Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawg
"I am not going to the mat on this. It was the "universal" that perked up my ears and the interest of the question which led to all this wordiness.

Such a mannerly response, and really not something to read to fall asleep. Quite the opposite.

However, that said, your response does disclose that the term "free" as you have quoted it must be modified, or rather extended, in order to find an alternate meaning to, "without any outside influence whatsoever". Now my turn to ramble a bit... In heaven, we receive the inheritance of righteousness and will find our natures remade, aligned with Christ, with new wills now completely oriented toward that end to which we were intended. There will be no conflict, no broken flesh hanging on to deceive me and tempt me. This is now a will oriented toward God, and still not "free" in the sense that I used the term. And, I don't want it free.

So, if we are running in circles saying, of course, we are not free here, but let's just call it "free" since we don't feel any constraints, that seems disingenuous.

My suspicions (and I admit evil) are that those wanting to have "free will" be true (that is, without any input), really want something to commend them to God. That is, as one man told me, "At least I chose Christ. The others did not and that is why they should go to hell." If we have no free will (a view I believe supported by the Scriptures), then to be drawn into the Kindgom of Christ has no trace elements of my merit. This is repugnant to a lot of folks that want something to be traceable to the man.

2,031 posted on 01/12/2010 8:03:14 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1871 | View Replies ]


To: Dutchboy88

2 points

(1) IF I understand it, the real pedal to the metalNominalist position is that the will would not even be directed by what I would think of as the intrinsic attractions of the good. Just for what it’s worth. I’ll try to go further into it.

(2) I DO think that the risk or challenge of our side is the temptation to give oneself ‘props’ for choosing the right side or something. I don’t think it’s a necessary error, but certainly we make more room for that goof.

I can only testify that if I ever made a good choice, I was the most surprised person in the room, and that my perception, not my thought — my FEELING was the the good decision was given to me or happened for me or .. ANYTHING but that it’s mine. All I can add is sin. That’s not a logical proposition, it’s a reluctantly reached conclusion. (Except once you reach it, it’s kind of cool.)


2,067 posted on 01/12/2010 9:40:18 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2031 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson