I was just wondering if it would be possible for someone to explain what they believe about this issue. I have seen scriptural evidence from both sides but would like even more. Thanks
Free Will vs. Predestination
Moderator: Moderators
-
ByFaithAlone
- Student
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:34 pm
- Location: USA
Free Will vs. Predestination
Post #1I've been researching the notion of free will vs. predestination and am getting dragged down in terminology and complex theology.
I was just wondering if it would be possible for someone to explain what they believe about this issue. I have seen scriptural evidence from both sides but would like even more. Thanks
I was just wondering if it would be possible for someone to explain what they believe about this issue. I have seen scriptural evidence from both sides but would like even more. Thanks
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
Hebrews 11:1-2
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
1 Peter 3:15
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Hebrews 11:1-2
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
1 Peter 3:15
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #21
The Nature of Free Will (short version):
1. A true free will choice must not be coerced by any compulsion of any kind; either by fear, love or hate nor of ideas of good and evil or of God’s true nature, ie, the person must be in a true state of ingenuous innocence, lacking in any guile or worldliness.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.]
Nor can they be compelled by any prior event impinging on their life or sensibility - they must be totally free from coercions or seductions known and unknown, physically, emotionally and mentally.
Nor can they be compelled, impelled or forced by any inner nature, any genetic programming of their biology nor spiritual nature from God. A tape recorder saying, "I love Jesus." is meaningless and has no love at all and a tape recorder saying, "I hate Jesus." is guilty of nothing.
2. The person must understand the consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?� must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,� “life there,� was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, might be described as making a choice based on faith.
Only in a situation / system / reality where these things could be true can a true free will choice be made. If you know of a better way to describe how a choice could be free of any and all seduction or coercion, I'd love to hear of it.
Peace to all,
Ted
1. A true free will choice must not be coerced by any compulsion of any kind; either by fear, love or hate nor of ideas of good and evil or of God’s true nature, ie, the person must be in a true state of ingenuous innocence, lacking in any guile or worldliness.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.]
Nor can they be compelled by any prior event impinging on their life or sensibility - they must be totally free from coercions or seductions known and unknown, physically, emotionally and mentally.
Nor can they be compelled, impelled or forced by any inner nature, any genetic programming of their biology nor spiritual nature from God. A tape recorder saying, "I love Jesus." is meaningless and has no love at all and a tape recorder saying, "I hate Jesus." is guilty of nothing.
2. The person must understand the consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?� must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,� “life there,� was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, might be described as making a choice based on faith.
Only in a situation / system / reality where these things could be true can a true free will choice be made. If you know of a better way to describe how a choice could be free of any and all seduction or coercion, I'd love to hear of it.
Peace to all,
Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #22
Why have you defined "free will" the way you did in #1? Why should that definition be considered the correct one?ttruscott wrote:The Nature of Free Will (short version):
1. A true free will choice must not be coerced by any compulsion of any kind; either by fear, love or hate nor of ideas of good and evil or of God’s true nature, ie, the person must be in a true state of ingenuous innocence, lacking in any guile or worldliness.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.]
Nor can they be compelled by any prior event impinging on their life or sensibility - they must be totally free from coercions or seductions known and unknown, physically, emotionally and mentally.
Nor can they be compelled, impelled or forced by any inner nature, any genetic programming of their biology nor spiritual nature from God. A tape recorder saying, "I love Jesus." is meaningless and has no love at all and a tape recorder saying, "I hate Jesus." is guilty of nothing.
2. The person must understand the consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?� must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,� “life there,� was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, might be described as making a choice based on faith.
Only in a situation / system / reality where these things could be true can a true free will choice be made. If you know of a better way to describe how a choice could be free of any and all seduction or coercion, I'd love to hear of it.
Peace to all,
Ted
In fact, such a definition is ludicrous; every act is a decision between choices, and all choices are about what happens as a result of that choice: consequences. For instance, one never simply chooses to, say...wave a hand. The hand wave is done, always, for a REASON. That reason could be: signaling to someone, acknowledging a crowd, enjoying the feel of the wind or water on the skin, propelling oneself through that water, shooing a fly away, alleviating an itch--there is always a 'because' involved in anything we do. There are always consequences, some intended, some unintended, but they come with the choice.
According to your definition, then, "free will" simply doesn't exist, exactly the way orange purples don't exist; if you are going to define a term in such a way as to make it impossible, you can't get upset when people tell you that it is, indeed, either impossible or that your definition is faulty.
In this case, your definition, frankly, sucks--and I have no idea where you got it, or how you can possibly defend it. Who in the universe could possibly define it in that manner, except for those who want to invent an impossible meaning in order to equivocate--and claim that 'free will' doesn't exist?
Of course, your second point absolutely contradicts your first point--as well as begging yet another question. While you acknowledge the contradiction, you seem to be using it to go in a very odd direction; one that makes no formal logical sense. You have jumped from one begged question to another, and come up with a conclusion that doesn't relate to either.
In other words, ................
huh?
