasize a single such characteristic, perhaps in response to the views of their immediate audience, it is probable that most would recognize the significance of many of the other features discussed here.

• 1. Rational Deliberation
  • 1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires
  • 1.2 Free Will as Deliberative Choosing on the Basis of Desires and Values
  • 1.3 Self-mastery, Rightly-Ordered Appetite
• 2. Ownership
• 3. Causation and Control
  • 3.1 Free Will as Guidance Control
  • 3.2 Free Will as Ultimate Origination (Ability to do Otherwise)
  • 3.3 Do We Have Free Will?
• 4. Theological Wrinkles...
  
  Finally, there is the question of the freedom of God himself. Perfect goodness is an essential, not acquired, attribute of God. God cannot lie or be in any way immoral in His dealings with His creatures. Unless we take the minority position on which this is a trivial claim, since whatever God does definitionally counts as good, this appears to be a significant, inner constraint on God's freedom. Did we not contemplate immediately above that human freedom would be curtailed by our having an unmistakable awareness of what is in fact the Good? And yet is it not passing strange to suppose that God should be less than perfectly free?
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#4

If there is no common agreement as to what is meant as to the meaning of a term, we are simply posting AT each other instead of posting TO another poster.

In practical terms, this issue of free will is nipping at the heels of the Bible-based doctrine of total depravity Basically, that means that while humanity can choose to do good, but the degree of our sinfulness prevents anything worthy of salvific merit from happening


Romans 7: 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.


Christian luminaries from Augustine to Luther have looked at this issue, and have not solved it for us, should we expect a solution on this forum?

 

[smaller]

Christian luminaries from Augustine to Luther have looked at this issue, and have not solved it for us, should we expect a solution on this forum?

True, that.

I might observe that the notion that God is only Perfectly Good to His creations is a false notion.

For example, God can be and is Perfectly Wrathful and vengeful to every evil and sin. It is pointless to paint only one face upon God. It is a painting of our own delusions and personal desires to have God look upon us only in such ways.

God also commands fear and terror, because of His Surpassing Glory.

Freewillers tend to insulate and isolate God from evil actions. Yet the O.T. and even the new is filled with retributive evil from God. Call it "justified" evil if we will. But God does render evil manifold or in a greater degree to evil than the evil itself shows. In other words multiplied evil is God's evil retribution to evil.

These kinds of questions are more along the lines of theodicy. Examinations of evil's existence where there is a Perfect Being.

There is one very certain common sense observation about these matters. We are NOT Perfect Beings, at least not at this stage. And this reality alone dictates a lack of "free" in the comparative sense of God Being the Only Truly Free Being. The line of reasoning is that if there is A Perfect Free God and we are not that God, then we have quite a substantial lesser application of the word free by simple comparison. And I can't logically say that is "free" in the same sense.

Is lesser free really free? Not likely. Our fear of the Lord is dictated by His Divine Superiority. We respect our Lord because of this fear, His Surpassing Glory.

Deuteronomy 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

Yes, we have a lesser state. And it would appear that state will remain forever. I'm personally OK with being in the lesser shoes. Apart from this many transition in their faith to delusions and personal fantasies that they are Jesus or even God, equal to. That's a bit of a stretch to anyone with simple common sense. If I never heard another believer claim that "I am the righteousness of God in Christ" I'd be happy. No, we're not Jesus. And yes such claims are utter delusions.

The man of Luke 18 shows a proper attitude. One which receives justifications by God because honesty was given by God to that man.

God be merciful to me, a sinner.

 

[By Grace]

4. If free-will is necessary for love, wouldn't you have to believe - in order for the Trinity to love us or one another - that the Trinity has free-will, i.e. the option to choose evil?

You are mixing two distinct items here. None of us are members of the Trinity, therefore, Their attributes have no absolute correspondence with the attributes given to humanity. In the same way, your question is a philosophical blasphemy. You are asking if the un-created Members of the Trinity, EACH holy and perfect can succumb to the wiles of the evil, created Archangel Lucifer. To do something like that is to have Them deny their Godhood, and then there would be no salvation available for anyone. i can say that because it is impossible for any Member of the Trinity to deny Himself, and THAT is why when asked by the High priest if He was God, Jesus HAD TO AFFIRM THAT.

Luke 22: 70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.” ESV​

I hope that all this I posted clarifies things for you. It is not an easy subject to understand, and if we go off thinking in the manner as a pagan, we surely come up with some pagan notions about the attributes of the Trinity. No, that is NOT a cut against you, but an observation of where we can go if we do not follow the principles of sound logic, and sound doctrine.

Somehow, I lost about 55 % of what I originally wanted to address :-(

 

[chessman]

It is rather careless, and foolhardy to "discuss" a term for which there is no agreed-upon definition

Yep.

in recognition that there are several possible definitions,I propose posting these in order to come to an agreed-upon consensus:

I see nothing wrong with the one given in the first sentence of the OP since we are obviously discussing it's Christian theological implications. One could just simply replace "good" with G and "evil" with E (leaving the actions general) and get very close to a textbook philosophical definition.

I simply noted that some posters are "discussing" another term that clearly contradicts the one defined in the OP, then arguing against that other thing, rather than the one defined.

 

[chessman]

The disciples obviously freely decide to follow Jesus. So how can Jesus say "You did not choose me..."

They didn't choose to become one of the 12. They were selected by Jesus for that purpose.

Because Jesus isn't saying here that He chose them to become believers. Here (as with the other usage in John 6:70) He's "choosing" (selecting, electing, hand picking) The 12 to specifically be The 12 and thus go about the specific business/duties of The 12 before and after Jesus' ascension.

He's not saying He chooses all believers for salvation in this particular verse nor in 6:70. If you look at a Greek lexicon for the word used in these two verses, it is conveying the point, that they were elected/selected/chosen for the very specific tasks/business at hand. And They didn't ask to be chosen as one of the 12 disciples. Jesus selected them, not the other way around.

In other words, out of all the people living in/around Judea when Jesus started His ministry, Jesus selected those specific 12 (and only these) for a specific reason. He selected Judas as one of them for a specific purpose. And He had His reasons for doing so, as we see later. They did not apply for the job of being one of The 12, so to speak. Neither of theses verses are Jesus' teaching on how people become saved.

There is no conflict with your definition of all men having freewill to become a believer and this passage.

Look at the account in Acts and how the remaing 11 'selected' Judas' replacement. They let the Lord select/elect/choose which one was to replace Judas from a pool of 2 possible candidates.

Acts 1:2-3, 23-26(LEB) ... until the day he was taken up, after he had given orders through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, to whom he also presented himself alive after he suffered, with many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking the things about the kingdom of God.
...
And they proposed two men, Joseph called Barsabbas who was called Justus and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show clearly which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to depart to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was added to serve with the eleven apostles. ​

 

[OzSpen]

It is rather careless, and foolhardy to "discuss" a term for which there is no agreed-upon definition. Otherwise, the discussion would amount to speculating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Therefore, in recognition that there are several possible definitions,I propose posting these in order to come to an agreed-upon consensus:

The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate. (See determinism, fatalism, and predestination.)
www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.)...
If there is such a thing as free will, it has many dimensions. In what follows, I will sketch the freedom-conferring characteristics that have attracted most of the attention. The reader is warned, however, that while many philosophers emphasize a single such characteristic, perhaps in response to the views of their immediate audience, it is probable that most would recognize the significance of many of the other features discussed here.

• 1. Rational Deliberation
  • 1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires
  • 1.2 Free Will as Deliberative Choosing on the Basis of Desires and Values
  • 1.3 Self-mastery, Rightly-Ordered Appetite
• 2. Ownership
• 3. Causation and Control
  • 3.1 Free Will as Guidance Control
  • 3.2 Free Will as Ultimate Origination (Ability to do Otherwise)
  • 3.3 Do We Have Free Will?
• 4. Theological Wrinkles...
  
  Finally, there is the question of the freedom of God himself. Perfect goodness is an essential, not acquired, attribute of God. God cannot lie or be in any way immoral in His dealings with His creatures. Unless we take the minority position on which this is a trivial claim, since whatever God does definitionally counts as good, this appears to be a significant, inner constraint on God's freedom. Did we not contemplate immediately above that human freedom would be curtailed by our having an unmistakable awareness of what is in fact the Good? And yet is it not passing strange to suppose that God should be less than perfectly free?
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#4

If there is no common agreement as to what is meant as to the meaning of a term, we are simply posting AT each other instead of posting TO another poster.

In practical terms, this issue of free will is nipping at the heels of the Bible-based doctrine of total depravity Basically, that means that while humanity can choose to do good, but the degree of our sinfulness prevents anything worthy of salvific merit from happening


Romans 7: 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.


Christian luminaries from Augustine to Luther have looked at this issue, and have not solved it for us, should we expect a solution on this forum?

By Grace,

There are a number of theological terms for which there are not agreed definitions. It is still worthwhile discussing these terms to try to work through the issues.

I'm thinking of terms such as predestination, election, atonement, grace leading to salvation, eternal security, etc. Let's not close down discussion of a range of theological issues, simply because we don't have agreed definitions. It could be that the dialogue over the terms and theology could assist any one of us to reach a satisfactory definition.

Try defining postmodernism and its effect on evangelical Christianity. The nature of Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus (that have been translated as 'hell') leads to contentious definitions.

I urge you not to be steadfast unmovable if fixed and precise definitions of certain topics cannot be guaranteed.

Oz

 

[childeye]

It is rather careless, and foolhardy to "discuss" a term for which there is no agreed-upon definition. Otherwise, the discussion would amount to speculating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Therefore, in recognition that there are several possible definitions,I propose posting these in order to come to an agreed-upon consensus:

The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate. (See determinism, fatalism, and predestination.)
www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.)...
If there is such a thing as free will, it has many dimensions. In what follows, I will sketch the freedom-conferring characteristics that have attracted most of the attention. The reader is warned, however, that while many philosophers emphasize a single such characteristic, perhaps in response to the views of their immediate audience, it is probable that most would recognize the significance of many of the other features discussed here.

• 1. Rational Deliberation
  • 1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires
  • 1.2 Free Will as Deliberative Choosing on the Basis of Desires and Values
  • 1.3 Self-mastery, Rightly-Ordered Appetite
• 2. Ownership
• 3. Causation and Control
  • 3.1 Free Will as Guidance Control
  • 3.2 Free Will as Ultimate Origination (Ability to do Otherwise)
  • 3.3 Do We Have Free Will?
• 4. Theological Wrinkles...
  
  Finally, there is the question of the freedom of God himself. Perfect goodness is an essential, not acquired, attribute of God. God cannot lie or be in any way immoral in His dealings with His creatures. Unless we take the minority position on which this is a trivial claim, since whatever God does definitionally counts as good, this appears to be a significant, inner constraint on God's freedom. Did we not contemplate immediately above that human freedom would be curtailed by our having an unmistakable awareness of what is in fact the Good? And yet is it not passing strange to suppose that God should be less than perfectly free?
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#4

If there is no common agreement as to what is meant as to the meaning of a term, we are simply posting AT each other instead of posting TO another poster.

In practical terms, this issue of free will is nipping at the heels of the Bible-based doctrine of total depravity Basically, that means that while humanity can choose to do good, but the degree of our sinfulness prevents anything worthy of salvific merit from happening


Romans 7: 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.


Christian luminaries from Augustine to Luther have looked at this issue, and have not solved it for us, should we expect a solution on this forum?

The issue of a proper definition of free will has much to do with semantics. The scriptures witness to God's ability to give a person over to a reprobate mind, and this should enter the discussion. Because a reprobate mind can choose, think, and volunteer, but cannot be other than carnal in servitude despite having those abilities. However, the reprobate mind cannot choose God, and it cannot think spiritually and it therefore cannot volunteer in service to God. There are two wills working in mankind, one carnal and one spiritual. If God withdraws His restraining power, a person then becomes a slave to the flesh. Hence the Word of God is the Light of man. Quite humbling to man and glorious to God.

 

[KaichosMan]

In practical terms, this issue of free will is nipping at the heels of the Bible-based doctrine of total depravity Basically, that means that while humanity can choose to do good, but the degree of our sinfulness prevents anything worthy of salvific merit from happening

I think the answer may lie in part of the quote from Romans 7 that you omitted:

"22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s Law. 23 But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me"

So the choice being made is not between two courses of action per se, as obedience to the identity advocating the respective course of action; the spiritual man or the fleshly man. Paul sees the choice as not between two course of action, but between obedience to the reborn spirit or the unmortified flesh.

And, ecstatically, he finds his answer: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Thanks and praise 'fan the flames' of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of "power, love and a sound (saved) mind".

Interesting -and highly significant- fact: The Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in Romans 7. He is mentioned 18 TIMES in Romans 8! The two chapters taken together form "before and after" pictures of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Douglas Summers]

What is free will? Go look in the mirror.

 

[By Grace]

Interesting -and highly significant- fact: The Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in Romans 7. He is mentioned 18 TIMES in Romans 8! The two chapters taken together form "before and after" pictures of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Is it your position that Paul was not saved when he wrote Romans 7? I am curious, not causing trouble.

 

[KaichosMan]

Is it your position that Paul was not saved when he wrote Romans 7? I am curious, not causing trouble.

Oh no- most definitely saved. That's why in his inner being he "delights in God's Law." And that's why he feels so wretched that he can't live up to it (hardly the position of an unsaved person). I suggested in my previous post that his exclamation of "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord" was fanning into flame the Holy Spirit. But thinking again, I think he is answering his own question "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" God will- through the propitiatory death of His Son. But chapter 8 is all about the Holy Spirit, and the complete victory over the flesh that is available through Him. Mind you, free will still comes into it:

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Romans 8:13 KJV

 

[smaller]

The issue of a proper definition of free will has much to do with semantics. The scriptures witness to God's ability to give a person over to a reprobate mind, and this should enter the discussion. Because a reprobate mind can choose, think, and volunteer, but cannot be other than carnal in servitude despite having those abilities. However, the reprobate mind cannot choose God, and it cannot think spiritually and it therefore cannot volunteer in service to God. There are two wills working in mankind, one carnal and one spiritual. If God withdraws His restraining power, a person then becomes a slave to the flesh. Hence the Word of God is the Light of man. Quite humbling to man and glorious to God.

Brilliant. Quite.

What happened to Job lends us some classic insight. Satan accused Job before God. God's response?

"Behold, all that he has is in thy hand." (I'd look up the citing but I'm phone posting)

That actually was already the case but God had blessed him in hedging off Satan from doing his things. God's statement to Satan however was already a reality. Hence destruction from Satan ensued by God's allowance.

It was in fact God's election to show in Job the other side of our present reality in the flesh.

We're often deceived by our own flesh, having us falsely think this, it's contrary to the Spirit against the Spirit state doesn't exist. It does exist. Those who are not in truth will and do fall further into it's deceptive clutches, typically seen by the state of being in hypocrisy. Which is God's vengeance to that flesh being shown, openly. Yet the flesh will more deny.

Is such a trap set for the flesh free? Never. Only in truth do we find our freedom and that freedom does not extend to our contrary against the Spirit flesh.

Jesus advised us that if we are to be His disciples we must hate our own life. That hatred is Divinely meant to be extended to the flesh. It is NOT free to do it's contrary against the Spirit actions without Divine repercussions.