FATE VS FREE WILL

[childeye]

I don't think desire to do something apart from God's commands is the issue at all. The issue is free will and not, "do we feel desire". Do we have the freedom to choose something other than what God wants and do we have the freedom to choose something other than our own personal desires. To me, that is free will.

Let me first say I greatly appreciate your return to the conversation. I also greatly appreciate this short post. I will try to reciprocate. I see you and smaller already have probably covered this point, but here's my two cents anyway.

Keeping in mind that it is my honest assessment that Freewill is an equivocation in the moral purview ,and anyone who reasons upon it as truth, inevitably speaks in equivocations, allow me to point out why these statements make no sense to me. Please try not to take this personally. To me, if you do, it's my fault.

Please notice that your first sentence claims that desire to do something apart from God's commands is not the issue. But then you say that it is about freedom to choose between our desires or God. Obviously we would not have that choice to make without desires that are contrary to God and therefore freewill would not exist without desires contrary to God. In essence this creates a false premise in the mind on which to build a case for the existence of moral autonomy based upon disobedience. I'm not saying you do this intentionally. I'm saying you're not aware of it.

 

[john darling]

The fact that we have to "resist a will" that is not our own makes your own position kind of a mute point.

moot point* 2

Anyway, there are two points you make in your next paragraph.

Yes, we do have to 'resist a will' that is not our own

This is the same concept which I am proposing as free will. This "resistance" to a will which is not our own can be applied to either God's will or Satan's will (or even our own will if we believe our desires to be contary to what God wants). The point is that we are capable of resisting if we choose.

It should be seen for the "foreign agent will" that it is, and an internal intruder upon our own will.

Yes, by all means we should see Satan's influence as a foreign will attempting to influence our own will. I have no disagreement with this point. However, if Satan's will is a foreign will, then that means we do have our own will, a god-given will, purposely given so that we may choose to want God's will rather than any intruder's will.

It's not that this choice makes us holy or righteous. It doesn't earn salvation for us. It's just the right thing to do to resist anything which tempts or distracts us away from God and Jesus makes it quite clear that God expects us to use our ability to resist Satan and our freedom to choose God, which is most notably demonstrated through our behavior (Luke 6:46, John 14:23). It is impossible to love our neighbor without showing that love through our actions. Satan won't encourage us to do it and God won't force us to do it. We must choose to follow God's will. "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Matthew 5:6). God wants us to want righteousness.

I don't term "evil" as any type of freedom

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that evil is freedom.

The internal evil of NO PERSON will ever be justified by any choice or actions of anyone.

I don't think anyone is suggesting evil should be justified.

No choices will eradicate it.

The eradication of evil is not the topic. Our ability to freely choose to make evil decisions, or to make good decisions, is the topic.

they attempt to "justify" their own evil thoughts when there is no justification available

Not justify. Take responsibility for. That's what repentence is all about. You can't repent from what you don't recognize as your fault.

We can reign over, but we can not logically eliminate the "construct" that God Himself has placed us all into.

By "reign over" do you mean choosing to resist?

Paul was abundantly clear that if/when he did good, evil was still present within him

The presencse of evil or good within a person is not the topic. Our abillity to choose between these two options is the topic.

It is impossible to eliminate any of the 3 from any equations of will other than by personal fancy to neglect the other 2 in favor of their own.

The topic is not about the elimination of any will. The topic is about the freedom we have to choose between good or bad.

Most adherents think they will be 'rewarded' based on the exercises of their supposed freewill.

Sure they will be rewarded. Or punished. Free will includes both rewards and consequences.

Grace is and will always be UNMERITED favor. We do not "merit' a single bit of same by "earning" anything of it by our willing actions. We live "better" because of Grace, but did not earn it as a merit of our own living in it.

"Earning salvation" isn't the topic. Our freedom to choose between right and wrong is the topic.

No freedom of choice you may choose to apply can possibly apply to the other 2 wills that are also in play. You don't 'answer' for the will of Satan nor do you or I "control" or "manipulate" or "barter" The Will of God by our actions or choices.

The topic is not "answering for the will of satan". The topic is about answering for our own will.

I would term the Will of God as the ONLY WILL that really matters. Whatever other wills happen to exist as a substrata are both temporal and serve The Greater Will, who WILL have His Own Perfect Will Outcome regardless of any other will.

Nah, personal will matters. That's why God gave it to us.

Well, I think you may be starting to see the point. Yes, we do have an adversary who exercises an ILL WILL within us all, and no such will can possibly reasonably term itself as FREE by any stretch of the imaginations.

The topic isn't about Satan's free will. The topic is about humanity's free will.

Why in the world would I ask God for anything but destruction for that evil conscience, in all it's thoughts, words and deeds?

Sure, asking for the destruction of an evil influence in our lives is a good thing. It's a choice you make, with your will, to draw closer to God's will.

Not "covering it up" so God won't see it by the exercise of personal will power.

So, earlier when you said you would resist satan's will, were you suggesting that such behavior was a "cover up" on your part?

But Paul himself landed on the spot of being the "chief of sinners" after salvation.

Meh, you didn't give any scriptural support for all that stuff at the end about Paul, but even if you did I think you'd find it hard to explain how it relates to the freedom we have to choose or reject God.

 

[john darling]

No, I'm not offended by your post and I also appreciate the brevity. I'll try to follow in that same style. However it's time for bed now so I'll see you some time tomorrow.

 

[WIP]

Please, let's move away from just posting strictly our opinions and move closer to the forum rules. Otherwise, non-compliant posts may have to be removed. I can already sense some tension building.

 

[HBEtechnician]

( Post removed, A&T Guidelines state in part: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah)

 

[john darling]

Please notice that your first sentence claims that desire to do something apart from God's commands is not the issue.

Yes. Freewill is not dependent on what the particular desire is or even what causes us to feel this or that desire. Freewill is the freedom to choose anything other than God (Matthew 24:13).

(A&T Guidelines state in part "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Please explain the relevance of Matt 24:13 to your post. Obadiah)

But then you say that it is about freedom to choose between our desires or God.

(Portion of post removed, A&T Guidelines state in part: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah)

Obviously we would not have that choice to make without desires that are contrary to God and therefore freewill would not exist without desires contrary to God. In essence this creates a false premise in the mind on which to build a case for the existence of moral autonomy based upon disobedience.

There is only one morality. If we choose something other than God's morality, that does not make us autonomous from his morality. Our choices do not create a new morality. I do think this concept of a new morality based on disobedience is something Satan would like, as in a kingdom ruled by his own standards, but even with Satan all his behavior still falls within God's morality (John 16:8-11).

So, it is not that freewill cannot exist without sin, but that sin is a natural consequence, a bi-product of free will when it is exercised contrary to God's will. For example, a person could choose to follow God's will. This would be an instance of free will being exercised and yet no sin occuring.

I think God does not want sin, yet for the sake of finding those few precious creations who choose him, he is willing to put up with a world full of those who reject him.

 

[smaller]

This is the same concept which I am proposing as free will. This "resistance" to a will which is not our own can be applied to either God's will or Satan's will (or even our own will if we believe our desires to be contary to what God wants). The point is that we are capable of resisting if we choose.

The observation, from the start, is that there is an operable will in the form of temptation of the tempter within mankind that is not them. Let's presume for the sake of brevity that the tempter is wicked and evil, therefore such temptation thoughts are also wicked and evil. That evil wickedness has transpired "within" the person regardless of the "exercise" of their own resisting will.

As prior cited, Jesus informs us that "evil" comes from within in the form of evil thoughts, which are defiling thoughts:

Mark 7:
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

The sin cat is already out of the bag at the moment of inception of those thoughts regardless of the "exercises" of the will of the person in which such thoughts transpire, and they transpire in ALL, making "having sin" a universal condition of mankind.

No amount of the excercises of the person's will can STOP the tempter from "resisting" the "laws" of God -> because that is what Satan does within people.

Satan also "steals" Word from People's hearts, in effect blinding them to the Gospel. (see Mark 4:15 and 2 Corinthians 4:4) for scriptural examples of "internal theft," A SIN, by Satan, within the people. Even though the person did not commit the sin.

From my past experience, witnessing as a "freewiller" meant the Gospel was "an opportunity" for the person. But what such adherents don't understand is that such witnessing is also "an opportunity" for Satan to blind and steal the Love of God in Christ from within that person. I understand and have for a couple decades now that when we "witness" we, in effect are witnessing to TWO PARTIES in everyone. The person, and the tempter, the thief of Word who sins in them by such theft and blindness. It is critical to understand that we are not witnessing as if it's some kind of sales opportunity. It's a very serious strategic undertaking in which one must maneuver PAST the internal enemy of that person, who will resist the Gospel within them and then HOPE that God blesses our witness. We are actually making an "appeal to God in Christ" to get by our mutual adversary and Shine His Light within them, to draw them INTO the Body of Christ. Freewill really has nothing to do with any of it.

In every way God in Christ will BLESS our honest delivery.

Yes, by all means we should see Satan's influence as a foreign will attempting to influence our own will. I have no disagreement with this point. However, if Satan's will is a foreign will, then that means we do have our own will, a god-given will, purposely given so that we may choose to want God's will rather than any intruder's will.

Quite beside the point. I've established by Word references, that:

A: there is the will of Satan, the agent who has these people captive in their minds

and

B. that any attempts to "free" such captives is actively resisted, quite effectively so, by Satan, who holds same in and by his power in them

and

C. In the end it is only Christ who can 'save.' And it is only Christ who can pull back the blinding power of Satan. We are merely the delivery instruments of the weapons against Satan and simultaneously in behalf of the person with the Love of God expressed in Christ for them.

It's not that this choice makes us holy or righteous. It doesn't earn salvation for us. It's just the right thing to do to resist anything which tempts or distracts us away from God and Jesus makes it quite clear that God expects us to use our ability to resist Satan and our freedom to choose God, which is most notably demonstrated through our behavior (Luke 6:46, John 14:23). It is impossible to love our neighbor without showing that love through our actions. Satan won't encourage us to do it and God won't force us to do it. We must choose to follow God's will. "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Matthew 5:6). God wants us to want righteousness.

Now let's break this supposed freewill down further. We can already see in the above that there are two wills in operation in everyone. We can also see that "evil defiling" transpires, because of theft, a sin, and blinding, a sin, because of the tempter, the thief in the will of the captive.

So that is effort one. Effort two is to establish that we do not, by the exercises of any forms of freewill, stop internal temptation from transpiring from the tempter after salvation either. And this also is evil and defiling and sin, quite apart from the person exercising their will against such things.

In the end, there is no escaping the facts that we were before salvation, and are after salvation, sinners. Which quite firmly NAILS the subject shut on meriting GRACE. It is absolutely unmerited and is so because of the above in every single case of applications.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

No amount of choice or the exercises of freewill is able to stop the tempter from working evil within anyone.

It is our obligation to firstly, see ourselves in honesty of these things, so we do not become turned into liars by the deceiver, and lose our hold on Christ's Grace, thinking we 'do not have evil present.' To speak honestly about this matter. And to recognize our perpetual needs of Mercy and Grace, because of our present conditions.

None of these things are bolstered by "freewill." They are things that we recognize by the Spirit of TRUTH being within us.

Not justify. Take responsibility for. That's what repentence is all about. You can't repent from what you don't recognize as your fault.

You can responsible all you want. None of that will make the tempter do a single thing differently. The will of the person is irrelevant in these exercises. Evil thought is only the first indicator that there is an internal problem being perpetrated by an agent other than the believer. That is where it is TO STOP. But the evil cat has already been let out of the bag internally.

By "reign over" do you mean choosing to resist?

By the fruit of honesty, we reign. Now, honestly, if you see the sins of the believer, will you still condemn their "freewill?" Or will you honestly acknowledge that there is a battle going on and there are winners and losers in battles? Satan "always" wins the "evil thought" and "sin thought" game every single time. It is "we" who are the losers in those efforts.

We've all LOST the battles with sin because it is instigated and initiated by an agent(s) other than us. It is that fruit of honesty that will push us ever further into Grace, Mercy and Love, as their are always direly needed.

The presencse of evil or good within a person is not the topic. Our abillity to choose between these two options is the topic.

It's exactly the topic. No mans freewill has "freed" them from the tempter, before of after salvation. Those who think that happened have perhaps already been blindsided by our mutual adversary.

We also know from ALL the seed parables, (can certainly cite them ALL upon request) that Satan, the devil is prompted into action "within" people by the sowing of the Word.

And from Paul for example in
1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The theological reason that the strength of sin is the LAW is because the LAW prompts Satan to resist same by the active insertion of EVIL THOUGHTS to break same. This is "evil present" within the person and it has defiled and will continue to defile us all.

A lot of believers will read this about giving account before God:
Romans 14:
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

And they will see fear in that, and try to cover up and make excuses. Believers should consider that such accounts will be used to PUT SATAN IN HELL, permanently, and we should then not fear, but MOVE ON to the below:

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Freewill advocates throw freewill as a stumblingblock to people, imho, thinking they are selling Jesus to someone's "freewill choice."

It's only God in Christ's choice to free them. It's also God in Christ's choice to use all such efforts to destroy Satan and all his works, in the finality of this wicked age.

 

[john darling]

(Post removed, A&T Guidelines state in part: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah)

 

[smaller]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[childeye]

Yes. Freewill is not dependent on what the particular desire is or even what causes us to feel this or that desire. Freewill is the freedom to choose anything other than God (Matthew 24:13).

Okay, so you sound like you're agreeing that the premise of freewill is a freedom from God. As per the prodigal son, who had to learn he'd rather not be free under his Father's will, so as to follow his own. Yet you still maintain the desire to do something in opposition to God is irrelevant to the choice. Matthew 23:25-26. I'm trying to comprehend that. It seems to me there is no choice/decision to be made in opposition to God without the desire to do so preceding it. 1 Corinthians 10:13. You should address how someone makes a decision without any desire to make it. After all, what is temptation?

I don't see any contradiction between the two sentences you've quoted. Freewill does not justify bad choices, but only recognizes that the freedom to choose the bad exists. In other words, God will not force us to be good, and Satan cannot force us.

God will not force us to be good and Satan cannot force us. The term force is subjective here. That's one source of ambiguity. What are powers of Light and Darkness if not forces? I know I can't volunteer to rape a child even if the choice/option is available. What power restrains me from making that choice? It can't be freewill, since freewill is premised upon freedom from God. And what is corruption? This all goes back to wicked desires. The source of wicked desires is not a product of freewill or free choice. Even though it does not acknowledge God as restraining one from becoming an abomination. But freewill is a good way to hide the source of wicked desires. Your argument is kind of making that point for me.

(Portion of this post deleted. Response to a deleted portion of a prior post. Obadiah)

So, it is not that freewill cannot exist without sin, but that sin is a natural consequence, a bi-product of free will when it is exercised contrary to God's will. For example, a person could choose to follow God's will. This would be an instance of free will being exercised and yet no sin occurring.

I believe the corrupt mind and heart must be made enabled to walk in that free will that always does God's commands. I think that is possible even without having the other choice that is wicked made available. John 17:23. Otherwise Satan is an Eternal power, and that is dualism. Hence if sin is a byproduct of freewill, then freewill is a lie.

I think God does not want sin, yet for the sake of finding those few precious creations who choose him, he is willing to put up with a world full of those who reject him.

This is theory based on freewill. It honors one man's obedience over another's which is a carnal concept. I can think of scripture that shows that God chooses whom He reveals Himself to, so that this type of vanity doesn't happen? 1 Corinthians 1:27. Romans 4:5. You haven't proven freewill exists. You've only proven that there is God and the absence of God. Light and Dark at work in mankind. You've proven a choice/option exists. This does not apply to the will. Choice/decision does apply to the will. The moral decision does not therefore prove the will free since a choice is inevitable and unavoidable. It is therefore not voluntary. We should be asking what is corruption, what was corrupted, and how does the knowledge of God correct it? 1 Timothy 2:4.

 

[john darling]

Okay, so you sound like you're agreeing that the premise of freewill is a freedom from God

Not quite. I don't think we can ever be free from God. We can choose contrary to his will, but that choice still holds consequences. For example, someone may choose to believe God does not exist. This choice would be contrary to God's will, but the choice itself does not make God cease to exist.

God will not force us to be good and Satan cannot force us. The term force is subjective here

I think the word "force" can be subjective in some circumstances but I don't think it's subjective "here". I think the context makes it clear. God will not force us to choose him. He will not send an angel to literally control our arms, legs, eyes etc so that we never act on sin, or poke around in our brains to ensure that we never lust or hate. And Satan cannot do that. We always have a choice.

But freewill is a good way to hide the source of wicked desires. Your argument is kind of making that point for me.

I am suggesting that an acknowledgement of our freedom to choose how we behave would force us to take responsibility for our behavior. For example, repentence is something we choose to do. It can't be forced onto us because it involves recognizing what we've done wrong and choosing to change. By it's very nature repentence becomes pointless if it's not freely chosen. "A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still."

If I lie to make myself look better, it's not the devil who made me do it. The devil will surely influence, manipulate, pressure etc, but with freewill I must, in the end, acknowledge that the final choice was mine. I must see the cold, hard reality of my behavior for what it is and repent. I don't understand how you see this as hiding.

I believe the corrupt mind and heart must be made enabled to walk in that free will that always does God's commands. I think that is possible even without having the other choice that is wicked made available. John 17:23.

Yes, it is possible to freely choose to follow God without the existance of sin or evil. I like the Adam/Eve example because it's so clear. It only involves one command and his new creations obeyed that command well enough for a time. They didn't choose to break the command straight away. Perhaps this was because of ignorance or perhaps it was because they just didn't want to go against God. Either way, I suspect God was pleased by this initial result. On to the next phase; the introduction of influence.

God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. Otherwise we must admit that Satan outsmarted God or that God was naive. He wanted to see if his new creations would obey him even if there was someone there telling them not to. It could have gone either way, but for the sake of the bigger picture (i.e. creations who would freely choose him) he was willing to take the risk. As much as he hates sin (i.e. being rejected) he loves the thought of being freely worshipped by his creations just because they want to (John 3:16-21). In this reference, take particular note of verses 20 and 21.

After that we see a consistent theme of God introducing newer and more complex concepts relating to Good and evil. These concepts were most often presented in the form of commands which God expected his creations to obey. The commands themselves were there to teach people how to become good, like himself (Matthew 5:48). Then came Jesus and the NT, with a more full series of commands, this time translating into a direct leading by the holy spirit as opposed to stone tablets (2 Cor 3:3).

Otherwise Satan is an Eternal power, and that is dualism. Hence if sin is a byproduct of freewill, then freewill is a lie.

Satan doesn't need to be eternal to fullfill his purpose. He represents an influence, giving people something not to choose.

This is theory based on freewill. It honors one man's obedience over another's which is a carnal concept.

I don't think it's a competition. It's not about one man's obedience vs another man's obedience. It's about obedience vs disobedience. In the parable of the talents both servants who produced some benefit from what they were given were complimented, even though one produced more than the other. The servant who chose to do nothing was rebuked (Matthew 25:14-30).

The moral decision does not therefore prove the will free since a choice is inevitable and unavoidable. It is therefore not voluntary.

Sure, a choice is inevitable. That we will make a choice either way is not voluntary and in that I agree with you, but that does not refute the point that we are able to decide between the various options. This is the part which is voluntary. I volunteer to serve God. I volunteer to reject God. Whether we call it choice, volunteer or option matters little to the final outcome.

 

[john darling]

Yes. Freewill is not dependent on what the particular desire is or even what causes us to feel this or that desire. Freewill is the freedom to choose anything other than God (Matthew 24:13).

Hi Obadiah. Thanks for asking for further clarification on this. Matthew 24:13 is a tacit admonishment to endure to the end. It is impossible to endure something without choosing, sometimes under intense pressure or circumstances, to endure. The nature of the word itself presents a context where Jesus knows we'll be faced with difficult choices but he encourages us to endure that hardness anyway. The various kinds of trials and temptations do not matter in the context of enduring, because there is no place where God says, "you must endure 'this' kind of tempation while it's okay to give in to 'that' kind of temptation"; they all need to be endured.

Jesus also said, "Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it" (Luke 17:33). We can't seek to lose our lives if we're not making a conscience and free decision to do so. He said, "Take up your cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24).

Endure to the end. Seek to lose your life. Take up your cross. God can take our lives at any moment, but he doesn't want to take them. He wants us to lay them down. He wants us to give up everything for him, including that which we most ferociously hang on to; life.

 

[childeye]

Not quite. I don't think we can ever be free from God. We can choose contrary to his will, but that choice still holds consequences. For example, someone may choose to believe God does not exist. This choice would be contrary to God's will, but the choice itself does not make God cease to exist.

This really all goes back to the desire preceding the choice. If you will recall, you're excluding spiritual and carnal desires from the freewill equation since that is what the term Free in front of will is implying we're free to choose from, rather than moved to choose by.

I don't believe in the freewill scenario in any moral sense since morality/immorality is based upon desire to begin with. This is the difference between righteousness by faith and righteousness by works.

I think the word "force" can be subjective in some circumstances but I don't think it's subjective "here". I think the context makes it clear. God will not force us to choose him. He will not send an angel to literally control our arms, legs, eyes etc so that we never act on sin, or poke around in our brains to ensure that we never lust or hate. And Satan cannot do that. We always have a choice.

We're comparing spiritual with carnal actions. I agree with you that I move my hands and legs. But whether I move them to do good or to do evil, is going to be based upon my spiritual condition at the time of the action. Love forces me to lay down my life for others. I may think I can choose otherwise than to love. But that, to me, is God's enemy, Satan, poking around in my brain, through the knowledge of good and evil. Romans 7:21.

I am suggesting that an acknowledgement of our freedom to choose how we behave would force us to take responsibility for our behavior.

Here's that word force again. But how does freewill force us to take responsibility unless we believe God is going to judge us? Your speaking about the fear of God not freewill. That is a spiritual presence, one we encounter when considering evil. It is not chosen. Moreover Love is what actually makes us care how we treat our fellow man. In either case, it's not our ability to reason and choose that makes us act responsibly.

For example, repentence is something we choose to do. It can't be forced onto us because it involves recognizing what we've done wrong and choosing to change.

Look at how our terms change in connotation. Repentance is indeed forced upon us, even as we recognize we have hurt others and are forced to care about that.

By it's very nature repentence becomes pointless if it's not freely chosen.

I think that repentance is pointless if it is freely chosen, since there is no sorrow compelling a freewill choice to repent. What secures a persons desire to not ever make that mistake again? Godly Sorrow is the answer. It's what moves a man to repent, it's not voluntary. Romans 2:4. God be praised that I would become an abomination without Him. It serves no purpose to beat myself up in a prideful manner via freewill theology. The point is to change direction because I'm hurting others. This is why I say it all goes back to desire.

"A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still."

But that's what the Holy Spirit does, convict us of sin against our carnal will. Sin we would otherwise not even see. Matthew 7:5. When we see our hypocrisy, then we see how we were blind and our opinions change. To say we did it via freewill is to not even see how people don't see what they do, including myself.

If I lie to make myself look better, it's not the devil who made me do it. The devil will surely influence, manipulate, pressure etc, but with freewill I must, in the end, acknowledge that the final choice was mine. I must see the cold, hard reality of my behavior for what it is and repent. I don't understand how you see this as hiding.

To be clear, I'm not saying that you're hiding. I'm saying Satan is hiding as the spirit of rebellion in the guise of freewill. Notice, if I lie to make myself look better, I am already deceived to begin with. 2 Timothy 3:13.

Yes, it is possible to freely choose to follow God without the existance of sin or evil.

Then the will is not made free by the option to sin. The will is already morally free without the immoral option to say no to God. When this option to sin is presented, and I assure you it's a lie that is being presented, then we risk losing our free will. John 8:33. John 8:34.

God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. Otherwise we must admit that Satan outsmarted God or that God was naive. He wanted to see if his new creations would obey him even if there was someone there telling them not to. [/QUOTE]
I would like to offer a different scenario. A much better one than God hired a gigolo to see if His wife would be true. This would take some time I am not prepared to give at this moment.

I don't think it's a competition. It's not about one man's obedience vs another man's obedience. It's about obedience vs disobedience. In the parable of the talents both servants who produced some benefit from what they were given were complimented, even though one produced more than the other. The servant who chose to do nothing was rebuked (Matthew 25:14-30).

Respectfully, this parable is not about commands being obeyed or disobeyed. It's not about choosing whom to serve. It is about ability being given by God to His servants and not utilized. The servant wasn't just rebuked, his talents were taken away because he was not using them. This man that lost his talents was motivated by fear, not unbelief in freewill. Again desire precedes the choice.

Sure, a choice is inevitable. That we will make a choice either way is not voluntary and in that I agree with you, but that does not refute the point that we are able to decide between the various options. This is the part which is voluntary.

Paul thought he was serving God when he stoned Steven but he wasn't. We can't choose God when we don't even recognize Him.

I volunteer to serve God. I volunteer to reject God. Whether we call it choice, volunteer or option matters little to the final outcome.

Respectfully, I don't believe any person is worthy to serve God unless God makes them worthy. We can't choose to do righteous things when we are unrighteous to begin with. Matthew 5:6. John 6:44. Luke 11:39. Matthew 23:26. It's all about the desires within us that need to be addressed. To say it's a free choice to do good or evil does not even acknowledge this.

 

[john darling]

But that's what the Holy Spirit does, convict us of sin against our carnal will.

Conviction is different from force. The Holy Spirit will influence us to see our problems, but it won't force us to see them and it certainly won't force us to feel sorry for them. When Jesus' spirit convicted a rich man to forsake all and follow him, like the other disciples did, the rich man chose not to act on what the spirit was saying to him. He chose to ignore it in favor of keeping his possessions (luke 18:22-24)

Jesus told a parable about people invited to the marriage supper,but they all made excuses not to come. They were distracted by riches and relationships (Luke 14:18-20). The author of Hebrews talked about people who "harden their hearts" when God tries to reach them (Hebrews 4:7). God will not force a hardened heart to hear the truth, because such force wuold be pointless. He already has the power to create robots, but he doesn't want robots. He wants people who will choose to soften their hearts, who will choose to be broken and learn from him through their obedience.

I think that repentance is pointless if it is freely chosen, since there is no sorrow compelling a freewill choice to repent. What secures a persons desire to not ever make that mistake again? Godly Sorrow is the answer. It's what moves a man to repent, it's not voluntary. Romans 2:4.

Romans 2:4 doesn't say anything about God overriding our freewill or that repentence is forced. It says the goodness of God leads to repentence. When we really consider just how much God loves us, it should cause us to fall to our knees and repent in shame and sincerity, but we have the choice to harden our hearts to God's goodness, too (Heb 4:7).

Here's that word force again. But how does freewill force us to take responsibility unless we believe God is going to judge us? Your speaking about the fear of God not freewill.

Sure, the fear of God is part of it, too. Freewill comes with consequences as well as freedom. And, there are two kinds of "force" I'm talking about. One is God forcing us to be good. He will not do that. We must choose to act on what he wants us to do, even if it is a prayer like, "God help me to want to do what you want me to do".

However, once we do choose to follow God, then we are forced to do so on his terms. We cannot claim to be Christian and then gossip about others. If we want to be his followers then we will be forced to follow his instructions on how to be his followers, though we still have the choice, at anytime, to choose not to follow his instructions.

If you will recall, you're excluding spiritual and carnal desires from the freewill equation since that is what the term Free in front of will is implying we're free to choose from, rather than moved to choose by.

Nah, I never excluded desire from freewill. I communicated that whichever desire we feel at the moment is irrelevent to the fact that we have the freedom to choose between those desires.

We may feel "moved" to act, as in feeling inspiration or enthusiasm, but the final choice to act still belongs to us. Feeling "moved" or "inspired" or "influenced" or "convicted"; these are all different words to describe the same basic concept. God cannot override our own will without turning us into robots, in which case it would become pointless to give us standards or expect obedience (Matthew 7:23-27). Notice is this teaching both the wise and the foolish heard Jesus' instructions, but only the wise man obeyed. The foolish man wasn't foolish because God failed to "move" him or because God decided he should be foolish He wasn't even foolish because of ignorance. He was foolish because he chose not to act on what he had heard.

Respectfully, this parable is not about commands being obeyed or disobeyed

Sure, the command is not specified at the start of the parable, but it is certainly implied through their behavior. Why else should the last servant be punished for failing to do something he was not commanded to do (Matthew 25:27)? He chose to be lazy, whether that choice was motivated by fear or whatever, it was still a choice he freely made. The other two men were in the same situation. Perhaps they also worried that they may not produce any fruit, but they chose to act anyway. They made a decision to act on their Lord's will while the other made a decison not to act on his lords will.

Look at how our terms change in connotation. Repentance is indeed forced upon us, even as we recognize we have hurt others and are forced to care about that.

Just recognizing that we've done wrong doesn't guarantee that we'll repent from it. Lots of people around the world spend years hiding from their behavior. We know what we've done but we choose to forget about it or cover it up with work, family, entertainment or any number of convenient doctrines which sound spiritual but only amount to excusing responsibility. We may even feel genuine guilt, but we won't confess our faults (even if it is just to God) and we won't take responsibility for them. That's what the false grace teaching is all about. "Jesus died on the cross for me so I don't have to do anything" (Luke 6:46).

 

[childeye]

Conviction is different from force. The Holy Spirit will influence us to see our problems, but it won't force us to see them and it certainly won't force us to feel sorry for them. When Jesus' spirit convicted a rich man to forsake all and follow him, like the other disciples did, the rich man chose not to act on what the spirit was saying to him. He chose to ignore it in favor of keeping his possessions (luke 18:22-24)

The moral here is, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Respectfully, I don't see this as applicable as an example of moral voluntary choice. It shows a carnal will vs. the spiritual will and the conflict that arises when confronted with the conviction of the Truth. To me this argument for freewill is simply counting rebellion as freedom when it is captivity in the truer sense. Rebellion is the product of a false image of god, it is therefore founded upon a lie.

Jesus told a parable about people invited to the marriage supper,but they all made excuses not to come. They were distracted by riches and relationships (Luke 14:18-20).

The point of this parable is in opposition to freewill. God is choosing the lowly and wretched, to show that His Grace is what the others take for granted. It's no different then those forgiven much Love much and those forgiven little Love little.

The author of Hebrews talked about people who "harden their hearts" when God tries to reach them (Hebrews 4:7). God will not force a hardened heart to hear the truth, because such force wuold be pointless. He already has the power to create robots, but he doesn't want robots. He wants people who will choose to soften their hearts, who will choose to be broken and learn from him through their obedience.

A hard heart is not the product of freewill reasoning unless we agree that freewill is a corrupt reasoning. It is actually a spiritual condition. That is always the issue in all of scripture. Ezekiel 11:19.

If I were to think I am reduced to a robot if I don't have the right to rebel against God, then am I not programmed like a robot to justify rebellion? But if my image of God is One believed in, that He would sacrifice His life through the worst torture to spare me who is unworthy, then rebellion becomes irrational. Spiritual content is equivalent to programming the mind how and what to think, based on imagery of God/god. A false image corrupts the mind and heart, while a True Image renews the spirit. Romans 6:4.

Romans 2:4 doesn't say anything about God overriding our freewill or that repentence is forced. It says the goodness of God leads to repentence. When we really consider just how much God loves us, it should cause us to fall to our knees and repent in shame and sincerity, but we have the choice to harden our hearts to God's goodness, too (Heb 4:7).

I understand your point. But the carnal will is not a freewill, and hardening of the heart is not an ability, it is a disability. Notice that we are using opposing connotations of the term force. Freewill in your view is an inference based on opposing connotations which to me makes it an equivocation. To me the only true freewill is the one that I am arguing for, wherein the only True/Eternal force, is goodness, wherein there is no rationale for rebellion. Wherein there is no choice necessary. So when you say God doesn't override our freewill, it makes no sense, unless that freewill that you describe justifies rebellion as a right, for the sake of autonomy. And that is why I say, you are counting rebellion as an ability rather than a dysfunctional reasoning. It is therefore a corrupt freewill, that only a True Image of God can make whole.. God is the only one Who can override it. We cannot override ourselves without Him.

Sure, the fear of God is part of it, too. Freewill comes with consequences as well as freedom. And, there are two kinds of "force" I'm talking about. One is God forcing us to be good. He will not do that. We must choose to act on what he wants us to do, even if it is a prayer like, "God help me to want to do what you want me to do".

We're in total agreement here, and only because of the statement in bold, as it is a turning to God in humility, admitting that we are helpless to change our evil wants/desires on our own. It is a confession of being unrighteous. To me the assertion that freewill comes with consequences as well as freedom is simply saying serving sin is death and serving God is life. To me freewill is the duplicity of serving two masters. I therefore fail to see how freewill is not the disability to sin.

However, once we do choose to follow God, then we are forced to do so on his terms. We cannot claim to be Christian and then gossip about others. If we want to be his followers then we will be forced to follow his instructions on how to be his followers, though we still have the choice, at anytime, to choose not to follow his instructions.

To me, the Image of God that is the Christ, is our obedience. My disobedience is carnal. I cannot consolidate the two and see freewill there. Therefore I would not use the term forced in a negative connotation since it is our pleasure to serve Him even as we are the beneficiaries. His rod comforts me. 2 Corinthians 10:5.

Nah, I never excluded desire from freewill. I communicated that whichever desire we feel at the moment is irrelevent to the fact that we have the freedom to choose between those desires.

Here is the choice we are confronted with. One direction is True and the other is falsehood. One way is life and the other is death. We must by necessity choose. We've already agreed upon that. So what is this fact we have freedom that you claim pertain to? Knowledge or ignorance of which door is which? If it's knowledge, then the desire to live or die determines the choice. That is playing loosely with the term knowledge, since the knowledge of God inspires Life. If ignorance, then it is by chance.

We may feel "moved" to act, as in feeling inspiration or enthusiasm, but the final choice to act still belongs to us. Feeling "moved" or "inspired" or "influenced" or "convicted"; these are all different words to describe the same basic concept. God cannot override our own will without turning us into robots, in which case it would become pointless to give us standards or expect obedience (Matthew 7:23-27). Notice is this teaching both the wise and the foolish heard Jesus' instructions, but only the wise man obeyed. The foolish man wasn't foolish because God failed to "move" him or because God decided he should be foolish He wasn't even foolish because of ignorance. He was foolish because he chose not to act on what he had heard.

I can't help but feel that you are arguing that we have a will. The will is the ability to choose. I am not arguing that we don't have a will. I am arguing against freewill in the moral purview. So yes we are moved by God to do good and I'm saying it is not voluntary, even if we can say no, since no is not voluntary either but a lie. For we can't do both and serve two masters. Matthew 6:24. Philippians 2:13.

The other two men were in the same situation. Perhaps they also worried that they may not produce any fruit, but they chose to act anyway. They made a decision to act on their Lord's will while the other made a decison not to act on his lords will.

The scripture explains why the man buried the talents, it wasn't because he was lazy. He was afraid he'd lose them. It is a message for us, God's servants. To me it means you had better not bury your Love or God will take it away. Can I earn it back? I don't think so. This is why I don't believe in freewill in the moral sense.

Just recognizing that we've done wrong doesn't guarantee that we'll repent from it. Lots of people around the world spend years hiding from their behavior.

You're right about all of this to some extent. To me, the problem is also that people are afraid to look at themselves because they are afraid they are responsible. They don't know that their actions were motivated by powers that were based upon a false image of god to begin with. They can't even repent correctly because they don't know what the fault is within themselves. Romans 4:5. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

I think this section of your post is a profound and forthright assessment as to why you believe in freewill. You feel it is wrong to excuse responsibility, or in other words you wish to establish responsibility. I feel the same way, except that the term responsibility is changed in connotation because I don't base it on freewill.

I believe that it is one's image of god/God that makes a person righteous or unrighteous on the inside, hence this scripture. Matthew 23:26. It would therefore be an irresponsible action on my part to promote responsibility based on freewill.

If you understand what I mean by this, then the semantic issue has been resolved through your understanding, and we should not rehash the same points over again. I suggest we move on and debate whether a false image of god is the source of corruption of the soul, and the True Image of God is the purifying of the soul. If we can agree there, then you will understand why terms like grace, repentance, responsibility, freewill, all change meaning.

I would start with this scripture. 2 Corinthians 4:4. Do you think this scripture is saying that one's image of God/god makes the difference between purity and corruption?

 

[WIP]

If I were to think I am reduced to a robot if I don't have the right to rebel against God, then am I not programmed like a robot to justify rebellion?

I see the word "right" used by a number of posters in this thread with regard to free will. I think there's a difference between a "right" to rebel and a desire, option, or ability to rebel. A true robot would not desire nor opt to rebel as it would do only as it is programmed to do. If God programmed us to do, act, speak, and think only exactly what He wanted from us, could we love Him?

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Matthew 22:37

Would this commandment have any purpose at all if we didn't have the ability (free will) to not follow it?

 

[smaller]

When any of us come before God in Christ, we come bearing this internal fact:

Hebrews 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

A "whole heart" does contain "an evil conscience." It is dubious to trust any part or parcel of that portion of ourselves, let alone term our conscience "free" of that working. And it is not beneficial or truthful to see ourselves otherwise, or try to "fool" God in Christ into not seeing that portion of ourselves. So, is the evil conscience a "free" conscience? A "free" will? Sure, to do what it does, which is to provoke to do evil.

I wouldn't call it free whatsoever other than free to rebel, resist, and "hide" itself from God in Christ.

In the "exercises" of faith, this is what everyone should experience:

Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Discernment and exercises of use begin "internally" by recognizing the "evil conscience" does exist within. It is very unlikely that it will evaporate either. We are called to "divide" from that part of ourselves. But we do not eradicate it. To say or to think so would just be lying, and in that we have fallen to being victims of our own "evil conscience."

The real question behind this one, as it pertains to "freewill" is this:

Is an internal will, which I have no problem as deeming "a conscience" of both good and evil really a will we can term "free?" I'd honestly have to say that no one, by the exercises of any form of will, will free themselves from an evil conscience, and therefore no such "will" that is truthful, is free of same. An evil conscience is NOT free whatsoever, unless we want to term persisting "evil" intents as freedom. The evil conscience remains, actually, condemned.

We can say, yes, we will do good even regardless of the intents of the evil conscience, but that does not eliminate the evil conscience from being within to do it's evil things, and we are not free of that internal conflict,

just as Paul shows us all in Romans 7:21.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

The "evil conscience" will not even allow a person to speak honestly about this internal matter, as Paul did. So Paul, has, in effect, thrown down his personal statement of fact, right there, proving himself SUPERIOR to that working by speaking truthfully about same. No person who is inferior to the evil conscience present within them can fess up to this.

They will find themselves 'tongue tied." And if they can "speak the truth" they will certainly not claim "freewill" under that kind of situation.

 

[childeye]

I see the word "right" used by a number of posters in this thread with regard to free will. I think there's a difference between a "right" to rebel and a desire, option, or ability to rebel. A true robot would not desire nor opt to rebel as it would do only as it is programmed to do. If God programmed us to do, act, speak, and think only exactly what He wanted from us, could we love Him?

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Matthew 22:37

Would this commandment have any purpose at all if we didn't have the ability (free will) to not follow it?

Thanks for the response WIP. First off, I think you'd agree that we're playing loosely with some subjective terms.
I know we're not robots and I don't think anyone actually believes that I believe that. Therefore I wonder why your question goes far beyond love, so as to include programming every act ever done, every word ever spoken, and every thought ever pondered, as if that was my belief. You've stacked the deck, which reveals either a misunderstanding of my position or a bias for freewill. To be clear, I only apply my arguments against freewill in the moral purview, and I specify that this freewill that I am against is the dictionary definition.

With that in mind, the issue is whether Love is a choice, or a force that compels a person, apart from any voluntary mental deliberation. Please, do notice the two different connotations of the word 'choice' and how I use each one. This helps show why freewill in the moral purview is an equivocation.

I believe Love is a spiritual force and not a choice/decision. For example, I Love my parents and my brothers and children. I don't deliberate whether to love them or to not to love them, before I love them. I don't choose to Love them and I cannot choose not to. It's the same way with God. If compared to a computer, I am therefore, by default, programmed to Love God, my parents, my brothers, and my wife and children, and that is my honest testimony. I therefore will not testify that I choose/decide to Love God lest I be a liar.

Moreover, God is Love. 1 John 4:8. I can't not Love Him, lest I despise LOVE it's self. I cannot choose/decide to hate Love even though love hurts. I would rather Love and feel pain, than have a hard heart and feel nothing.

Now in contrast, because I begin in the Love of God by default, the only time Love becomes a choice/option, is when I am pondering a lie. Hence the choice/option to not Love God is a lie being presented. However, if I were to begin as an enemy of God and the choice/option is presented to Love God, then this is the Truth being presented. In this instance, where I begin as an enemy of God, if I say I choose/decide to Love God, then I am not a liar. This is the freewill I argue for and not against, since this is a will no longer deceived. While the freewill that would choose to not love God, is a deceived will which I argue against. Therefore I say that the term freewill is an equivocation.

So how dose someone choose/decide to not Love God? I begin in Love with God and God is Love. If however someone (the devil), can plant some slander about God that would alter the image of God into a self serving tyrant, then a spirit of rebellion would be the result of believing that lie about God. Genesis 3:5.

So to me, anyone saying they can choose/decide to Love God or not Love God, is simply deceived about God and Satan and what is spiritual discernment. To know God is to Love God. It is a spiritual discernment not a mental decision. Look at how John articulates this. Notice that he uses the term dwell. Notice John does not use the term choice or choose at all. Why? Because these terms are not applicable. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

 

[Sinthesis]

One can visualize the coexistence of fate and freewill as the situation of a swimmer trapped in an inescapable current. How one chooses to maneuver while swept along is how one expresses freewill while subject to fate. Add a waterfall to signify the urgency of finite physical life.

 

[WIP]

Thanks for the response WIP. First off, I think you'd agree that we're playing loosely with some subjective terms.
I know we're not robots and I don't think anyone actually believes that I believe that. Therefore I wonder why your question goes far beyond love, so as to include programming every act ever done, every word ever spoken, and every thought ever pondered, as if that was my belief. You've stacked the deck, which reveals either a misunderstanding of my position or a bias for freewill. To be clear, I only apply my arguments against freewill in the moral purview, and I specify that this freewill that I am against is the dictionary definition.

With that in mind, the issue is whether Love is a choice, or a force that compels a person, apart from any voluntary mental deliberation. Please, do notice the two different connotations of the word 'choice' and how I use each one. This helps show why freewill in the moral purview is an equivocation.

I believe Love is a spiritual force and not a choice/decision. For example, I Love my parents and my brothers and children. I don't deliberate whether to love them or to not to love them, before I love them. I don't choose to Love them and I cannot choose not to. It's the same way with God. If compared to a computer, I am therefore, by default, programmed to Love God, my parents, my brothers, and my wife and children, and that is my honest testimony. I therefore will not testify that I choose/decide to Love God lest I be a liar.

Moreover, God is Love. 1 John 4:8. I can't not Love Him, lest I despise LOVE it's self. I cannot choose/decide to hate Love even though love hurts. I would rather Love and feel pain, than have a hard heart and feel nothing.

Now in contrast, because I begin in the Love of God by default, the only time Love becomes a choice/option, is when I am pondering a lie. Hence the choice/option to not Love God is a lie being presented. However, if I were to begin as an enemy of God and the choice/option is presented to Love God, then this is the Truth being presented. In this instance, where I begin as an enemy of God, if I say I choose/decide to Love God, then I am not a liar. This is the freewill I argue for and not against, since this is a will no longer deceived. While the freewill that would choose to not love God, is a deceived will which I argue against. Therefore I say that the term freewill is an equivocation.

So how dose someone choose/decide to not Love God? I begin in Love with God and God is Love. If however someone (the devil), can plant some slander about God that would alter the image of God into a self serving tyrant, then a spirit of rebellion would be the result of believing that lie about God. Genesis 3:5.

So to me, anyone saying they can choose/decide to Love God or not Love God, is simply deceived about God and Satan and what is spiritual discernment. To know God is to Love God. It is a spiritual discernment not a mental decision. Look at how John articulates this. Notice that he uses the term dwell. Notice John does not use the term choice or choose at all. Why? Because these terms are not applicable. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

My apologies. I wasn't addressing your post specifically. Sorry I gave that impression. Just the use of the word "right" when referring to our desire or tendency to rebel against God. I don't see it as a right because there are serious consequences for our rebellion.