Those who don't believe in free-will, why do so many verse's claim it??

[childeye]

Exactly. If I may be so bold to post a few more, for those who want to consider it more deeply?

free will n. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice chose to remain behind of my own free will.)
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

free will n.
1. (Philosophy)
a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b. the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism
c. (as modifier) a free-will decision
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion he left of his own free will I did not influence him)

Thesaurus:
Noun 1. free will - the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies
discretion
power, powerfulness - possession of controlling influence; "the deterrent power of nuclear weapons"; "the power of his love saved her"; "his powerfulness was concealed by a gentle facade"
self-determination - determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion


The choices themselves may be determined by God (I believe this way).
The choices made are morally determined by one’s nature

"God never coerces man’s will, rather God gives the ability to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit." (Theopedia)

Jesus said fear Him who can throw you into hellfire. If Jesus is to be believed, that alone disqualifies man of having a freewill according to this definition. I like what you said about God giving man the ability to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[childeye]

=Stormcrow;586300]You misunderstood my point entirely. But thanks anyway.

The point of this little thought exercise was to provide the basis for understanding free will. Let me do it for you:

Yes, obviously. God told them not to but did not block their access to it (as He did to the tree of Life.) They were free to disobey if they chose to do so.

Any one who chose to disobey were deceived or ignorant not free.

No, of course not. We are free to choose whether we sin or not and suffer the consequences of our decisions if we do, just as Adam and Eve did. Pretty basic stuff, huh?

It may sound basic to you and I understand what you are saying. This is basicly what you are saying here. You could not be a sinner if you chose to and so you willingly want to be a sinner. I just don't believe you.

Of course it does! Every single human being of sound mind has the capacity to make moral choices based upon his or her own free will, just as Adam and Eve did.

Actually morality is a spiritual issue not a carnal one. So one cannot choose to have righteousness. That is why Paul said "the law is spiritual but I am carnal sold to sin."

While atheists won't acknowledge the validity of man's fall from intimate fellowship with God, even they recognize the capacity of human beings to make moral choices based upon reason and will.

Well of course they do, they're atheists. To believe you have a freewill to choose to be moral, who would need God?

"I will" is the expression of "my will" over "Thy will." God will not violate my will simply because I choose to sin. But He will not protect us from the consequences of our choices, either.

Well you have some loopholes here. I agree we have our own wills and hence we reason and choose. However I don't believe your will is greater than God's will so as to say if God said this was what He willed for you against your will His will would come to pass not yours. You say God will not violate your will. As God is Love, every man who loved his brother was violated by God's will. Then you say God will not protect you from the consequences of your choices. He already has when Jesus paid for our sins.

Did the father stop the prodigal son from leaving home?

Think about it.

Of course not. That doesn't mean He couldn't. The prodigal son imagined life better outside his fathers house. Since the son felt trapped there If the Father stopped the son it would only reinforce the desire to leave. No the son had to learn the hard way.

 

[childeye]

By giving man a freewill, God places the ball in our court and tells us to "Choose life".

Certainly neither satan, nor the world, nor sin, nor the flesh can take away what God has given....man's ability to choose. Thus man has no excuse for not believing in Him.

Here's man's blind vanity. Man says "I choose to be good or evil and God does not force me to be good". God says, "but I am Love, the light of man which makes a man righteous and you must believe in me for righteousness is by faith. Then the man says, "no I must have a freewill for that is why I have no excuse for not believing in you".

 

[childeye]

The key word being influenced, not controlled, coerced or directed. The serpent in the garden influenced Adam and Eve. He did not hold a gun to their heads and force them to sin.

No one needs a gun to deceive the gullible. Your analogy doesn't say anything. Even if one has a gun to his head he still has a choice. If God told you turn to Him or be destroyed how is this not like a gun to your head? You see it's all about whether you take it as a plea to return because He wants you to not die, or if you think he's trying to force you against your freewill. Do you trust Him is the question, not do I have a choice?

 

[Stormcrow]

Any one who chose to disobey were deceived or ignorant not free.

Your statement above contradicts itself. You see that, don't you?

I just don't believe you.

That's fine. I don't believe you, either.

Don't conflate the capacity to make moral choices with the righteousness that comes from salvation. They are two different things, as Christ notes here:

{22} "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' Matthew 7:22 (NASB)

Choosing to do that which is good is not the same thing as being saved. Works don't save anyone. (But that's another thread.)

To believe you have a freewill to choose to be moral, who would need God?

As noted above, simply being good does not make one saved.

I agree we have our own wills and hence we reason and choose.

Good. Then you admit everything else you wrote arguing the point was completely wrong and we can get past this. Thanks.

 

[childeye]

Our will is "utterly" our own. Why would you be so bold to say, " I'm almost unconvinced that there is any scriptural evidence even indirectly citing the existence of free will. There are "proofs" throughout the "entire" Bible...

A bunch of commandments that condemned us all as sinners is not scriptural proof of anything except corruption.

 

[Stormcrow]

Even if one has a gun to his head he still has a choice.

Yep. Thanks for admitting we all have the capacity - once again - to make moral choices. That's what free will is all about: having the capacity to make moral decisions. You continue to argue this and admit it all at the same time. With all due respect, do you even know what it is you're arguing?

 

[Stormcrow]

Do you trust Him is the question...

Your question implies a yes or no answer, thus - again - indicating the need to make a moral choice. Were there no free will, i.e. were humans not endowed with the capacity to answer such questions in the first place, such a question wouldn't even exist.

 

[Jam]

The key word being influenced, not controlled, coerced or directed. The serpent in the garden influenced Adam and Eve. He did not hold a gun to their heads and force them to sin.

Notice that I said "influenced entirely". For all practical purposes, there is no difference between having all of our decisions entirely influenced and having all of our decisions controlled. Like I said earlier, given that our selves have (obviously) come about entirely as a result of external factors, our selves and therefore our decisions also necessarily come about as a result of external factors.

Just as I presumed, you cannot and will not be persuaded by Scripture...

I'm not sure whether to be amused or confused by this, if I'm honest... the quote you replied to explained that I would be convinced by scriptural evidence for free will. Thus far, the only scriptural "evidence" that has been posted shows that we have a will; it has not touched upon whether or not said will is free.

When I get in this evening, would you like me to systematically go through this thread and explain how every verse so far quoted has not supported the existence of free will?



Anyway, I'm getting slightly annoyed about my inability to communicate what I mean, so I'm just going to use an analogy to explain how I see this discussion/thread. Hopefully you'll understand my point of view better then.

Let's say that I decided to create a thread called "those who don't believe in circular squares, why do so many verses claim it?" and then in my original post included no Bible verses whatsoever. Later on, the Bible verses that I (and others of my viewpoint) post all lend support either to the existence of four-sided shapes or the existence of one-sided, no-angled shapes. None show that a one-sided, four-sided, no-angled shape exists. I then continue to assert that God created circular squares, so whether or not they are impossible does not matter. I still provide no scriptural evidence for circular squares.

Why on Earth would anyone believe me? Obviously they wouldn't, and this is exactly how this free-will scenario appears to me. Free will is a logical impossibility - as I explained previously - and the verses we have been provided either cite the existence of will or the existence of freedom; none cite the two together. The only difference I can see is that we do not have an emotional bias toward circular squares, whereas it would be nice to think that our will is free and so we may be more biased toward believing it.

 

[Stormcrow]

Like I said earlier, given that our selves have (obviously) come about entirely as a result of external factors, our selves and therefore our decisions also necessarily come about as a result of external factors.

External factors play a role in every decision we make BUT it is ultimately WE who have to make the decision. Otherwise, there would be no law, no courts, and no accountability for the choices we make, as we would not be responsible for them!

Your argument smacks of biological determinism to me.

 

[childeye]

=Stormcrow;586673]Your statement above contradicts itself. You see that, don't you?

Any one who chose to disobey were deceived or ignorant not free.

Above is my statement. How do you expect me to say whoever disobeys God has knowledge and knows what they're doing? I don't see any contradiction. It seems contradictory to me to say whoever disobeys God has great wisdom and knows the Truth.

That's fine. I don't believe you, either.

Yes I don't believe you want to be a sinner.

Don't conflate the capacity to make moral choices with the righteousness that comes from salvation. They are two different things, as Christ notes here:

{22} "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' Matthew 7:22 (NASB)

Choosing to do that which is good is not the same thing as being saved. Works don't save anyone. (But that's another thread.)

I don't see how you have applied this to what I've said. Righteousness comes by believing God any way you look at it, for one cannot be called righteous who does not believe in Love. Jesus says he never knew these who thought they knew Jesus. Were these not deceived?

As noted above, simply being good does not make one saved.

Believing God is being good and also is salvation.

Good. Then you admit everything else you wrote arguing the point was completely wrong and we can get past this. Thanks.

Stormcrow when did I ever say we don't reason or make choices? As I haven't done so I cannot admit I've said anything wrong.

 

[childeye]

Yep. Thanks for admitting we all have the capacity - once again - to make moral choices. That's what free will is all about: having the capacity to make moral decisions. You continue to argue this and admit it all at the same time. With all due respect, do you even know what it is you're arguing?

A serial murderer who kidnaps, rapes and tortures little children has the capacity to make immoral choices, this is not proof he has the capacity to make a moral choice.

 

[childeye]

Your question implies a yes or no answer, thus - again - indicating the need to make a moral choice. Were there no free will, i.e. were humans not endowed with the capacity to answer such questions in the first place, such a question wouldn't even exist.

My question demands a yes or no answer, just as Jesus said if you 're not for me you're against me. My point however is that one either does or doesn't trust God. Even dogs can have trust or distrust and yet this does not mean they can have trust in someone and then just choose the next moment not to and back again. Either God is trustworthy or He isn't. As we know He is trustworthy we put our trust in Him. We don't make Him trustworthy because we decided to trust in Him, He always was. We make ourselves trustworthy when we trust Him. Hence the only freewill is one that knows God personally.

 

[Stormcrow]

A serial murderer who kidnaps, rapes and tortures little children has the capacity to make immoral choices, this is not proof he has the capacity to make a moral choice.

Until and unless you were that person, how would you possibly know?

So you are suggesting because someone made a bad choice means they had no choice at all as to whether they would do what they did?

How would you try someone like that - your raping, kidnapping, child-torturer - in any court of law? If they had no choice, they have no responsibility. You sound like a defense attorney to me. lol.

 

[Stormcrow]

My point however is that one either does or doesn't trust God.

That may be your point, but it's not what the question of free will is about. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Stormcrow]

It seems contradictory to me to say whoever disobeys God has great wisdom and knows the Truth.

To quote a line from a famous movie, "You're talkin' Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby!"

You keep conflating the capacity to choose with a specific choice. Try to focus on the former.

 

[Stormcrow]

By the way, the capacity to make an immoral choice implies the capacity to make a moral choice. The very idea that we know something is wrong implies we have a sense of what right is. Therefore, implicit in this idea of "immoral" is a standard against which such behavior is measured. That standard is what we call "morality."

Therefore, the ability to choose between right and wrong is that which separates us from the animals and is what we call "free will."

I really don't understand how this can be so complicated for some people.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Notice that I said "influenced entirely". For all practical purposes, there is no difference between having all of our decisions entirely influenced and having all of our decisions controlled. Like I said earlier, given that our selves have (obviously) come about entirely as a result of external factors, our selves and therefore our decisions also necessarily come about as a result of external factors.




I'm not sure whether to be amused or confused by this, if I'm honest... the quote you replied to explained that I would be convinced by scriptural evidence for free will. Thus far, the only scriptural "evidence" that has been posted shows that we have a will; it has not touched upon whether or not said will is free.

When I get in this evening, would you like me to systematically go through this thread and explain how every verse so far quoted has not supported the existence of free will?



Anyway, I'm getting slightly annoyed about my inability to communicate what I mean, so I'm just going to use an analogy to explain how I see this discussion/thread. Hopefully you'll understand my point of view better then.

Let's say that I decided to create a thread called "those who don't believe in circular squares, why do so many verses claim it?" and then in my original post included no Bible verses whatsoever. Later on, the Bible verses that I (and others of my viewpoint) post all lend support either to the existence of four-sided shapes or the existence of one-sided, no-angled shapes. None show that a one-sided, four-sided, no-angled shape exists. I then continue to assert that God created circular squares, so whether or not they are impossible does not matter. I still provide no scriptural evidence for circular squares.

Why on Earth would anyone believe me? Obviously they wouldn't, and this is exactly how this free-will scenario appears to me. Free will is a logical impossibility - as I explained previously - and the verses we have been provided either cite the existence of will or the existence of freedom; none cite the two together. The only difference I can see is that we do not have an emotional bias toward circular squares, whereas it would be nice to think that our will is free and so we may be more biased toward believing it.

I cannot prove to you there is such a thing as, "free-will" either you, accept it or you do not. Every man must "choose" if he will "believe" in "free-will."

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;586523]Yes, we aren't born with sin in us...we are born into a world of sin. We aren't sinners until we actually sin.

We see in Romans 1, that the things of God are "clearly seen" by man...thus he is without excuse.
Romans 1 also states that men "knew God" but did not to glorify Him. That's a choice man makes, since the things of God are clearly seen by man.

So, the word unbeliever is often taken as those who believe there is no God, when it's actually those who refuse to trust in God....not believing through faith, as you say.

So Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and so he was without sin and unblemished, yet he was in a world of sin. Are all men then capable of not sinning? Only through the same Spirit that dwells in the Christ. For he came in the likeness of sinful flesh so as to condemn sin in the flesh.

 

[Stormcrow]

I cannot prove to you there is such a thing as, "free-will" either you, accept it or you do not. Every man must "choose" if he will "believe" in "free-will."

I can. If free will didn't exist, we would have no conception of it. We wouldn't even be able to discuss it. It would be like trying to describe "being wet" to a fish or the color "red" to someone born without eyes. Without a frame of reference from outside our own, personal experience, discussing such abstractions would not only be pointless: it would be impossible.

That's why I find it amusing that people who don't believe in free will keep using the word "choice" to deny it's existence.