[Dutchboy88]

"How so? If we don’t have free will, then I guess using that logic I might as well not make the choice to get up in the morning to go work."

I believe that you are using the term "free will" in a way that is more plastic than I am. At least in the above sentence. Let's first understand what it is you mean by this term. Ordinarily, the term "free will" is intended to mean, "the capacity of man to choose from among several possibilities (actions/thoughts/beliefs) completely free from God's influence."

The way you used it, it means something akin to, "man deciding to do something." This is not necessarily "free will" because it allows for God to cause men to decide all kinds of things. The Scriptures refer to this kind of management of men's decisions by God all over the place. I'll give you some cites if you wish.

The reason the ordinarily accepted definition of free will must include the absence of God's influence is it must leave man alone to decide on his own whether to trust Christ or not. He must be the captain of his fate, the master of his destiny. As you intimated in another post, free will is inextricably embedded in God's grace being resistable. He may want you, call you, woo you, but you can say "no thanks".

Do you,

1.agree with my definition of free will?

2.hold this view?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Clearly a lot of this argument (all of it, maybe) hangs on how you define "free will." Here's an article by Alvin Plantinga disputing with atheist Sam Harris, who has, in practice, two different definitions of "free will" and slips these definitions back and forth in a kind of "bait and switch" tactic.

He brings Jonathan Edwards and Jean Calvin into the argument, too. I find it fascinating how much Edwards and Harris have in common, arriving at like conclusions though coming from different directions. You might find it interesting:

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2013/janfeb/bait-and-switch.html?paging=off

[Mrs. Don-o]

Clearly a lot of this argument (all of it, maybe) hangs on how you define "free will." Here's an article by Alvin Plantinga disputing with atheist Sam Harris, who has, in practice, two different definitions of "free will" and slips these definitions back and forth in a kind of "bait and switch" tactic.

He brings Jonathan Edwards and Jean Calvin into the argument, too. I find it fascinating how much Edwards and Harris have in common, arriving at like conclusions though coming from different directions. You might find it interesting:

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2013/janfeb/bait-and-switch.html?paging=off