Free Will (In Greek) | SermonIndex

S

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

~~[b]~~THE FREE WILL OF MAN[/b]

The most common used word in the Greek New Testament for the will of man, that I have found, is “thelo ethelo” which is to “determine, choose, prefer, desire, wish, incline, will, delight in, intent, or love”.

This helps to understand with better light some very intriguing passages.

~~[b]~~Here are a few:[/b]

~~[b]~~Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34[/b] - “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would [thelo ethelo] I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her chickens under her wings, and ye would [thelo ethelo] not!”

Here we have insight into the heart of God. It was His will for Jerusalem to come unto Him, but Jerusalem did not want to come. We see the conflict between the will of God and the will of man. God’s will is that people voluntarily come unto Him for grace (Rev 22:17). He want’s to protect them from sin and it’s consequences (2Peter 3:9), and have a loving relationship with them (John 7:3, Php 3:8). But man is choosing sin over God (John 3:19), not submitting their own will to the will of God (Matt 6:24, John 7:17), and this leaves God’s will unfulfilled (1John 5:19), God’s heart broken (Gen 6:5, Eph 4:3), and the souls of men in peril! (1Corinthians 6:9-10)

~~[b]~~Matthew 22:3 [/b]- “And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding and they would [thelo ethelo] not come.”

Here we see the will of man rejecting the invitations of God. God is calling all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) because He doesn’t want them to perish (2Peter 3:9). The Holy Spirit is convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, (John 6:18) trying to draw all men unto God (John 12:32). The revealing of the truth by the Spirit to the mind is irresistible, the intellect is under the law of necessity (Acts 6:10).But the grace of God is not irresistible, but just as though who stoned Stephen, many men always resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) because the will is under the law of liberty. The grace of God is the most resisted thing in the whole universe (1John 5:19). Man’s will is rejecting God’s will, even God’s will for their own salvation (John 3:16-19).

~~[b]~~Luke 19:27[/b] - “But those mine enemies, which would [thelo ethelo] not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

The problem of sin is a problem of the will (1John 3:4). The general root of all sin is self-will (Isaiah 14:13-14). Sinners do not want or will for God to reign over them (Luke 19:14), to govern them (2Peter 2:10), because they are self willed (2Peter 2:10). Before salvation can occur, the Spirit of God must change the will of man through the influence of truth (John 6:44, John 15:26).

~~[b]~~John 5:40[/b] “And ye will [thelo ethelo] not come to me, that ye might have life.”

Those who perish, perish because they are not willing to come unto Jesus. Not because they couldn’t (1 Corinthians 10:13), but because they wouldn’t.

~~[b]~~Revelations 22:17[/b] “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will [thelo ethelo], let him take the water of life freely.”

God will not save anyone, not even Jerusalem, against their will (Luke 13:34). If anyone is to receive God’s grace and mercy, they must receive it willfully (Heb 10:26). If anyone is to respond to the gospel message, they must respond voluntarily (Rev 22:17). Nobody has ever been saved yet who did not want to be saved (Deu 30:19. And nobody has ever rejected God and His grace, who did not want to reject it in order to keep their sin (John 3:20).

“Thelo ethelo” is translated in the bible either as “would”, “willingly” or as “willing”.

~~[b]~~Verses translated as willingly[/b]: John 6:21, 2Peter 3:5

~~[b]~~Verses translated as willing:[/b] Matthew 1:19, Luke 10:29, Luke 23:20, John 5:35, Acts 24:27, Acts 25:9, Romans 9:22, Hebrews 13:18

~~[b]~~Verses translated as would: [/b]

Matthew: 2:18, 5:42, 7:12, 12:38, 14:5, 18:23, 18:30, 22:3, 23:37, 27:15, 27:34
Mark: 3:13, 6:19, 6:26, 6:48, 7:24, 9:30, 10:35, 10:36
Luke: 6:31, 15:28, 16:26, 18:4, 18:13
John: 1:43, 6:11, 7:1, 7:44, 9:27, 12:21
Acts: 7:39, 10:10, 14:13, 16:3, 19:33, 24:6, 23:09
Romans: 1:13, 7:15, 7:16, 7:19, 7:20, 7:21, 11:25, 16:19
1Corinthians: 7:7, 7:32, 10:1, 10:20, 11:3, 12:1, 14:5
2Corinthians: 1:8, 5:4, 12:20
Galatians: 1:7, 3:2, 4:17, 5:17
Colossians: 1:27, 2:1
1Thessalonians: 2:18, 4:13
2Thessalonians: 3:10
Philemon: 1:14
Hebrews: 12:17

~~[u]~~There are other greek words used for the will of man:[/u]

“Boulomai” literally means “to be willing” or to “intend”.

This word is translated as “would” or as “willing”.

~~[b]~~Places “boulomai” is translated as “would”:[/b]

Acts: 17:20, 19:30, 22:30, 23:28, 25:20, 25:22, 28:18,
Philemon: 1:12, 1:13
2John 1:12
3John 1:10

~~[b]~~Places “boulomai” translated as “willing”:[/b]

Mark 15:15
Luke 22:24
Acts 17:43
Heb 6:17
2Peter 3:9

~~[u]~~~~[b]~~2Peter 3:9[/b] is a scripture of particular interest:[/u]

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

It is not God’s will, not God’s intention for anyone to perish. This is the benevolent reason God has for not pouring out His wrath yet. He is waiting patiently, or is longsuffering, with the hope and will that more sinners will repent and be saved.

“Euchomaia” is another which mean’s “to pray, will, or wish”. It is used only in Acts 26:29

“Euokeo” is another word that means “willing”. It is used in 2Corinthians 5:8 and 1Thessalonians 2:8

“Prothumia” mean’s “willing mind” and is used in 2 Corinthians 8:12 and 1Peter 5:2

“Hekousios” mean’s “voluntariness” or “willingness” and is used in Hebrews 10:26 and 1Peter 5:2.

~~[b]~~Hebrews 10:26[/b] says that if a person sins willfully “hekousios” or voluntarily, after they have received “lambano” or have “accepted” or “attained” or “seized” the truth, the blood of Jesus Christ does not cover their sin, but they are heading towards judgment.
“Authairetos” is a word which means “self chosen” or “voluntary” or “willful”. It is used in 2Corinthians 8:3

“hekown” also means “voluntary” or “willingly”and is used in Romans 8:20 and 1Corinthians 9:17

“hekousion” means “voluntariness” or “willingly” and is found in Philemon 1:14

~~[u]~~~~[b]~~EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON FREE-WILL[/b][/u]

Surprisingly to some, the Early Apostolic Church universally held to the doctrine of free will for the first four to five centuries without debate.

Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers which I thought were note worthy:

“If it happen by fate that men are either good or wicked; the good were not good , nor should the wicked be wicked.” Justin (the) Martyr

“Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praise worthy, if he had not the power of turning either way.” Justin (the) Martyr

“Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.” Justin (the) Martyr

“God had not made man, like the trees and the brutes, without the power of election.” Justin (the) Martyr

“Man being appointed for God’s judgment, it was necessary to the justice of God’s sentence that man should be judged, according to the deserts of his free will.” Turtullian

“Man, a reasonable being, and in the respect like God, is made free in his will, and having power over himself, is the cause that sometimes he becomes wheat and sometimes chaff.” Irenaeus

“They who do good shall obtain honor and glory, because they have done good when they could forbear doing it. And they who do it not shall receive just judgment of our God; because they have not done good when they could have done it.” Irenaeus

“What is forced is not pleasing to God, but what comes from a truly virtuous motive, and virtue comes from the Will not from Necessity.” Basil

“The will depends on what is within us, and within us is free will.” Basil

“Forasmuch as God has put good and evil in our power, he has given us free power to choose the one or the other; and as he does not retain us against our will, so he embraces us when we are willing.” Chrysostom

“After a wicked man, if he will, is changed into a good man; and a good man, through sloth, falls away and becomes wicked; because God hath endowed us with free agency; not does he make us to do things necessarily, but he places proper remedies before us, and suffers all to be done according to the will of the patient.” Chrysostom

“God hath endowed us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or vice. For when Necessity rules, there is no room left either for d**nation or crown.” Jerome

“Even to those who shall be wicked, God gives power to repent and turn to him.” Jerome

“Our will is kept free to turn either way, that God may dispense his rewards and punishments, not according to his own pre-judgment, but according to the merits of everyone.” Jerome

“Let the man who condemns it [free will] be himself condemned.” Jerome

“It would be more just to punish the stars, which make a wicked action necessary, than to punish the poor man, who does that wicked action by necessity.” Epiphanius

“The soul does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; not would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor could its declinations to vice punishment.” Origen

“How could God require that of man which he had not power to offer Him?” Origen

“Ten thousand things may be found both in the gospels and authorities of the apostles, clearly manifesting the liberty and self election of man.” Theodorite

“For how can He [God] punish a nature which had no power to do good, but was bound in the hands of wickedness.” Theodorite

Neither promises nor reprehensions, rewards, nor punishments are just, “if the soul has not the power of choosing or abstaining, but evil is involuntary.” Clemens of Alexandria

“This opinion”, the doctrine of necessity, “absolves sinners, as doing nothing of their own accord, which was evil; and would cast all the blame of the wickedness committed in the world, upon God, and upon His providence.” Eusebius

Regarding free will, “this is not only ours, but the opinion of all who speak orthodoxy, of rational being.” Didymus

“God does not command impossibilities” Augustine

“They that came to Christ ought not to impute it to themselves, because they came, being called: and they that would not come, ought not to impute it to another, but only to themselves, because they are called, it was in their power of their free will to come.” Augustine

“What man ought to do, he can do.” Pelagius

~~[u]~~~~[b]~~Here are some quotes after the Early Church Fathers:[/b][/u]

“What man ought to do, he can do.” A. W. Tozer

“Does God give commands which man cannot obey? Is he so arbitrary, so severe, so unloving, as to issue commandments which cannot be obeyed? The answer is that in all the annals of Holy Scripture, not a single instance is recorded of God having commanded any man to do a thing, which was beyond his power. Is God so unjust and so inconsiderate as to require of man that which he is unable to render? Surely not! To infer it is to slander the character of God.” E. M. Bounds

“Everyone knows that the peculiar doctrines [necessity] to which the victory was assigned by the Synod [of Dort] was absolutely unknown in the first ages of the Church.” Mosheim

“The Church teachers agreed unanimously, in maintaining the free will of man as a necessary condition of the existence of morality.” Neander

“the earliest Christian fathers unanimously ascribed to man freedom of will, according to which he can choose either the good or the bad.” Bredschneider

The “Ancient Fathers held to autexousion, understanding by this, or the term liberum arbitrium, the power of man to choose the good or evil freely without compulsion.” Knapp

“All the Fathers differed from Augustine and agreed with Pelagians in attributing free will to man.” Wiggers

“The Greek Fathers above others, and among them especially Chrysostom, have exceeded bounds in extolling the power of the human will…they attribute to man too much power to become virtuous.” John Calvin

L

lovegrace Mar 23, 2007

There is nothing 'free' about man's will.

The bible says that men are BOUND by their sin. Or BOUND by God.

One or the other.

There is no freedom.

The only 'freedom' man can experience is freedom from sin UNTO slavary with Christ.

This is the echo-ing theme of the book of Romans. The entire book, it has a great list of Scriptures.

E

elected Mar 23, 2007

Freedom of the will means freedom of choice and not freedom from sin. It's a God given faculty.We are humans beings and not "machines" or puppets.The power of choice has been with man undestroyed from the fall of adam.

The only beings who dont have a second choice in life are the fallen angels not humans.

R

roaringlamb Mar 23, 2007

I cannot believe one would quote Pelagius and Augustine as agreeing with one another.

Brother Jesse, please go back and read what happened between these two men. Pelagius was declared a heretic by the Church. I understand that his teachings influenced Finney to a large degree, but the debate between he and Augustine culminated in Augustine's views being held as Scriptural.

Of course Erasmus picked up some of the free-will ideology and challenged Luther, and the fruit of that was a wonderful book entitled "The Bondage Of The Will"

I would encourage all to read this document on Pelagius and Augustine.
~~[url=http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Pelagius.htm]~~Pelagius[/url]

S

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

“The Greek Fathers above others, and among them especially Chrysostom, have exceeded bounds in extolling the power of the human will…they attribute to man too much power to become virtuous.” John Calvin

Here is a classic example that brother Jesse is displaying to us. Some aremenian believers that put too much credence on freewill because of the apparent success of their virtous lifes apart from the Spirit of God. But in reality their entire sanctification was being wrought ~~[i]~~in[/i] God. But the calvanist can most easily say its all God working but their free will was in operation. Both of these are principles that the divine economy puts forth to man. Free will and Gods will and power. the quote by Calvin gives credence to "some" freewill that man can display. And surely the truth is there is "some" freewill that we have but I would say it is hindered within slavery from sin and thus begets only the ability to sin. Yet we also have the cry of mercy and repentance that our free wills allow us to excercise within this slavery. But how can a man by his own freewill deliver himself from a undeliverable situation.

P

PaulWest Mar 23, 2007

But how can a man by his own freewill deliver himself from a undeliverable situation.

What comes to mind here is Zac Poonen's message on reality in the Christian's life. Man needs the "antibiotic" to hit the root of sin...not merely the supressing ointment of human willpower. I've seen people reform their lives independant of Christ by stopping smoking, cussing, cheating, lying. Violent inmates in the prison system connect with Muslim clerics and suddenly get cleaned up and become philanthropical giants, setting up orphanages and foodbanks and succeed in outshining most Christians in terms of good deeds and exuberance of faith.

But the finger of God is required to extirpate the "root" of sin. Something like this can not be freewilled at the behest of man, and anything short of this mysterious work of the Spirit is a false mortification of sin, a false hope, and consequently, a false salvation. It's a reliance on the ointment of the law instead of the antibiotic of grace.

As Poonen so beautifully states: "Once you have the antibiotic, you can throw the tube of ointment away." Trying to freewill mortification is like putting a band-aid over a herpes outbreak. You can cover it up, hide it, and perhaps it will eventually go back into latency, but the virus is still laying dormant in the host cell's DNA. What man needs is the ax to the root, the Holy Spirit death blow administered to the root of Sin - a blow which can never be inflicted by our own striving choice; this mysterious death blow is a product of grace, and preachers who proclaim otherwise do incalculable damage.

Brother Paul

P

philologos Mar 23, 2007

I have sometimes surprised folks here by questioning whether or not we have 'a will' at all; bound or free. I still question the notion that we have some discrete faculty of the soul which we call 'the will'.

I just do not see the concept of 'a will' in scripture. I see references to desire and willingness but I think the notion of 'my will' almost as a self-functioning faculty is not scriptural.

I wonder how much space and time we might have saved over the centuries if we had not taken this route?

E

elected Mar 23, 2007

My minds 'aches' sometimes when i think of such deep truths like the will of man and sovereignity of God.I'm such a babe when it comes to experimental knowledge of truth and God.
I Corinthians 13 comes to my mind, in our zeal for more knowledge there is the danger of being puffed up, even though sincere may be our quest of truth the moment our hearts "backslide" from love and our mind turns hot with discousion i feel like we lose something.

Knowledge in this side of eternity is partial we look like in a mirror. If knowledge is partial can we grasp the mysteries of God and explain them in such a away as their is no more wonder for us, no, the more we know Him the more aware we will be of our ignorance of Him.

Without the grace of God we are totally under the bondage of sin, the question is - do we have a free choice when the gosple is proclaimed to us? Can we resist the grace of God when he calls us? Why their is an invitation included in the gosple? Being dead to sin does it mean that we are not even abel to hear?

When Moses lifted up the brass serpent in the wilderness, all those who were biten by the snakes, if they wanted to be healed and live they had to lift up their heads and see the serpent.Seeing was their responsability,God didnt made them see, but He saved all those who were willing to see.

R

rowdy2 Mar 23, 2007

Reply to Lazarus1719

Free will is forbidden fruit to me spiritually.

KJV
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

I confess I am not without this sin in my body of flesh.

KJV
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Again the battles Christians fight is a spiritual battle, that great fight of afflictions of over coming the will of the flesh. Eddie

J

JaySaved Mar 23, 2007

I just do not see the concept of 'a will' in scripture. I see references to desire and willingness but I think the notion of 'my will' almost as a self-functioning faculty is not scriptural.

I have heard you say this before and it does surprise me to hear it again.

I might sound like an Arminian here for a moment, but if their is no Will of man, then why or how does man choose to follow Christ? How does a man have faith if he doesn't have a Will?

J

JaySaved Mar 23, 2007

Regarding 2 Peter 3:9
Jesse said:

It is not God’s will, not God’s intention for anyone to perish. This is the benevolent reason God has for not pouring out His wrath yet. He is waiting patiently, or is longsuffering, with the hope and will that more sinners will repent and be saved.

By your logic Jesus will never come again. (I am not accusing you of denying the Second-Coming, but following your logic.)

Think about this. Every day more and more children all around the world are coming into the age of accountability. This number grows every single day. Now, compare this number to the number of people who come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ every day. Sadly, the numbers are not even close.

So, the longer Jesus waits to return, more and more people are being born and are lost. In fact, the more Jesus is patient more people will die and go to hell.

This is not what Peter was saying at all. I have posted the true interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 in detail before and will again if someone is interested, but to be more concise. God is coming back and is patient with the foreknown (Rom 8:29) not willing that any of them should perish but come to repentance.

P

philologos Mar 23, 2007

I might sound like an Arminian here for a moment, but if their is no Will of man, then why or how does man choose to follow Christ? How does a man have faith if he doesn't have a Will?

He just chooses to believe what God has said to him. My difficulty is with this peculiar concept of a faculty of the soul known as 'the will'.

I ask again, as I have done frequently, will someone show me a single verse of scripture which indicates that we have such a faculty; bound or free.

J

JaySaved Mar 23, 2007

He just chooses to believe what God has said to him. My difficulty is with this peculiar concept of a faculty of the soul known as 'the will'.

It is this act (or decision) of choosing that we are calling the Will. Is there anyone throughout Christian History who denied the Will of Man?

I ask again, as I have done frequently, will someone show me a single verse of scripture which indicates that we have such a faculty; bound or free.

Pick any verse that speaks of man making a choice.

P

PreachParsly Mar 23, 2007

From what I know of Ron, he isn't saying man doesn't make choices. He is saying that the "choice making faculty" isn't called "the will" according to scripture.

J

JaySaved Mar 23, 2007

He is saying that the "choice making faculty" isn't called "the will" according to scripture.

Brother Ron, I am not accusing you of denying that men make decisions. My question is what do you call that "choice making faculty" most of us call the Will?

P

philologos Mar 24, 2007

1.

Brother Ron, I am not accusing you of denying that men make decisions. My question is what do you call that "choice making faculty" most of us call the Will?

I call it 'me' and I hold 'myself' responsible for all decisions that 'I' make; I think God does the same. I do not 'blame' my 'will' for anything good or bad.

My objection is that there ~~[b]~~are[/b] biblical faculties of the soul eg conscience, heart, mind, desires but there is no reference to this thing we have chosen to call 'the will'. I think it is a 'red-herring'. (do you have that expression over there? :-) )

The problem is 'me' not 'my will'. There is no cure for this fantasy feature called 'the will' but there is certainly a cure for 'me'.

2.

Pick any verse that speaks of man making a choice.

Pick any verse that says it is 'the will' that makes the choice. ;-)

The reason I raise this from time to time is because I think we have all bought into to a model of humanity which has no biblical basis. We then argue over the slavery or freedom of this faculty which we have invented. As Hans Christian Anderson at times I just feel compelled to cry "look at the king, look at the king, he's all together.." you know the rest.

U

UniqueWebRev Mar 24, 2007

Alas, you ruined a perfectly good exposition on free will under God's permissive will by attaching one quote at the end that makes a good choice of man to be virtuous, a seeming impossibility, simply because a few Greek Priests believed that virtue could be accomplished by human effort.

It can be. Merely, every virtue cannot be accomplished by man, every day for all his days.

Therefore, man is without complete righteousness without Jesus.

Can you not take a stand without adding a caveat at the end, lest you displease someone?

Disappointed in you,

U

UniqueWebRev Mar 24, 2007

JaySaved wrote:
I just do not see the concept of 'a will' in scripture. I see references to desire and willingness but I think the notion of 'my will' almost as a self-functioning faculty is not scriptural.
I have heard you say this before and it does surprise me to hear it again.
I might sound like an Arminian here for a moment, but if their is no Will of man, then why or how does man choose to follow Christ? How does a man have faith if he doesn't have a Will?

Bless you, brother, for your essential honesty.

Blessings,

L

lovegrace Mar 24, 2007

philologos wrote:
The problem is 'me' not 'my will'.

So, what your trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the problem is our sin-nature, that thing indwelt in every unbeliever and not 'my desires' because someone's desires are controlled by THEM (Their nature, weither it be of sin or of the Holy Spirit)

M

Meriwether Mar 24, 2007

His Grace is Amazing! He owes it to no one. No one can earn it. The fact that he gives it to anyone is... well, amazing.

The whole debate over our "will" is so confusing to me. Does God flip a switch in our "will?" Are some folks capable of inclining their will toward God? I just don't know. It's an invisible process.

All I know is this: We are commanded to tell the Gospel to unbelievers. The Holy Spirit does the rest. Right?

If you can make this more clear to me, have at it. However, my attention span is short. Be concise.

J

JaySaved Mar 24, 2007

Ron,

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not distinguishing between my Will and myself. I see the two as the same so that it is I who is responsible, but it is the Will that chooses. I do not separate the two.

C

crsschk Mar 24, 2007

The reason I raise this from time to time is because I think we have all bought into to a model of humanity which has no biblical basis. We then argue over the slavery or freedom of this faculty which we have invented.

Redundant to come along side here but this is such a helpful understanding, better a important one. "~~[i]~~There is just you[/i]" was the refrain that etched itself into the fabric when I first heard it expressed by Ron some number of years back now.

Felt compelled to equate it with another truth similarly that was taken in around the same time frame. That when we are dealing with the scriptures we ought to lift them up or off the page only to examine them and then be sure to put them back where we found them. The analogy I had in mind was as if the whole of the Book was made of elasticity, like a rubber that you could pull up on (Sections -verses etc.) and when you let go they went right back into place.

The quote attached at bottom seems applicable;

~~[i]~~ "Do you know, I believe that most of the theological errors of the past have grown out of, not so much a denial of God’s truth, as a disproportionate emphasis of it.[/i]" A.W. Pink

This whole 'debate';

I wonder how much space and time we might have saved over the centuries if we had not taken this route?

Agreed, that it still rages on without any satisfactory conclusion and the obvious recognition that there will never be one because the concept or 'made doctrine' has the elasticity cut off from it. The idea that we are compartmentalized beings with the faculties segregated into departments without effects unto the whole seems similar to the treatment of Scripture as well. Ironically, the explanations given of how we 'tick' seems to make possible a placement into a faculty one of the great sins of ours .... Blame.

So rather than face that on it's face we have replaced it with two schools of thought, categories to place ourselves into; Calvinism and Arminianism. The strange irony there is how this ran off on it's own two legs to become the conundrum that it is now. How to get around the moat without bogging down into the mire? It's as if one must take the structure as presented and wrangle from that standpoint, answer the presuppositions given from two mens opinions now made whole diversions ...

Will admit there was a real checking out on the whole matter upon realizing the futility of it all and whatever might be said here seems just as futile.

More odd is just how silent scripture truly is to these categorizations detached and made doctrine. The 'debate' is silent, given no notice or appropriation but was created by, well the '~~[i]~~disproportionate emphasis of it[/i]'. The 'will', the misconstruing of 'predestination' and 'election' ... rather than truly going after what did they mean when they wrote (the scriptures) we accept the extrapolation (invention) as fact\\truth and then go about busying ourselves with support or deconstruction projects ... to what end? What does it all amount to?

Chambers thought about the Lord protecting ourselves in matters that we don't understand and frankly have no business prying into cut's across many things. It protects us from pride and even more from suspicion. What more fracturing to the Body than presuppositions of particular slants? "He's a Calvinist ... She is ...". Bluntly, who cares? And yet on the other hand, why do we not care that this has become the monster that it is? That we are apt to call ourselves either one or the other and not recognize that we are neither of these things, why line up underneath them? Not far different than the demoninational bylines; "I am a ______". All one is saying when they do say these things is that "I am" placing my beliefs under this proscription and wish to be know as _____ fill in the blank. Is it too simplistic to note that we are none of these constructs, but Christ's if that is Whose we truly are? And have earned the marred reputation in the worlds eyes and the great nobility of being counted worthy to be called Christians in that paradox of seemingly attributed scorn that was originally given the first saints.

Not sure how I ended up here as this was primarily a discussion on the 'will' but is just to say that the 'willer' long ago decided to have a purposed ignorance as to these things in great detail. I couldn't tell one preacher from another here without some focused effort as to their particular slant, it just ended up being eradicated from the process and puts all the suspicion that might have been at bay.

"Repent and believe" means ...
"Repent and believe"

Not if or how or what organ or if God causes you or if you decided or some combination thereof or give me an explanation of how corrupt I am ... Let God save you and you will find out by experience just how screwed up you really are ... if you must know.

Edit; And I had to go and say ..."Let God", that is only if He allows you to let Him ... ;-)

P

philologos Mar 24, 2007

This will be too lengthy for many but for those who are genuinely struggling with my posts on this issue perhaps it will help.

One of the nouns for ‘the will’ in the NT is ~~[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=2307&page=1&flag_full=1]~~thelEma[/url]. It means ‘what one wishes or has determined shall be done ie it refers not to a faculty of the soul but to a decision or decree of the king that a king would make. When we speak of the will of the government we do not have in mind a ‘faculty of the soul’ but a decision/choice/desire which has been plainly expressed. The above link will show how the word is used in the NT. The noun is used over 60 times but never, so far as I can see, never in the sense of a faculty of the soul called ‘the will’.

The associated verb is ~~[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=2309&page=1&flag_full=1]~~thelO[/url], and again this URL will show the way in which it was used in the NT. Again I would ask folk to look at the use of the word in the NT and tell me if they can see a single instance where it is used in the sense of the activity of a faculty of the soul called ‘the will’. It’s overwhelming sense is one of desire or purpose.

Another verb translated ‘will’ is the word ~~[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=1014&page=1&flag_full=1]~~boulomai[/url]. This is used over 30 times in the NT. Again I would ask folk to examine these texts and see if any of them would support the idea of a faculty of the soul called ‘the will’.

I find it difficult to know why we have accepted this particular notion of humanity. I don’t think it adds anything to our understanding but raises this perennial question of whether or not ‘the will’ is in bondage or free.

P

philologos Mar 24, 2007

JaySaved on 2007/3/24 18:04:21
This will be too lengthy for many but for those who are genuinely struggling with my posts on this issue perhaps it will help.

You see the two as the same thing? How can that be? Do you have a will or are you a will? They cannot possibly be the same thing.

J

JaySaved Mar 26, 2007

Ron, I would really like to get your input on something I have written concerning man's Will.
(By the way, I still don't understand why I am the one who is defending free will. Where are all of the Arminians?!) :-P

Man’s Will is that by which man actively chooses. It is the innate ability through which, if unhindered, allows man to choose the most desirous option. It is my desire to prove that man will never choose anything against his Will and that God chooses men to salvation harmoniously with man’s Will, not in violation of man’s Will.

What do I mean by that definition of Will? Here are some practical examples:
Example 1:
Johnny is walking down the street when another man points a gun at him. The robber makes the following statement: “Give me your wallet or I will kill you.” Johnny gives the wallet to the robber who runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny did not want to lose his wallet.” It is true that Johnny does not desire to lose his wallet at anytime, however when the robber pointed the gun at Johnny, Johnny was presented two options: 1) Give the wallet and live and 2) Keep the wallet and die. Johnny responded according to his Will and chose the most desirous option (Give the wallet and live). Johnny’s Will was never violated because Johnny freely chose the most desirous option.

Example 2:
Johnny is walking down the street when a net is lowered on him and he cannot move or escape. (I know…poor Johnny) A robber comes out of the shadows, takes Johnny’s wallet and runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny never had a chance to decide therefore Johnny’s Will was violated.” It is true that Johnny never had a chance to make a choice and it is for that very reason that Johnny’s Will was not violated. The Will was never brought into the event. Johnny never had an option to choose so therefore he never had his Will violated. The Will manifests itself in the action of choosing, where there is choice there is no action. A sad event occurred in Johnny’s life, but his wallet was not taken against his Will.

I hope that I have shown that a man’s Will is never violated in the course of human events. He is always free to choose what he most desires—as long as the ability to choose is present. With regard to man’s Will, man has the freedom to choose, but is always in bondage to his desires. Thus man’s Will is free, yet bound.

I now want to prove that God does not violate man’s Will when He sovereignty chooses men to become Christians—for this is a common objection to Reformed Theology in that many say it makes men to be nothing more than robots. When God calls a sinner to repentance, He does not violate that sinners Will. What God does is that He reveals truth to the sinner. It can be said that God “removes the spiritual blinders from the sinners eyes.” By God revealing himself to the sinner, the sinner sees God for who He truly is—Holy, sees himself who he truly is—sinful, and sees his sinfulness for what it truly is—deserving of punishment. It is at this moment that the sinner responds to the Call of God. This response is done according to his Will and not is violation of his Will. Even though the sinner is choosing something that he would not have before, the Will is not violated because the man’s desires have changed—desires being that which the Will is bound. The Will still chooses that which is most desirous, in this case it is the most desirous option to respond to God’s Call. Ephesians 2:1 says, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”

I hope, in a spirit of love and respect, that I have proven that man will never choose anything against his Will and that God chooses men to salvation harmoniously with man’s Will, not in violation of man’s Will.

P

philologos Mar 26, 2007

JaySaved on 2007/3/26 16:28:15
Johnny is walking down the street when a net is lowered on him and he cannot move or escape. (I know…poor Johnny) A robber comes out of the shadows, takes Johnny’s wallet and runs away.
One might say, “The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will because Johnny never had a chance to decide therefore Johnny’s Will was violated.” It is true that Johnny never had a chance to make a choice and it is for that very reason that Johnny’s Will was not violated. The Will was never brought into the event. Johnny never had an option to choose so therefore he never had his Will violated. The Will manifests itself in the action of choosing, where there is choice there is no action. A sad event occurred in Johnny’s life, but his wallet was not taken against his Will.

I'm not sure how useful this is going to be to you in the light of the fact that I don't believe in a free will or a bound will. :-(

You illustrations make your point well enough but suppose I substitute a word in this first one to try to make my point...

"...The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will..." Why not rephrase this 'the robber took the wallet against Johnny's wishes...' Why introduce the concept of 'the will'. The question then is a very simply one; ought Johnny to be held responsible for the loss of his wallet? Clearly not. Consequently we can establish culpability without recourse to this thing called 'the will'.

I have omitted all reference to 'the will' from my preaching and writing for some time now. I think to focus on 'the will' raises a whole host of questions which we don't really need.

J

JaySaved Mar 26, 2007

"...The robber took the wallet against Johnny’s Will..." Why not rephrase this 'the robber took the wallet against Johnny's wishes...' Why introduce the concept of 'the will'. The question then is a very simply one; ought Johnny to be held responsible for the loss of his wallet? Clearly not. Consequently we can establish culpability without recourse to this thing called 'the will'.

I introduce the concept of 'the Will' because we need to describe something more than just wishes. We need to describe man's action according to wishes. What I mean is that all men and women have a variety of wishes--some might even contradict each other. What is it in man that chooses a particular desire? Here is an example I have used before:

One day after work on my way home, I notice a McDonald's Restaurant. At that moment, I desire to eat there. However, I also remember that my wife told me we will be having pork chops for supper. At this moment, I have two competing desires: 1) Eat at McDonald's 2) Eat at home

I have the freedom to choose either option, but because of my love for my wife I choose to keep driving past McDonald's and head home. I freely chose the most desirous option because I desired my wife's feelings more than my desire to eat at McDonald's.

Notice that it was Me who made the choice and if I chose to eat at McDonald's it would be Me who would be responsible when I told my wife I wasn't hungry for pork chops. I can't tell my wife that my Will made me do it. :-) I made the choice, but it was Me deciding through my Will. This is why I refer to the Will as "that by which man actively chooses. It is the innate ability through which, if unhindered, allows man to choose the most desirous option."

Also, please give me your interpretation of these passages in Philemon:

(NASB)
"10I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, 11who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, 13whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14but 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. 15For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, 16no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

Paul speaks of Philemon making a choice that is not by compulsion but a choice that is made freely and voluntary. "of your own free will"

P

philologos Mar 26, 2007

JaySaved on 2007/3/26 18:43:58
Paul speaks of Philemon making a choice that is not by compulsion but a choice that is made freely and voluntary. "of your own free will" NASB

This is part of my lonely struggle! :-)

The NASB has no biblical basis for translating this as it does other than to fit in with our pre-held views of having 'a will'.

The word ~~[url=http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%E1%BC%91%CE%BA%CE%BF%E1%BD%BB%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&root=%E1%BC%91%CE%BA%CE%BF%E1%BD%BB%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82&number=703786]~~hekousion[/url] simply means 'voluntarily'. It stands in opposition to the idea that Philemon was 'obliged' because of Paul's action. Philemon was to make his own choice. It has no essential connection to the idea of 'a will'.

I introduce the concept of 'the Will' because we need to describe something more than just wishes. We need to describe man's action according to wishes. What I mean is that all men and women have a variety of wishes--some might even contradict each other. What is it in man that chooses a particular desire?

I can see that your illustration goes on to include choice. You ask the question 'what is it in man chooses...'? This is my whole protest. :-o Why should there be anything 'in man' why not just hold the man himslef responsible for his own choices? Why make 'the will' the faculty of choice? Is there any biblical basis for doing so?

J

JaySaved Mar 26, 2007

I can see that your illustration goes on to include choice. You ask the question 'what is it in man chooses...'? This is my whole protest. Why should there be anything 'in man' why not just hold the man himslef responsible for his own choices? Why make 'the will' the faculty of choice? Is there any biblical basis for doing so?

But I do hold the man himself responsible for his own choices. I just do not agree that man is the faculty of choice, I say that man has the faculty of choice. I also admit, along with my Arminian friends (who are strangely silent right now) that man utilizes a 'faculty' in order to decide between choices.

Also, why does 'voluntary' contradict 'free will'?

Ron, throughout Christian history what other theologians or writers have held to your view that man does not have a free will. Non-Reformed would be preferable.

P

philologos Mar 26, 2007

Ron, throughout Christian history what other theologians or writers have held to your view that man does not have a free will. Non-Reformed would be preferable.

I know of no one, reformed, non-reformed, dead or alive who holds my view.

Also, why does 'voluntary' contradict 'free will'?

Well, 'voluntary' is an adjective and 'the will' is a noun. Voluntary describes a noun, but 'the will' is a noun. You have to define a noun before you can add an adjective to it. There is no biblical definition of 'the will'; it is a human, psychological and theological construct.

But I do hold the man himself responsible for his own choices. I just do not agree that man is the faculty of choice, I say that man has the faculty of choice. I also admit, along with my Arminian friends (who are strangely silent right now) that man utilizes a 'faculty' in order to decide between choices.

Where do you see this 'faculty' as being located?

J

JaySaved Mar 26, 2007

I know of no one, reformed, non-reformed, dead or alive who holds my view.

Does this bother you? It would bother me if I held a belief that no one throughout the course of history held to.

Well, 'voluntary' is an adjective and 'the will' is a noun. Voluntary describes a noun, but 'the will' is a noun. You have to define a noun before you can add an adjective to it. There is no biblical definition of 'the will'; it is a human, psychological and theological construct.

If voluntary is the adjective, then what is the noun it describes? The choice? The choice is the result of man's decision (i.e., the Will)

Where do you see this 'faculty' as being located?

Ron, I know you are being a bit silly here.

P

philologos Mar 26, 2007

If voluntary is the adjective, then what is the noun it describes? The choice? The choice is the result of man's decision (i.e., the Will)

You are creating a circular argument. The bible doesn't have a concept of 'mans will' other than as a decree. The concept of 'the will' is missing from the Bible.

Where do you see this 'faculty' as being located? I repeat my question because I am not being silly. Is this thing in my mind, my body, my spirit, my heart, my conscience? Where is it supposed to be located.

Does this bother you? It would bother me if I held a belief that no one throughout the course of history held to.

No, but than I didn't say that no one had held the view, only that I knew no one who had held the view. I am, I trust, open to reasonable discussion and to the word of God.

J

JaySaved Mar 26, 2007

Ron, it is not a circular argument. If voluntary is the adjective then it must be describing the choice made by man. It must be describing the freedom of choice that God has granted to all men.

From Man's Will- Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry
"Every man has the ability to choose his own words, to decide what his actions will be. We have a faculty of self-determination in the sense that we select our own thoughts, words, and deeds. Man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires."

I know you do not deny that we have this freedom, but you deny the 'faculty' man utilizes to make decisions between desires.

Ron, please hear my heart, know that I respect you deeply and am thankful that we are to have this civilized discussion. Having said that, I can easily make the biblical case for the Will just as easily as I can make it for the Trinity. In my humble opinion, it is just that you choose not to see the Will described in scripture, just as some of our non-trinitation friends object to the Trinity 'because it is not found in scripture.'

P

philologos Mar 26, 2007

Ron, please hear my heart, know that I respect you deeply and am thankful that we are to have this civilized discussion. Having said that, I can easily make the biblical case for the Will just as easily as I can make it for the Trinity. In my humble opinion, it is just that you choose not to see the Will described in scripture, just as some of our non-trinitation friends object to the Trinity 'because it is not found in scripture.'

In other words 'don't confuse me with evidence, I have made my mind up'. OK, end of discussion.

S

sermonindex Mar 26, 2007

Arminian friends (who are strangely silent right now)

(By the way, I still don't understand why I am the one who is defending free will. Where are all of the Arminians?!)

Unfortinately, many Arminians are silent today. Calvinism is having a very large impact in this day through men like MacArthur, Piper, and others. Almost all seminaries are Augustinian/Calvinism (The former is the father of the latter).

If things continue to continue down the road they are going, I can forsee the crippling of evangelism urgency along with the almost complete destruction of Christian holiness within the Church. With all seriousness, I can predict an age of antinomianism, which is already upon us, deceiving the elect.

The scriptural doctrines held by the Early Church Fathers and also by Fox, Wesley, Finney, Booth, Tozer, Reidhead, Ravenhill and countless others need to be revived. The biblical doctrines of free-will, responsibility, probation, and holiness need to be revived! We need to get back to sound, orthodox doctrines.

P

philologos Mar 26, 2007

I've always regarded myself as being on the Arminian side of the water. But there are Arminians and there are Arminians. Your little list is interesting but they are nicely mixed.

Wesley, Booth and Ravenhill all holding to the concept of 'original sin' with Wesley declaring that those who didn't hold it were still half heathen. :-o

Fox, Finney and Reidhead would all be on the other side of that particular argument.

I'm not so sure that the Calvinists have it all there own way over here. The charismatic movement has tended to blur the distinctions although there are certainly outspoken Calvinists around too.

J

JaySaved Mar 27, 2007

Jesse, I am glad you joined us again. I have been looking for someone who believes in free will but does not hold to the Reformed viewpoint to way in.

My question to those who are not Calvinist, what do you think when Ron says that there is not such thing as a Will?

J

JaySaved Mar 27, 2007

Ron, in all honesty, what else do you want me to say. I am a Calvinist who clearly sees man's free will in scripture. I cannot make you see what I see, but I clearly see it.

Also, I know that in 2,000+ years of Christian history if there is no one you know of that has ever believed the way you do, then that is a problem.

I respectfully disagree with you on this subject and if you desire then we can end it, but I do think we are getting some good understanding accomplished on this topic.

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2007

what do you think when Ron says that there is not such thing as a Will?

There are only two options:

1. The will is under the law of liberty

2. The will is under the law of necessity

Either man does what he does because he ~~[i]~~wants[/i] to (liberty) or man does what he does because he ~~[i]~~has[/t] to. There is no other option. Sin is either a result of the abuse of liberty, or sin is the natural and normal result of necessity. But since the bible depicts sin as unnatural and not normal, we must conclude that it is an abuse of the liberty or a wrong use of free-will.

The most common arguement against the free-will of man is the "soveriegnty" of God. They claim this exalts God. But in reality, it down plays man's sin and guilt! If God causes all, then man causes nothing, which leaves God the author of sin just as Beza, Calvins successor at Geneva, said He was.

If God "soveriegnly" controls everything, and always has, then the world has always been exactly the way God has wanted it to be. But is that the picture Genesis paints when it says once God saw man's abuse of their will He wished He didn't make them? (Genesis 6:5-6) Or the Kings that did not "do what was right in the sight of the Lord". Where these scriptures lying?

The truth is, man sins because he wants to not because he has to. All men have the option of obeying the moral truth which the Spirit reveals to their minds as opposed to obeying the cravings and desires of the sensibilities. All men have the power of contrary choice, which is why all men are responsible for every moral action they decide.

P

philologos Mar 27, 2007

what do you think when Ron says that there is not such thing as a Will?
There are only two options:
1. The will is under the law of liberty
2. The will is under the law of necessity

But both of your options presume the existence of something called 'the will'. A concept for which I still ask biblical reference.

If this is a biblical construct it ought not to be difficult to find a single veres which clearly points to such a faculty?

Where Jesse and I differ is over the issue of the doctrine of 'congenital sin' and its implications. I can see plenty of evidence for man 'dead in trespasses and sins' I just see no evidence for the hypothesis of 'the will'.

D

dreiher Mar 27, 2007

Thank you Jesse!

I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but I agree with you that hyperCalvinism teaches that God is responsible for sin, and am probably involved in evangelism like you.
Thank God for online sermons!

Praise God that he has chosen preaching as the means to convice people that Jesus grants eternal life on the basis of faith alone! What a wondrous thing to see the light come on in people's hearts as a result of the words I use! It does not make any sense why there would be preaching or sermons and application, if there was no free will! Why preach, if your hearers have no choice as to whether they listen to you or not? I would give up and go home, it is just too much effort to put out if people really have no choice. It would not be worth the enormous sacrifices needed.

- Don

P

philologos Mar 27, 2007

dreiher on 2007/3/27 12:27:12
Why preach, if your hearers have no choice as to whether they listen to you or not?

I am not a Calvinist and they are quite able to plead their own case but I don't think this does justice to the real question.

"Why preach?" is a very valid question. What is the motivation in our preaching? The most listened to sermon in history will have some surprising answers to this question and you can hear it ~~[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=282]~~here[/url]. So far over 74000 people on Sermonindex alone have heard it!!

P

PreachParsly Mar 27, 2007

I've not seen anyone in this thread give a convincing argument that there is a "will." There are some that are discussing freedom of choice.

I'm just putting this out there to see what you think...

How could Ron be the first to believe that there isn't a "choice making faculty" called "the will" if you can't show anything from scripture saying that there is a "choice making faculty" called "the will?"

J

JaySaved Mar 27, 2007

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luk 22:42)

There is plenty of biblical evidence for what we are referring to as the Will. The problem is that no one seems to want to see it.

If you cannot see a Will involved in the above verses then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. It has been a very good conversation thus far but I am afraid that if we keep going we are just going to go in circles.

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2007

philologos wrote:
I ask again, as I have done frequently, will someone show me a single verse of scripture which indicates that we have such a faculty; bound or free.

This may already have been answered, (I've only read as far as page 2 of this thread!) its Luke 22:42

~~[i]~~[color=003399] 41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My ~~[u]~~will[/u], but Yours, be done.”[/color][/i]
The first "will" is actually a verb, "If you are willing", but the second is the noun, meaning "will" (θέλημα [thelema]

So there's your one verse! :-P

Jeannette

[edit added]PS. ~~[i]~~[color=003366]In my interlinear it is literally, "but not the will of me, but of you let be"[/color][/i]

Isn't that beautiful!

S

sermonindex Mar 27, 2007

LittleGift wrote:

Luke 22:42
i][color=003399] 41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My ~~[u]~~will[/u], but Yours, be done.”[/color][/i]
The first "will" is actually a verb, "If you are willing", but the second is the noun, meaning "will" (θέλημα [thelema]
I read these verses as saying that Jesus deliberately let go ~~[i]~~His own will[/i] and chose the Father's instead. He did NOT want to go to the Cross, but as the perfect Son of God, submitted His (human) will, laid it down, in love and obedience to God.
And that tells me that He can give me strength to lay down my will also, when God tells me to do something I don't want to do (usually something trivial but still it can be a battle to hand over , and be willing).
AS (I think) Watchman Nee said, "The Cross is when God's will crosses yours, and you choose God's.
(I'm neither an Armenian or a Calvinist too!)
Jeannette

P

philologos Mar 27, 2007

LittleGift on 2007/3/27 23:27:43
So there's your one verse!

I'm sorry I ought to have put a warning notice around that one to prevent anyone falling into the hole! ;-)

'the will' that the Lord refers to here is clearly not a reference to a faculty of the soul called 'the will'. It is a reference to his own choice. It is the choice that he would make rather than some faculty within which does the choosing.

The reference to 'God's will' makes it plain that the verse is not talking about a faculty in the soul of God called 'the will' but simply His decree or decision.

In case you haven't read all the thread, I am not disputing the need for choice in human beings but am questioning just where that choice is made.

Many people refer to 'the will' as though it is some kind of autonomous function that has a mind of its own and which drags us into all kinds of errors.

Let me tell you how I first got started on this theme many years ago. We had a sister in the church who always struggled with 'her will'. She had been told as a child that she had 'a strong will' and this was her particular difficulty. Many times she had almost come to faith only to back away saying 'I can't, my will is too strong'. It became somebody else's problem. 'the problem isn't me, it is my will'.

I told her; there is just you, forget your 'will' and just choose to obey God. If you don't you are responsible, not your will. Don't ask the question 'can I really put my will into it, just put yourself into it'. 'Choose ~~[b]~~you[/b] who ~~[b]~~you[/b] will serve.

It broke the spell; she came to faith.

S

sermonindex Mar 28, 2007

There are only two options:
1. The will is under the law of liberty
2. The will is under the law of necessity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But both of your options presume the existence of something called 'the will'. A concept for which I still ask biblical reference.
If this is a biblical construct it ought not to be difficult to find a single veres which clearly points to such a faculty?

I've not seen anyone in this thread give a convincing argument that there is a "will." There are some that are discussing freedom of choice.
I'm just putting this out there to see what you think...
How could Ron be the first to believe that there isn't a "choice making faculty" called "the will" if you can't show anything from scripture saying that there is a "choice making faculty" called "the will?"

I have never heard anyone actually question the existence of the will itself. Armenians believe man is free to will as he will. And at least Calvinists acknowledge that man does have a will, though they believe God controls it or forces it by necessity.

The debate has always been weather or not the will is free or not, I have never heard of a debate on whether there is a will or not!!

~~[b]~~But I am shocked that some are saying it hasn't already been established in this thread that the bible affirms a choice making faculty called the will![/b]

Here is part of the original post that started this thread. ~~[b]~~Feel free to look up any of the bible references:[/b]

~~[b]~~THE WILL IN SCRIPTURES[/b] ~~[i]~~(free or not)[/i]

The most common used word in the Greek New Testament for the will of man, that I have found, is “thelo ethelo” which is to “determine, choose, prefer, desire, wish, incline, will, delight in, intent, or love”.

Here are a few examples:

Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 - “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would [thelo ethelo] I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her chickens under her wings, and ye would [thelo ethelo] not!”

Matthew 22:3 - “And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding and they would [thelo ethelo] not come.”

Luke 19:27 - “But those mine enemies, which would [thelo ethelo] not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

John 5:40 “And ye will [thelo ethelo] not come to me, that ye might have life.”

Revelations 22:17 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will [thelo ethelo], let him take the water of life freely.”

“Thelo ethelo” is translated in the bible either as “would”, “willingly” or as “willing”.

Verses translated as willingly: John 6:21, 2Peter 3:5

Verses translated as willing: Matthew 1:19, Luke 10:29, Luke 23:20, John 5:35, Acts 24:27, Acts 25:9, Romans 9:22, Hebrews 13:18

Verses translated as would:

Matthew: 2:18, 5:42, 7:12, 12:38, 14:5, 18:23, 18:30, 22:3, 23:37, 27:15, 27:34
Mark: 3:13, 6:19, 6:26, 6:48, 7:24, 9:30, 10:35, 10:36
Luke: 6:31, 15:28, 16:26, 18:4, 18:13
John: 1:43, 6:11, 7:1, 7:44, 9:27, 12:21
Acts: 7:39, 10:10, 14:13, 16:3, 19:33, 24:6, 23:09
Romans: 1:13, 7:15, 7:16, 7:19, 7:20, 7:21, 11:25, 16:19
1Corinthians: 7:7, 7:32, 10:1, 10:20, 11:3, 12:1, 14:5
2Corinthians: 1:8, 5:4, 12:20
Galatians: 1:7, 3:2, 4:17, 5:17
Colossians: 1:27, 2:1
1Thessalonians: 2:18, 4:13
2Thessalonians: 3:10
Philemon: 1:14
Hebrews: 12:17

There are other greek words used for the will of man:

“Boulomai” literally means “to be willing” or to “intend”.

This word is translated as “would” or as “willing”.

Places “boulomai” is translated as “would”:

Acts: 17:20, 19:30, 22:30, 23:28, 25:20, 25:22, 28:18,
Philemon: 1:12, 1:13
2John 1:12
3John 1:10

Places “boulomai” translated as “willing”:

Mark 15:15
Luke 22:24
Acts 17:43
Heb 6:17
2Peter 3:9

“Euchomaia” is another which mean’s “to pray, will, or wish”. It is used only in Acts 26:29

“Euokeo” is another word that means “willing”. It is used in 2Corinthians 5:8 and 1Thessalonians 2:8

“Prothumia” mean’s “willing mind” and is used in 2 Corinthians 8:12 and 1Peter 5:2

“Hekousios” mean’s “voluntariness” or “willingness” and is used in Hebrews 10:26 and 1Peter 5:2.

Hebrews 10:26 says that if a person sins willfully “hekousios” or voluntarily, after they have received “lambano” or have “accepted” or “attained” or “seized” the truth, the blood of Jesus Christ does not cover their sin, but they are heading towards judgment.
“Authairetos” is a word which means “self chosen” or “voluntary” or “willful”. It is used in 2Corinthians 8:3

“hekown” also means “voluntary” or “willingly”and is used in Romans 8:20 and 1Corinthians 9:17

“hekousion” means “voluntariness” or “willingly” and is found in Philemon 1:14

P

philologos Mar 28, 2007

~~[u]~~Lazarus1719 on 2007/3/28 2:31:03[/u]
But I am shocked that some are saying it hasn't already been established in this thread that the bible affirms a choice making faculty called the will!
Here is part of the original post that started this thread. Feel free to look up any of the bible references:

I don't know why you should be shocked I responded to your original post and asked for biblical evidence of a faculty called 'the will'. I am not disputing that human beings have the power of choice; that is essential to their nature as human beings. What I am asking, and I ask it again, is why we need to posit the notion of a separate faculty within man to enable choices?

None of your references have any relevance to my question. They all support the notion of man's ability to choose; I am not disputing that.

I have never heard anyone actually question the existence of the will itself. Armenians believe man is free to will as he will. And at least Calvinists acknowledge that man does have a will, though they believe God controls it or forces it by necessity.

Well, you have now and I am still not getting any biblical answers.

In his first lecture Finney says The intellect is the faculty of knowledge; the sensibility is the faculty or susceptibility of feeling; ~~[b]~~the will is the executive faculty, or the faculty of doing or acting[/b]. All thinking, perceiving, intuiting, reasoning, opining, forming notions or ideas, belong to the intellect.
Where do we have any biblical evidence for an 'executive faculty'?

I have no problems with the concepts of mind, conscience, sense, heart, spirit, understanding, knowledge etc... they are all biblical concepts. My question is ~~[u]~~still[/u] why have we adopted the notion of an 'executive faculty' called 'the will'?

Where did this 'executive faculty' get his authority. An executive in the business sense can be held accountable but who is the 'executive faculty' and who gave it authority to take executive decisions on my behalf?