About the idea of 'Free Will"...

[William]

In recent discussion with forum member 'The Tanager' and also in relation to the thread "Did Christ have free will?" where I answered that he did indeed have free will and forum member EBA argued that free will doesn't actually exist - which essentially I eventually had to agree with, given the definition of both 'free' and 'will'.

The end of our interaction went like this:

[Replying to post 131 by EBA]

Fair enough. May I ask why you think it is so important that Jesus possess free will?

No, because it does not matter, given you think free will does not exist...for anyone.

As I contemplated the discussion I began to understand that 'free will' is an incorrect description which adds confusion to any discussion about will.

It isn't that people do not have WILL, for they certainly do, but that given our circumstances, our WILL can never be FREE, because our circumstances - our situation in this physical universe in these physical instruments suppresses any true freedom that we might imagine we could experience and so freedom becomes relative.

One can, of course, argue for philosophical ideas to do with ones internal sense of freedom despite the external bondage and that may relate and align more to the idea of 'free will' but in relation to the will and the external reality, isn't it more appropriate to refer to the will, simply as the will without adding confusion to the mix by introducing the word 'free' in front of the word 'will'?

In relation to biblical referencing, is the concept 'free will' to be found within its pages, or is it only ever about the will? I ask this because it is often the case that 'free will' comes into the argument from Christians as if it were relevant and essential to truth, but are they taking liberties in arguing for something they call 'free will' when such does not actually exist, and why argue 'free will' if 'will' would suffice?

Is it because many arguments would fail, if only 'will' was used instead of 'free will'?

Thoughts?

[Divine Insight]

Is it because many arguments would fail, if only 'will' was used instead of 'free will'?

Thoughts?

My thoughts with regard to what was put forth in the OP is that in the context of the question, "Did Christ have Free Will?", this makes perfect sense, because what is really being asked is whether Christ could have chosen to do anything different from what the supposed Father God had expected him to do?

In other words, it's basically the same as asking "Could Christ have failed to be sin free and therefore become ineligible to be the savior of all mankind?" This is the Christian thesis. That Christ could have fallen from grace but chose not to.

I suggest that within the context of this religious paradigm Christ could not have failed. Period.

You can speak of that in terms of whether or not he had "Free Will" if you want, but the bottom line is that he could not have failed in this mission.

Why not? Because according to this religious paradigm all of this was "God's Plan". God is the one who impregnated Mary with Jesus specifically for this mission. Therefore if Jesus would have failed, then God would have failed. And we can't have that. This God is not allowed to fail at anything he sets out to do.

Therefore when asked "Did Christ have Free Will?" what is really being asked is, "Could Christ have possibly failed?". And the answer has to be no. That could not have been an option because Christ failing would be no different from God failing, and we can't have that.

In fact, this is one of the many reasons why this religious paradigm cannot be true. If Christ could not have possibly failed, (which he couldn't) then his success to never sin would be moot. It would have been a flawed premise that only Christ has "EARNED" the right to eternal life. He hasn't earned anything if he couldn't have possibly failed.

So does it really matter whether we speak of this in terms of "Free Will" or simply recognize that this specific mythology cannot be true? Whether you bring a concept of "Free Will" into the picture is basically irrelevant.

If Christ couldn't have failed, then Christianity itself crashes to the ground as an obviously failed theology.

[ttruscott]

It isn't that people do not have WILL, for they certainly do, but that given our circumstances, our WILL can never be FREE, because our circumstances - our situation in this physical universe in these physical instruments suppresses any true freedom that we might imagine we could experience and so freedom becomes relative.

Free can only mean free from an outside force that coerces us to chose one of the options. Freedom to choose within restrictions is not freedom at all.

Natural restrictions to our FREEdom:
- dna
- family values
- cultural values

Spiritual restrictions:
- our being born enslaved to the addictive power of sin from which we cannot save ourselves.
- our lives are determined by GOD as per such verses as, Acts 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. and Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand...

Given these premises, it is easy to conclude that we do not have freedom to choose any available option here on earth. The natural restrictions, though hidden in our psyche, are indeed manipulating us to act in certain ways as does our addiction to evil and GOD's predetermination, if any.

BUT our free will is an absolute necessity 1. to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and 2. to make the guilt of the sinner real so any punishment or judgement against that guilt is righteous.

This supposed paradox is a driving factor that had me to accept our pre-conception existence (PCE Theology) at which time pre-earth we chose by a true free will to come under HIS promises of salvation or to rebel against HIM forever...separating us by our free will into the two groups, the elect and the non-elect.

THEN, all sinners were born into prison earth as humans called the sheep and the goats to work out their free will choices under HIS predetermination of our lives (not fates) without a free will.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

My thoughts with regard to what was put forth in the OP is that in the context of the question, "Did Christ have Free Will?", this makes perfect sense, because what is really being asked is whether Christ could have chosen to do anything different from what the supposed Father God had expected him to do?

The stated intention of this thread is not about arguing whether Jesus had 'free will' or not. The other thread is already asking that question. I only referred to the other thread topic as a point of reference as to what got me thinking about this question.

The purpose of this thread is to ask whether there is such a thing as 'free will' or whether it is actually erroneous to use the term in any form of argument regarding the will and external choices.

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Free can only mean free from an outside force that coerces us to chose one of the options. Freedom to choose within restrictions is not freedom at all.

What does that mean, other than if there are any restrictions involved in any situation, then we are not operating in 'free' will - but only in will alone. Or if one wishes to be pedantic, 'restricted will'.
(numbered for reference)

1:

Natural restrictions to our FREEdom:
- dna

So if dna is involved, our will is restricted.

2:

- family values

I disagree. There is no restriction of personal will in relation to the familiar.

3:

- cultural values

Again, I disagree. There is no restriction of personal will in relation to the familiar.

4:

Spiritual restrictions:
- our being born enslaved to the addictive power of sin from which we cannot save ourselves.

This concept might fall under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will if that is the case.

- our lives are determined by GOD as per such verses as, Acts 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. and Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand...

Again - This concept would fall under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will.

Given these premises, it is easy to conclude that we do not have freedom to choose any available option here on earth. The natural restrictions, though hidden in our psyche, are indeed manipulating us to act in certain ways as does our addiction to evil and GOD's predetermination, if any.

Even so, if it is just personal WILL we are speaking about, those premises are not here nor there except as devices which make the will limited in some way or another.

In order for that to happen, the will must be used to 'make it so' and there will be reasons why the individual wants it to be this way. Wanting something to be a certain way is wishful thinking rather than anything real.

BUT our free will is an absolute necessity 1. to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and 2. to make the guilt of the sinner real so any punishment or judgement against that guilt is righteous.

This fits well as a great example in relation to my question;

Q: In relation to biblical referencing, is the concept 'free will' to be found within its pages, or is it only ever about the will?

And my observation in relation to my question;

I ask this because it is often the case that 'free will' comes into the argument from Christians as if it were relevant and essential to truth, but are they taking liberties in arguing for something they call 'free will' when such does not actually exist, and why argue 'free will' if 'will' would suffice?

So lets have a look at your statement when the word 'free' is struck out;

BUT our [strike]free[/strike] will is an absolute necessity 1. to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and 2. to make the guilt of the sinner real so any punishment or judgement against that guilt is righteous.

Then we can see if the statement makes rings true or not.

"BUT our will is an absolute necessity to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil"

And what is seen here? Clearly what is seen is that our will does not necessarily keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil because our will can be used to question that idea and in doing so, to come up with alternative conclusions.

Thus, in order to make such a claim one has to have already had their minds somehow tampered with that they believe free will exists and therefore can explain how to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil, through adding 'free' will to the mix.
This would be (4) which would fall under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will if that is the case, as one can choose for oneself to question the doctrine for truth and decide to abandoned it as a truely unnecessary concept.

This supposed paradox is a driving factor that had me to accept our pre-conception existence (PCE Theology) at which time pre-earth we chose by a true free will to come under HIS promises of salvation or to rebel against HIM forever...separating us by our free will into the two groups, the elect and the non-elect.

THEN, all sinners were born into prison earth as humans called the sheep and the goats to work out their free will choices under HIS predetermination of our lives (not fates) without a free will.

This still falls under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will if that is the case.

As well as that, you have had to actually add an additional idea about will. Not only the idea of 'free will' but now also the idea of 'a true free will'.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

My thoughts with regard to what was put forth in the OP is that in the context of the question, "Did Christ have Free Will?", this makes perfect sense, because what is really being asked is whether Christ could have chosen to do anything different from what the supposed Father God had expected him to do?

The stated intention of this thread is not about arguing whether Jesus had 'free will' or not. The other thread is already asking that question. I only referred to the other thread topic as a point of reference as to what got me thinking about this question.

The purpose of this thread is to ask whether there is such a thing as 'free will' or whether it is actually erroneous to use the term in any form of argument regarding the will and external choices.

Well, as a general philosophical question we would need to define in some depth what we mean by "free". Free from what?

Clearly there are many things that humans cannot do due to physical restrictions. Therefore we have no "free will" when it comes to choosing to do those specific things.

We do seem to have some limited free will in terms of choices that are "possible", but even in those cases there may be reasons beyond our control why it's really not entirely up to us to make those choices. Entering into an intimate relationship with another individual is one prime example. I may choose to marry Sally, but Sally may not choose to marry me. Therefore we have a conflict of "free will" choices. Similar examples can be given in the business world. I may wish to chose to be the CEO of a company, but the company may not permit me to make that choice.

So the question of exactly how "free" our choices are can depend entirely on whether or not what we would like to choose is available to us.

I have had to make many choices throughout my life that I did not want to make. Therefore I could easily claim to not have much free will choice at all.

But then if we define "free" as being able to choose from only the choices that are offered to me, then of course I have "free will" to choose from those. Or at least it certainly appears that I would have free will choice in those situations. We can't even be sure about that actually.

But in the OP you specifically pointed to the question of whether or not Christ had "Free Will". That's a case that would be extremely different entirely, because in that case there is a God involved who supposedly can never fail at anything he chooses to do. So that's a whole different ball game there.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Free can only mean free from an outside force that coerces us to chose one of the options. Freedom to choose within restrictions is not freedom at all.

What does that mean, other than if there are any restrictions involved in any situation, then we are not operating in 'free' will - but only in will alone. Or if one wishes to be pedantic, 'restricted will'.

Yes, I accept the human will is a restricted will.

1:

Natural restrictions to our FREEdom:
- dna

So if dna is involved, our will is restricted.

2:

- family values

I disagree. There is no restriction of personal will in relation to the familiar.

3:

- cultural values

Again, I disagree. There is no restriction of personal will in relation to the familiar.

In that our family values and I should add, family experiences and cultural values and experiences, the 'ethics'? of being ourselves, happens by the time we are 5 or some suggest 3 years old, they are certainly not a chosen self definition but has a inner, seldom noticed, coercive influence upon us...to some extent.

4:

Spiritual restrictions:
- our being born enslaved to the addictive power of sin from which we cannot save ourselves.

This concept might fall under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will if that is the case.

- our lives are determined by GOD as per such verses as, Acts 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. and Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand...

Again - This concept would fall under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will.

Unless they are accepted as true...as many if not most Christians accept. They just live with the cognitive dissonance of our needing a free will while they also accept HIS predetermination of our lives (except Arminians) and our being enslaved by sin, except Arminians.

This still falls under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will if that is the case.

You say this so dogmatically you must accept it implicitly but I cannot parse out its meaning at all, sigh. Rather than try to guess, and probably guess wrongly what you mean, I will let you suggest what this means...

[Divine Insight]

Spiritual restrictions:
- our being born enslaved to the addictive power of sin from which we cannot save ourselves. .

If this were the case then all humans would be vindicated from having any personal responsibility for their predicament.

This would be like babies that are born already addicted to heroin, and then blaming the babies for having the addiction.

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Well, as a general philosophical question we would need to define in some depth what we mean by "free". Free from what?

Clearly there are many things that humans cannot do due to physical restrictions. Therefore we have no "free will" when it comes to choosing to do those specific things.

Indeed, there is no absolute freedom to be had in the physical universe, so the term 'free' is relative.

The OP question is asking if that is the case, why use the word 'free' at all in relation to 'will', because there is no requirement to do so.

"You have a choice" is the same as "You have the will to choose and the options to choose from."

This adequately expresses something without having to put the word 'free' into that mix. It is superfluous to requirement.

We do seem to have some limited free will in terms of choices that are "possible", but even in those cases there may be reasons beyond our control why it's really not entirely up to us to make those choices.

Which of course, can be expressed without the addtion of the word 'free', as in;

"We do seem to have some limited will in terms of choices that are "possible", but even in those cases there may be reasons beyond our control why it's really not entirely up to us to make those choices."

The same idea is conveyed without the additional use of the superfluous.

Entering into an intimate relationship with another individual is one prime example. I may choose to marry Sally, but Sally may not choose to marry me. Therefore we have a conflict of "free will" choices.

Again;

Entering into an intimate relationship with another individual is one prime example. I may choose to marry Sally, but Sally may not choose to marry me. Therefore we have a conflict of "will" choices.

The same idea is conveyed without the additional use of the superfluous.

Similar examples can be given in the business world. I may wish to chose to be the CEO of a company, but the company may not permit me to make that choice.

And in that, no need to bring the word 'free' into it - as indeed one is not free to make that call anyway.

So the question of exactly how "free" our choices are can depend entirely on whether or not what we would like to choose is available to us.

In this universe, freedom is a relative term anyway. Your mind can be relatively free in relation to your circumstance of being incarcerated in solitary confinement. In that you still have will in relation to how you choose to handle the experience.

I have had to make many choices throughout my life that I did not want to make. Therefore I could easily claim to not have much free will choice at all.

Well in that, you have will. This extends to every aspect of your personal experience wherein you have the ability to use will, you are thus able to do so. Is being able to do so the same as being free to do so? Apparently not because one is not always able to make a choice one would want to make.

But then if we define "free" as being able to choose from only the choices that are offered to me, then of course I have "free will" to choose from those. Or at least it certainly appears that I would have free will choice in those situations. We can't even be sure about that actually.

In relation to our situation on this planet, in this universe, freedom is relative. That we can imagine what it might be like not to be constrained gives us the notion of 'freedom' in that sense.

If we define 'will' as being able to choose from only the choices that are offered to us, then of course we have "will" and there is no need to employ the idea that in having 'will' we thus have 'free will'. THAT I can be sure about.

But in the OP you specifically pointed to the question of whether or not Christ had "Free Will". That's a case that would be extremely different entirely, because in that case there is a God involved who supposedly can never fail at anything he chooses to do. So that's a whole different ball game there.

Only in that dropping the word 'free' altogether, the question becomes more aligned with truthfulness.

"Did Christ have will?"

Then the 'ball game' changes to suit the truthfulness.

In relation to the GOD involved who supposedly can never fail at anything he chooses to do - who Jesus referred to as his 'Father' and 'The Father' (and whom you also believe that is a distinctly different GOD from the OT one) Jesus uses his own will to chose to trust in that. In 'the will of his Father who sent him'.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by ttruscott]

In that our family values and I should add, family experiences and cultural values and experiences, the 'ethics'? of being ourselves, happens by the time we are 5 or some suggest 3 years old, they are certainly not a chosen self definition but has a inner, seldom noticed, coercive influence upon us...to some extent.

Be that as it may, such influence as cultural family religious ideas and accompanying values are not something that the individual has no will to question and examine in getting to the truth. Their personal will may have been severely suppressed in order to get them to behave according to the conditions imposed by the values through ideas which involve suffering, punishment etc, effectively subtly pressuring them to surrender their personal will to supporting the familiar... but this in itself does not mean that they no longer have it in them to exercise their will to reject the familiar and come out from under its influence.

Either way, they have will, so how it is used is still their choice even if they were too young to be able to resist the suppression imposed upon them in their formative years, because, as they mature and become more able to exercise their autonomy, their will is still intact and able to be used to counter those formative abuses.

Again - This concept would fall under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will.

Unless they are accepted as true...as many if not most Christians accept.

Accepting something as 'true' does not make it so. Accepting something as true is still an act of personal will.
In relation to the argument that because we are all subjected to possibly lies told to us as truth, (this might well constitute a form of child abuse), even so, the abused are able to willfully reject what they were taught through choosing to examine those things and finding those things to be wanting, in relation to truth.

This still falls under 'familiar' such as 'doctrinal/dogmatic values' so again, there is no restriction of personal will if that is the case.

You say this so dogmatically you must accept it implicitly but I cannot parse out its meaning at all, sigh. Rather than try to guess, and probably guess wrongly what you mean, I will let you suggest what this means...

In that case, the above statements (in green) should be enough to clarify what I am saying. (Depending on how you choose to engage you will, of course)