A Practical Understanding Of Libertarian Freewillism!

TomFL

Well-known member
Actually, that is what I am saying. You did not put the verse. You only have a version followed by a bunch of words. No reference.
Philem. 1:14 —CSB17
“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.”
 

armylngst

Active member
Philem. 1:14 —CSB17
“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.”
Thanks, can't say anything without the actual reference. Sounds like Paul was saying he didn't want to do anything without Philemon's consent. Not sure what this has to do with the fact that both God and us cannot have libertarian free will.

"12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord."

Ah, I see, you wanted me to look it up so I can see that it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Thanks, can't say anything without the actual reference. Sounds like Paul was saying he didn't want to do anything without Philemon's consent. Not sure what this has to do with the fact that both God and us cannot have libertarian free will.

"12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord."

Ah, I see, you wanted me to look it up so I can see that it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.

You don't know what it has to do with libertarian free will ?

Free will is libertarian free will

The term libertarian is used to differentiate from compatibilism

There are other verses as well but that is sufficient
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
“Hard” or “Soft” doesn’t matter! When you remove all “influences” that are outside of man... and remove all mere “influences” within man, that make man a unique individual, then what’s left to explain how he comes to a final decision landed upon? You may suggest that “will” is within man but that just begs-the-question... Doesn’t this “will”, within the system, have the ability to go against all the other parts of man and separate itself and act independently? Then you must explain how this “independent” “will” lands on the final outcome! Mr. Flowers called it “mystery”!

The system is left without a blameworthy cause which is no different than if someone flipped-a-coin to determine the outcome!

Heads = accept
Tales = reject

I really want it to land on “heads” but that doesn’t matter because “want” “desire” “preference” are only mere “influences” and in this system and the coin could land “otherwise” against those “influences” that make up man!

Better LUCK next time!
Let's face it Flowers and his disciple(s) have the world running in random chaos concerning salvation, and it is at the mercy of man, whether he will choose or not. In their quest to dethrone God with their ideology, they've enthroned man.

But it isn't only that their position is absurd, it's completely unbiblical as mans will has nothing to do with obtaining salvation as John 1:13 dogmatically asserts. There are many doctrinal passages that teach explicitly we are saved by His will, not ours.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Let's face it Flowers and his disciple(s) have the world running in random chaos concerning salvation, and it is at the mercy of man, whether he will choose or not. In their quest to dethrone God with their ideology, they've enthroned man.

But it isn't only that their position is absurd, it's completely unbiblical as mans will has nothing to do with obtaining salvation as John 1:13 dogmatically asserts. There are many doctrinal passages that teach explicitly we are saved by His will, not ours.
Funny how you are never able to prove that and are reduced to snippets such as these
 

TomFL

Well-known member
“Hard” or “Soft” doesn’t matter! When you remove all “influences” that are outside of man... and remove all mere “influences” within man, that make man a unique individual, then what’s left to explain how he comes to a final decision landed upon? You may suggest that “will” is within man but that just begs-the-question... Doesn’t this “will”, within the system, have the ability to go against all the other parts of man and separate itself and act independently? Then you must explain how this “independent” “will” lands on the final outcome! Mr. Flowers called it “mystery”!

The system is left without a blameworthy cause which is no different than if someone flipped-a-coin to determine the outcome!
You appear confused

Who stated anything about removing all influences and who denied ones nature limits ones choices

And the blameworthy cause is always the one who commits the sin

just as the bible tells us
 

Sketo

Well-known member
You appear confused

Who stated anything about removing all influences and who denied ones nature limits ones choices

And the blameworthy cause is always the one who commits the sin

just as the bible tells us

How does the will land on the final one choice landed upon???

Multiple choices + “mystery machine” = 1 final choice landed upon as “the” choice!

What happens inside the “mystery machine” i.e. “the will”?


“Hard” or “Soft” doesn’t matter! When you remove all “influences” that are outside of man... and remove all mere “influences” within man, that make man a unique individual, then what’s left to explain how he comes to a final decision landed upon? You may suggest that “will” is within man but that just begs-the-question... Doesn’t this “will”, within the system, have the ability to go against all the other parts of man and separate itself and act independently? Then you must explain how this “independent” “will” lands on the final outcome! Mr. Flowers called it “mystery”!

The system is left without a blameworthy cause which is no different than if someone flipped-a-coin to determine the outcome!

Heads = accept
Tales = reject

I really want it to land on “heads” but that doesn’t matter because “want” “desire” “preference” are only mere “influences” and in this system and the coin could land “otherwise” against those “influences” that make up man!

Better LUCK next time!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
How does the will land on the final one choice landed upon???

Multiple choices + “mystery machine” = 1 final choice landed upon as “the” choice!

What happens inside the “mystery machine” i.e. “the will”?
A combination of factors including nature, outside influence mood, circumstance

determinism simply pushes the mystery back on to God
 

armylngst

Active member
You don't know what it has to do with libertarian free will ?

Free will is libertarian free will

The term libertarian is used to differentiate from compatibilism

There are other verses as well but that is sufficient
This passage has nothing to do with libertarian free will, and everything to do with good Christian manners. God isn't even in the verse, so there is absolutely no way to judge if this is libertarian free will, or if God made Paul do this. What did Paul say. I could keep your servant, and put him to good use for the kingdom of God, while getting all the credit, or send the servant back to you, so you can send him back as a sign of good will, and Philemon gets the credit for Onesimus's service to God and Paul. I don't see anything about libertarian free will anywhere in what happened. In fact, Paul is using his belief that Philemon's will is bound by his Christian beliefs.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
This passage has nothing to do with libertarian free will, and everything to do with good Christian manners. God isn't even in the verse, so there is absolutely no way to judge if this is libertarian free will, or if God made Paul do this. What did Paul say. I could keep your servant, and put him to good use for the kingdom of God, while getting all the credit, or send the servant back to you, so you can send him back as a sign of good will, and Philemon gets the credit for Onesimus's service to God and Paul. I don't see anything about libertarian free will anywhere in what happened. In fact, Paul is using his belief that Philemon's will is bound by his Christian beliefs.
Sorry that is just denial

The term free will is there

You can't remove it from the bible

and you can't pretend it is not
 

armylngst

Active member
Sorry that is just denial

The term free will is there

You can't remove it from the bible

and you can't pretend it is not
So if we meet, and I biff you on the head, it's because God wanted me to. (Rightfully deserved?) These are two men dealing with each other. The question at hand does NOT rise up to the level of God. Paul wants to keep Onesimus. God has determined that Paul would instead send Onesimus back to Philemon, so if Philemon wishes for Onesimus to serve Paul, it will be Philemon's choice. Now, how that rises to the level of God deciding you will pick your nose with your left pinky, instead of your right index finger...I don't know. Perhaps you can explain that to us? This has nothing to do with libertarian free will, because God may have determined that this happen. You have yet to prove that God does not determine anything, while we know that there is scripture that clearly states God determined. And the passage being dealt with is "
14 and apart from thy mind I willed to do nothing, that as of necessity thy good deed may not be, but of willingness, 15 for perhaps because of this he did depart for an hour, that age-duringly thou mayest have him, 16 no more as a servant, but above a servant -- a brother beloved, especially to me, and how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord!" (YLT) So even Paul is saying that perhaps the reason God is having Paul send Onesimus back is so that Philemon and Onesimus can be reunited, not simply as master and servant, but as so much more. Also, I notice free will isn't mentioned here in the literal translation of the greek.
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
So if we meet, and I biff you on the head, it's because God wanted me to. (Rightfully deserved?) These are two men dealing with each other. The question at hand does NOT rise up to the level of God. Paul wants to keep Onesimus. God has determined that Paul would instead send Onesimus back to Philemon, so if Philemon wishes for Onesimus to serve Paul, it will be Philemon's choice. Now, how that rises to the level of God deciding you will pick your nose with your left pinky, instead of your right index finger...I don't know. Perhaps you can explain that to us? This has nothing to do with libertarian free will, because God may have determined that this happen. You have yet to prove that God does not determine anything, while we know that there is scripture that clearly states God determined. And the passage being dealt with is "
14 and apart from thy mind I willed to do nothing, that as of necessity thy good deed may not be, but of willingness, 15 for perhaps because of this he did depart for an hour, that age-duringly thou mayest have him, 16 no more as a servant, but above a servant -- a brother beloved, especially to me, and how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord!" (YLT) So even Paul is saying that perhaps the reason God is having Paul send Onesimus back is so that Philemon and Onesimus can be reunited, not simply as master and servant, but as so much more. Also, I notice free will isn't mentioned here in the literal translation of the greek.
The point

The bible mentions free will

You cannot therefore deny it

and every translation of the Greek posits something that is descriptive of free will

A rose by any other name is still a Rose
 

armylngst

Active member
The point

The bible mentions free will

You cannot therefore deny it

and every translation of the Greek posits something that is descriptive of free will

A rose by any other name is still a Rose
Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about. If God already knows what you are going to do, before you do it, where you actually have one choice...the one God knows you are going to make, is your will really free? What is it with people who can't understand that God is not us, and God is not in our image, but we are in His. God exists in eternity, and created us, therefore everything we do and will do, God already knows. In that way, your so called free will is bound by the will of God. So, which wins, God's will or yours? [I already know you will say that your will wins out.]
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about. If God already knows what you are going to do, before you do it, where you actually have one choice...the one God knows you are going to make, is your will really free? What is it with people who can't understand that God is not us, and God is not in our image, but we are in His. God exists in eternity, and created us, therefore everything we do and will do, God already knows. In that way, your so called free will is bound by the will of God. So, which wins, God's will or yours? [I already know you will say that your will wins out.]
Yes

You commit the basic fallacy of equating foreknowledge with necessity
 

TomFL

Well-known member
So, God's omniscience is a fallacy. God it.
Sorry you simply have no understanding of the issue

Nowhere have I suggested any such thing

and in fact argue just the opposite that God knows everything that may happen on all possible conditions
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Nope just truth

about confounding foreknowledge and determination

There are two choices here

1) God “foreknows” because God determines the future...
or
2) God “foreknows” because something outside of God determines the future...

Number 1 has much Bible support!

Number 2 is philosophical and has zero Bible support!


Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
 
Top