SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Free Will (In Greek)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Ron,

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not distinguishing between my Will and myself. I see the two as the same so that it is I who is responsible, but it is the Will that chooses. I do not separate the two.

 2007/3/24 13:04Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: "Just you"

Quote:
The reason I raise this from time to time is because I think we have all bought into to a model of humanity which has no biblical basis. We then argue over the slavery or freedom of this faculty which we have invented.



Redundant to come along side here but this is such a helpful understanding, better a important one. "[i]There is just you[/i]" was the refrain that etched itself into the fabric when I first heard it expressed by Ron some number of years back now.

Felt compelled to equate it with another truth similarly that was taken in around the same time frame. That when we are dealing with the scriptures we ought to lift them up or off the page only to examine them and then be sure to put them back where we found them. The analogy I had in mind was as if the whole of the Book was made of elasticity, like a rubber that you could pull up on (Sections -verses etc.) and when you let go they went right back into place.

The quote attached at bottom seems applicable;

[i] "Do you know, I believe that most of the theological errors of the past have grown out of, not so much a denial of God’s truth, as a disproportionate emphasis of it.[/i]" A.W. Pink

This whole 'debate';
Quote:
I wonder how much space and time we might have saved over the centuries if we had not taken this route?



Agreed, that it still rages on without any satisfactory conclusion and the obvious recognition that there will never be one because the concept or 'made doctrine' has the elasticity cut off from it. The idea that we are compartmentalized beings with the faculties segregated into departments without effects unto the whole seems similar to the treatment of Scripture as well. Ironically, the explanations given of how we 'tick' seems to make possible a placement into a faculty one of the great sins of ours .... Blame.

So rather than face that on it's face we have replaced it with two schools of thought, categories to place ourselves into; Calvinism and Arminianism. The strange irony there is how this ran off on it's own two legs to become the conundrum that it is now. How to get around the moat without bogging down into the mire? It's as if one must take the structure as presented and wrangle from that standpoint, answer the presuppositions given from two mens opinions now made whole diversions ...

Will admit there was a real checking out on the whole matter upon realizing the futility of it all and whatever might be said here seems just as futile.

More odd is just how silent scripture truly is to these categorizations detached and made doctrine. The 'debate' is silent, given no notice or appropriation but was created by, well the '[i]disproportionate emphasis of it[/i]'. The 'will', the misconstruing of 'predestination' and 'election' ... rather than truly going after what did they mean when they wrote (the scriptures) we accept the extrapolation (invention) as fact\truth and then go about busying ourselves with support or deconstruction projects ... to what end? What does it all amount to?

Chambers thought about the Lord protecting ourselves in matters that we don't understand and frankly have no business prying into cut's across many things. It protects us from pride and even more from suspicion. What more fracturing to the Body than presuppositions of particular slants? "He's a Calvinist ... She is ...". Bluntly, who cares? And yet on the other hand, why do we not care that this has become the monster that it is? That we are apt to call ourselves either one or the other and not recognize that we are neither of these things, why line up underneath them? Not far different than the demoninational bylines; "I am a ______". All one is saying when they do say these things is that "I am" placing my beliefs under this proscription and wish to be know as _____ fill in the blank. Is it too simplistic to note that we are none of these constructs, but Christ's if that is Whose we truly are? And have earned the marred reputation in the worlds eyes and the great nobility of being counted worthy to be called Christians in that paradox of seemingly attributed scorn that was originally given the first saints.

Not sure how I ended up here as this was primarily a discussion on the 'will' but is just to say that the 'willer' long ago decided to have a purposed ignorance as to these things in great detail. I couldn't tell one preacher from another here without some focused effort as to their particular slant, it just ended up being eradicated from the process and puts all the suspicion that might have been at bay.

"Repent and believe" means ...
"Repent and believe"

Not if or how or what organ or if God causes you or if you decided or some combination thereof or give me an explanation of how corrupt I am ... Let God save you and you will find out by experience just how screwed up you really are ... if you must know.

Edit; And I had to go and say ..."Let God", that is only if He allows you to let Him ... ;-)


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/3/24 13:37Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

This will be too lengthy for many but for those who are genuinely struggling with my posts on this issue perhaps it will help.

One of the nouns for ‘the will’ in the NT is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=2307&page=1&flag_full=1]thelEma[/url]. It means ‘what one wishes or has determined shall be done ie it refers not to a faculty of the soul but to a decision or decree of the king that a king would make. When we speak of the will of the government we do not have in mind a ‘faculty of the soul’ but a decision/choice/desire which has been plainly expressed. The above link will show how the word is used in the NT. The noun is used over 60 times but never, so far as I can see, never in the sense of a faculty of the soul called ‘the will’.

The associated verb is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=2309&page=1&flag_full=1]thelO[/url], and again this URL will show the way in which it was used in the NT. Again I would ask folk to look at the use of the word in the NT and tell me if they can see a single instance where it is used in the sense of the activity of a faculty of the soul called ‘the will’. It’s overwhelming sense is one of desire or purpose.

Another verb translated ‘will’ is the word [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=1014&page=1&flag_full=1]boulomai[/url]. This is used over 30 times in the NT. Again I would ask folk to examine these texts and see if any of them would support the idea of a faculty of the soul called ‘the will’.

I find it difficult to know why we have accepted this particular notion of humanity. I don’t think it adds anything to our understanding but raises this perennial question of whether or not ‘the will’ is in bondage or free.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/24 14:01Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
JaySaved on 2007/3/24 18:04:21
This will be too lengthy for many but for those who are genuinely struggling with my posts on this issue perhaps it will help.


You see the two as the same thing? How can that be? Do you have a will or are you a will? They cannot possibly be the same thing.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/24 14:02Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Ron, I would really like to get your input on something I have written concerning man's Will.
(By the way, I still don't understand why I am the one who is defending free will. Where are all of the Arminians?!) :-P


Man’s Will is that by which man actively chooses. It is the innate ability through which, if unhindered, allows man to choose the most desirous option. It is my desire to prove that man will never choose anything against his Will and that God chooses men to salvation harmoniously with man’s Will, not in violation of man’s Will.

What do I mean by that definition of Will? Here are some practical examples:
Example 1:
Johnny is walking down the street when another man points a gun at him. The robber makes the following statement: “Give me your wallet or I will kill you.” Johnny gives the wallet to the robber who runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny did not want to lose his wallet.” It is true that Johnny does not desire to lose his wallet at anytime, however when the robber pointed the gun at Johnny, Johnny was presented two options: 1) Give the wallet and live and 2) Keep the wallet and die. Johnny responded according to his Will and chose the most desirous option (Give the wallet and live). Johnny’s Will was never violated because Johnny freely chose the most desirous option.

Example 2:
Johnny is walking down the street when a net is lowered on him and he cannot move or escape. (I know…poor Johnny) A robber comes out of the shadows, takes Johnny’s wallet and runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny never had a chance to decide therefore Johnny’s Will was violated.” It is true that Johnny never had a chance to make a choice and it is for that very reason that Johnny’s Will was not violated. The Will was never brought into the event. Johnny never had an option to choose so therefore he never had his Will violated. The Will manifests itself in the action of choosing, where there is choice there is no action. A sad event occurred in Johnny’s life, but his wallet was not taken against his Will.

I hope that I have shown that a man’s Will is never violated in the course of human events. He is always free to choose what he most desires—as long as the ability to choose is present. With regard to man’s Will, man has the freedom to choose, but is always in bondage to his desires. Thus man’s Will is free, yet bound.

I now want to prove that God does not violate man’s Will when He sovereignty chooses men to become Christians—for this is a common objection to Reformed Theology in that many say it makes men to be nothing more than robots. When God calls a sinner to repentance, He does not violate that sinners Will. What God does is that He reveals truth to the sinner. It can be said that God “removes the spiritual blinders from the sinners eyes.” By God revealing himself to the sinner, the sinner sees God for who He truly is—Holy, sees himself who he truly is—sinful, and sees his sinfulness for what it truly is—deserving of punishment. It is at this moment that the sinner responds to the Call of God. This response is done according to his Will and not is violation of his Will. Even though the sinner is choosing something that he would not have before, the Will is not violated because the man’s desires have changed—desires being that which the Will is bound. The Will still chooses that which is most desirous, in this case it is the most desirous option to respond to God’s Call. Ephesians 2:1 says, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”

I hope, in a spirit of love and respect, that I have proven that man will never choose anything against his Will and that God chooses men to salvation harmoniously with man’s Will, not in violation of man’s Will.

 2007/3/26 11:28Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
JaySaved on 2007/3/26 16:28:15
Johnny is walking down the street when a net is lowered on him and he cannot move or escape. (I know…poor Johnny) A robber comes out of the shadows, takes Johnny’s wallet and runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny never had a chance to decide therefore Johnny’s Will was violated.” It is true that Johnny never had a chance to make a choice and it is for that very reason that Johnny’s Will was not violated. The Will was never brought into the event. Johnny never had an option to choose so therefore he never had his Will violated. The Will manifests itself in the action of choosing, where there is choice there is no action. A sad event occurred in Johnny’s life, but his wallet was not taken against his Will.


I'm not sure how useful this is going to be to you in the light of the fact that I don't believe in a free will or a bound will. :-(

You illustrations make your point well enough but suppose I substitute a word in this first one to try to make my point...

"...The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will..." Why not rephrase this 'the robber took the wallet against Johnny's wishes...' Why introduce the concept of 'the will'. The question then is a very simply one; ought Johnny to be held responsible for the loss of his wallet? Clearly not. Consequently we can establish culpability without recourse to this thing called 'the will'.

I have omitted all reference to 'the will' from my preaching and writing for some time now. I think to focus on 'the will' raises a whole host of questions which we don't really need.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/26 11:55Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
"...The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will..." Why not rephrase this 'the robber took the wallet against Johnny's wishes...' Why introduce the concept of 'the will'. The question then is a very simply one; ought Johnny to be held responsible for the loss of his wallet? Clearly not. Consequently we can establish culpability without recourse to this thing called 'the will'.



I introduce the concept of 'the Will' because we need to describe something more than just wishes. We need to describe man's action according to wishes. What I mean is that all men and women have a variety of wishes--some might even contradict each other. What is it in man that chooses a particular desire? Here is an example I have used before:

One day after work on my way home, I notice a McDonald's Restaurant. At that moment, I desire to eat there. However, I also remember that my wife told me we will be having pork chops for supper. At this moment, I have two competing desires: 1) Eat at McDonald's 2) Eat at home

I have the freedom to choose either option, but because of my love for my wife I choose to keep driving past McDonald's and head home. I freely chose the most desirous option because I desired my wife's feelings more than my desire to eat at McDonald's.

Notice that it was Me who made the choice and if I chose to eat at McDonald's it would be Me who would be responsible when I told my wife I wasn't hungry for pork chops. I can't tell my wife that my Will made me do it. :-) I made the choice, but it was Me deciding through my Will. This is why I refer to the Will as "that by which man actively chooses. It is the innate ability through which, if unhindered, allows man to choose the most desirous option."

Also, please give me your interpretation of these passages in Philemon:

(NASB)
"10I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, 11who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, 13whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. 15For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, 16no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

Paul speaks of Philemon making a choice that is not by compulsion but a choice that is made freely and voluntary. "of your own free will"

 2007/3/26 13:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
JaySaved on 2007/3/26 18:43:58
Paul speaks of Philemon making a choice that is not by compulsion but a choice that is made freely and voluntary. "of your own free will" NASB


This is part of my lonely struggle! :-)

The NASB has no biblical basis for translating this as it does other than to fit in with our pre-held views of having 'a will'.

The word [url=http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%E1%BC%91%CE%BA%CE%BF%E1%BD%BB%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&root=%E1%BC%91%CE%BA%CE%BF%E1%BD%BB%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82&number=703786]hekousion[/url] simply means 'voluntarily'. It stands in opposition to the idea that Philemon was 'obliged' because of Paul's action. Philemon was to make his own choice. It has no essential connection to the idea of 'a will'.


Quote:
I introduce the concept of 'the Will' because we need to describe something more than just wishes. We need to describe man's action according to wishes. What I mean is that all men and women have a variety of wishes--some might even contradict each other. What is it in man that chooses a particular desire?


I can see that your illustration goes on to include choice. You ask the question 'what is it in man chooses...'? This is my whole protest. :-o Why should there be anything 'in man' why not just hold the man himslef responsible for his own choices? Why make 'the will' the faculty of choice? Is there any biblical basis for doing so?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/26 13:53Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
I can see that your illustration goes on to include choice. You ask the question 'what is it in man chooses...'? This is my whole protest. Why should there be anything 'in man' why not just hold the man himslef responsible for his own choices? Why make 'the will' the faculty of choice? Is there any biblical basis for doing so?



But I do hold the man himself responsible for his own choices. I just do not agree that man is the faculty of choice, I say that man has the faculty of choice. I also admit, along with my Arminian friends (who are strangely silent right now) that man utilizes a 'faculty' in order to decide between choices.

Also, why does 'voluntary' contradict 'free will'?

Ron, throughout Christian history what other theologians or writers have held to your view that man does not have a free will. Non-Reformed would be preferable.

 2007/3/26 14:24Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Ron, throughout Christian history what other theologians or writers have held to your view that man does not have a free will. Non-Reformed would be preferable.


I know of no one, reformed, non-reformed, dead or alive who holds my view.

Quote:
Also, why does 'voluntary' contradict 'free will'?


Well, 'voluntary' is an adjective and 'the will' is a noun. Voluntary describes a noun, but 'the will' is a noun. You have to define a noun before you can add an adjective to it. There is no biblical definition of 'the will'; it is a human, psychological and theological construct.

Quote:
But I do hold the man himself responsible for his own choices. I just do not agree that man is the faculty of choice, I say that man has the faculty of choice. I also admit, along with my Arminian friends (who are strangely silent right now) that man utilizes a 'faculty' in order to decide between choices.


Where do you see this 'faculty' as being located?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/26 14:49Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy