Free Will

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then you are saying that Alan doesn't believe in free will?

Really?? Not sure how you got that out of what I said. I was thinking of his example of people on a ship.

Billy, what exactly is the difference, in your mind, between "free will" and "making choices"?

I know that we don't have unfettered free will. We are very much affected by our sin nature, for one thing....and God is always sovereign.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Really?? Not sure how you got that out of what I said. I was thinking of his example of people on a ship.

Billy, what exactly is the difference, in your mind, between "free will" and "making choices"?

I know that we don't have unfettered free will. We are very much affected by our sin nature, for one thing....and God is always sovereign.

This topic has always been about how you define free will. Here is the OP of this thread.

Originally Posted by Billyray

Free will has been tossed around a lot recently on this board. The problem is that unless a person gives the definition of how he is using this word it can cause a lot of confusion.

One person may use the term "free will" to simply mean making willing choices that the person wants to make.

Another person may use the term "free will" to mean the ability to make any choice at any time independent of a person's nature and independent of God's will.

Perhaps posters could give us some definitions of how they are using this term and then we could proceed to discuss this issue.

Here is the dictionary definition again that I gave in post #3 of this thread.

Originally Posted by Billyray

Merriam Webster Dictionary

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

If you use the standard dictionary definition then free will means that a person can choose whatever he wants whenever he want to AND the choices are FREE from divine intervention. This is different than choice because we all make choices but our choices are influenced by God.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

This topic has always been about how you define free will. Here is the OP of this thread.


Here is the dictionary definition again that I gave in post #3 of this thread.


If you use the standard dictionary definition then free will means that a person can choose whatever he wants whenever he want to AND the choices are FREE from divine intervention. This is different than choice because we all make choices but our choices are influenced by God.

I thought the Calvinist view was that we are all more influenced by our "nature"..? If we are non-believers, we are subject to our sin nature. If we are believers, we are more "free" from our sin nature (although, not totally) but free enough to choose God and to be more aware of our sin.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I thought the Calvinist view was that we are all more influenced by our "nature"..? If we are non-believers, we are subject to our sin nature. If we are believers, we are more "free" from our sin nature (although, not totally) but free enough to choose God and to be more aware of our sin.

Because of our sin nature we are dead in sins and tresp***es and are unable to place our faith in Christ unless God intervenes. This is a perfect example of what we are talking about on this thread because it shows that man is able to make a choice but that choice is influenced by our sin nature. We can make a choice but we do not have the ability (free will) to choose Christ unless God intervenes to change us first.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

If we are believers, we are more "free" from our sin nature (although, not totally) but free enough to choose God and to be more aware of our sin.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head with your statement above showing the difference between the Reformed position verses the Arminian position. Your position (Arminian) is that a person changes his sin nature on his own which then allows that person to choose God. The Reformed position is that God must first change us which then allows us to come to Christ and place our faith in Him.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I think that you have hit the nail on the head with your statement above showing the difference between the Reformed position verses the Arminian position. Your position (Arminian) is that a person changes his sin nature on his own which then allows that person to choose God. The Reformed position is that God must first change us which then allows us to come to Christ and place our faith in Him.

I don't think that's the Arminian position on coming to faith in Christ. They believe God draws us, first (which is Biblical) and then the person responds. If the person responds in the positive, to the drawing, then God will continue to draw that person.

I don't, personally, believe that we come to God on our own. God draws us. I think Alan believes that, as well.

We are not "free" to choose God, until he draws us.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't think that's the Arminian position on coming to faith in Christ. They believe God draws us, first (which is Biblical) and then the person responds. If the person responds in the positive, to the drawing, then God will continue to draw that person.

I don't, personally, believe that we come to God on our own. God draws us. I think Alan believes that, as well.

We are not "free" to choose God, until he draws us.

Originally Posted by Libby

If we are believers, we are more "free" from our sin nature (although, not totally) but free enough to choose God and to be more aware of our sin.

In your statement you said that a some people change their sin nature BEFORE they are believers--which allows them to choose God. This would be BEFORE a person is born again.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

In your statement you said that a some people change their sin nature BEFORE they are believers--which allows them to choose God. This would be BEFORE a person is born again.

No, just poor wording, I guess. We don't become "believers" until God draws us.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't, personally, believe that we come to God on our own. God draws us. I think Alan believes that, as well.

We are not "free" to choose God, until he draws us.

Alan believes that a person can come to Christ at any time. No need to be drawn by the Father to Christ. That is why he went on and on about the universe = God drawing every single person AND God drawing us = the Father drawing us to Christ.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

No, just poor wording, I guess. We don't become "believers" until God draws us.

So that alone shows you that we don't have free will if we were to use the dictionary definition of "free will". We have a "choice" but we don't have the ability (free will) to come to Christ unless God intervenes first.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Alan believes that a person can come to Christ at any time. No need to be drawn by the Father to Christ. That is why he went on and on about the universe = God drawing every single person AND God drawing us = the Father drawing us to Christ.

I don't really see a problem with that position. It is similar to mine. God DOES draw us (or CAN) through the universe/nature. That can be a step towards Christ, if we respond positively to it.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So that alone shows you that we don't have free will if we were to use the dictionary definition of "free will". We have a "choice" but we don't have the ability (free will) to come to Christ unless God intervenes first.

I said, early on, that my view didn't line up with the dictionary defintion.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I said, early on, that my view didn't line up with the dictionary defintion.

And that was the entire point of why I started this thread as you can see in my OP

Originally Posted by Billyray

Free will has been tossed around a lot recently on this board. The problem is that unless a person gives the definition of how he is using this word it can cause a lot of confusion.

One person may use the term "free will" to simply mean making willing choices that the person wants to make.

Another person may use the term "free will" to mean the ability to make any choice at any time independent of a person's nature and independent of God's will.

Perhaps posters could give us some definitions of how they are using this term and then we could proceed to discuss this issue.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't really see a problem with that position. It is similar to mine. God DOES draw us (or CAN) through the universe/nature. That can be a step towards Christ, if we respond positively to it.

First, where does it say that the universe draws all men to Christ. Second, if the universe draws all men to Christ then what Christ said in John 6 is wrong.

[Libby]

I sincerely try to make "my view" as close to the Bible as I can. My biggest disagreement with Calvinism has to do with the "choosing" for salvation. And, that only a select "few" are drawn.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

First, where does it say that the universe draws all men to Christ. Second, if the universe draws all men to Christ then what Christ said in John 6 is wrong.

Gosh, Billy....we have gone over this before.

The universe (IMO) does not specifically draw to Christ, but to God (of which Christ is a part). But, a basic belief in God may come first. Or simultaneously with a belief in Christ. Or any number of other ways you can think of.

[Libby]

The Gospel draws us to Christ....either reading or hearing it...

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

The universe (IMO) does not specifically draw to Christ, but to God (of which Christ is a part).

I agree the universe does not draw men to Christ. It says clearly in John 6 that the Father draws men to Christ.

Originally Posted by Libby

But, a basic belief in God may come first. Or simultaneously with a belief in Christ. Or any number of other ways you can think of.

Now you are starting to add stuff that the Bible doesn't teach.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

The Gospel draws us to Christ....either reading or hearing it...

So the Father drawing men to Christ is not necessary?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So the Father drawing men to Christ is not necessary?

Yes, of course the Father draws us. How do you think He does that, Billy?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, of course the Father draws us. How do you think He does that, Billy?

I think what you are trying to say is that the gospel equates to the Father drawing all men to Christ. Is that correct?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, of course the Father draws us. How do you think He does that, Billy?

By cleansing our heart and placing a new spirit within us (being born again)

http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/t...irit-is-spirit

John Piper

". . .The Spirit's Free and Sovereign Work

Jesus uses the ****ogy of the wind in John 3:8,

The wind ****s where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
What is this verse trying to teach? I believe Jesus was trying to drive home the freedom and sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in the act of regeneration. "The wind, that is, the Spirit, ****s wherever it wills." The will of man is impotent at this point. We cannot start the wind ****ing, and we cannot change the direction of the wind and make it **** when we want it to. The Spirit ****s where he wills and, therefore, everyone born of the Spirit has been acted upon by the free Spirit and has been born anew, as John 1:13 says, "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." The new birth is not a result of our decision or our act of will. It precedes and enables the heart's decision to trust Christ.

There is another place in John's gospel where Jesus declares this truth with even greater clarity. In John 6:41 the Jews murmur because Jesus said, "I am the bread which came from heaven." In both cases Jesus was up against a resistant and imperceptive listener. So he says in John 6:43, 44, "Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." No one can come to Jesus unless drawn by God. The natural man cannot submit himself to God until a supernatural work of grace is done in his life, called "new birth" in John 3 and the "drawing of God" in John 6.

But someone may say, "You can't equate the new birth with this drawing by God because God draws all men to Christ." My answer is, "Yes, there is a drawing of all men in the sense that the enticing revelation of God in nature or in the gospel goes out to all men beckoning them to repent. But that is not the sort of drawing Jesus has in mind here." And this can be easily shown by looking at John 6:61–65. Again some of his disciples murmur and he says,

"Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father."
Here Jesus repeats verse 44 with only a slight change, but the connection here between verses 64 and 65 makes his meaning unmistakable: "There are some of you here that do not believe . . . That is why I said no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father." Why do I say to you that no one can come to me without the Father's enablement? I say it to explain why there are some who do not believe. Those do not believe because it has not been given to them by my Father. He has not drawn them like he has drawn the others.

Therefore it follows that saving faith does not precede and cause the new birth. But rather God the Father, by the agency of his Holy Spirit, regenerates freely whomever he pleases and by this draws a person to the Son enabling him to believe in the Son and be saved. This is "prevenient grace"—the gracious work of God preceding and enabling the act of faith. It is "irresistible grace." There are divine influences which can be resisted, but there are also those which cannot be. The new birth is one of those that is irresistible, because it operates beneath a person's consciousness transforming the root of his affections and thus removing his hostility to God. And finally, this is God's "effectual calling"—not the general call that goes out to all, but the creative call of God that brings into being something new by its own power (1 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 4:6). . ."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So Alan's position is that "man can do anything he wants whenever he wants to"

Originally Posted by Libby

I think his position is a little more refined and defined than that, Billy.

Here is Alan's definition of free will from earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Free will means free of our own volition without interference of any kind......I like that!

FREE WILL
1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

[alanmolstad]

my definition? ........

you sure about that or are you just making more stuff up about me again?

I got to call you on another one, because the quotation of mine that you have posted above just does not really sound like something I would have said on my own.
The use of the word "volition" ???????

and the way your quotation of me ends with the statement, ".....I like that!"seems to suggest that I was commenting on another person's definition and not talking about how I would define the term myself.


Now I have posted about a million/zillion words on this topic, and I cant say right now I remember each word I have used, nor each context I have used such-n-such words within...
and Im sure that there are many quotations of mine that I may be unsure that if I wrote them or not?




But,

Billy,because you have a reputation of pulling things out of thin air and then attempting to pin your invented ideas on to others, you better list where you lifted that quotation of mine from so i can check it out for myself and confirm that you are quoting me in the correct context.....

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

The Gospel draws us to Christ....either reading or hearing it...

this is SO true!

The Bible is how we can learn all about the salvation story that God has recorded for men to believe.