FATE VS FREE WILL

[Doulos Iesou]

1 Corinthians 10:13 states there are temptations happening that are outside of our volition, as well as a means of escape being provided. by our Maker. You're saying that these wouldn't be applicable if men were not autonomous since a choice is being presented. I understand that, even though the presence of a choice is not any indication that the will is morally free. The question should be, is God testing us as to our goodness, or is God establishing our impotence to be good apart from Him?

Well the context is Paul drawing on the history of Israel, and uses them as a moral example. Urging them not to become idolaters or sexually immoral.

He concludes this by exhorting them such:

"Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands must watch out lest he fall."
The Lexham English Bible (1 Co 10:12)

This isn't a call for absolute dependence on God, but a call to vigilance, that temptation will come and God is faithful and will provide the means of escape. It remains on the believer however to stand firm, and not fall into the same sins of Israelites, who though protected by a faithful God (verses 1-4), still fell into sin (5-10).

The emphasis is on moral responsibility, with the assumption that the believer is morally autonomous and though helped by God, must still remain steadfast.

Your interpretation simply does not fit the context.

 

[Brother Mike]

Well the context is Paul drawing on the history of Israel, and uses them as a moral example. Urging them not to become idolaters or sexually immoral.

He concludes this by exhorting them such:

"Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands must watch out lest he fall."
The Lexham English Bible (1 Co 10:12)

This isn't a call for absolute dependence on God, but a call to vigilance, that temptation will come and God is faithful and will provide the means of escape. It remains on the believer however to stand firm, and not fall into the same sins of Israelites, who though protected by a faithful God (verses 1-4), still fell into sin (5-10).

The emphasis is on moral responsibility, with the assumption that the believer is morally autonomous and though helped by God, must still remain steadfast.

Your interpretation simply does not fit the context.

I am completely impressed you understood half of what He said. I know I did not.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos,

This passage from Jeremiah 19:5 (ESV) is an interesting one as it appears in a couple of other verses in Jeremiah. How does it affirm or contradict God's sovereignty over all things?

Evangelical systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem, investigates this:

'Another objection to the biblical teaching about God’s omniscience has been brought from Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 31:35, where God refers to the horrible practices of parents who burn to death their own children in the sacrificial fires of the pagan god Baal, and says, “which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind” (Jer. 7:31). Does this mean that before the time of Jeremiah God had never thought of the possibility that parents would sacrifice their own children? Certainly not, for that very practice had occurred a century earlier in the reigns of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Hoshea (2 Kings 17:17), and God himself had forbidden the practice eight hundred years earlier under Moses (Lev. 18:21). The verses in Jeremiah are probably better translated quite literally, “nor did it enter into my heart “ (so KJV at Jer. 7:31, and the literal translation in the NASB mg.—the Hebrew word is lēb, most frequently translated “heart”), giving the sense, “nor did I wish for it, desire it, think of it in a positive way”' (Grudem 1994:192) [1]​

Of course this raises the issue of the relationship between God's omniscience and sovereignty and the degree of freedom given to human beings and their future actions. I don't see this as being outside of God's sovereignty, but although I use the term free will, it is difficult to define precisely. Augustine used the language of 'reasonable self-determination', thus avoiding the language of free, freedom or free will.

​

Notes
[1] Grudem's footnote at this point was: 'The same phrase (“to have a thought enter into the heart”) seems to have the sense “desire, wish for, long for” in all five ofits occurrences in the Hebrew Old Testament: Isa. 65:17; Jer. 3:16 (where it cannot mean simply “have a factual knowledge of” ); 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; as well as in the equivalent Greek phrase ἀνέβη ἐπὶτὴνκαρδίανin Acts 7:23 (Grudem 1994:192, n. 5).

​

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

The "heart" in Hebrew expresses the center of one's inner thoughts, volition and knowledge. It does not just express desire or wish. That is why all Hebrew scholars agree with the English rendering "mind" instead of heart when this word comes up in this context.

I don't use this verse to argue against God's omniscience, though I think there are more challenging verses than these and people such as Wayne Grudem speak with far too much certainty on such difficult and mysterious topics. Though Calvinism breads a zealous sort of certainty.

I use it to say that God was not the author of the servants of Baal's decision to burn the children. I do not think that God decreed it in a positive sense to take place.

 

[childeye]

Well the context is Paul drawing on the history of Israel, and uses them as a moral example. Urging them not to become idolaters or sexually immoral.

Exactly. And this is precisely to my point when referencing idolatry. You can't base autonomy upon the existence of imaginary false gods available to choose from.

He concludes this by exhorting them such:

"Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands must watch out lest he fall."
The Lexham English Bible (1 Co 10:12)

And this also is hitting the nail on the head. Everything that is good comes from God. Paul is warning us not to find fault in God's providence and in doing so, being tempted by false gods that lead us to destruction. Free-will blinds the mind, by misconstruing the existence of falsehood as a legitimate choice through which one establishes autonomy, when they should be seeing the devil lying to them promising greener grass.

This isn't a call for absolute dependence on God, but a call to vigilance, that temptation will come and God is faithful and will provide the means of escape.

No offence intended, but this is what I mean by an equivocation. You can't claim that God supplies the way out of temptation, and yet also claim it's not about absolute dependence on God, just because we can say no to God and say yes to the tempter and deceiver. Just because the devil spews forth the option that says I don't have to follow God, doesn't mean my will is autonomous. Even if I were weak enough to decide not to follow God because of the temptation, it doesn't mean I'm autonomous either, it means I'm being manipulated by Satan.

It remains on the believer however to stand firm, and not fall into the same sins of Israelites, who though protected by a faithful God (verses 1-4), still fell into sin (5-10).

I will agree that its is a call for vigilance to stand fast in the faith. I don't agree that this constitutes autonomy. God is faithful and trustworthy, lest we be tempted to think He is undependable, and therefore harbor a desire for independence from Him. They fell into sin because of this idolatry, turning to other gods. Respectfully, I feel we are talking more about degrees of faith here, and not free-will.

The emphasis is on moral responsibility, with the assumption that the believer is morally autonomous and though helped by God, must still remain steadfast.

You have moved on from vigilance to moral responsibility, two different things. Steadfast in what? There is no case to be made for the claim that mankind is morally autonomous or responsible. It's just asserted as such. God is the Spirit of Love, the only thing that makes mankind act morally responsible. So let us be steadfast in believing that, lest we turn from serving God and become abominations. Notice that those who walk in Love don't stumble for lack of vigilance. 1 John 2:10.

Your interpretation simply does not fit the context.

To not acknowledge God as the very source of goodness and wisdom, is to not esteem God as God, but rather to worship the creation over the Creator. Romans 1:25. I think it fits the context. The Israelites did not esteem God as God.

 

[childeye]

The free-will part, is that (light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of the light cause his deeds were evil)

I would respectfully say that we probably aren't defining free-will the same way. Free-will is freedom of action without restraint by fate or divine force. What you seem to be saying here is that men have free-will because they loved darkness. Is it wisdom to imagine a will that loves darkness as being free? I would counter that serving Satan may constitute freedom from God in some minds, but it is yet slavery to sin, which is a condition relative to God. Romans 6:16.

The Word of God is the seed, and the Light is Jesus and those who love darkness hate the light. (choice)

Yes this is true. However, it does not follow that the will that Loves the darkness is free to Love the Light.

Those who produce righteousness soak in the (seed), (have Light) and produce the wheat.

I agree. I feel compelled to put forth this scripture showing that the heart has to be in the right condition for the seed to germinate. Mark 4:8. This means it is not by any man's free-will. John 1:13.

 

[childeye]

Is there anything that isn't an equivocation in your eyes? Your charge me with this several times, yet without demonstrating how it is an equivocation.

In all honesty, I generally find most terms to be equivocations when they are used upon the assumption that men are autonomous apart from God. For example, a free will believer is predictably going to say, "I freely choose to worship God and I am not forced to."... While I would counter that true worship is drawn out by the object of worship. The terms freely, choose, worship, God, and forced, are therefore all become equivocations to me when used this way. As a side note, I would add that some people would be offended, for they would be hearing me say that their worship is insincere. Hence free-will is a form of vanity and pride. Therefore, when I say a term or phrase is an equivocation, I usually mean that it is an ambiguity. It is neither here nor there. For example: I have to be able to disobey God so that I am able to obey God.

Autonomy, is the idea of independence and freedom as it pertains to the person's will, this isn't the end of the way I describe it. As a compatibilist would ascribe a degree of autonomy, I would say that a person's decisions are not 100% determined. Perhaps many decisions they make could not have been made otherwise, as I don't believe decisions are arbitrary. When you get into the science of how our brains work, decision making gets very complicated and making such strong philosophical arguments without an appreciation for the biological is a major weakness in many people's arguments.

Thanks Doulos. This is very comprehensive. I agree with you so long as the compromising of 100% of all decisions being determined is excluding any moral decision. I know we can make voluntary choices, but not in the moral purview. The reason is because God is the Spirit that makes men moral. I believe we have love from the get go and that we are tempted to not obey it/God. It therefore seems unwise to me, to establish autonomy by doing evil. And everywhere I have this conversation, people try to prove we have a free-will by showing in scripture how we can disobey God. It is vanity that always asks why is there evil, and never asks why is there good. Even because we all tend to take God for granted.

Have you ever heard of Peter Tse's theory of Criterial Causation, a concept of Free Will based on neuroscience.

"In order to have a free will in the strong sense, there must be (a) multiple courses of physical or mental behavior open to us, (b) we must really be able to choose among them, (c) we must be or must have been able to have chosen otherwise once we have chosen, and (d) the choice must not be dictated by randomness alone, but by us.

A strong conception of free will is not compatible with either predetermined or random choices because in neither case do we decide which alternative to actualize from among many that might have been selected.

Criterial causation gets around the causa sui argument against both mental causation and free will by having neurons alter the physical grounds, not of present mental events, but of future mental events.

Self-causation only applies to changing the physical basis of making a presentdecision that is realized in or supervenes on that very same physical basis. Self-causation does not apply to changing the physical basis of making a future decision. While there can obviously never be a self-caused event, criteria can be set up in advance, such that when they are met, an action automatically follows; this is an action that we will have willed to take place by virtue of having set up those particular criteria in advance. At the moment those criteria are satisfied at some unknown point in the future, leading to some action or choice, those criteria cannot be changed, but because criteria can be changed in advance, we are free to determine how we will behave within certain limits in the near future. Criterial causation therefore offers a path toward free will where a brain can determine how it will behave given particular types of future input. This can be milliseconds in the future or, in some cases, even years away."
Source: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/tse/

No, I haven't until now. I tend to agree with it. If I'm understanding this correctly, this man is essentially saying he does not believe in the free-will defined in the dictionary. He is describing learning, as a means to autonomy. Since the knowledge of God is the most desirable thing, there cannot be any true autonomy without God. At the foundation of my reasoning is that God is Love. Not just any type of love, but the kind of Love that is displayed upon the cross. It is this image of God that He has sent to believe in and be conformed to. If you were to say a free-will is one that knows the Truth of God, that to me is not an equivocation.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In all honesty, I generally find most terms to be equivocations when they are used upon the assumption that men are autonomous apart from God.

The only assumption here is the one you just made, that people who argue for Free Will only use equivocations. When dealing with a particular view it is best to learn what they actually think, before dismissing it as an equivocation.

For example, a free will believer is predictably going to say, "I freely choose to worship God and I am not forced to."...While I would counter that true worship is drawn out by the object of worship.

Your reasoning is basically this? There is a reason behind a person worshiping therefore it is not a free action? The one who worships, can they choose not to worship?

As a side note, I would add that some people would be offended, for they would be hearing me say that their worship is insincere. Hence free-will is a form of vanity and pride. Therefore, when I say a term or phrase is an equivocation, I usually mean that it is an ambiguity. It is neither here nor there. For example: I have to be able to disobey God so that I am able to obey God.

Free Will is not a form of vanity or pride, pointing towards the greatness of God and having the freedom to do so is highly valuable. It is what makes it genuine, that a person does so without any kind of coercion or manipulation, but because they want to.

Thanks Doulos. This is very comprehensive. I agree with you so long as the compromising of 100% of all decisions being determined is excluding any moral decision. I know we can make voluntary choices, but not in the moral purview. The reason is because God is the Spirit that makes men moral. I believe we have love from the get go and that we are tempted to not obey it/God. It therefore seems unwise to me, to establish autonomy by doing evil. And everywhere I have this conversation, people try to prove we have a free-will by showing in scripture how we can disobey God. It is vanity that always asks why is there evil, and never asks why is there good. Even because we all tend to take God for granted.

You probably haven't read that much Arminius then. Here is one quote on the will as it pertains to morality.

"The free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by grace."

He believes like I do, that in order to come to God and truly do good, one must have the assistance of grace, the difference we then have with Calvinists is whether or not that grace is irresistible.

God is the author of all that is good and glorious, but he is not the author of evil which determinism makes him to be.

No, I haven't until now. I tend to agree with it. If I'm understanding this correctly, this man is essentially saying he does not believe in the free-will defined in the dictionary. He is describing learning, as a means to autonomy.

I don't think you actually agree, his definition fits all of the criteria for Free Will, most importantly the power of contrary choice. His argument is in a sense that actions and behaviors in the past enable one to have a degree of freedom with regards to the choices. In a given scenario by Peter Tse's argument, a person can really have chosen otherwise than they did.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Exactly. And this is precisely to my point when referencing idolatry. You can't base autonomy upon the existence of imaginary false gods available to choose from.

I'm not basing autonomy on this, your statement does not make sense relative to my argument.

And this also is hitting the nail on the head. Everything that is good comes from God. Paul is warning us not to find fault in God's providence and in doing so, being tempted by false gods that lead us to destruction. Free-will blinds the mind, by misconstruing the existence of falsehood as a legitimate choice through which one establishes autonomy, when they should be seeing the devil lying to them promising greener grass.

Paul is not warning them not to find fault in God's providence, he is admonishing them to stand fast and remain vigilant, because even though God was present among the Israelites and sought to protect them, they still fell into sin.

So it is with believers who do not heed their example.

No offence intended, but this is what I mean by an equivocation.

What would am I equivocating on? You need to be specific with charges like this, because this attribution makes no sense to me.

You can't claim that God supplies the way out of temptation, and yet also claim it's not about absolute dependence on God, just because we can say no to God and say yes to the tempter and deceiver.

I'm demonstrating Paul's claims, by exegeting the text. There is nothing wrong with depending on God, but the stress on moral responsibility to trust in God's faithfulness and resist temptation is clearly in this text.

"Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands must watch out lest he fall."
The Lexham English Bible (1 Co 10:12)

Why must he watch out, if he is completely morally dependent and his steadfastness is utterly dependent on God's intervention.

Not to mention the subjective "may" in 1 Corinthians 10:13 which indicates that it is in doubt or unknown whether or not a person will fall into temptation, which assumes a real moral choice is being made. Though of course not without God's involvement.

I will agree that its is a call for vigilance to stand fast in the faith. I don't agree that this constitutes autonomy. God is faithful and trustworthy, lest we be tempted to think He is undependable, and therefore harbor a desire for independence from Him.

Moral autonomy does not equate the idea that a person should be come independent from God, indeed the Arminian view is that one should be totally dependent on God as pertains to doing good. However, we also hold that man is not totally determined his actions morally, and can resist God and choose the bad.

Indeed Scripture uses that kind of description to indicate the kind of moral ability one gets when they become an adult.

"He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good." Isaiah 7:15 (ESV)

You have moved on from vigilance to moral responsibility, two different things.

No I am demonstrating Paul's admonition to the church to be vigilant, indeed that it is their moral responsibility to be.

Steadfast in what?

In faith and in watchfulness of temptation.

There is no case to be made for the claim that mankind is morally autonomous or responsible. It's just asserted as such. God is the Spirit of Love, the only thing that makes mankind act morally responsible.

You're confusing moral responsibility with doing good, moral responsibility is the idea of a person being held truly accountable for their actions. That if they do evil, they are held accountable because they are responsible for their actions.

When it comes to doing good, it becomes more complicated because God is involved in every good action we Christians do, and therefore bring him glory.

To not acknowledge God as the very source of goodness and wisdom, is to not esteem God as God, but rather to worship the creation over the Creator. Romans 1:25. I think it fits the context. The Israelites did not esteem God as God.

In many cases idolatry was the foundation of their sin, and I agree it is a major part of this passage. However, what you are not getting is that the Israelites were morally responsible for their sinful actions, and were held accountable and thusly judged.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Yes this is true. However, it does not follow that the will that Loves the darkness is free to Love the Light.

Ephesians 5:8 for you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

I don't know if we are on the same page? Maybe? Darkness hates the light, but the Light will draw some out of the darkness
The light is there for those who want to be part of the light, they must want it though.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Light will draw "some" to it. Others love the dark.

I hope you don't think I believe there is a wide path to the kingdom. I don't.

 

[Classik]

Tell us what you believe!

The seed has been planted in my heart! I believe that we have free will which in turn is our fate.
Do you believe one way or the other?
I believe in Fate so much so that it comes down to the very moment you wake up everyday to the very moment you go to bed. I believe our whole lives are predestined and everything that happens to us, the good the bad and the ugly, is all a package God wrote in his Book long ago.
"is there anything of which can be said this is new? It has already been here in ancient times before us."

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
Can you come up with bible verses?

I believe it is simply man's decisions that God has written down thousands of years ago, on his ebook, not what he had 'planned'. If God had planned it all (not saying He doesnt plan), why the ISIS, Boko Haran, gay stuff, and all bad things?

bible verse? I set before you: bad, good - choose one - but choose good. reads to me that He has seen our destinations - we should go the right way
unless i misconstrued your intent

 

[childeye]

Ephesians 5:8 for you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

Amen, thanks be to God. By this I mean that I claim no glory in being given sight.

I don't know if we are on the same page? Maybe? Darkness hates the light, but the Light will draw some out of the darkness

Yes, the light draws some. I like the term 'draws'. It is an accurate depiction of what happens. Why some are drawn and some are repulsed is what I feel we are discussing. Scripture gives the answer. It describes the conditions that cause the inevitable effects of the Light and why one person is drawn and another is not. Free-will is not the reason given. They certainly don't each have an equal 50/50 chance of deciding either way.

The light is there for those who want to be part of the light, they must want it though.

Well said. They must want it, they must value it. They don't just decide it is or isn't valuable. They must recognize or realize the Truth of it.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Light will draw "some" to it. Others love the dark.

This is true. Jesus also said this,
John 6:64-66King James Version (KJV)
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father

I hope you don't think I believe there is a wide path to the kingdom. I don't.

It never crossed my mind. I don't even see how it is applicable, by anything you have said.

 

[john darling]

For example: I have to be able to disobey God so that I am able to obey God.

Hi Childeye. I don't think this is an equivocation. I think it makes a lot of practical sense. How could we choose if there were only one option to choose from?

In the garden, Satan did not force them to sin. He reasoned with them, "surely you will not die" (Gen 3:4). Eve even repeated God's instructions back to Satan (Gen 3:3). She understood what she was doing, and Adam too. But in the end they chose to go against what they knew to be right. My personal opinion is that Satan was introduced to the world to give these new creations something NOT to choose. God started simply, with one, single instruction; don't eat this one, particular fruit. Satan was probably hanging around incognito when God gave them this instruction and it's likely God knew it and allowed it; he wanted to see how these new creations would handle their first instruction in a real situation involving a direct confrontation with choice. Manipulate. Encourage. Influence. Whatever words we choose to describe what Satan did, the final choice still rested with the humans themselves.

I'm also of the opinion that God knew they'd fail the test but went through the motions anyway to act as a lesson for future generations to learn from. It was the first step in teaching humanity how to appreciate the amazing gift God had given them (i.e. free will). Over time the instructions became increasingly more specific, highlighting more of human nature through our failures (and successes), which, in turn, became lessons for those who followed after etc... I don't think God wanted people to fail but as creatures with free will we need to at least have the option to fail.

If we have no free will then ultimately there can be no failure and nothing to learn, thus making God's commands etc pointless. Something like, "love your neighbor" becomes a pointless teaching in a situation where we have no understanding of what it means to not love our neighbor. The fact that our choices are limited does not negate that we have freedom to choose from more than at least one option. We cannot choose to become mice. We cannot choose to fly or choose to regrow a missing limb etc. We are not free in that sense. But we can choose to be patient instead of angry. We can choose to be honest instead of deceptive. We can choose to be content instead of greedy. We can choose to say sorry when we are wrong, or we can choose not to.

I'm not sure if you would call these kind of choices equivocations or if you'd define them in some other way than free will but as for me I see these kind of choices (and the entirety of the existance of humans on earth) as only the first step in a huge plan which goes well beyond what we are able to experience right now. I suspect the millenial reign after Jesus' return, where the saints are described as having new bodies and ruling over the nations of the earth will be the next phase as we learn even more about the spiritual mysteries of God with Jesus himself present,and then after that who knows, though I think there will almost certainly be another phase and then another after that. But for this phase, God is working on teaching things like virtue, character, integrity, honesty, compassion etc...all of which become pointless without the ability to choose not to act on them.

Anyway, I've probably gone on long enough. I look forward to your reply.

 

[childeye]

The only assumption here is the one you just made, that people who argue for Free Will only use equivocations. When dealing with a particular view it is best to learn what they actually think, before dismissing it as an equivocation.

Respectfully, I believe you are misunderstanding me. It's not that I don't understand what people who believe in freewill think when they say the words that I view as equivocations. They certainly aren't equivocations in their minds, and their intentions are clearly received. I'm saying that these terms become equivocations in my mind because I don't believe in freewill. The fact that I testify that true worship is drawn out by the object of worship is what makes these words equivocations.

Your reasoning is basically this? There is a reason behind a person worshiping therefore it is not a free action?

Yes exactly. But not only that, the very reason for worshipping God is realized in this world, through the absence of Him in very real and personal experiences. The horrors and atrocities that men unleash upon one another. Cruelty and the absence of any decency. The perverting of empathy into the pleasure of watching others suffer, because it is not you. To depict these realities as evidence of men's free wills, rather than evidence of the absence of what makes a man wholesome, erases the very source of true worship necessary to correct the cause of sin. The Glory of God is not a prerogative for man.

The one who worships, can they choose not to worship?

He/she who worships God in Truth, cannot choose to not worship God. You of course must know this if you truly worship God. It is the understanding of Who God the Creator is, in relation to the creature that doesn't allow it. Because it is irrational. Hence freewill is a foundational lie, born of ignorance of What and Who God is.

Free Will is not a form of vanity or pride, pointing towards the greatness of God and having the freedom to do so is highly valuable. It is what makes it genuine, that a person does so without any kind of coercion or manipulation, but because they want to.

But you speak only of the good half of freewill and omit the evil half. That is equivocating. But what is the rationale for rebellion if it is to be omitted from the above statements? Is not genuine rebellion justified on the same basis of freewill reasoning that justifies genuine worship?

Surely God doesn't want to coerce someone into worshipping Him, since that would not be true worship. He really doesn't need to coerce anyone since He is the only True God. He is the only source of food for the soul. But God can't help that. In that respect there is no actual alternative to God. Therefore the problem with man is that he finds fault with God when in fact there isn't any. I think the prodigal son is the perfect analogy. Was not the prodigal son unthankful and vain when He left his Fathers house? Was he not contrite when he returned? This is in fact how things work out.

Coercion, manipulation? Those are subjective terms in the moral purview. Why? Because there is only one God Who created us, and He is Love, the highest valued virtue. It is therefore irrational to propose that freewill must exist, lest one be coerced or manipulated into trusting our beloved Maker. Nor is any thought given whether mankind was deceived into not trusting God, which is a form of manipulation.

You probably haven't read that much Arminius then. Here is one quote on the will as it pertains to morality.

"The free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by grace."

He believes like I do, that in order to come to God and truly do good, one must have the assistance of grace, the difference we then have with Calvinists is whether or not that grace is irresistible.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the information. It is most appropriate. I think a definition of grace by Arminius would be helpful.

God is the author of all that is good and glorious, but he is not the author of evil which determinism makes him to be.

This reasoning can only exist if someone must be blamed for evil. I believe it is possible that no one is to blame unless we blame. I believe in a no blame scenario. Matthew 7:1-2.

I don't think you actually agree, his definition fits all of the criteria for Free Will, most importantly the power of contrary choice. His argument is in a sense that actions and behaviors in the past enable one to have a degree of freedom with regards to the choices. In a given scenario by Peter Tse's argument, a person can really have chosen otherwise than they did.

I think his argument is sound considering that I haven't heard what types of decisions he is referring to. It still sounds as if it is based upon learning, which is sort of moving the goal posts. Of course the scenario wherein one is able to choose between one's flesh and God is probably not going to be studied by scientists. Nor would I expect him to have any algorithm to account for Satan's devices. As such it remains to be seen if it fits the criteria for power of contrary choice as pertains to morality.[/QUOTE]

 

[john darling]

"He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good." Isaiah 7:15 (ESV)

Fantastic reference!

 

[childeye]

Hi Childeye. I don't think this is an equivocation. I think it makes a lot of practical sense. How could we choose if there were only one option to choose from?

In the garden, Satan did not force them to sin. He reasoned with them, "surely you will not die" (Gen 3:4). Eve even repeated God's instructions back to Satan (Gen 3:3). She understood what she was doing, and Adam too. But in the end they chose to go against what they knew to be right. My personal opinion is that Satan was introduced to the world to give these new creations something NOT to choose. God started simply, with one, single instruction; don't eat this one, particular fruit. Satan was probably hanging around incognito when God gave them this instruction and it's likely God knew it and allowed it; he wanted to see how these new creations would handle their first instruction in a real situation involving a direct confrontation with choice. Manipulate. Encourage. Influence. Whatever words we choose to describe what Satan did, the final choice still rested with the humans themselves.

I'm also of the opinion that God knew they'd fail the test but went through the motions anyway to act as a lesson for future generations to learn from. It was the first step in teaching humanity how to appreciate the amazing gift God had given them (i.e. free will). Over time the instructions became increasingly more specific, highlighting more of human nature through our failures (and successes), which, in turn, became lessons for those who followed after etc... I don't think God wanted people to fail but as creatures with free will we need to at least have the option to fail.

If we have no free will then ultimately there can be no failure and nothing to learn, thus making God's commands etc pointless. Something like, "love your neighbor" becomes a pointless teaching in a situation where we have no understanding of what it means to not love our neighbor. The fact that our choices are limited does not negate that we have freedom to choose from more than at least one option. We cannot choose to become mice. We cannot choose to fly or choose to regrow a missing limb etc. We are not free in that sense. But we can choose to be patient instead of angry. We can choose to be honest instead of deceptive. We can choose to be content instead of greedy. We can choose to say sorry when we are wrong, or we can choose not to.

I'm not sure if you would call these kind of choices equivocations or if you'd define them in some other way than free will but as for me I see these kind of choices (and the entirety of the existance of humans on earth) as only the first step in a huge plan which goes well beyond what we are able to experience right now. I suspect the millenial reign after Jesus' return, where the saints are described as having new bodies and ruling over the nations of the earth will be the next phase as we learn even more about the spiritual mysteries of God with Jesus himself present,and then after that who knows, though I think there will almost certainly be another phase and then another after that. But for this phase, God is working on teaching things like virtue, character, integrity, honesty, compassion etc...all of which become pointless without the ability to choose not to act on them.

Anyway, I've probably gone on long enough. I look forward to your reply.

Hello John Darling.

You open with this statement and build upon that. So I will address this statement.
How could we choose if there were only one option to choose from? In the moral purview, this really is not the issue, but I will say this. There is only One God and no alternatives. But freewill is not about having alternatives lest we base freedom of will on the existence of sin. For God came first and sin is relative to God but God is not relative to sin. For the Truth doesn't need lies to exist. But lies usurp from the Truth so that they cannot exist without Truth. Hence a person can obey God without ever having to disobey God. In my view, your post is more speaking about vanity as in Romans 8:20, or about the process of learning such as in the prodigal son. It really isn't about a moral freewill.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Respectfully, I believe you are misunderstanding me. It's not that I don't understand what people who believe in freewill think when they say the words that I view as equivocations. They certainly aren't equivocations in their minds, and their intentions are clearly received. I'm saying that these terms become equivocations in my mind because I don't believe in freewill. The fact that I testify that true worship is drawn out by the object of worship is what makes these words equivocations.



Yes exactly. But not only that, the very reason for worshipping God is realized in this world, through the absence of Him in very real and personal experiences. The horrors and atrocities that men unleash upon one another. Cruelty and the absence of any decency. The perverting of empathy into the pleasure of watching others suffer, because it is not you. To depict these realities as evidence of men's free wills, rather than evidence of the absence of what makes a man wholesome, erases the very source of true worship necessary to correct the cause of sin. The Glory of God is not a prerogative for man.

He/she who worships God in Truth, cannot choose to not worship God. You of course must know this if you truly worship God. It is the understanding of Who God the Creator is, in relation to the creature that doesn't allow it. Because it is irrational. Hence freewill is a foundational lie, born of ignorance of What and Who God is.

But you speak only of the good half of freewill and omit the evil half. That is equivocating. But what is the rationale for rebellion if it is to be omitted from the above statements? Is not genuine rebellion justified on the same basis of freewill reasoning that justifies genuine worship?

Surely God doesn't want to coerce someone into worshipping Him, since that would not be true worship. He really doesn't need to coerce anyone since He is the only True God. He is the only source of food for the soul. But God can't help that. In that respect there is no actual alternative to God. Therefore the problem with man is that he finds fault with God when in fact there isn't any. I think the prodigal son is the perfect analogy. Was not the prodigal son unthankful and vain when He left his Fathers house? Was he not contrite when he returned? This is in fact how things work out.

Coercion, manipulation? Those are subjective terms in the moral purview. Why? Because there is only one God Who created us, and He is Love, the highest valued virtue. It is therefore irrational to propose that freewill must exist, lest one be coerced or manipulated into trusting our beloved Maker. Nor is any thought given whether mankind was deceived into not trusting God, which is a form of manipulation.



Ah, I see. Thanks for the information. It is most appropriate. I think a definition of grace by Arminius would be helpful.


This reasoning can only exist if someone must be blamed for evil. I believe it is possible that no one is to blame unless we blame. I believe in a no blame scenario. Matthew 7:1-2.


I think his argument is sound considering that I haven't heard what types of decisions he is referring to. It still sounds as if it is based upon learning, which is sort of moving the goal posts. Of course the scenario wherein one is able to choose between one's flesh and God is probably not going to be studied by scientists. Nor would I expect him to have any algorithm to account for Satan's devices. As such it remains to be seen if it fits the criteria for power of contrary choice as pertains to morality.

[/QUOTE]
We are kinda going in circles.

What is your view on predestination and divine determinism? I have trouble identifying what it is you believe.

 

[childeye]

I'm not basing autonomy on this, your statement does not make sense relative to my argument.

Okay. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you. I saw you use the word idolatry and sexual immorality, so I thought you were referring to the Israelites being able to choose to worship false gods and sin as a means to show autonomy.

Paul is not warning them not to find fault in God's providence, he is admonishing them to stand fast and remain vigilant, because even though God was present among the Israelites and sought to protect them, they still fell into sin.

They murmured that they would die in the desert. That's finding fault in God's providence.

Exodus 17:7 they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?
Is it Pauls' lesson that we can choose to be good or evil?

That's not the lesson I take from it. I think lusts are imaginary. I think false gods are imaginary. I think greener grass over there is imaginary. In my view, these people that fell have one thing in common, they were carnally motivated. This is why I say that they have no faith in God's providence. How else do they murmur and tempt God? Anyone who is thankful for their escape from bondage doesn't want to go back.

As Jesus wept over Jerusalem He too wanted to protect them, like a Mother hen would guard her chicks with her wings, but they wouldn't have it. Now I ask you. Is the lesson that they have a freewill?

So it is with believers who do not heed their example.

So without freewill we can't be vigilant? That makes no sense to me. You do know that a freewill choice is voluntary, right? This vigilance you speak of, and which I don't disagree with, is a necessity as is all of God's commandments. Being vigilant by necessity is not voluntary.

What would am I equivocating on? You need to be specific with charges like this, because this attribution makes no sense to me.

I did explain, or at least tried to. In the same sentence you say God provides the escape but it's not about absolute dependence upon God. Maybe we're talking past each other here. I wish we could talk face to face. I believe your point is we are responsible to take the way out when provided a way out. My point is without God there is no way out. Moreover God doesn't allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to withstand. What that means exactly I'm not even sure. But I don't see anything voluntary about being a sinner, nor being put in a situation where one is tempted against their will.

I'm demonstrating Paul's claims, by exegeting the text. There is nothing wrong with depending on God, but the stress on moral responsibility to trust in God's faithfulness and resist temptation is clearly in this text.

I wouldn't argue that, even because you don't use the term freewill. In other words the stress on moral responsibility is not to be equated with a voluntary action. It is a requirement that if left unattended leads to more work than necessary, as in a solemn duty for the sake of everyone involved. It amounts to how much you care about the consequences of your actions, your ability to forgive and persevering in Love.

"Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands must watch out lest he fall."
The Lexham English Bible (1 Co 10:12)

Why must he watch out, if he is completely morally dependent and his steadfastness is utterly dependent on God's intervention.

We're arguing semantics here. I could just say it means don't think too highly of ourselves and our abilities, while your saying it means it's up to us.

Not to mention the subjective "may" in 1 Corinthians 10:13 which indicates that it is in doubt or unknown whether or not a person will fall into temptation, which assumes a real moral choice is being made. Though of course not without God's involvement.

Certainly God is involved since all temptations are contrary to His will. Certainly a moral choice is happening. But again, we don't volunteer to be tempted. Is there not a devil?

 

[childeye]

Moral autonomy does not equate the idea that a person should be come independent from God, indeed the Arminian view is that one should be totally dependent on God as pertains to doing good. However, we also hold that man is not totally determined his actions morally, and can resist God and choose the bad.

Yes but that sounds like resisting God is an ability rather than a disability. Mark 2:17. 2 Corinthians 12:9.

Indeed Scripture uses that kind of description to indicate the kind of moral ability one gets when they become an adult.

"He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good." Isaiah 7:15 (ESV)

Yes, I believe this is somewhat out of context. You do know this is about the Messiah? Also this is not the KJV which says 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. However, I agree that there is an age when people become accountable. Just as a puppy must someday learn not to pee in the house.

No I am demonstrating Paul's admonition to the church to be vigilant, indeed that it is their moral responsibility to be.

We're talking about mankind as a whole when speaking about freewill right? I mean without the Truth men are slaves to sin.

You're confusing moral responsibility with doing good, moral responsibility is the idea of a person being held truly accountable for their actions. That if they do evil, they are held accountable because they are responsible for their actions.

This is where I have a real problem with freewill. It becomes an avenue for blame and condemnation. So exactly how do you intercede for others while you blame them for what they do? Did not the Pharisees do the same? John 8:7. Romans 2:1.
Have you considered that God holds us accountable according to the measure we hold others accountable? Matthew 7:2.

When it comes to doing good, it becomes more complicated because God is involved in every good action we Christians do, and therefore bring him glory.

Doulos, I'm sorry, but I feel you need to ask yourself why Jesus said, forgive them because they know not what they do. You need to ask why Jesus says the sick need a doctor since you hold sinners responsible for their sin.
You need to ask how it is that those forgiven much Love much, and those forgiven little love little. Because these don't fit in this freewill theology.

In many cases idolatry was the foundation of their sin, and I agree it is a major part of this passage. However, what you are not getting is that the Israelites were morally responsible for their sinful actions, and were held accountable and thusly judged.

I used to think like this. Now I realize that the Exodus out of Egypt is about the escape from the bondage of the law which is the strength of sin. I am no better than the least of these Israelites and I must find my hope in the mercy of God, which I see in the ways of the Christ, and not in any freewill ability to obey God, since all I can do is resist Him. Through this belief and the humility and contriteness that accompanies it, I have forsaken any confidence in my own ability to walk a straight path. In doing so, I find that I am unable to judge others after the flesh since I am only condemning myself. Before, my conscience was unclean and now it is clean so long as I forgive all others. My life cleaned up and all temptation became irrelevant. There is no joy or satisfaction anymore in the sinful things I used to do. I live more vicariously through others, hence tribulations are more comforting then any carnal comfort.

I will tell you that all sin comes from a false image of god. He's not a tyrant which inspires rebellion. His Love for us is not according to how well we perform. His Love is unconditional, and I want to be just like Him.

 

[childeye]

We are kinda going in circles.

Forgive me in that I feel compelled to confess with all forthrightness, my sincere disappointment that you have not responded to this particular post in any meaningful way. In my view, our conversation had progressed to a pinnacle, where the Truth of the subject matter was being made clear and the source of our differences being realized.

I am referring to the issue of my contention that True worship is drawn out by the object of worship and not volunteered by the worshipper. If you truly want to know why I say freewill is an equivocation, and why most of what you say is built upon an equivocation, this was my best and clearest explanation so far, as to why certain terms become ambiguities. Not just the term worship, but also freely, choose, forced, and most importantly the term God.

If only I could hear you say, that you understand and can empathize with why I say each word becomes an equivocation, I would feel the discussion was worth the trouble. For I feel I understand and empathize with your present freewill doctrine, but I don't think you are able to reciprocate. At least then you could explore the implications of each line of reasoning and compare and discern the spirits that dwell within a person according to each belief. Then you could actually choose which image of God/god you are believing in.

This to me is a circular reasoning: Why do people do evil? Because they can. This in a nutshell is freewill theology.

 

[childeye]

In the garden, Satan did not force them to sin. He reasoned with them, "surely you will not die" (Gen 3:4). Eve even repeated God's instructions back to Satan (Gen 3:3). She understood what she was doing, and Adam too. But in the end they chose to go against what they knew to be right.

The term force is a subjective term. Satan's devices work through subtlety, wherein it is not feasible to say Adam and Eve knew what they were doing regardless of their knowing what God said. Even because Satan's words are built upon a false pretense that is unknowable and unseen to Adam and Eve. In essence Satan has erected a false image of god that he presents, which causes one to question God's motives for making the fruit forbidden, and forms a spirit of rebellion that before was unbeknownst to Mankind. And it is convincing because it is suggestive against Adam and Eve's naiveté.

An example of this is my grandchildren. For this is the character of my grandchildren in how they desire the toy the other one has even though it doesn't matter what the toy is. It is a form of jealousy that is manifested out of imagining they are missing out on something, when in reality they aren't missing out on anything. Hence they are impossible to please. From there I believe we can see some aspect of what is the good that was corrupted in mankind. It is kind of like Eve and her desire for something, that before Satan spoke, she had no desire for.

I am trying to establish first and foremost that Satan manipulated Eve so that I don't have to argue any points that Eve would have eaten it all by herself without Satan. Why is that important? So that we can discuss what Paul means by this, 2 Corinthians 11:3 . Yet you seem to be saying that Eve knew what was right, which is like saying Satan had no impact, which makes 2 Corinthians 11:3 pointless.

My grandchildren display this jealousy, yet they don't even know what jealousy is or how it forms. Somewhere in their mind they're being told that they are missing out, and they're believing it. Is it wisdom to think Adam and Eve could have done what they knew was right, when we all have done the same thing? I Know I didn't choose to be deceived, so I don't think anyone else does either. Perhaps God has allowed us all to experience these same type of events so that we don't find reason to blame but to learn and find reason to forgive.