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

[Stormcrow]

Today's NIV, Ephesians 3-12:

Couple of things about this passage from Ephesians.

First, the NIV is not a good translation. Sorry, it just isn't. The closest translation you can get to the Greek without going completely literal is the NASB. You can read one review here:

http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/060612_New_American_Standard_Bible.html

This is why I quote - with rare exception - the NASB.

Second, we need to let the Bible interpret itself regarding "the chosen" in Ephesians. Paul isn't the only writer who used that term.

{1} Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen {2} according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. 1 Peter 1:1-2 (NASB)

(Gentiles would not be referred to as "resident aliens" in their own cities. Jews would.)

This is a similar greeting James used in his epistle:

{1} James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. James 1:1 (NASB)

(These are the same twelve tribes from which the 144,000 are drawn in Rev.7 and are also referred to in Matt. 24:22,24,31).

Now look at Ephesians:

{1} Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: {2} Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. {3} Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, {4} just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. Ephesians 1:1-4 (NASB)

It's clear when viewing these passages together, Peter, James, and Paul are all greeting Jewish believers, NOT Gentiles (as was clearly the case in Paul's letter to the Galatians.)

Paul is writing to the Jewish "elect" in Ephesians 1, as can further be seen here:

...In Him {11} also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, {12} to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:10-12 (NASB)

Gentiles were not the first to hope in Christ, Jews were. Gentiles were not promised an inheritance through Christ, Jews were. Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree, but Jews were the first to receive these promises, not Gentiles.

Paul then begins to address the Gentiles in Ephesus in chapter 2:

{11} Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands— {12} remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. {13} But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. Ephesians 2:11-13 (NASB)

Remember, Jews were the ones chosen to usher in Messiah, not Gentiles.

So when Paul writes:

{10}...I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10 (NASB)

He's not talking about Gentiles. He's talking about Jews: the chosen.

{3} For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, {4} who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, {5} whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Romans 9:3-5 (NASB)

God has always been faithful to Israel and has always set apart a remnant of faithful Israel for His purpose. This election can be seen most notably in Ezekiel 9:3-8 and Revelation 7:4-8.

Again, the first few verses in Ephesians 1 are a greeting to Jewish believers, not Gentiles. They are the "elect" to whom Paul refers.

P.S. That's why Calvinism is wrong. Election was for Jews, not Gentiles. We have all - Jew and Gentile alike - been living in the age of "whosever will may come" since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But that's fodder for another endless thread of arguing, I suppose.

 

[Jam]

Nobody's arguing otherwise. All our choices are influenced by something or someone.



Again, nobody's arguing you can. I can choose to jump off a building. I cannot choose to grow wings and fly. Your argument is a strawman.



Limited does not mean non-existent.

Actually, I believe yours is the strawman here! The "arguments" of mine that you have quoted and then refuted here were not arguments at all. I was simply following the conversation and commenting on something Gazelle said, recognising that the thing upon which we disagree is very subtle. The paragraph to which you have replied here was never intended to be an argument for the existence of free will!

Nevertheless, it is still the "us" that makes the choice, sometimes in favor of a given influence, sometimes against. God would not be just to hold us accountable for decisions we did not have the power to make.

Your argument suggests we respond reflexively to influence having no say in the matter, the way certain flatworms respond to light by shrinking from it.

It's the same argument you've made before and it's called "biological determinism." It's the same argument people use to suggest we're no better than animals, which react to external influence both instinctively and reflexively. Such a view debases human beings who God created in His image and likeness, and whom Jesus Christ died to save.

{9} But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9 (NASB)

Is everyone saved despite the fact Jesus died for all? Nope. Why? Because some reject His salvation: they CHOOSE not to receive it. That is a choice only a human can make.


If biological determinism is what you believe in: fine. Just be intellectually honest about it instead of dressing your arguments in strawmen. Halloween is over.

Wait wait wait... you say that my argument is similar to biological determinism and henceforth assume that my argument is biological determinism. You then provide more evidence for the existence of will and cite it is as evidence for the existence of free will... and then you accuse me of using a strawman. Look at this, for example:

"Your argument suggests we respond reflexively to influence having no say in the matter, the way certain flatworms respond to light by shrinking from it."

I never said that; you have just put these words in my mouth by asserting that I support biological determinism! Which I do not. I also never said that we are no better than animals; another belief that you have put in my mouth. Again, more strawman-ism.

Tell me; which part of your argument or the concept of free will have I misrepresented in order to refute? I've explained the ways in which you have misrepresented my arguments. It may help if you have the definition of a strawman to hand:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

I'm arguing biological determinism, am I? No. If we look at it from the behavioural, social, cognitive, psychodynamic or biological paradigms also, we still reach the conclusion of determinism coupled with probablistic aspects introduced by the existence of quantum mechanics. Do we freely choose to be conditioned the way we are? No. Do we really choose our schema? No. Do we freely choose our subconscious? No. Do we freely choose our physiology? No. Do we freely choose the random collapse of probabilistic wavefunctions that contribute to reality on the quantum scale? No. So, my argument is neither purely biological nor purely deterministic.

Is everyone saved despite the fact Jesus died for all? Nope. Why? Because some reject His salvation: they CHOOSE not to receive it. That is a choice only a human can make.

Conflation, again. Choice implies will. Choice does not imply free will. Will ≠ free will.Throughout this thread we have been defining free will as the exercision of the will apart from external influences. How does the fact that some choose not to receive salvation show that their choice was apart from external influences? It doesn't.

My main argument thus far has been to explain that every decision/choice we ever make is necessarily the result of external influences. If we were able to trace back the causal path of any deterministic route we would eventually reach external factors. This is undeniable if we assume that we have not existed forever. The only other possible root "causes" of our decisions are the probabilistic variables defined by quantum mechanics. Is it not fair to assume that randomly-defined variables are external and cannot be considered exercision of free will? The collapse is entirely random.

I have been proposing this argument for most of this thread, and so far no-one has refuted it without of logical fallacy or the modification of our definition of free will.

 

[Jam]

Couple of things about this passage from Ephesians.

First, the NIV is not a good translation. Sorry, it just isn't. The closest translation you can get to the Greek without going completely literal is the NASB. You can read one review here:

http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/060612_New_American_Standard_Bible.html

This is why I quote - with rare exception - the NASB.

Second, we need to let the Bible interpret itself regarding "the chosen" in Ephesians. Paul isn't the only writer who used that term.

{1} Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen {2} according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. 1 Peter 1:1-2 (NASB)

(Gentiles would not be referred to as "resident aliens" in their own cities. Jews would.)

This is a similar greeting James used in his epistle:

{1} James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. James 1:1 (NASB)

(These are the same twelve tribes from which the 144,000 are drawn in Rev.7 and are also referred to in Matt. 24:22,24,31).

Now look at Ephesians:

{1} Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: {2} Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. {3} Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, {4} just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. Ephesians 1:1-4 (NASB)

It's clear when viewing these passages together, Peter, James, and Paul are all greeting Jewish believers, NOT Gentiles (as was clearly the case in Paul's letter to the Galatians.)

Paul is writing to the Jewish "elect" in Ephesians 1, as can further be seen here:

...In Him {11} also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, {12} to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:10-12 (NASB)

Gentiles were not the first to hope in Christ, Jews were. Gentiles were not promised an inheritance through Christ, Jews were. Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree, but Jews were the first to receive these promises, not Gentiles.

Paul then begins to address the Gentiles in Ephesus in chapter 2:

{11} Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands— {12} remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. {13} But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. Ephesians 2:11-13 (NASB)

Remember, Jews were the ones chosen to usher in Messiah, not Gentiles.

So when Paul writes:

{10}...I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10 (NASB)

He's not talking about Gentiles. He's talking about Jews: the chosen.

{3} For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, {4} who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, {5} whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Romans 9:3-5 (NASB)

God has always been faithful to Israel and has always set apart a remnant of faithful Israel for His purpose. This election can be seen most notably in Ezekiel 9:3-8 and Revelation 7:4-8.

Again, the first few verses in Ephesians 1 are a greeting to Jewish believers, not Gentiles. They are the "elect" to whom Paul refers.

P.S. That's why Calvinism is wrong. Election was for Jews, not Gentiles. We have all - Jew and Gentile alike - been living in the age of "whosever will may come" since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But that's fodder for another endless thread of arguing, I suppose.

Well thankyou for that detailed analysis! In truth, it was more that I had hoped for haha. Honestly I'm not 100% convinced, but we could start a new thread on this topic if you wish?

The issues I'd throw at you are:
-could Gentiles not be considered "resident aliens" if they were the Christians of their day living among non-believers?
-the similar greeting used in the letters does not necessarily imply that they are addressed to the same people. Indeed, it would appear to me that the greetings really are not that similar anyway.
-Gentiles were promised an inheritance through Christ - not first, but they were.
-is it not likely that Paul was referring to old-skool Christians in general when he says "we" and "us"?

Essentially, I'll disagree that it is obvious that Paul is addressing the Jews only. Like I said though, I'd be happy to discuss this further in another thread; it was only a matter of interest for me here.

 

[smaller]

Yes, I'm led by God's spirit not satan's.

As believers, we should not be giving credit to satan for power he doesn't have. He is an adversary who lies... claiming more power than God has given him, and we only play into the adversary's hands when we claim he can blind all men so much that the Light of the Gospel can't shine through. We, of all people, should know better, for there is but ONE GOD.

Look, I'm not going to do your scriptural homework for you. You have an opinion seemingly about Satan/the devil's limited powers.

Here is [AGAIN] the extent of that power. I only cited chapter and vs. prior, but since you don't seem to be able to grasp the 'gravity' of Satan's power, here the scripture is for you [AGAIN.]

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Now you are welcome to mitigate the matter of sin or the gravity of this particular subject matter with all the fancy you care to pop out with.

I consider the subject matter OF SIN to be quite important as a large part of the Word and Work of Jesus Christ was to save us FROM SIN.

It is even more important as it relates to this subject matter of FREE WILL is the yet to be acknowledged from you fact that ANOTHER WILL operates IN MAN as it relates to SIN.

And yes, UNbelief is A SIN.

If you need the scripture citing for the [red bold] fact let me know.

So, one more time for the attempted dance of logical reasoned discourse regarding [supposedly] free will:

There is ANOTHER WILL that operates in man that is not the WILL OF THE MAN that blinds their minds in UNbelief.

Now, you are welcome to claim blinded captives of the devil are FREE. To me, the logic and reason of that is just not possible when another will operates to blind their supposed free mind.

So far you've attempted to blame only the man for the work of the devil. Why to me is obvious. You see that's what the devil in man does. He blames and accuses our brethren.

Jesus came, and by His death, destroyed satan's power to keep men in spiritual darkness.

Satan's power was not destroyed by Jesus. Sorry.

Jesus and Paul were abundantly clear about the fact that the 'god of this world' blinds the minds of UNbelievers. This fact is not that complicated.

But you see in order to uphold the freewill logical fallacy those scriptural facts MUST be ignored or defrayed to BYPASS the obvious OTHER WILL operational IN MAN.

The 'freewill' claim is that man is FREE to decided. Yet there is another will that decides NOT that is 'within the mind' of the MAN.

There is no logical way to avoid seeing TWO WILLS in the man, one of which is NOT the mans.

And the perpetual whine of the freewiller is JUST DECIDE.

Yet logic and reason also dictates even by freewillers position that THE MAN can't make decisions for ANOTHER. They must make THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

Well, THE MAN is not DECIDING for the other WILL that is blinding him.

And for what it's worth, if you can't get this yet I'm moving on. This is a waste of time.

I'm also cutting the balance of your post because it's so full of erroneous statements compared to scriptures I don't even care to get into those errors at this point. Freewillers obviously lose their logic and reason abilities in order to uphold logical fallacies.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Stormcrow]

Choice implies will. Choice does not imply free will. Will ≠ free will.Throughout this thread we have been defining free will as the exercision of the will apart from external influences.

You keep repeating this but it's a distinction without a difference! It's absurd on it's face to suggest one can have will - "I will" - that isn't free will! The very idea that I can make moral decisions - influenced by external factors or not - means that I have the freedom and the power to make the ultimate choice regarding my being!

The ultimate expression of free will is suicide: the choice to take one's life which goes against all cultural, social and psychological influences which tell people it's better to live than to die; that self-preservation is better than self-destruction!

The ultimate expression of free will in Biblical terms is the ability to choose between good and evil, between right and wrong. One pastor said it best: "The Bible is a book of decisions, not destiny."

The Old Testament is full of characters - David, Noah, Jonah, Job, pick one - who made choices only people with free will could make! To ignore this is irrational in the extreme!

And it's clearly not a strawman to point out the fact that your arguments reek of biological determinism: they certainly pass the duck test in that regard!

 

[Stormcrow]

The issues I'd throw at you are:
-could Gentiles not be considered "resident aliens" if they were the Christians of their day living among non-believers?

That's not what the context of his greeting implies. Again, look at what he writes:

{12} to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:12 (NASB)

Paul was a devout Jew. When he refers to "we who were the first to hope in Christ", it's clear he's addressing fellow Jews, who were the first to receive the promise of Messiah. Even you recognize this with the following statement:

Gentiles were promised an inheritance through Christ - not first, but they were.

Having conceded this point, you then ask this:

is it not likely that Paul was referring to old-skool Christians in general when he says "we" and "us"?

When the context of a given passage clearly provides the answer. (And I wasn't aware hip-hop existed back then.)

the similar greeting used in the letters does not necessarily imply that they are addressed to the same people. Indeed, it would appear to me that the greetings really are not that similar anyway.

As I have demonstrated twice now - and as you have conceded one of your main objections - Paul was addressing Jewish believers in Ephesians 1:3-12: the first to hope in Christ.

And again, this is why Calvin's doctrine of Limited Election is wrong when applied universally: limited election applied only to the Jews and only for a specific time and purpose, the ultimate purpose being to usher in Messiah (Dan. 9:24.)

This goes to the very heart of the discussion of free will versus election. Only some may be said not to have had a choice in who they were and what they chose, and those would have been the elect: those who were specifically chosen by God to usher in Messiah.

In other words, the Jewish elect.

 

[childeye]

=Stormcrow;587427] One pastor said it best: "The Bible is a book of decisions, not destiny."

Who says we don't make decisions? The bible contains prophecy so it is inaccurate to claim it is not a book of destiny. The fact these two exist together, is the difference between will and freewill. Freewill is about responsibility with out taking into account righteousness by grace through faith.

 

[Jam]

You keep repeating this but it's a distinction without a difference! It's absurd on it's face to suggest one can have will - "I will" - that isn't free will! The very idea that I can make moral decisions - influenced by external factors or not - means that I have the freedom and the power to make the ultimate choice regarding my being!

The ultimate expression of free will is suicide: the choice to take one's life which goes against all cultural, social and psychological influences which tell people it's better to live than to die; that self-preservation is better than self-destruction!

The ultimate expression of free will in Biblical terms is the ability to choose between good and evil, between right and wrong. One pastor said it best: "The Bible is a book of decisions, not destiny."

The Old Testament is full of characters - David, Noah, Jonah, Job, pick one - who made choices only people with free will could make! To ignore this is irrational in the extreme!

If you don't think that there is a difference between will and free will then perhaps it would have been prudent for you to say so before participating in this discussion? Thus far I have been using the definition of free will provided me by my "opponents" in this thread, and you have not refuted any of my arguments for the lack of existence of free will as defined this way.

If you would like to debate free will as you define it, then ok. But then, obviously, you will need to define it.

And it's clearly not a strawman to point out the fact that your arguments reek of biological determinism: they certainly pass the duck test in that regard!

Except that in my last post I explained exactly how I am not arguing for biological determinism. Instead of attempting to construct a rebuttal, though, you have simply stated again that I am arguing biological determinism.

So not a straw man - no - but quite blatantly not a logical refutation.

 

[Stormcrow]

I explained exactly how I am not arguing for biological determinism. Instead of attempting to construct a rebuttal, though, you have simply stated again that I am arguing biological determinism.

You wrote:

But the choices we make are necessarily dependent upon external factors, such as our environment, and internal factors, such as our "hearts" and inborn characteristics- all of which are the result of causal paths leading back to external factors.

Biological determinism defined:

Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

In other words, to quote your posts: EXTERNAL FACTORS!

You owe me an apology.

 

[Stormcrow]

If you don't think that there is a difference between will and free will then perhaps it would have been prudent for you to say so before participating in this discussion?

Having recently joined the discussion, I didn't think stating something so blatantly obvious would be necessary. Furthermore, I only felt the need to state the agonizingly obvious in reaction to your repeated offerings that will and free will are two different things!

I don't recall having ever read something so utterly, embarrassingly inane!

In fact, any search of "will" on the internet returns hundreds of thousands of hits for "free will." Wow! Do you know something these people don't?

Furthermore, given YOUR posts, it's clear that humans don't even have the ability to choose one flavor of ice cream over another or what pair of socks to wear in the morning, because all of these "choices" are "hardwired" into our genes by "EXTERNAL FACTORS!" Go back and read my last post to you! That's EXACTLY what you keep writing then deny you ever wrote it! (And accuse me of knocking down strawmwen when you're the one that keeps putting them up!)

Finally, I find this statement you made here downright heretical:

I believe that sin must come about as a result of God.

Here is a simple and pointed refutation of that nonsense that even a Calvinist can (perhaps) understand:

Ironically, Calvinists tend to theoretically believe concepts they deny in practice. If a child molester boldly proclaimed God caused him to molest little children, Calvinists would rightfully conclude he was a deluded liar and demon possessed. However, when the theologian essentially declares the same concept, they applaud him as orthodox. Such reasoning is not only inconsistent but absurd.

According to Calvinists, God commands men to abstain from what He has decreed that they do, causes them to do, yea, in what they have absolutely no choice but to do, and then He utterly condemns them for doing it. This is not the God of the Scriptures…
​

James 1:13-17 clearly challenges the Calvinist concept of God as the Author of sin… “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.†–James 1:13-17
​

So when God tells Cain he must "master sin" in Genesis 4:7, when Jesus tells His disciples to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", how is that at all possible when we have no choice in the matter???

Calvinism is an incoherent, reprehensible doctrine that has no place in any Christian church!

 

[Jam]

Biological determinism defined:

Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

In other words, to quote your posts: EXTERNAL FACTORS!

This is the refutation of mine to which I was referring:

I'm arguing biological determinism, am I? No. If we look at it from the behavioural, social, cognitive, psychodynamic or biological paradigms also, we still reach the conclusion of determinism coupled with probablistic aspects introduced by the existence of quantum mechanics. Do we freely choose to be conditioned the way we are? No. Do we really choose our schemata? No. Do we freely choose our subconscious? No. Do we freely choose our physiology? No. Do we freely choose the random collapse of probabilistic wavefunctions that contribute to reality on the quantum scale? No. So, my argument is neither purely biological nor purely deterministic.

I mentioned behaviours, schemata and the subconscious. These are not biological. I mentioned probabilism. This is not deterministic.

External factors are not necessarily biological.

Having recently joined the discussion, I didn't think stating something so blatantly obvious would be necessary. Furthermore, I only felt the need to state the agonizingly obvious in reaction to your repeated offerings that will and free will are two different things!

It is not "blatantly obvious". The difference is subtle - yes - but important for a discussion such as this thread. The distinction is not exactly a rare one... I have never heard of anyone denying that individual's lack the ability to make decisions. The only discussions of free will ever had are those defining free will as "the ability of agents to make decisions free from external factors", or some similar definition.

In fact, any search of "will" on the internet returns hundreds of thousands of hits for "free will." Wow! Do you know something these people don't?

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=ps....,cf.osb&fp=132c5e073ac5f7e3&biw=1024&bih=602
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl.t2.10/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=will&ql=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=will&go=&qs=n&sk=&form=QBLH&filt=all
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search;_...p=will&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-702
http://uk.ask.com/web?q=will&search=&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir


None of the results for "will" mention free will. Even if they did, though, so what? If I search "car" on the internet I see many results about Volvos. Does that mean that we can make no distinction between Volvos and cars in general? Of course not.

It might also be worth noting that wikipedia has two entirely separate pages for "will" and "free will".

merriam-webster.com:

Will
a: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending
b: a disposition to act according to principles or ends
c: the collective desire of a group the will of the people
Free Will
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

yourdictionary.com:

Will
your ability to make decisions or restraining yourself from doing something or something that a person desires or wants.
Free will
the freedom of the will to choose a course of action without external coercion but in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual

thefreedictionary.com:

Will
a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.
b. The act of exercising the will.
Free Will
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

dictionary.com:

Will
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions.
2. power of choosing one's own actions.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition.
4. wish or desire.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness.
Free Will
free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

1.the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined.
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion.

As I'm sure you can now see, it is conventional to make a distinction, as the two are separate things.

Furthermore, given YOUR posts, it's clear that humans don't even have the ability to choose one flavor of ice cream over another or what pair of socks to wear in the morning, because all of these "choices" are "hardwired" into our genes by "EXTERNAL FACTORS!"

I have maintained throughout this thread that we have choice.
I have maintained throughout this thread that not all external factors are biological things such as genes.

Finally, I find this statement you made here downright heretical

If God created everything, then all causal paths must lead back to God. God created everything. Do you deny this?

Here is a simple and pointed refutation of that nonsense that even a Calvinist can (perhaps) understand:

Ironically, Calvinists tend to theoretically believe concepts they deny in practice. If a child molester boldly proclaimed God caused him to molest little children, Calvinists would rightfully conclude he was a deluded liar and demon possessed. However, when the theologian essentially declares the same concept, they applaud him as orthodox. Such reasoning is not only inconsistent but absurd.

According to Calvinists, God commands men to abstain from what He has decreed that they do, causes them to do, yea, in what they have absolutely no choice but to do, and then He utterly condemns them for doing it. This is not the God of the Scriptures…
​

James 1:13-17 clearly challenges the Calvinist concept of God as the Author of sin… “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” –James 1:13-17
​

So when God tells Cain he must "master sin" in Genesis 4:7, when Jesus tells His disciples to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", how is that at all possible when we have no choice in the matter???

Calvinism is an incoherent, reprehensible doctrine that has no place in any Christian church!

I do not consider myself a Calvinist; indeed, I had to read the wikipedia article on Calvinism before I even understood why you directed this at me. For future reference, though, the child molestation claim is an inappropriate analogy: when people claim to have done things like that because of God, they are almost always suggesting that God directly intervened with them to do these things. I maintain that God's role is likely to be indirect, in that He is the necessary termination of all causal paths.

So when God tells Cain he must "master sin" in Genesis 4:7, when Jesus tells His disciples to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", how is that at all possible when we have no choice in the matter???

Because God's telling of Cain to master sin and Jesus' telling of His disciplies to be perfect are both external factors that will contribute to whether or not people will master sin or be "perfect".

 

[Gazelle]

I do believe there are those who cannot understand the full concepts of the TULIP outline, yes. (There are countless discussions here to prove that.) That however does not mean it is unbiblical.

What is being missed here in this thread, imo, is that there is a difference between the mind and the will. There are references being made, listed as being of the will when they are really describing the mind.

 

[childeye]

I do believe there are those who cannot understand the full concepts of the TULIP outline, yes. (There are countless discussions here to prove that.) That however does not mean it is unbiblical.

What is being missed here in this thread, imo, is that there is a difference between the mind and the will. There are references being made, listed as being of the will when they are really describing the mind.

I'm listening Gazelle, please go on.

By the way I never got a response from you about this:
Re: Those who don't believe in free-will, why do so many verse's claim it??

=Gazelle;586366]
I believe you when you say you can't comprehend this. Have you asked yourself why not, instead of dismissing so many wise presentations given you in this thread?


Here's what stromcrow asked:


=Stormcrow;586245]Were Adam and Eve free to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if they wished to do so?

Okay Gazelle, I'm going to take the time to walk through this with you.
Stromcrows question is a loaded question. Please note stormcrow does not say whether they are under the commandment of God at the time, nor pre-temptation, nor after temptation. Well of course they could eat if they wished to since they did. So here's the rub. But they were commanded not to and this is the reality. So if in fact they desired to eat when they had been told by God not to eat because it would kill them, they would already have distrusted God wholesale in their hearts.

So stormcrow actually bypassed the issue by presenting in the question the query of whether they could eat after the giving into temptation has already happened since the distrust of God is already present. This is now a puzzling question which is like saying could a man deny the Truth if he wanted to? Well if he wanted to, he already has. Sorry, it makes no sense.

Now, here's still another flaw in your thinking:

If Adam and Eve did not have their own free will, why did God instruct them?

Instructions are for ignorance, therefore you are talking about an ignorant will in need of instruction. This means we are subject in our wills to knowledge and ignorance of Truth. This is why we must trust God to be righteous and righteousness is by faith not simply because we have the ability to choose a course of action.



​

 

[Jam]

You owe me an apology.

You may be right... I have probably been patronising almost to the point of rudeness a couple of times, I suspect, and for this I am sorry. I also apologise if I have genuinely caused you any offence: I assure you that this was not in any way my intent.

 

[glorydaz]

Nevertheless, it is still the "us" that makes the choice, sometimes in favor of a given influence, sometimes against. God would not be just to hold us accountable for decisions we did not have the power to make.

Your argument suggests we respond reflexively to influence having no say in the matter, the way certain flatworms respond to light by shrinking from it.


It's the same argument people use to suggest we're no better than animals, which react to external influence both instinctively and reflexively. Such a view debases human beings who God created in His image and likeness, and whom Jesus Christ died to save.

Is everyone saved despite the fact Jesus died for all? Nope. Why? Because some reject His salvation: they CHOOSE not to receive it. That is a choice only a human can make.


If biological determinism is what you believe in: fine. Just be intellectually honest about it instead of dressing your arguments in strawmen. Halloween is over.

Ah, what a relief. Someone not under the influence of the tulip plant.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Ah, what a relief. Someone not under the influence of the tulip plant.

AMEN TO THAT

 

[glorydaz]

P.S. That's why Calvinism is wrong. Election was for Jews, not Gentiles. We have all - Jew and Gentile alike - been living in the age of "whosever will may come" since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But that's fodder for another endless thread of arguing, I suppose.

Amen to you entire post, but this part pretty much sums it up. The election is according to nations. Believers are a holy nation. Individuals come to the Elect One. I'm actually shocked by how many people have been blinded by Calvin's doctrine. It doesn't seem to matter what scripture is put forth....people swallow the idea that man is totally depraved. Sin nature is not even mentioned in the Bible, but an entire doctrine has been built around it. It leaves man without any responsibility at all. I'll go even further and say Calvinism is not only wrong, it's the great deception. I'm still sitting here shaking my head........

 

[childeye]

Amen to you entire post, but this part pretty much sums it up. The election is according to nations. Believers are a holy nation. Individuals come to the Elect One. I'm actually shocked by how many people have been blinded by Calvin's doctrine. It doesn't seem to matter what scripture is put forth....people swallow the idea that man is totally depraved. Sin nature is not even mentioned in the Bible, but an entire doctrine has been built around it. It leaves man without any responsibility at all. I'll go even further and say Calvinism is not only wrong, it's the great deception. I'm still sitting here shaking my head........

Glorydaz I don't disagree with stormcrows assessment of election. It is not the first time I'd heard that. Nor am I a student of Calvinism. But the fact remains there is one absolute Truth and that is why person a persons will is relative to that absolute. As Stormcrow says in another post he can jump off a cliff but he cannot choose to have wings. That is because we must accommodate a Truth. The Truth we are talking about pertaining to morality however is that knowledge of the person of God. It is our moral character however we esteem God and that is why we are made in his image. The definition that men have a freewill because they can deny such said Truth is not being like God.

 

[glorydaz]

Glorydaz I don't disagree with stormcrows assessment of election. It is not the first time I'd heard that. Nor am I a student of Calvinism. But the fact remains there is one absolute Truth and that is why person a persons will is relative to that absolute. As Stormcrow says in another post he can jump off a cliff but he cannot choose to have wings. That is because we must accommodate a Truth. The Truth we are talking about pertaining to morality however is that knowledge of the person of God. It is our moral character however we esteem God and that is why we are made in his image. The definition that men have a freewill because they can deny such said Truth is not being like God.

If we deny Him, He'll deny us. That sounds like we're just like Him, doesn't it? ;)

Let's get serious here. God gave us a freewill so we could freely come to Him. He freely came and died for us, so He wants us to freely come to Him. I'm not sure why you have to turn it into something it isn't.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I do believe there are those who cannot understand the full concepts of the TULIP outline, yes. (There are countless discussions here to prove that.) That however does not mean it is unbiblical.

What is being missed here in this thread, imo, is that there is a difference between the mind and the will. There are references being made, listed as being of the will when they are really describing the mind.

Your seem to be a little shaky about Tulip, whether it is true or not true...Where do you stand on this issue??