Irrelevant to the point
necessity and compulsion are seen as contrary to freewill
Can God Know Future Freewill Choices?
- Thread starter Sketo
- Start date
necessity and compulsion are seen as contrary to freewill
Simpletruther
Well-known member
No its highly relevant.
If by "necessity" you think this passage is referring to determinism, then Paul literally can determine him to do something and take away his libertarian free will, and so Paul is trying to avoid taking g away his libertarian free will.
Which of course is impossible by definition of LFW.
The passage proves to much for your view.
The common sense meaning is that he doesn't want him To do it out of a sense of obligation ,but do it joyfully.
Someone gets drafted by compulsion in the army their LFW was not taken away..
this is anything but a slam dunk LFW passage.
Dizerner
Well-known member
That's just not true, LFW can be compelled to do things and overridden.
Also, the language of determinism already sounds ridiculous to you as you've admitted, and it's not in the Bible either—act on that intuition.
Afraid not
That determinism involves necessity should not even be a point of contention
If God determines you do something then it necessary you do it
The same is true should he use force or compulsion
Necessity or force or compulsion are all seen as being contrary to free will
So were Paul to force him it would be contrary to his free will
(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.
(FAA) but I did not want to do anything without your opinion, so that your good deed would not be as it were under compulsion, but of free will.
(GDBY_NT) but without your consent I did not wish to do anything; in order that your good might not be by constraint, but by the free will:
(GW) Yet, I didn't want to do anything without your consent. I want you to do this favor for me out of your own free will without feeling forced to do it.
(csb) But I didn't want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own 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.
(MNT) But without your consent I was unwilling to do anything, so that your kindness to me might be of your own free will, and not of compulsion.
(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.
(RSV-CE) 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.
(TLV) But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness wouldn’t be by force but by 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.
(Wuest's) Georgia;;14-16 But I came to a decision in my heart to do nothing without your consent, in order that your goodness might not be as it were by compulsion but of your own free will. For perhaps on this account he was parted for a brief time in order that you might be possessing him fully and forever, no longer in the capacity of a slave, but above a slave, a brother , a beloved one, beloved most of all by me, how much more than that by you, both in his human relationship and in the Lord.
(NASB77) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will.
(NASB95) 14 but 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.
(TEV) 14 However, I do not want to force you to help me; rather, I would like for you to do it of your own free will. So I will not do anything unless you agree.
(ERV) 14 but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should 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.
(TCE) 14 but 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.
CT 14 but I would not do any thing without thy consent, that the benefit derived from thee might not be as it were forced, but of free will.NENT 14 but without thy: mind I wished to do nothing; that thy: goodness be not as of necessity, but of free will.
SLT 14 But without thy judgment I would do nothing; that good might not be as according to necessity, but according to free will.
(NEB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(REB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(EOB) 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent: your goodness should not be forced, but of free will.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
And doing something without someone agreeing to it takes away their LFW? Of course not.
If philemon had taken the slave back on Paul's orders, it would it have been a free will choice?
Of course it still would be. So obviously the passage doesnt mean what you think.
It's not about LFW but about making choices because they are the right thing and it's what you want, rather than because a sense of forced duty or whatever. Either way you make a free will choice.
If you are forced to do something that is something you have not freely done
free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]
NOUN
- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
and you are still denying the translations
Paul clearly places free will in a position contrary to necessity or force or compulsion
Sketo
Well-known member
And the reference point in Philemon 1:14 is not God but other created things…
…therefore Calvinism has no problem with Philemon 1:14’s reference point.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
Even most everyone on your side would say you are wrong here.
Someone that gets drafted and forced into service still went of their own free will. They could have refused. They did what they wanted most given the constraints they had.
The soldier in that position that goes to war was not "determined" to go, at least not under the LFW view, I think you know that.
I doubt that
and will rest on the scriptures where necessity compulsion , constraint are contrary to free will
BTW were someone forced I would deny he freely went
Complying when someone holds a gun to your head is not an excample of free will
but then the definition said as much
free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]
NOUN
- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
scripture and secular definition both agree
Simpletruther
Well-known member
So when God threatens people with hell he is taking away their free will choice?
That is exactly the same analogy as government threatening you at the point of a gun for military service.
Look, there are lines of argument that you use that are reasonble even if I disagree. This one isn't even reasonable. It's relying on a superficial semantic contrast that doesn't work At ALL when analyzed.
Sketo
Well-known member
Again…
Then your reference point for “freedom” is not “God”… it's been moved somewhere else. Probably to just the simple fact that you're doing what you “want”… “voluntary”…
…and you “doing what you want” works perfectly fine in a Calvinistic worldview as well. God is determining ALL THINGS (Eph1:11)…
…Not just what you will do, but also the fact that you “want to do them” so "doing what you want ‘freely’", in the sense of just “acting upon your desires” has nothing at all to do with the actual discussion of (freedom from God) which is what matters.
Threathens people with hell for doing what?
Persons who do not believe in God or his word are not going to believe in such a threat
they probably won't believe in hell
In any case both scripture and secular definition agreed
I would also dare say man law would likewise
You keep confusing the point
No one but you suggests free will means freedom from God
God will judge in the end and he can restrain whatever it is he wills
Sketo
Well-known member
Yet your definition uses the term “Ultimate responsibility” in reference to man not God.
Ultimate is a category reserved for God. You are not God.
Simply Change your definition to reflect your view…
God is Ultimately responsible. Man is “morally” responsible.
…
No ultimate resoponsibility in reference to their sin
God is not their sin
Sorry man is ultimately responsible for his own sin not God
1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
James 1:13–14 (KJV 1900) — 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
1 John 2:16 (KJV 1900) — 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV 1900) — 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
you speak contrary to scripture
Simpletruther
Well-known member
Lule 13 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish
Sketo
Well-known member
Sin is not Ultimate.
Who’s Ultimately responsible for these sins…
not asking who’s “morally” responsible…
I’m asking who is Ultimately responsible?
“Act 4:27-28 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”
“1Sa 16:14-16 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.”
“1Ki 22:19-23 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.”
“1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to numberIsrael./2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
Last edited:
Nothingness is not something outside of God that He re-created that you furthermore claim is not even a miracle. Nothingness is a concept. So creation from a concept is a miracle and logical for God, as is God's creation of our libertarian free choice.
We can make new libertarian thoughts out of ourselves but not outside of God's omni's ie omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence or intentional borders. It is like a bordered maze with multiple outlets for which we are created to libertarianly move within. That's what your scripture references mean.
Man is in fact separate/outside from God as He created us ie we are not God.
But your view that we are not separate from God is pantheism ie we and creation and our thoughts are part of God. How do you deny this accusation?