wrote:

>> >> First one must determine what "free will" is
and what it is not.
>> >
>> > Free will is the ability to choose a course of action.
>>
>> No.  It's not an issue of whether we have choices; it's
>> an issue of whether choices are free made.
>>
>
> It is not even that (if I understand you correctly).

You don't.  I'm pushing for a broader (eternally-oriented)
definition of "choice."  The poster above said that
free will is the ability to choose a course of action.
But those of us who deny free will still say that man
has the ability to choose a course of action, but that
it is his nature to always choose wrongly.  I.e., he
has the "ability", but he always weilds it contrary to
God.

"Choice" from a trans-temporal viewpoint, needn't involve
"free will" at all.  The issue is about freedom, not choice,
as I said.  And we don't even care too much about the issue
of whether to buy Nike's or New Balance is free.  We care
about whether a man is free to choose between Jesus and
Satan.

Protestant doctrine says that 1.  One must choose Jesus
to be saved (where "choose" has the right definition) 2.
Man can not choose Jesus.  3.  Man is saved because
Jesus' choice is applied to him.


Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/31/05 2:06:10 PM ---