Can God Know Future Freewill Choices?
- Thread starter Sketo
- Start date
Yep Calvinism either denies or redefines free will
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Philemon does not define the will.
There are like 30 some definitions of free will. Yours is right however I bet. LOL
Simpletruther
Well-known member
Well I think you know most everyone agrees there is free will depending on how you define it.
We we differ on how scripture defines it.
Thus the "come on"
Sketo
Well-known member
Yes It is contrary to your definition of “freewill” as Your definition has man as an Ultimate source independent from God. Yet scripture affirms God is necessary for how you exist moment by moment…
Hebrews 1:3 “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”
Colossians 1:17 “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Acts 17:28 “In him we live and move and have our being”
Your definition states man is another ULTIMATE SOURCE separate from God which is contrary to scripture.
Scripture teaches God is the only ULTIMATE SOURCE of “all things” in existence including your choices.
Justify your assumptions please.
Last edited:
Dizerner
Well-known member
It's on the old "free" part.
Some people think defining free as not free makes lots of sense.
It's difficult to talk to people who do things like that.
Sketo
Well-known member
Yes because “free” is meaningless without a reference point. God is the only reference point that matters.
This has no meaning without a reference point.
I agree. Without a reference point it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation.
Please clarify your reference point… then justify your claim with Scripture.
Dizerner
Well-known member
False presuppositions.
You only define "justify your claim with Scripture" as "interpret its words the way I already do."
Free means FREE, it does not mean NOT free.
It is contrary to what the translations shows regarding free will in Philemon 1:14
Calvinism invented a definition which differs from what the bible shows
and nothing your post impacts whether man has a limited i.e. soft libertarian free will
Finally your view makes God the ultimate source of all sin, that is the author and cause of it
and that is clearly unbiblical
Dizerner
Well-known member
The point for me is, if the Bible really wanted to eliminate all sense of free will and forcefully teach determinism, it would never need phrase anything in an ambiguous way.
This shows people believe in determinism, not because of the way the Bible actually phrases things. but because they prefer the philosophical implications of determinism.
Check with Sketo
I took my meaning from the translations of Philemon 1:14 which shows necessity is contrary to free will
Compatibilist just redefine freewill to make it fit their system
Calvinist is built on the philosophical speculations of man
Dizerner
Well-known member
I don't think meaning of any kind can avoid philosophy.
Saying "the other side is just philosophical" is hypocritically trying to hide the fact that everyone has to use philosophy.
If one denies the need for supernatural revelation, the only thing left is philosophy one way or the other.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
That is your opinion. But it's irrelevant to the point that you should know what his meaning was.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
I agree and both sides use this false attack sometimes.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
Are we free from influences?
You are being g uncharitable even if by accident.
One could accuse you of defining Free as not free as well.
No that was scripture
I have many times posted the different translations of Philemon 1:14 and necessity is eschewed as being contrary to free will
So compatibilism has a definition contrary to scripture
Simpletruther
Well-known member
No its your opinion on what that Scripture means.
I already showed you another perfectly reasonable take on that passage.
You have not rebutted it
(ARV 2005) but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(ASV-2014) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Anderson) but, without your consent, I was not willing to do any thing, that your good deed might not be as a matter of necessity, but one of free-will.
(ASV) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
LEB) But apart from your consent, I wanted to do nothing, in order that your good deed might be not as according to necessity, but according to your own free will.
(MRC) but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness might not be by necessity, but of your own free will.
(NTVR) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Revised Standard ) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(RNT) but without your consent I am unwilling to do anything, so that your goodness may not be of necessity but of free will.
(WEB) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(WEB (R)) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(NHEB) 14 But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
and more
Simpletruther
Well-known member
Why was Paul not willing to do it without his permission?