Free will or no free will?

[jgredline]

Do you know Jesus? Do you know God? .

I find your statements with no credibility for you do not even acknowledge Jesus as God...What would you know of Love, grace and mercy :-? Those are attributes of the HS who you also do not believe to be God.. :-?

 

[Guest]

Again freewill? I don't recall this ever being an issue until only recently when men began to exhalt themselves. No Apostle wrote anything about freewill. It never came up. You know why? I'll tell you. No one can force a fig tree to bear figs. A fig tree doesn't choose its fruit. You exist for God's purpose. You don't argue with God. There are some of you who did choose God. However, if it was by choice, then it wasn't by grace. You usurp the power of the gospel when you say you chose God. Quite arrogant. All your explanations about God wanting you to love him according to your freewill - You who are evil? What arrogance! Even Jesus didn't say that. If you have to decide to love God, then what kind of love is it? Do you know Jesus? Do you know God? If you did, then you would love God. I don't know; how many of you decided to love your parents? And why? Did you make a conscious decision? What about seeking the kingdom? Love comes from God. Listen to God. He loves those who listen to him. Keep his words. That's what he wants; righteousness.

MarkT - you say that we are to "Listen to God. He loves those who listen to him. Keep his words. That's what he wants."

Does that not imply that one can choose NOT to "listen to God".

 

[dancing queen]

Mark T - I don't like the implication above that you say if you believe you chose God then you were not saved by grace.

I completly disagree, Grace means I could not save myself and I didn't deserve to be saved. Someone could sit down and say, "I'm going to save myself, I'm going to get into Heaven, decision made". But that wouldn't actually achieve their objective. When I repented and turned to Christ, it was God's grace that saved me, I just chose to turn aside to Him.

I didn't earn my place in Heaven, I don't deserve it, but I did chose to let God save me, if you get what I mean - tis hard to explain.

I don't look back at my choice and say, well done, good decision, your brilliant. Instead I thank God that He saved me when I didn't even deserve it.

What say you?

 

[Heidi]

Mark T - I don't like the implication above that you say if you believe you chose God then you were not saved by grace.

I completly disagree, Grace means I could not save myself and I didn't deserve to be saved. Someone could sit down and say, "I'm going to save myself, I'm going to get into Heaven, decision made". But that wouldn't actually achieve their objective. When I repented and turned to Christ, it was God's grace that saved me, I just chose to turn aside to Him.

I didn't earn my place in Heaven, I don't deserve it, but I did chose to let God save me, if you get what I mean - tis hard to explain.

I don't look back at my choice and say, well done, good decision, your brilliant. Instead I thank God that He saved me when I didn't even deserve it.

What say you?

Ezekiel 36:25-27,

"I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

Since none of uf is more powerful than the Holy Spirit is, then we do not have the power to resist His will. So since the bible does not contradict itself, then whenever God tells us to obey him, follow him, have a new heart, etc. he is always talking about what God is doing for us not what man is doing for himself by his own free will. That again is a secular belief that comes from the sin of pride. A heart of stone cannot please or accept God and only God can change a heart of stone into a new heart of flesh.

So I will not argue with the bible or respond to posts who personally attack me, my witnessing style, my emotional tone (which is impossible to discern online), etc. I could just as easily avoid discussing topics and criticize a poster's witnessing style, emotional tone, etc. But I have no desire to make this a personal flame fest to avoid discussing issues and I will stay here as long as others give me the same courtesy. We are here to discuss the bible, not personally attack each other.

 

[Guest]

Ezekiel 36:25-27,

"I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

Since none of uf is more powerful than the Holy Spirit is, then we do not have the power to resist His will. So since the bible does not contradict itself, then whenever God tells us to obey him, follow him, have a new heart, etc. he is always talking about what God is doing for us not what man is doing for himself by his own free will. That again is a secular belief that comes from the sin of pride. A heart of stone cannot please or accept God and only God can change a heart of stone into a new heart of flesh.

So I will not argue with the bible or respond to posts who personally attack me, my witnessing style, my emotional tone (which is impossible to discern online), etc. I could just as easily avoid discussing topics and criticize a poster's witnessing style, emotional tone, etc. But I have no desire to make this a personal flame fest to avoid discussing issues and I will stay here as long as others give me the same courtesy. We are here to discuss the bible, not personally attack each other.

Heidi - the verses you quoted are from a larger context. God did those things, not for Israel's sake, but for HIS sake.

Reading in context, it is clear that Israel choose to DISOBEY God. They defiled the name of God, and as such God needed to CLEANSE Israel, to CLEANSE HIS name.

Or are you suggesting that God ordained Israel to defile His own name, so He could then cleanse it?

Heidi - you excuse away Human Responsibility. Therefore, I cannot be responsible for my actions. My sin was ordained by God - therefore, it is not I who should be responsibile for it - because God ordained it.

Do you not see the danger in making it an either/or and not a both/and.

GOD is SOVEIRGN and MAN has RESPONSIBILITY.

Please take time to read the differences in the statement. They are not equal/opposites.

I am not saying that man IS responsible, but that man HAS RESPONSIBILITY. There is a difference.

 

[jgredline]

Heidi - the verses you quoted are from a larger context. God did those things, not for Israel's sake, but for HIS sake.

Reading in context, it is clear that Israel choose to DISOBEY God. They defiled the name of God, and as such God needed to CLEANSE Israel, to CLEANSE HIS name.

Or are you suggesting that God ordained Israel to defile His own name, so He could then cleanse it?

Heidi - you excuse away Human Responsibility. Therefore, I cannot be responsible for my actions. My sin was ordained by God - therefore, it is not I who should be responsibile for it - because God ordained it.

Do you not see the danger in making it an either/or and not a both/and.

GOD is SOVEIRGN and MAN has RESPONSIBILITY.

Please take time to read the differences in the statement. They are not equal/opposites.

I am not saying that man IS responsible, but that man HAS RESPONSIBILITY. There is a difference.

Good post !!!!

 

[jgredline]

Mark T - I don't like the implication above that you say if you believe you chose God then you were not saved by grace.

I completly disagree, Grace means I could not save myself and I didn't deserve to be saved. Someone could sit down and say, "I'm going to save myself, I'm going to get into Heaven, decision made". But that wouldn't actually achieve their objective. When I repented and turned to Christ, it was God's grace that saved me, I just chose to turn aside to Him.

I didn't earn my place in Heaven, I don't deserve it, but I did chose to let God save me, if you get what I mean - tis hard to explain.

I don't look back at my choice and say, well done, good decision, your brilliant. Instead I thank God that He saved me when I didn't even deserve it.

What say you?

Dancing queen..
Pay no attention to this...Mark does not even believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit is God and there is no trinity...according to him....

i have read enough of ''your'' post to know that you have good sound theology and are indeed a child of the one true living God....

 

[mondar]

One of the problems is the defination of "free will." Human beings have the attribute of will. We can make decisions. But this ability has nothing to do with the subject of "free will." The fact that we can make decisions prooves nothing and is irrevelant. We all make choices.

The subject of free will is closely tied to the subject of faith. Yet, even though a person has faith does not answer the question of "free will." We chose God, but that is not the question of "free will."

The question of "free will" is who chose first. If God chose us, and gave us faith, then there is no true "free will." If God's choice of the elect is merely his response to the elect choosing him, then there is "free will."

I think there are positions that attempt to strike a middle ground. Westlians see our choice of God as in some way assisted by God. God is then at least partially responsible for our decision of faith, and at least gets part of the glory for our faith.

Of course some believe that God's sovereign choice is the source of faith. So then a person chooses God, because God first chose us. Unfortunately there is no glory for man in such a view. Then even our faith has its source completely in God.

It would be great to go before God in heaven and be able to boast, "at least I made a better decision that some unbeliever next to me." I could then smile and be proud of myself for that decision.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi - the verses you quoted are from a larger context. God did those things, not for Israel's sake, but for HIS sake.

Reading in context, it is clear that Israel choose to DISOBEY God. They defiled the name of God, and as such God needed to CLEANSE Israel, to CLEANSE HIS name.

Or are you suggesting that God ordained Israel to defile His own name, so He could then cleanse it?

Heidi - you excuse away Human Responsibility. Therefore, I cannot be responsible for my actions. My sin was ordained by God - therefore, it is not I who should be responsibile for it - because God ordained it.

Do you not see the danger in making it an either/or and not a both/and.

GOD is SOVEIRGN and MAN has RESPONSIBILITY.

Please take time to read the differences in the statement. They are not equal/opposites.

I am not saying that man IS responsible, but that man HAS RESPONSIBILITY. There is a difference.

And how can a heart of stone choose God? :o Romans 8:8 says it cannot. If it could, then why would God need to clean our hearts at all? Why don't we do it by ourselves and leave God out of it? Then we wouldn't need him for a thing, would we? ;-)

But the bible says that we do need God and so does John 14:10, Philippians 2:13, 1 John 4:4, Romans 7:13-25 and many more verses. So I'll stick with the bible.

 

[Guest]

And how can a heart of stone choose God? :o Romans 8:8 says it cannot. If it could, then why would God need to clean our hearts at all? Why don't we do it by ourselves and leave God out of it? Then we wouldn't need him for a thing, would we? ;-)

But the bible says that we do need God and so does John 14:10, Philippians 2:13, 1 John 4:4, Romans 7:13-25 and many more verses. So I'll stick with the bible.

Again Heidi - you are trying to make this an EITHER/OR. Where did I say that a 'heart of stone' can choose God? Where did I say that we did not need God to cleanse our hearts?

I will make this easy for you - I NEVER said those things.

Rather, what I have said and will continue to say is that God cleanses our hearts and then we are faced with a responsibility to follow God or NOT follow God.

I would appreciate a dialogue Heidi. Would you be willing to actually address the issues that I raised in my previous and this post?

If we, as humans, do not have any responsibility (which is the position that you are taking) - then how can I be held GUILTY for my sins? I didn't choose to sin - rather God ordained it! Therefore, I have been absolved of my sin. Thanks Heidi, you are basically telling me it is okay to sin, because I am not choosing too - it has been ordained for me too!

Wow! I never knew God WANTED me to live in sin!.

 

[dancing queen]

Zechariah 7

11 "But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry.

Doesn't this verse imply a choice?

 

[Drew]

Its too bad that Bubba has left us. He certainly was a pleasant poster - not inclined to use rhetoric or bullying techniques. Its too bad that some questions for Him have been left unanswered. I am not suggesting he "ran away" from the hard questions - however the hard questions do indeed remain.

Once more on the notion that the members of an elect are selected without reference to anything at all "about" the person elected. I have maintained that this amounts to "random election" and I suggest that this argument has gone unrefuted. It is simply incoherent to claim that God elects based on "his good pleasure" in a manner that it is entirely agnostic to the properties of the person elected - either their "internal" properties (e.g. a nice person) or their "situational / relational" properties (e.g. the place the person was born or who they will meet).

Here is another way of showing that truly unconditional election really amounts to random election. I will assume the truth of unconditional election and see where it leads:

1. God elects Fred according to "His good pleasure" without reference to anything about Fred.

2. God does not elect Joe with this decision also made without reference to anything about Joe.

3. But since God's election of Fred, to serve His (God's) good pleasure has nothing to do with anything that differentiates Fred from Joe, then God's good pleasure would have been equally well met if Joe had been elected and Fred passed over. Why? Obviously because the achievement of God's good pleasure is independent of Fred's or Joe's characteristics. So electing either one would achieve the same "good pleasure" - it has to - by the very nature of the assertion that God elects unconditionally.

4. Therefore election must be random.

 

[Guest]

Its too bad that Bubba has left us. He certainly was a pleasant poster - not inclined to use rhetoric or bullying techniques. Its too bad that some questions for Him have been left unanswered. I am not suggesting he "ran away" from the hard questions - however the hard questions do indeed remain.

Once more on the notion that the members of an elect are selected without reference to anything at all "about" the person elected. I have maintained that this amounts to "random election" and I suggest that this argument has gone unrefuted. It is simply incoherent to claim that God elects based on "his good pleasure" in a manner that it is entirely agnostic to the properties of the person elected - either their "internal" properties (e.g. a nice person) or their "situational / relational" properties (e.g. the place the person was born or who they will meet).

Here is another way of showing that truly unconditional election really amounts to random election. I will assume the truth of unconditional election and see where it leads:

1. God elects Fred according to "His good pleasure" without reference to anything about Fred.

2. God does not elect Joe with this decision also made without reference to anything about Joe.

3. But since God's election of Fred, to serve His (God's) good pleasure has nothing to do with anything that differentiates Fred from Joe, then God's good pleasure would have been equally well met if Joe had been elected and Fred passed over. Why? Obviously because the achievement of God's good pleasure is independent of Fred's or Joe's characteristics. So electing either one would achieve the same "good pleasure" - it has to - by the very nature of the assertion that God elects unconditionally.

4. Therefore election must be random.

Drew - at times I enjoy reading your posts - but lately it appears to me that you believe your logic to be superior to others. You are always suggesting that your arugements go unrefuted, etc etc. Let's be completely honest - it is not that they go unrefuted, it is just that you disagree.

I am sorry to say Drew, but you have not been put in authority to judge truth. God is the author and sustainer of truth. It is only when one has been filled with the Holy Spirit that one recognizes the truth of God.

I would also suggest that we are not meant to fully comprehend all things about God. Nor should we. I do not know the inner-workings of an automobile to know that I need to put the key in and turn. And yes, when the vehicle breaks down - I take it to someone who does know the innerworkings to fix it.

But who here is worthy and has the ability to suggest that what God has designed is broken and needs to be fixed?

When I go into my childrens room at night and give them a kiss goodnight, just because I give it to my daughter first one night, doesn't mean that I love my son any less because he get's his second. In other words - God's choice does not need to imply a non-choice.

I believe that God has elected those to receive salvation. Who are the elect? Those who believe. Who are those that believe? Those whom God has revealed himself to and have responded with belief.

 

[Drew]

Drew - at times I enjoy reading your posts - but lately it appears to me that you believe your logic to be superior to others. You are always suggesting that your arugements go unrefuted, etc etc. Let's be completely honest - it is not that they go unrefuted, it is just that you disagree.

Please provide any post from any thread where my argument has even been addressed in a way that actually addresses its content.

I have shown that I will admit that I am wrong - check out my post of earlier today in the "were these accidents" thread. I think that the truth is that I have admitted being wrong more than the majority of posters here. I can point you to a number of other posts where I have admitted error. So please, do not imply that I set myself up as an authority. My track record of admitting mistakes proves otherwise. If you can provide one example of where I have denied the force of a quality argument, please do so.

I am sorry to say Drew, but you have not been put in authority to judge truth.

I want readers to consider the content of my arguments and not to consider me as an authority. The ideas and arguments are their own spokesmen and I ask that people judge them, not me.

I would also suggest that we are not meant to fully comprehend all things about God. Nor should we.

True, but there is an important distinction between accepting mystery (on the one hand) and believing things that are self-contradictory on the other. When we start to accept non-sensical ideas, we get nowhere. Such ideas have no traction - they get us nowhere and are of no utility to us.

 

[Heidi]

Again Heidi - you are trying to make this an EITHER/OR. Where did I say that a 'heart of stone' can choose God? Where did I say that we did not need God to cleanse our hearts?

I will make this easy for you - I NEVER said those things.

Rather, what I have said and will continue to say is that God cleanses our hearts and then we are faced with a responsibility to follow God or NOT follow God.

I would appreciate a dialogue Heidi. Would you be willing to actually address the issues that I raised in my previous and this post?

If we, as humans, do not have any responsibility (which is the position that you are taking) - then how can I be held GUILTY for my sins? I didn't choose to sin - rather God ordained it! Therefore, I have been absolved of my sin. Thanks Heidi, you are basically telling me it is okay to sin, because I am not choosing too - it has been ordained for me too!

Wow! I never knew God WANTED me to live in sin!.

And what you don't understand is that once someone heals you of blindness you cannot be blind again. So no, it's not the human will that is following God, it's the Holy Spirit that compels one to follow God which Ezekeil 36:27 says, " I will move you to follow my decrees and obey my laws." And that is not a lie. And neither is Phillippians 2:13, "For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purposes." Your claim that we have a choice about that is claiming that the human will is stronger than God's power which another false claim.

So claiming that a person can counter God's power is not only impossible but unbilical.

 

[Guest]

And what you don't understand is that once someone heals you of blindness you cannot be blind again. So no, it's not the human will that is following God, it's the Holy Spirit that compels one to follow God which Ezekeil 36:27 says, " I will move you to follow my decrees and obey my laws." And that is not a lie. And neither is Phillippians 2:13, "For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purposes." Your claim that we have a choice about that is claiming that the human will is stronger than God's power which another false claim.

So claiming that a person can counter God's power is not only impossible but unbilical.

Heidi - you are taking verses out of context and misapplying them. You need to understand WHO the verse is speaking too - a believer or a non-believer.

The Bible was primarily written FOR the born again believer. It contains truth so that when an unbeliever reads it the Holy Spirit will convict them of their sin and they are left with a decision. Again - I AM NOT saying that human will is more powerful than God's will! Philippians is addressing the BELIEVER, not an unbeliever.

Did God compel you to sit in front of the computer? Did He dictate to you the words you wrote?

And yes, I will agree and have experienced times when God has prompted me to write certain things. However, I am left with the responsibility of actually typing them!

If I do not type them, it is not to say that my will was more powerful than God's - rather that God left me to my own devices. At let me tell you, it sucks MORE when He does that - He allows me to make my own bad choices so that I realize that HIS choices are BETTER! But at no-time can I accuse Him of predestining me to make bad choices.

Again Heidi, I bring you back to Acts 2 where Peter says that God is Soveirgn and Man has a responsibility. This is Biblical - not a false claim.

 

[jgredline]

Heidi - you are taking verses out of context and misapplying them. You need to understand WHO the verse is speaking too - a believer or a non-believer.

The Bible was primarily written FOR the born again believer. It contains truth so that when an unbeliever reads it the Holy Spirit will convict them of their sin and they are left with a decision. Again - I AM NOT saying that human will is more powerful than God's will! Philippians is addressing the BELIEVER, not an unbeliever.

Did God compel you to sit in front of the computer? Did He dictate to you the words you wrote?

And yes, I will agree and have experienced times when God has prompted me to write certain things. However, I am left with the responsibility of actually typing them!

If I do not type them, it is not to say that my will was more powerful than God's - rather that God left me to my own devices. At let me tell you, it sucks MORE when He does that - He allows me to make my own bad choices so that I realize that HIS choices are BETTER! But at no-time can I accuse Him of predestining me to make bad choices.

Again Heidi, I bring you back to Acts 2 where Peter says that God is Soveirgn and Man has a responsibility. This is Biblical - not a false claim.

Great post !!

 

[MarkT]

MarkT - you say that we are to "Listen to God. He loves those who listen to him. Keep his words. That's what he wants."

Does that not imply that one can choose NOT to "listen to God".

Sure. That's why we need to be forgiven. Do we not love those who listen to us? It's like that with God. Find his words. Seek knowledge. Get wisdom. Get insight.

 

[MarkT]

Mark T - I don't like the implication above that you say if you believe you chose God then you were not saved by grace.

I completly disagree, Grace means I could not save myself and I didn't deserve to be saved. Someone could sit down and say, "I'm going to save myself, I'm going to get into Heaven, decision made". But that wouldn't actually achieve their objective. When I repented and turned to Christ, it was God's grace that saved me, I just chose to turn aside to Him.

I didn't earn my place in Heaven, I don't deserve it, but I did chose to let God save me, if you get what I mean - tis hard to explain.

I don't look back at my choice and say, well done, good decision, your brilliant. Instead I thank God that He saved me when I didn't even deserve it.

What say you?

A child knows its parents and if you were of God, you would know your Father. You wouldn't say you chose him. What? Is God supposed to thank you for choosing him? Ungrateful child; your Father gives you a gift and you 'choose' to accept it? Like, 'Gee, thanks son. I really appreciate that you chose my gift!'

Do you think God would leave anything up to you? Did you create the universe? Were you there to advise him? Choosing God makes it sound like God can't do anything without you. That's why the godless say we invented God.

 

[dancing queen]

What about the verse 'knock and the door shall be opened' etc. I always thought that was about letting Jesus into your life?

As for the discussion about whether election is random...

If election does happen as believed by many of this forum, then I think random is quite close to the mark, but not quite the right word. As God designs us it can be no part of our character that makes him elect us otherwise you could argue why didn't he give others that characteristic. If God elects it is just whoever he feels like. So in that sense random.

I find it interesting how huge this discussion has become. Does it really matter either way? I believe God has the power to do all the non-free will bunch describe. But I don't believe he uses that power all the time - it contradicts too much.