Free will or no free will?

[MarkT]

No. Sorry. That's not love. That's something I can't even comprehend. How can you force yourself to love God? Love comes from within. It's not a mental decision. It's not something you can flip on like you would turn on a light. No. God pours his love into you. Jesus said the great commandment in the law is, 'You shall love God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind.' Assuming the love of God is in you, and you know his Son, then you will understand.

Besides that, I've never heard of anyone choosing to love someone. How does that work? First you decide, and then by the power of your will, love comes into your heart?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. You probably mean staying with you should be a voluntary decision, and likewise it should be a voluntary decision on your part to stay with your spouse. But in that case, you're not talking about love. You're just talking about your freewill. But what about your commitment?

I would say it's irrelevant whether you have freewill or not. You have zero understanding.

The ones along the path are those you have heard the word of God and don't understand it. So whether you want to love God or not, the devil takes the word away, that they may not believe and be saved. Luke 8:12

Mark, have you ever been married? Love is a daily choice.

I'm sorry to hear that. But I'm not surprised. Actually love is the response to being listened to. It's kind of simple. We love those who listen to us. It's funny. We love those who agree with us. We love those who follow us. We love those who take our counsel. It's a difficult thing to do these days. If you ask people to listen, they call you a tyrant. Wives are disobedient to their husbands. Mothers don't teach their children obedience. The idea of obedience is abhorrent to this generation.

But you're probably saying you stay together because you want to. That's probably true. There's nothing much else that keeps people together. There are no laws against divorce. Love has grown cold.

If you believe that to love God, God must first pour His love into you, and He only does that to some and not to all, and that the only possible reaction to all this is for the person to love God back, then that is exactly the kind of robot love Godfirst was writing about.

Well then that's exactly what I'm proposing.

God loves those who listen to him, and it's his love that we manifest to the world. John says, 'his love is perfected in us' John 4:12, not, our love is perfected in us. Are you saying we are robots because we serve God? That wouldn't be true. We are sinners. You can't tempt a robot. However, we speak the truth. We worship God in Spirit and truth.

 

[turnorburn]

I can't believe its taken 75 pages to act this whatever it is out Sheesh!!

 

[bleitzel]

I can't believe its taken 75 pages to act this whatever it is out Sheesh!!

75 pages? You're amazed about 75 pages? Dude, this has been going on for like 1600 years...

 

[bleitzel]

Actually love is the response to being listened to. It's kind of simple. We love those who listen to us.

Mark, with some of the things you say, I really doon't think I should be debating you. If this really is your idea of love, if this is how you would describe it...

Well then that's exactly what I'm proposing.

God loves those who listen to him, and it's his love that we manifest to the world. John says, 'his love is perfected in us' John 4:12, not, our love is perfected in us. Are you saying we are robots because we serve God?

First of all God does not love those who listen to him if what you mean by that statement is that it is a prerequisite for man to listen to God before he'll love them. Second of all, we are saying that in your suggestion we are robots because we are unable to love God without hium causing us to and we are resist loving God without him causing us to. If he pours his love into us we love him back, if he doesn't, we don't. I challenge you to show me stories in the Bible that show that. I betcha I can find 100 that show the opposite. You're taking an understanding that some theologians have, this idea of predestination of some to Heaven and some to Hell, and following it through to its manifest, messy end. And quite simply its result is that in your eyes all people are robots. Or sinner robots who deserve their punishment, whatever. Either way, the robots were created to fulfill their destiny and have no ability to do anything other than that which their creator created them for. He created a race of robots for death which they justly deserve, he's just decided to not follow through on it for some of them. Good luck with that.

 

[Bubba]

A "food for thought" article from Albert E. Jenke in regards to freewill:

"I propose to demonstrate that God has bestowed upon man the dignity of "choice", NOT "Free Will". Free Will to me implies a self-determinate sovereignty. If man DOES NOT posses this self- determination, than his will IS NOT FREE, for it is subject to the control and influence of one or more outside and/or inner influences. Also, if man has a "Free Will", then I contend that Satan, a being FAR greater in power and glory than man, must also most certainly have a "Free Will". If you hold the foregoing statements to be true, then I assert that we do NOT have ONE supreme, sovereign GOD, but rather THREE Sovereign, Independent, Self- determinate Beings who fit our theological definitions of "gods". Consider the ultimate implication of this position. If a puny creature like Man can resist, contradict, and thwart God's will, then surely Satan can do likewise. If this is true, than God IS NOT in control of the universe no matter WHAT word tricks you may pull out of your theological bag !! If God does NOT have ultimate and absolute control over the universe and all that is in it, what assurances do you or I have that He can really accomplish that which He promises ?? How do we know after we get to "Heaven" that sin may not break out into the universe again ?? What confidence do we have that Satan might not escape from the Lake of Fire and seduce some other world into sin ?? Whatever your opinion on this subject may be, God's Word most certainly DOES NOT support such a concept."

 

[MarkT]

A "food for thought" article from Albert E. Jenke in regards to freewill:

"I propose to demonstrate that God has bestowed upon man the dignity of "choice", NOT "Free Will". Free Will to me implies a self-determinate sovereignty. If man DOES NOT posses this self- determination, than his will IS NOT FREE, for it is subject to the control and influence of one or more outside and/or inner influences. Also, if man has a "Free Will", then I contend that Satan, a being FAR greater in power and glory than man, must also most certainly have a "Free Will". If you hold the foregoing statements to be true, then I assert that we do NOT have ONE supreme, sovereign GOD, but rather THREE Sovereign, Independent, Self- determinate Beings who fit our theological definitions of "gods". Consider the ultimate implication of this position. If a puny creature like Man can resist, contradict, and thwart God's will, then surely Satan can do likewise. If this is true, than God IS NOT in control of the universe no matter WHAT word tricks you may pull out of your theological bag !! If God does NOT have ultimate and absolute control over the universe and all that is in it, what assurances do you or I have that He can really accomplish that which He promises ?? How do we know after we get to "Heaven" that sin may not break out into the universe again ?? What confidence do we have that Satan might not escape from the Lake of Fire and seduce some other world into sin ?? Whatever your opinion on this subject may be, God's Word most certainly DOES NOT support such a concept."

Well, if you break it down, he is free if he moves out of his father's house. But the Christian is not free if he says he is in Christ. The suggestion that we are robots in our Father's house is wrong. We are servants while we are in this world. But we are sons and heirs with the Lord Jesus in our Father's house.

If some say they have freewill, what can I tell them? Yes. But you are leading people astray and telling people an untruth if you say God has given you the freedom to choose. You had the freedom to choose. But if you chose God, then you no longer belong to yourself. You were purchased by the blood of his Son. As Paul said, ''You are not your own; you were bought with a price." - 1 Cor. 6:19,20

The question arises, 'but do we still have freewill'? Yes. But now freewill is the problem. We are still in this world, and we can sin. And the sons of the evil one serve their father. And they are the ones saying we can leave our Father's house. But they don't know the Father or his Son, and they have never entered our Father's house, nor can they. If they knew the Father, then they would know his Son. Jesus said no one can snatch us from our Father's hand. - John 10:28,29,30 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.'

 

[bleitzel]

A "food for thought" article from Albert E. Jenke in regards to freewill:

"I propose to demonstrate that God has bestowed upon man the dignity of "choice", NOT "Free Will". Free Will to me implies a self-determinate sovereignty. If man DOES NOT posses this self- determination, than his will IS NOT FREE, for it is subject to the control and influence of one or more outside and/or inner influences. Also, if man has a "Free Will", then I contend that Satan, a being FAR greater in power and glory than man, must also most certainly have a "Free Will". If you hold the foregoing statements to be true, then I assert that we do NOT have ONE supreme, sovereign GOD, but rather THREE Sovereign, Independent, Self- determinate Beings who fit our theological definitions of "gods". Consider the ultimate implication of this position. If a puny creature like Man can resist, contradict, and thwart God's will, then surely Satan can do likewise. If this is true, than God IS NOT in control of the universe no matter WHAT word tricks you may pull out of your theological bag !! If God does NOT have ultimate and absolute control over the universe and all that is in it, what assurances do you or I have that He can really accomplish that which He promises ?? How do we know after we get to "Heaven" that sin may not break out into the universe again ?? What confidence do we have that Satan might not escape from the Lake of Fire and seduce some other world into sin ?? Whatever your opinion on this subject may be, God's Word most certainly DOES NOT support such a concept."

So, Mr. Jenke, you believe man has the power of choice, but not free will? You say that to you free will means "a self-determinate sovereignty." But what if it only means the ability of 'choice' to the rest of us? Kind of negates the rest of your argument.

But even if one were to go on reading, you say that if man had free will "If a puny creature like Man can resist, contradict, and thwart God's will...than God IS NOT in control of the universe .." Aha! But what if it is God's will to allow man to have free will! Then man can have free will AND God is still in control of the universe!

There, problem solved.

 

[Bubba]

Bleitzel,
We all make choices, but what choice do we ever make that isn't determined, by influences both internal and external? Imagine being born female in a poor Muslim country, do you think the views of the culture, family and poverty do not limit her freewill. Can she decide to not marry a Muslim man that has been arranged? Can she decide to become a physician? Now imagine that you have been blinded by Satan (2Cor. 4:4) and the veil has not been lifted, what will your choice be and are you really free?
Grace, Bubba

 

[bleitzel]

Bleitzel,
We all make choices, but what choice do we ever make that isn't determined, by influences both internal and external? Imagine being born female in a poor Muslim country, do you think the views of the culture, family and poverty do not limit her freewill. Can she decide to not marry a Muslim man that has been arranged? Can she decide to become a physician? Now imagine that you have been blinded by Satan (2Cor. 4:4) and the veil has not been lifted, what will your choice be and are you really free?
Grace, Bubba

Most choices we make are not determined by influences either internal or external. They are influenced. I chose to respond to your post. There was nothing compelling me to do so. I have fostered and nurtured an interest in theological debate, so I have chosen to frequent this and other debate sites. Had I not taken an interest in debate I would probably not ever have read this website. Humans can be a cause in and of themselves. It is part of the faculties that God gave us, in fact it is essential to why God made us and how he set us apart from the animal kingdom.
And as far as your female muslim doctor, you know there are probably hundreds if not thousands of women who were born into a muslim family and then went on to become doctors, probably abandoning their faith/heritage to do so, but so be it. Shall I find a documented example? No, family/poverty/culture do not limit her free will in such a way that God will not judge according to what he has given her. For instance, if someone is born with Downs syndrome, will they be judged as you and I are? No! God will judge each according to what he has given them.

Oh, and by the way, trying to use one passage of scripture to illustrate your point usually proves futile. You quoted 2 Cor. 4:4 "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
But look a few passages earlier at 2 Cor 3:16 "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. " So from what you posted, the devil tries to blind us and decieve us, but from what I posted if we resist the devil and turn to the Lord the veil (of the devil) will be lifted from us. Convincing!

 

[beloved57]

Most choices we make are not determined by influences either internal or external.

This is wrong..prov 16:

1The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

The thoughts you gathered to answer a post were determined by God..

 

[Drew]

We are not merely sick in our sins, we are totally dead in Ephesians 2:1. In your view we seem to be able to cooperate with God in spite of the fact that we are spiritually dead and seperated from the power of God. How are your saying something different then we are merely sick in sin?

Also, in verse 3 notice the word "nature." You seem to be suggesting that our nature is not so defiant toward God. The point is, the term nature in verse 3 is used in the very same context that as verse 1.

I know that I have been out of this loop for a while, and there are some questions for me (e.g. from mondar) for me "on the table". However, I would like to address the above specific argument.

I think you are assuming a certain meaning to the phrase "by nature". When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

And the Greek word rendered as "by nature" is the same word as used in a clearly "by birth" sense in Galatians 2:15. Here is Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by naturechildren of wrath, even as the rest.

Verse 3 reads perfectly well with a "by birth" reading. And being "children of wrath" by birth in no way rules out a free will response to God in the way that being "children of wrath" by fundamental inner constitution would.

So, unless and until the ambiguity of what Paul means by the phrase "by nature" is resolved Ephesians 2:1-3 does not support the notion that we cannot freely accept a gift of grace.

 

[francisdesales]

We are not merely sick in our sins, we are totally dead in Ephesians 2:1. In your view we seem to be able to cooperate with God in spite of the fact that we are spiritually dead and seperated from the power of God. How are your saying something different then we are merely sick in sin?

Also, in verse 3 notice the word "nature." You seem to be suggesting that our nature is not so defiant toward God. The point is, the term nature in verse 3 is used in the very same context that as verse 1.

I know that I have been out of this loop for a while, and there are some questions for me (e.g. from mondar) for me "on the table". However, I would like to address the above specific argument.

I think you are assuming a certain meaning to the phrase "by nature". When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

excellent point, Drew.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Drew,
I do not have the resources to do more study on the word "ÆÅÃει" (nature) at this moment. I doubt I will be able to respond today. Possibly after some study I can respond some other day. I do want to say that every greek word has a semantic domain, or a range of meaning. One of the most common exegetical mistakes of those unfamiliar with biblical languages is to take the meaning of the word in one context and read it back into another context where it does not fit.

Now off the top of my head, it looks like your reading of Galatians 2:15 is not really a problem. The word ÆÅÃει has the concept of birth within its semantic domain and fits well within the context of that verse.

Again, off the top of my head, it looks as if there are problems reading the meaning you suggest back into a different context (Ephesians 2:3). First, if the meaning of ÆÅÃει referred to infancy, the word next to it... "Child" would probably be "piadon." In fact the word is Äεκνα (child). I dont see a contextual demand for the concept of ÆÅÃει to refer to our birth in Ephesians 2:3. However, I did not study it very hard yet. See ya later, gotta go. I will do some work on this later.

 

[Drew]

One of the most common exegetical mistakes of those unfamiliar with biblical languages is to take the meaning of the word in one context and read it back into another context where it does not fit.

I entirely agree with you on this point.

However, I did not study it very hard yet. See ya later, gotta go. I will do some work on this later.

Fair enough. All I argued in my post was that an alternate reading of "by nature" was plausible.

 

[Drew]

Further on the matter of the extent to which unregenerate man can respond "freely" to God (and I apologize if someone has already made this argument):

From Romans 1:18 and following

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This text shows that, notwithstanding texts like Ephesians 2:1, even “spiritually dead†people have moral awareness.

Despite being spiritually dead, Paul says those who "suppress the truth by their wickedness" nevertheless know that which may be known of God. Indeed God has revealed it to them. If being “spiritually dead†really implied an incapacity to discern and understand the things of God, then why is Paul ascribing this very trait to them here?

Clearly the statement about being “without excuse†only makes sense if the unregenerate has some capacity to recognize and respond to God, which he has elected (freely) to not exercise. And we have already been told about the existence of this capacity in this same block of text.

 

[mondar]

Further on the matter of the extent to which unregenerate man can respond "freely" to God (and I apologize if someone has already made this argument):

From Romans 1:18 and following

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This text shows that, notwithstanding texts like Ephesians 2:1, even “spiritually dead†people have moral awareness.

Despite being spiritually dead, Paul says those who "suppress the truth by their wickedness" nevertheless know that which may be known of God. Indeed God has revealed it to them. If being “spiritually dead†really implied an incapacity to discern and understand the things of God, then why is Paul ascribing this very trait to them here?

Clearly the statement about being “without excuse†only makes sense if the unregenerate has some capacity to recognize and respond to God, which he has elected (freely) to not exercise. And we have already been told about the existence of this capacity in this same block of text.

OK, so then the spiritually dead can know the truth, but knowing it only causes them to suppress the truth. Why is this an objection to free will?

Certainly there is a revelation of God in nature. More specifically, verse 20 tells us that certain invisible attributes of God can be seen-->his eternal power and divine nature. Does knowing his eternal power and divine nature save? Also, if the response to this knowledge to supress that knowledge, does this not demonstrate the opposite of what you are saying... that there is free will? Where is the free will if we suppress spiritual knowledge?

Drew, I am not sure I can keep up here. If you want responses and to engage in give and take conversations, you might have to pick your points as to which ones you think carry the most weight.

 

[beloved57]

OK, so then the spiritually dead can know the truth, but knowing it only causes them to suppress the truth.

Impossible, thats why Jesus sent his Holy Spirit to reveal to the elect truth..1 jn 2:

27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

man cannot know God by any other means than by spiritual revelation..

 

[robertmejiayah]

I don't know because FR programs have had a little free will. It's hard to avoid free will teaching. I started a thread about FR, but it got deleted for spam and other reasons. :-D

 

[beloved57]

It's hard to avoid free will teaching.

Its from the devil..

 

[turnorburn]

It's hard to avoid free will teaching.

Its from the devil..

Does that mean its alright to obey the deeds of the flesh but not alright to believe the word of God?


turnorburn