Freewill

[Anto9us2]

I think calamity is a better word than evil in Isaiah 45:7, those were some good thoughts of a "Reformed Arminian"...

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The reality is, that not all do repent, some perish.

 

[stovebolts]

SB,

Simply stated, the nature of human free will or of human free choice is, according to Norman Geisler, ‘the power of contrary choice’ (Geisler 2003:444). This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

When we ask, ‘What is the nature of free will or free choice?’ we may be asking: How long is a piece of string in theological terms? If we are going to answer this question with biblical accuracy, we will need to ask further questions about:

1. Free will / free choice and the power of God (see Isa 45:11-13; 46:4; Jer 32:16-44; Acts 4:24-31);
2. Free choice and the decrees of God (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:9, 11; 3:11);
3. Free choice and the salvation of human beings (Tit 2:11; Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; Matt 18:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 16:31; 17:30; Phil 1:39; 1 Jn 3:23);
4. Free choice as it is related to God’s providence (Jas 4:2);
5. Free choice and God’s foreknowledge (Rom 8:29-30; 2 Cor 6:1-2; 1 Pt 1:1-2);
6. Free choice and a human being’s moral nature (Jn 1:12-13; 7:17; Rom 3:26; Heb 3:7-8, 15; 4);
7. Free choice and Adam’s original sin (the origin of the sin of the human race) [Gen 3:1-8; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 1 Tim 2:13-14];
8. Free choice and human depravity (Deut 6:4-5; Matt 22:35-38; Rom 2:14; 7:18; 8:14; 2 Tim 3:4);
9. Free choice and eternal security/perseverance of the saints (Jer 3:12, 14, 22; Hos 14:4; Mt 24:13; Mk 4:16-17; 7:21-23; Jn 6:66-67; 13:10-11; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 2 Pt 2:20-22; 1 Jn 2:19) [based on Thiessen 1949:524].

Oz

References

Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Thank you for your resource. I shall delve into this later today.

 

[for_his_glory]

Don't presume to tell me what Jesus is like for me.
Does your will run around doing things of it's own free will? Tell me any time it wasn't acted upon?

This is what I don't understand. Whenever God is said to choose instead of we did it all by ourselves, people get so angry about it. They will fight and argue and insult, anything to not accept that God is sovereign over us. They want their free will at all costs. Why is that?

God chooses us for salvation, but it is up to us to choose by freewill to receive His salvation.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Anto9us2]

Oh, yeah, Ananias - he just about TALKED BACK to the Lord, didn't he? Said "I have heard of this Saul of Tarsus" and resisted at first...

Anyway, if God is not willing that any should perish - yet some do - does that impugn God's sovereignty? Universalists say none will perish ultimately, I dunno that I can buy into that.

Point is, what God WANTS and what actually occurs has people's free will in the way, I mean, God didn't want the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be eaten, but it was.

 

[Anto9us2]

1John 3:2 says we ARE the children of God NOW...

 

[Boaz]

" Who told you that you were naked, Adam? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? "

( And of course God knew the answer was Yes ).

Man's free will is evident - man was not prevented from choosing to disobey. God's sovereignty is evident in CONSEQUENCES - there are consequences for Adam, Eve and the Serpent.

God's sovereignty and man's free will operate both before and after the Fall in the same way, Joshua saying "Choose" to the people later on, or the people of Jerusalem refusing to comply with Jesus' longing for them to accept - both principles of free will and God's sovereignty stand the same on both sides of the Fall.

Adam and Eve truly did have free will. Our will is in bondage because of what Adam and Eve did with that free will.

 

[Boaz]

Reformed05,

You did not respond to what I wrote about Matthew 23:37. Why?

In your answer to me here, you have invented things about my beliefs that are not true. You are only new to this site and you have not stated accurately what I believe or put it in the form of questions. e.g.

• 'Does your will run around doing things of it's own free will?'
• 'Whenever God is said to choose instead of we did it all by ourselves, people get so angry about it'. Did I get angry at you? I don't believe so?
• 'they will fight and argue and insult'. Did I do that to you? Certainly not.
• 'anything to not accept that God is sovereign over us'. I did not challenge that theology. I believe in the sovereignty of God.
• 'They want their free will at all costs. Why is that?' That is not my position. Why have you created a straw man about my beliefs?

Oz

Time to change our time Oz.
Matthew 23:37
To interpret that scripture in the way that Jesus meant it, first we have to consider who He is talking to and why. So we need to take a look at the entire chapter. He is talking to the Scribes and Pharisees about their hypocrisy and how it leads people away from seeing Christ for who He is. He is also clearly stating that He is God so His words about Jerusalem must be seen as God not merely His humanity speaking. The subject is not about choosing, it is about the heart and compassion of God towards His people. Earlier in the chapter Jesus says not to call anyone father or teacher and very few people take that as a doctrinal command but understand that Jesus was making a powerful point in language the people could understand. So too with the language in verse 37. What other words was He to use besides willing to express His emotions and His desires in way that humans could grasp? He said He "wanted to gather your children together" That's His heart speaking, His character. If salvation depended on whether or not we are willing, that would make our will outweigh God's will, in this particular verse.

I have not always been a believer in reformed theology. I started out and for years was a Charismatic in fact and arrived where I am today through a lot of research and study. That does not make me right I'm only pointing out that I know both sides of the story.

I do believe every Christian should study both sides so their decision, which ever way it goes is an informed decision, especially if they are going to speak against one side or the other.
Some good starting places are R.C. Sproul' s "What Is Reformed Theology?" and "Grace Unknown". Also "The Mouth of God" by Sinclair B Ferguson.

 

[Boaz]

There is a FALSE DICHOTOMY of

free will vs. God's sovereignty

That is somehow brought up as if it is absolutely incompatible that both concepts coexist. But they DO coexist.

God ordains both.

God ordained that man have a will, but not that it is absolutely free. Paul himself says we are in bondage to sin.

 

[Boaz]

Question. What do these verses mean? John6:37-44 What are they objectively as opposed to subjectively, really saying?

 

[stovebolts]

God ordained that man have a will, but not that it is absolutely free. Paul himself says we are in bondage to sin.

This goes back to my original post. ( kinda). Our Freewill is limited to the choices available to us. You cannot choose what does not exist, or does not have the potential to exist.

For example, If one is in prison, they are restricted from going to a grocery store. Being in bondage to sin is similar in analogy as we are separated from God.

The foundation of my Theology centers on the Trinity where God creates and empowers His creation out of his very essence, which is love.

Humanity enjoyed perfect unity and harmony with creation and God in the garden until Adams disbelief broke that harmony and exile was the result.

 

[stovebolts]

Question. What do these verses mean? John6:37-44 What are they objectively as opposed to subjectively, really saying?

I don't think it's a simple question because scripture is never void of it's narrative.

In terms of covenant, Abraham was made a promise from God, and we know from the Hebrew writer that it was by faith that this promise would come to fruition.

In Exodus, we see God claiming an entire nation as "My Son" yet we also see many non Hebrew's entering into the Sinai Covenant both in the days of Moses and in the days of the minor prophets.

Paul pulls on this idea to highlight the importance of faith and there are many great stories on faith and he separates true Israel as those who have faith.

Likewise, the narrative always reflects Gods grace that we would have faith.

Does faith come by God? Yes, through his grace the way I understand it. The real question for me is this. Can we reject Gods grace? I believe we can as we store Gods wrath against us.

Through Trinity, we understand Gods desire that all men be saved, but we understand God loved us enough to allow us the choice to reject His grace.

To answer your question, it is those who have faith.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

God knows the end from the begining, He knows what our paths will be before we set foot out on them and He can block a path or give someone a way when they see none. In these ways God is sovereign.

We are nothing like that. Our choices are not like His. And our vision is often where we don't know the path we are taking will lead. But we still have a choice. In all things we have free will regardless how many options we have or how easy or hard the choices are. If we didn't have free will, then what would be the point of God sending His prophets to say "repent and turn from your sins." What would be the point of seeking wisdom so that we make better decisions, if we have no free will.

 

[OzSpen]

Deuteronomy 30:19 is the choose passage I referred to earlier.

Anto,

This verse is an excellent one for demonstrating God's invitation to the Israelites to make a choice. In context, there are these free-will/choice teachings:

• 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.
• 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
• 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
• 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This is not a message given to the Gentiles but to the Israelites. However, it demonstrates even with God's chosen people they still had the choice "to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase" OR "But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed...."

Very early in the history of humanity, God demonstrates people have the God-given ability of free will, which is the gift/power of contrary choice.

It was demonstrated in Genesis 4:6-8 (NIV):

Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.’​

​

Now Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let’s go out to the field.’[d] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.​

​

This early in human history, after the Fall, Cain chose to kill his brother, Abel.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Question. What do these verses mean? John6:37-44 What are they objectively as opposed to subjectively, really saying?

Don't forget to add John 12:32 because it addresses the extent of those who are drawn.

 

[Boaz]

Don't forget to add John 12:32 because it addresses the extent of those who are drawn.

JOHN 12:32 I assume you are referring to the all peoples. Since we know not all people are drawn could Jesus have meant all nations with no group of people left out?

 

[Christ_empowered]

from a Calvinist perspective...worth reading...

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/god-sovereign-how-are-humans-free/

 

[OzSpen]

JOHN 12:32 I assume you are referring to the all peoples. Since we know not all people are drawn could Jesus have meant all nations with no group of people left out?

Ref,

That is a typical Reformed, Calvinistic response that I've dealt with over many years. The fact is John 12:32 states that when Jesus was lifted up from the earth (on the cross), κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν

πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν = pantas helkusw pros emauton = all will be drawn to me.

All human beings are drawn to Jesus. This is affirmed in Titus 2:11, 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people' (ESV).

This is not promoting universalism but salvation offered to all people. If I accept your Calvinistic view, it makes God a respecter of persons (contrary to James 2:1-13) because some people are accepted by him while others are rejected. It makes God play favourites.

The reason this emphasis of choice is rejected in your theology is because it is prohibited by limited atonement.

Romans 10:12-13 (NIV) had no problem with free will for all,

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'.​

'Since we know not all people are drawn ...' is your Calvinistic assumption. How would you know who are drawn and who have rejected salvation?

John 12:32 is emphatic that ALL are drawn after the crucifixion and resurrection.

Oz

 

[Boaz]

Ref,

That is a typical Reformed, Calvinistic response that I've dealt with over many years. The fact is John 12:32 states that when Jesus was lifted up from the earth (on the cross), κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν

πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν = pantas helkusw pros emauton = all will be drawn to me.

All human beings are drawn to Jesus. This is affirmed in Titus 2:11, 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people' (ESV).

This is not promoting universalism but salvation offered to all people. If I accept your Calvinistic view, it makes God a respecter of persons (contrary to James 2:1-13) because some people are accepted by him while others are rejected. It makes God play favourites.

The reason this emphasis of choice is rejected in your theology is because it is prohibited by limited atonement.

Romans 10:12-13 (NIV) had no problem with free will for all,

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'.​

'Since we know not all people are drawn ...' is your Calvinistic assumption. How would you know who are drawn and who have rejected salvation?

John 12:32 is emphatic that ALL are drawn after the crucifixion and resurrection.

Oz

"Since we know all people are not drawn (come to salvation)" was not a Calvanistic response at all. It was an observation. Even you admit some people go to hell since the Bible says they do. And I never said that I know who they are. That's absurd. Also, you merely repeated what I said about "all people". I said it meant all nations of people, no one excluded. Calvinists do not ever say that some types or classes or nationalities or races are excluded from the Gospel.

 

[OzSpen]

"Since we know all people are not drawn (come to salvation)" was not a Calvanistic response at all. It was an observation. Even you admit some people go to hell since the Bible says they do. And I never said that I know who they are. That's absurd. Also, you merely repeated what I said about "all people". I said it meant all nations of people, no one excluded. Calvinists do not ever say that some types or classes or nationalities or races are excluded from the Gospel.

'All people' does not mean 'all nations of people'. That's a Calvinistic twist. It is not based on an exegesis of verses such as John 12:32. It is imposing your view on the text, which is called eisegesis.

 

[OzSpen]

I know what it's called. It is what you do constantly. You are never wrong are you? About anything ever I'm guessing. I've seen you argue on other threads repeating yourself over and over. You are more intelligent than anyone else and that you might wrong is inconceivable. People finally up and leave and quit talking to you. Which is what I am doing now. Bye.

Ridicule of me is not appreciated. It is not the way to have a Christian conversation.