Is freewill biblical or something the modern world invented ?

[GodsGrace]

That's an opinion that you assume to be true.

Rollo....
When I have an opinion I state so.
What I posted is not an opinion.
When we're not sure about something and there are two differing views, both seemingly biblical...
how do we resolve it?

I'd say the Apostles knew Jesus and knew what He believed and taught.
Those that came after the Apostles that were taught by them also had the truth.
It was pretty clear till about the 200's AD.
There might have been some small disagreements about something or other...but not about the big stuff.

This is the big stuff:

1. Belief in God/Jesus was necessary.
2. Good works were necessary.
3. Baptism was necessary.
4. The sharing of bread at the gatherings (Mass/Service) was necessary.
5. Passing down the faith to the children was necessary.
6. Salvation could be forfeited by abandoning the faith.

In the 1500's the church needed reformation.
It was soooo reformed that the early beliefs have become forgotten.

Now we have:

1. God is a deterministic God. He decides who goes to heaven and hell based on NOTHING.
2. Good works are not necessary, in fact it may be sinful to believe so.
3. Once one is saved...he is saved forever - no matter what.
4. Baptism is not really necessary but a good thing to do.
5. Ask God for what you want and you'll get it.

I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of right now.

 

[GodsGrace]

Don't we all?
(at least to the extent of the confidence we have in the foundation of our understandings and means to come to said understanding)


What is the assumption? Be specific

1. That 2 billion people have not heard of Christ? .... or
2. ... that faith leads to salvation? or
3. ... that salvific faith includes believing Christ died and rose again? ... or
4. ... God does not love (favor) those He gives no opportunity to believe salvificly? ... or
5. ...God not willing that any should perish ??

I grant #5 is true, but needing of further explanation in lieu of 2 billion people not being given a choice, said choice being essential to arminian / pelagian definition of 'free will'

If number 5 is true..
why does God pass over some and they end up in hell?

And if He's not willing that any should perish, doesn't this mean He loves them somehow?

What's the difference between faith and salvific faith?

Too bad you won't talk to me....
Afraid to?

 

[GodsGrace]

Given:

1. Given: there are 2 billion people who have never heard of Christ per google
2. Given: "So faith comes from hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the [preaching of the] message concerning Christ." (Romans 10:17) AMP

Conclusion: The ability of man is to choose Christ for 2 billion people has been rendered impossible. God, being all powerful and not willing that any should perish has not afforded these people any possibility of salvation. Agape love is a volition to favor. Two billion people are not favored (loved by God) to the degree that they may become sons of God.

Pretty mean of God.

But you're of a higher intelligence than the rest of us and can accept such an unloving,
unmerciful and unjust God.

 

[grumix8]

Remember it's about good and evil thats simple choice were all given he won't put A weight to hard to carry on ourselfves we can make the decision is simple be baptized and that's all simple as that. We can do Good and not Evil with capital letters. We can make the decision and G-d gives us that power. He loves us so much but the world is lost and thinks from freewill comes rights. The right to vote or the right to bear arms. So on is the promblem is mixed with it thus it creates conlfict. But in no way is it true find that G-d gives us the ablility to rationalize all this and get the original form of how he mades things in the time he created the world and Adam. Free will is choice simple.

Greeks influence the modern world and taught man free thinking, inpendant thought, and so many things truly people lost the original concept G-d gave man and woman. Freedom to choose exist not everything is written humanity can change it's course to do G-d's will. We stop been drunks, fornicaters of the law, and curses our family suffers. He gives us that power and right.

 

[PaulChristensen]

We start from the beggining when Adam was giving the power to name the animals G-d gave him freewill to choose Genesis 2:20.
20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

Here G-d gives Adam gives him ability to think for himself and he decide the animals name.

There is difference from the freewill Hebrew people back in the days of Noah and Moses when the law was directed to G-d's people they had freewill to decide. Their decision is under the law because they did not know other religions or ways they were narrowminded but still the decision from good and evil existed. Did the errors of their fathers before them I mean the fall of Adam stopped them making decisions in their life. Israel did what they want based still of need of surviving. Killing, eating, proceating needs of humanity but no matter what the error of Adam did not take freewill from them.

Romans 7:19 “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”

Ezekiel 18:20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

Psalm 110:2 "Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew."



From the day pagans evolved into modern world and establish their own way. Even thou they seperated from their pagan worhsip Rome forced them to mix their deities and influence with christianism and robbed the followers of Christ of Jesus and they painted him white. Named the G-d of Israel to Zeus and change their panteon.

Hebrew law or mosaic law reminds people to obey but G-d has taken prophets to save and do the will of G-d in wars, missions, and choosing good and evil. They break the law in disobeying G-d, prophets like Jeremiah who chose G-d disobey tradition and his father and told Israel their errors and love for the temple forgotten the temple inside they are made of. Kick Jeremiah out of their circle rejected from society he continued, we have Elijah who many don't talk about but he change the words of G-d and sentence Jezabel but G-d only wanted to punish Jezabel but Elijah added her family as punishment. G-d was angry at Elijah but forgave him. Still G-d's plan was only Jezabel but he made an exception for Elijah and freewill existed and changed yes G-d allows it.

People can change their course in life but what is the promblem from today. Is how the Greek way of thinking of liberalism was popular in the time of Jesus.

James 2:12 "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty."

2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."


And Greeks influence the time of jesus that people like Luke wrote his book in the bible and later Catholic church not knowing fully Hebrew culture copied things from greeks and influence the bible. Remember they were not G-d's people but A country that stoled and wrote their intrepretation of G-d and took Jesus as an emblema that is not real.

Greek theology is freedom and rationalist thought, Hebrew people is Law and Relation with the one G-d. Greeks have influence the modernworld and gives them right, the western world copies Greek and Roman culture and their diffinity in their laws have given the modern topic freewill. So freewill clashes with freewill in the old times. That is why everything has to do with predestination, Calvanism go ahead and read see all our versions of choosing good and evil have consequences but still you decide your future.


There are 2 fields :indeterminism and determinism explain modern freewill and both give notion of control. Indeterminism means free acts are not determine in other words what you do with works does not foretold your future and the path you have chosen. Determinism says everything you do has already decided your future and you have no career. Nothing can change your destiny but G-d can.

Matthew 12:37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

God's general sovereignty- says god is in charge of everything but doesn't control everything
God's specific sovereignty- says that He not only has ordained everything, but He also controls everything.

Proverbs 16:9 “The mind of the man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

Proverbs 3:5-6"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight."

It all depends on how we define "freewill". God did not create us as programmable robots. We can make our own choices about how we want to live our lives. If we didn't have the power of choice, then we would have a valid defence in the Judgment because we could say that we had no choice about whether we were able to live good or evil lives. But because we are able to choose between good or evil, then there will be no defence at the Judgment for those who reject Christ.

But, freewill in terms of understanding the gospel, and receiving Christ as Saviour is harder to fully understand. The person who first advocated total freewill and therefore full responsibility for receiving Christ and being saved was Pelagius. He taught that God waited until sinners made their personal decision to believe the Gospel and receive Christ before the Holy Spirit stepped in to the person's life. He believed that every person had the ability to choose good over evil, because he did not believe in original sin in a person through Adam's disobedience. He more believed in guilt by association with Adam's sin rather than any "seed" of sin residing in the person.

Arminius followed some of Pelagius' ideas, but did not fully support him. He believed that the Holy Spirit worked through the preaching of the Gospel, but it was the responsibility of the individual to believe it and receive Christ. Although he did not support Pelagius that everyone had total freedom to choose good over evil, he believed that there was enough of a residue of good in a person to be able to choose for Christ. Although he believed that Adam's sin caused a blight on the human race, he held that man had a spark of goodness that enables him to choose for Christ.

Calvin on the other hand believed that Adam's sin caused total depravity in man so that man could choose only evil - that he did not have the inclination to choose good over evil because mankind is totally corrupted through faulty seed passed on from Adam to his descendants. He believed that a person needed enlightenment through God's unmerited grace before he could understand, let alone believe the Gospel. Then he needed saving faith from the Holy Spirit in order to fully receive Christ as Saviour. He also believed that it needed the transforming work of the Holy Spirit within the person to cause the person to be born again, and that was something that one had to earnestly seek God for.

Personally, I think that the mystery of election and freewill is difficult to clearly understand. For the born again believer, it makes no difference because how the believer came to Christ is now a non-issue.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It all depends on how we define "freewill".

Amen. I give Edward props for at least giving a definition. No one else will.

But because we are able to choose between good or evil, then there will be no defence at the Judgment for those who reject Christ.

Agree ... but everyone chooses evil ... Romans 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

The person who first advocated total freewill and therefore full responsibility for receiving Christ and being saved was Pelagius. He taught that God waited until sinners made their personal decision to believe the Gospel and receive Christ before the Holy Spirit stepped in to the person's life. He believed that every person had the ability to choose good over evil, because he did not believe in original sin in a person through Adam's disobedience. He more believed in guilt by association with Adam's sin rather than any "seed" of sin residing in the person.

Arminius followed some of Pelagius' ideas, but did not fully support him. He believed that the Holy Spirit worked through the preaching of the Gospel, but it was the responsibility of the individual to believe it and receive Christ. Although he did not support Pelagius that everyone had total freedom to choose good over evil, he believed that there was enough of a residue of good in a person to be able to choose for Christ. Although he believed that Adam's sin caused a blight on the human race, he held that man had a spark of goodness that enables him to choose for Christ.

Calvin on the other hand believed that Adam's sin caused total depravity in man so that man could choose only evil - that he did not have the inclination to choose good over evil because mankind is totally corrupted through faulty seed passed on from Adam to his descendants. He believed that a person needed enlightenment through God's unmerited grace before he could understand, let alone believe the Gospel. Then he needed saving faith from the Holy Spirit in order to fully receive Christ as Saviour. He also believed that it needed the transforming work of the Holy Spirit within the person to cause the person to be born again, and that was something that one had to earnestly seek God for.

Good summary.

For the born again believer, it makes no difference because how the believer came to Christ is now a non-issue.

I wouldn't say no difference. Calvin's theology would give ALL the glory of his salvation to God and thus he would say "Thank you Lord for choosing me".
Arminius would share in the glory of his salvation, as Arminius' salvation was dependent upon Arminius and God. Thus he would say "I am so happy that I chose God". (I grant to Arminians say they don't take any credit, but this contradicts their belief that the CAUSE of salvific faith is the individual's "freewill".

 

[jasonc]

the anticalvinist here have No problem that God chose isreal over Egypt ,strange as Israel sins both kingdoms were worse then Egypt's ,worse then Sodom and Gomorrah and yet isreal isn't wiped out .

I'm not a reformed person but of isreal you can't deny that fact ,nothing in,Abram makes us believe HE deserved or made God choose him.

other nations simply were not offered ,you can't create a solid doctrine on the native American ,the pygmy who never heard ,if they did ,a record of their faith and God being patient to raise them,up save them would exist .

the stuff of Jewish fables ,I can't worry or base doctrine on what isn't stated.therefore I don't get so anti reformed over it .

 

[Randy]

Premise 1: God creates all things
Premise 2: God controls all circumstances (either actively or passively)
Premise 2: God knows all things and therefore knows what all created things will do in any circumstance.
Conclusion: God is in complete control.

God gets everything he wants because:

1. He can't create something He doesn't know what it will do (all knowing) and
2. God wouldn't create something contrary to his will as that would contradict His being all-wise.

Aside: The thread doesn't define "free will", so people will be answering based on their varying, internal concepts of what "free will" means to them.

God has allowed freedom to reign but there will be a day He makes His enemies His footstool for His feet.
I think God desires all to "choose" life.
Rev 22
Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.”

Even a third of the angels sinned. I don't think that was desired or willed by God to happen. They had their own desires and minds and made their own choices.

That stated God will do all that He is pleased to do. He is not bound. Every thing and every being belongs to Him.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Amen. I give Edward props for at least giving a definition. No one else will.


Agree ... but everyone chooses evil ... Romans 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”


Good summary.


I wouldn't say no difference. Calvin's theology would give ALL the glory of his salvation to God and thus he would say "Thank you Lord for choosing me".
Arminius would share in the glory of his salvation, as Arminius' salvation was dependent upon Arminius and God. Thus he would say "I am so happy that I chose God". (I grant to Arminians say they don't take any credit, but this contradicts their belief that the CAUSE of salvific faith is the individual's "freewill".

I waded through the 400 odd pages of Arminius' first volume of his works. I saw nothing in it that I thought was inconsistent with Scripture. He seems to be more in agreement with Charles Finney who taught that it is the Holy Spirit who enlightened sinners with the preaching of the Gospel and brought conviction of sin, but the person had to make his own decision to embrace Christ.

Of course both Arminius and Finney came under extreme criticism and persecution from Calvinists. Arminius maintained that many were slandering him and saying things about his teaching that he never taught. In fact, Arminius was more godly and holy in his personal life that Calvin, and did not have the intolerance that Calvin had for those who did not subscribe fully with his theology. The persecution that Finney received from the Presbyterians involved them refusing to give him a full pastoral licence, and ordained him as just an evangelist instead. Finally, he quit the Presbyterian church and joined the Congregationals who were much more tolerant with his theology of convicted sinners making a decision for Christ, rather than the Calvinist Presbyterians who taught that a sinner had to wait for God to give him "saving" faith before he could embrace Christ.

It is interesting that most traditional Pentecostals follow Finney's teaching. which Finney himself, in his Systematic Theology, says that he is "somewhere between" Arminianism and Calvinism.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I waded through the 400 odd pages of Arminius' first volume of his works. I saw nothing in it that I thought was inconsistent with Scripture.

Well, others did not come to the same conclusion. The Synod of Dort concluded with a rejection of the Arminian views. (more specifically, T.U.L.I.P). I am not in the Arminian camp, but my guess is that I agree with 95% of his theology. (95% being subjective)

He seems to be more in agreement with Charles Finney who taught that it is the Holy Spirit who enlightened sinners with the preaching of the Gospel and brought conviction of sin, but the person had to make his own decision to embrace Christ.

I think I read Finney ... but long ago.

The persecution that Finney received from the Presbyterians involved them refusing to give him a full pastoral licence, and ordained him as just an evangelist instead.

I would not call it 'persecution' when a denomination will not allow a person to be a pastor when the person contradicts the doctrine of the denomination. Like, I wouldn't let the pope be the pastor of my church, but this does not rise to the level of persecution in my books.
But persecution is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.


I am curious. How did Arminius define 'freewill' and who has 'freewill'? Like, do the 2 billion people who have never heard of Christ have 'freewill'?
Most people won't give me a definition or a definition that is so superficial as to be useless.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Well, others did not come to the same conclusion. The Synod of Dort concluded with a rejection of the Arminian views. (more specifically, T.U.L.I.P). I am not in the Arminian camp, but my guess is that I agree with 95% of his theology. (95% being subjective)


I think I read Finney ... but long ago.


I would not call it 'persecution' when a denomination will not allow a person to be a pastor when the person contradicts the doctrine of the denomination. Like, I wouldn't let the pope be the pastor of my church, but this does not rise to the level of persecution in my books.
But persecution is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.


I am curious. How did Arminius define 'freewill' and who has 'freewill'? Like, do the 2 billion people who have never heard of Christ have 'freewill'?
Most people won't give me a definition or a definition that is so superficial as to be useless.

T.U.L.I.P. is the basis of Calvinist theology not Arminian. Maybe you need to complete your knowledge about what Arminianism is.

Also, there are a couple of excellent biographies of Charles Finney that will enlighten you.

 

[Edward]

Most people won't give me a definition or a definition that is so superficial as to be useless.

So I take it you are looking for answers of a specific nature and reject anything else. Over thinking it to the point you become exceptionally narrow mined about it and causes you to forget that our Lord is not the author of confusion.

Freewill is a given. Can you not really see that? It is one of the most basic precepts of life here. You should consider that you arguing against free will is not scriptural and you are rejecting Gods word and calling God a liar.

Deuteronomy 30: 16-19

16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: .../

Even that one verse (19) blows your assertions of fate out of the water. How could we choose anything if we do not have free will? Was this your fate? To call God a liar?

 

[Fastfredy0]

T.U.L.I.P. is the basis of Calvinist theology not Arminian.

Agreed, that was the point that I was making. Perhaps you misunderstood my post.
My point in regards to Arminianism was:

Well, others did not come to the same conclusion. [as Arminius]

Then as evidence I stated:
The Synod of Dort concluded with a rejection of the Arminian views.

 

[Fastfredy0]

you are rejecting Gods word and calling God a liar.

Interesting. I reported this to the staff. I am curious if they tolerate one brother saying another brother calls "GOD A LIAR". That is a horrible indictment.

 

[GodsGrace]

Interesting. I reported this to the staff. I am curious if they tolerate one brother saying another brother calls "GOD A LIAR". That is a horrible indictment.

You could report it FF,,,
But if you contradict a simple statement from God, you ARE calling God a liar.

The entire bible teaches free will.
Only the reformed do not accept this.

So, is God lying to us?

 

[grumix8]

Horrible indeed G-d is no liar only men are but G-d gave us thoughts and it comes from him. We recieve dreams, love, and acts from him. We are A model from him and he gives us the power to dream and love like he does because he wanted it that way. Verse in the bible says he thought of us way before our creation and we are for A purpose. And we choose that that's why we have freewill.

 

[jasonc]

So I take it you are looking for answers of a specific nature and reject anything else. Over thinking it to the point you become exceptionally narrow mined about it and causes you to forget that our Lord is not the author of confusion.

Freewill is a given. Can you not really see that? It is one of the most basic precepts of life here. You should consider that you arguing against free will is not scriptural and you are rejecting Gods word and calling God a liar.

Deuteronomy 30: 16-19

16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: .../

Even that one verse (19) blows your assertions of fate out of the water. How could we choose anything if we do not have free will? Was this your fate? To call God a liar?

did
God offer that to the gentiles in Moab,and the hittitites?

cant reject something never offered.

men by nature won't outside of God imitating it first seek God ,otherwise all those nations that were never told would simply find God and not be deceived at all

that's their point of view .our base nature is too choose sin not God .

we have to train ourselves to want more of God ,not so with sin.we run to it .we resist any purging of the old man .

 

[for_his_glory]

[ACMP=reminder]
There are many schools of thought what freewill is and each has their own thoughts, theories and IMO. Let's use self control and focus on reconciliation when discussing differences, ToS # 1.1, 1.3
[/ACMP]

 

[Edward]

Interesting. I reported this to the staff. I am curious if they tolerate one brother saying another brother calls "GOD A LIAR". That is a horrible indictment.

Wow, did that sting? Now of course I am not trying to be offensive but let us get to to truth of the matter. You have been making a case that we humans do not posses a free will. I am saying, really? Then what does that verse mean, that tells US to choose? If we can not choose, then would not that be being calling God a liar in His Word? Or not and why? With scriptural connection.

If I have misinterpreted that verse then I am perfectly happy to be corrected Brother. :wink

 

[PaulChristensen]

Agreed, that was the point that I was making. Perhaps you misunderstood my post.
My point in regards to Arminianism was:

Then as evidence I stated:
The Synod of Dort concluded with a rejection of the Arminian views.

Not surprising. The English Calvinists brutally suppressed any Christian group that did not comply with their theology. In some ways they were as bad as the RCC in its persecution of dissenters, especially during Oliver Cromwell's time. It all has to do with power and control.

The OP's question was if freewill is Biblical or an invention of man?
I explored the different ways that freewill is considered.
Pelagian - total freewill and personal responsibility.
Arminian - (semi-Pelagian) A mixture of God's sovereignty and personal freewill
Calvinist - God's total sovereignty and no initial freewill.

All three can provide "proof texts" to support their positions. So determining which position is "Biblical" depends on which Scriptures are included and which are ignored. To say that freewill is an invention of man is too much of a generalized statement, and no one would be able to settle on a definitive position on that.

It is of no use accusing anyone's position of lying, because all three, as I have said, can produce Scriptures to show they are being consistent with the Bible.

What is shows me is that the balance between God's sovereignty and man's free will is a mystery. It comes under the "chicken and egg" question - which came first? Man's free will, or God's sovereign action? I think people will argue it until the end of time.

Makes good fodder for these forums though!2