Questions Regarding Free WIll

[Hospes]

If free-will is necessary for love, wouldn't you have to believe - in order for the Trinity to love us or one another - that the Trinity has free-will, i.e. the option to choose evil?

You are mixing two distinct items here. None of us are members of the Trinity, therefore, Their attributes have no absolute correspondence with the attributes given to humanity. In the same way, your question is a philosophical blasphemy.

The presupposition given is "free-will is necessary for love." I assumed there would be agreement the love God shows is the same love he calls us to show. I believe it is, so as regarding love, I see it as a attribute that God graciously gives us to share with Him; the love he calls us to and grants us to practice is the same love shared within the trinity. Nowhere in my question is it implied we are of the same nature as the Godhead. Indeed, if it were there, it would be blasphemy. Since it is not there, I believe you are "connecting dots" that do not exist.​

 

[OzSpen]

Christian luminaries from Augustine to Luther have looked at this issue, and have not solved it for us, should we expect a solution on this forum?

By Grace,

This article, 'Calvinism: Free Will & the Early Church' (Tim Warner), provides quotes from the early church fathers to demonstrate that all church fathers from the first to the fourth century supported free will.

The article also provides evidence of Christian luminaries from Augustine to the Reformation who did not accept the Augustinian version of free will. There were eminent church leaders throughout the history of the church who were not Augustinian in refusing to accept free will.

Oz

 

[Hospes]

God called Saul to be the first king of Isreal, before David became king. But eventually God saw that Saul was unfit because he did not wait for God, so God let him get worse.

Maybe you didn't intend to imply this, but your statement "eventually God saw" has the assumption God did not have foreknowledge of what was to come. Since I believe God has foreknowledge of every action within the universe, you kind of lost me.

So in a way, I think by our decisions God directs our paths. Even our bad decisions can be a course for worse ones or, for some, a path of a wake up call to step away from those choices.

Doesn't God directing our path have some notion of him not simply responding to our decisions in such away as to keep us moving in his ordained direction? And if he only has our free willed decisions as a means of steering us, can He be sure our decisions lead toward his direction?

In the way that Saul was chosen and then turned away, I think holds the merit of free will as well as God's sovereignty over us. So I can see the point of Jesus saying His disciples were chosen by God, not that they chose by themselves.

Doesn't free will necessitate God willingly delegating a limited degree of his sovereignty to us? How can he be sovereign if we are the final arbiter of our decisions?

If God helps us in this way or in any other way does this mean we don't have free will? I don't think so.

With qualifications, I agree with you. I think the resolution lies in this passage:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)​

 

[Hospes]

By Grace,

This article, 'Calvinism: Free Will & the Early Church' (Tim Warner), provides quotes from the early church fathers to demonstrate that all church fathers from the first to the fourth century supported free will.

The article also provides evidence of Christian luminaries from Augustine to the Reformation who did not accept the Augustinian version of free will. There were eminent church leaders throughout the history of the church who were not Augustinian in refusing to accept free will.

Oz

Well, if Tim Warner says it, that must settle the matter!

Actually, Warner is not in contention with Calvin in that Calvin says most of the early church fathers agreed with the current secular thinking of their day: man is free to choose good or evil, to do good or evil. Calvin disagreed with them and sided rather with Augustine. He also made the argument the that there was inconsistency in the way the early church fathers spoke of free will and it was in contradiction with their belief that man was fallen and enslaved to sin.

Also, I notice Warner is given to bold assertions without providing strong arguments for making them. We are all prone to such error, but it's not a good practice to cite such writers as authoritative. But they sure sound authoritative!

 

[chessman]

This article, 'Calvinism: Free Will & the Early Church' (Tim Warner), provides quotes from the early church fathers to demonstrate that all church fathers from the first to the fourth century supported free will.

No clear definition is given by the author (which is odd for an article documenting his study of freewill), but right from the introduction we see this article also is using a different definition of freewill than the one of the OP. He thinks freewill means 'independent-will' and that freewill is somehow in conflict with God's sovereignty.

"That is, man only appears to have free will. God ultimately decides who is to be saved and who is to be lost totally apart from any kind of decision on the part of the individual. Before the creation, God sovereignty decided whom He would save and whom He would not. Man has no independent choice in the matter at all. "​

 

[smaller]

How about freewillers that think their wills CANNOT remove the contrary against the Spirit realites of their flesh, do they have this problem of which you speak?

There is the internal quotient of truth and by that, division. But not removal of contrariness. No person can remove what God has set within them, and God has set evil in the conscience of man. That's how we're made.

The only question to ask for any person is, is this true or not, internal evil evil thoughts. Scripture says it is true. If any says it isn't they are only kidding themselves and they are contrary to the findings.

Matt. 15:19-20, Mark 7:21-23, Matt. 5:28, Romans 7:7-13

Even if someone don't own up to it it's still true.

Hebrews 4:
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

And from this there will be only one determination for all: Guilty. Romans 3:9

 

[smaller]

And if you have prayerfully, submissively, and under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, I'm sure you recall these spirit persons, about a third of all the Angels God, created exercised their free will to earn their places in the Abyss.

Entirely assumption on the part of the freewill camps. There is no presentation of holy angels gone bad and turned into devils via bad decisions. Satan was made by God to do what he does.

Isaiah 54:16
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

John 10:10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

John 8:
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Satan, formerly known as Lucifer, decided to overthrow God to take His place and the remaining for following him.

Satan was made delusional from the start.

This, shifting sand technique is not Christian at all

I understand that phony narratives that are pricked and popped by Gods Word provokes adverse reactions. You'll have to be more specific with your criticism by providing scriptural facts to back your intended alternative narrative. If there is proof and truth in alignment with the Word, who can but heed?

But if not there is no need to entertain alternatives if they are not true to the scriptures.

 

[chessman]

The only question to ask for any person is, is this true or not, internal evil evil thoughts.

Is your profile picture a sunset or a sunrise?

 

[smaller]

The fact is that the God-breathed Scripture confirms that nature of free will in passages such as Genesis 2 & 3, and Acts 16:31 (ESV).

Your arguments do not hold theological clout because they violate what the Scriptures teach about free-will. Free will advocates are in step with what the Bible teaches.

Scripture doesn't teach freewill whatsoever. It's entirely presumptive and a fantasy. If you managed to read some of the applied critique I've posted you could site and counter with specifics.

One, using the comparative matter of discourse, when we compare our wills to Gods Will we have a lesser state of will/mind. This much is obvious to anyone. No lesser will can be "as free" as a greater will. This is simple logic.

I suggest that you take a read of Norman Geisler's book, Chosen but Free. It's the finest exposition of the biblical view of free-will that I've read. He bases the teaching on Scripture.

Oz

There is no shortage of supposed intellectual champions for any given camp. That doesn't make long ramblings truthful to the text. I've found a very consistent shortage of blindness in many such, including Mr. Geisler's narratives.

The moment any believer understands they are sinners and that sin is of the devil, demonic, they should be able to realize that there are in fact TWO wills involved and one of them is contrary to the Spirit. But freewillers wills just can't seem to "get there." 1 John 1:8, 1 John 3:8.

Paul also tells us that the flesh is contrary to the Spirit and against the Spirit and vice versa. This is genuine conflict proving the Spirit works against the will of the flesh REGARDLESS of what the freewiller claims is going on. Gal. 5:17.

Mr. Geisler would be laughed offstage if he claimed that God, by His Spirit is against his own flesh. The unbelievers can't accept this and neither can Mr. Geisler's flesh. Why can't this be accepted? Because of the reality of this contrariness of the flesh. No freewiller can accept that the Spirit is against their own flesh and that this adversity exists and is a perpetual reality. The flesh prefers to claim otherwise by the will of the flesh, in action.

 

[smaller]

Is your profile picture a sunset or a sunrise?

It is a reminiscent picture of the LIGHT dawning on Peter after the rooster crowed and after Peter was wrapped in denial of Jesus, in the dark, predicted of course in advance, by Jesus.

Jesus knows what the powers of darkness IN PEOPLE will do prior to them doing it.

Matthew 26:34
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

The supposed freewill of Peter could not change these events for all the tea in China, and Peter even LIED to Jesus face, saying it wouldn't happen.

35 Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.

It DID happen because they are done in people by adverse spirits AND because Jesus SAID it would happen, it DID happen. Nothing Peter could do about it. And yes, Jesus not only knows it, but understands that where His Word is sown, our adversary, the devil, comes to to his work in the flesh. Mark 4:15. No "freewill" can sway this matter, period. If they do make such claims it is what is against and contrary to the Spirit IN their flesh making such claims. Gal. 5:17.

Our wills are not the only wills involved between our own two ears. There is the Will of God, over riding. There is the will of the man, and there is the will of the adversary. All 3 of these will's are in operation at all times in every believer. Whether they realize it or not is quite irrelevant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you believe in free-will and eternal security, how would you explain why a person who chooses to believe in Christ - i.e. is born-again - cannot have the option to stop believing, i.e. stop being born-again.

It's interesting to note how pre-determined salvation and OSAS doctrines both have as their source the same doctrinal misunderstanding of Paul's faith vs. works teaching (Romans 3-5)--that salvation is conditioned on NOTHING. When actually what justification is not conditioned on is works.

what keeps one of the multitudes of Christians in heaven from using their free-will to choose to do evil at some point in eternity?

Eventually, all the residents of the kingdom of God will have been tried and tested and will be those who do not want to do what Eve did in the garden. And because all will be clothed with Christ in that kingdom, not naked, we can not be deceived into choosing evil. Besides, the deceiver will have been destroyed anyway. Add to all of this, we will be in glorified bodies that do not tempt and harass us continually to seek evil for comfort and safety and happiness.

But if God gives me the ability and choice to do great evil against the innocent, is He not in some way responsible for the evil I have committed?

Isn't the exact OPPOSITE true?
If God had NOT given us the choice to choose evil, then he would be responsible for the evil we commit.

If I give a person the choice and ability to rob your house and they do just that, am I not in some degree responsible for your loss?

I guess it really depends on what you mean by 'responsible'.
Of course God is responsible for the fact that people exist that have the freedom to choose to harm others, and that they do so because satan used his free will to convince them to do it. What he is not responsible for is the person's decision itself to do so.

If free-will is necessary for love, wouldn't you have to believe - in order for the Trinity to love us or one another - that the Trinity has free-will, i.e. the option to choose evil?

God doesn't choose to love. He IS love, the very essence of it. He can't be any other way.
But us? Since we are not the very essence and substance of love we have to choose whether or not we are going to love.

Probably said a lot of stuff that's already been shared, but, hey, whatever.

 

[smaller]

Yes, All born again believers do. Oh retched man that I'am, who will deliver me from the body of this Death (Rom. 7:24). The point about looking in the mirror was, If you did, that is free will. And if you did not, that also is free will. Free will is a choice. Free will includes mental reasoning. Gen. Custer had the choice of the Gatling Gun when he went to battle at Little Big Horn. If he had, the outcome would have been different. In free will we make decisions and then choose the path we want to take, If we survive the decision we learn from it. Free will is to choose. But choosing comes usually by a mental thought process by the information given or by the selfish thought that it will benefit you personal gains that is stronger than the warning in the information given (Deut. 30:11-20) (Gen. 2:17; 3:1-6)

You too Mr. Summers fail to recognize that the Spirit is actively against and contrary to the will of the flesh. Period. There is no release from this action of the Spirit against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit by any force of will. It is set by God Himself, by His Spirit. Gal. 5:17.

Y'all can claim it isn't so, but that IS the adverse will of the flesh claiming otherwise to what The Spirit says.

 

[smaller]

With qualifications, I agree with you. I think the resolution lies in this passage:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)​

Indeed. Great citing. Yes, Gods Will does Work in believers. His Will works in behalf of US and against the flesh, simultaneously. And the flesh DOES react with adversity to this disclosure, because IT is factually contrary and against the Spirit.

There are 3 wills in action in all believers. Gods Will, the will of the person, and the adverse against the Spirit, contrary to the Spirit will of the flesh. Gal. 5:17.

Even many determinists have a very hard time coming to grips with the existence of the adverse will of the flesh when they have to try to admit to it, personally.

 

[smaller]

The presupposition given is "free-will is necessary for love." I assumed there would be agreement the love God shows is the same love he calls us to show. I believe it is, so as regarding love, I see it as a attribute that God graciously gives us to share with Him; the love he calls us to and grants us to practice is the same love shared within the trinity. Nowhere in my question is it implied we are of the same nature as the Godhead. Indeed, if it were there, it would be blasphemy. Since it is not there, I believe you are "connecting dots" that do not exist.​

Yes, again, that ridiculous claim. No, God is not "in NEED" of our love. Nor will we be "rewarded" by our own "created love" coming from the supposed freewill That is a ridiculous assumption.

The love we have is a pale reflection of the Love that has been Given to us by God to share, just as you noted.

1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[Hospes]

It's interesting to note how pre-determined salvation and OSAS doctrines both have as their source the same doctrinal misunderstanding of Paul's faith vs. works teaching (Romans 3-5)--that salvation is conditioned on NOTHING. When actually what justification is not conditioned on is works.

But isn't justification a part of salvation? Did you mean to write regeneration rather than salvation?

Isn't the exact OPPOSITE true?
If God had NOT given us the choice to choose evil, then he would be responsible for the evil we commit.

Good point. Not sure it solves the dilemma, though.

God doesn't choose to love. He IS love, the very essence of it. He can't be any other way.
But us? Since we are not the very essence and substance of love we have to choose whether or not we are going to love.

I fully believe what you are writing, though I don't think it addresses the question. If God cannot be any other way, does it mean he does not have free will?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But isn't justification a part of salvation? Did you mean to write regeneration rather than salvation?

No.
Justification/salvation is conditioned on believing, not nothing at all as so many in the church defend as if God waves a magic wand and 'poof' you're saved whether you want to be or not (and, therefore, you can not lose it).

I fully believe what you are writing, though I don't think it addresses the question. If God cannot be any other way, does it mean he does not have free will?

If you want to put it in simplistic human terms, then yes, God does not have the freewill to be evil.
Him being the creator of everything has to mean he created that which he himself is incapable of being. We can not understand that in the limitations of our human minds. Along with a lot of other things, too.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here's a good one for you.
Salvation occurs where the soil is inherantly capable of supporting it. Yet God makes the soil of every person's heart. Does that mean he purposely made with forethought ahead of time certain soil that can support salvation, and some that can not?

There's something about the fundamental quality of a man's heart that God does not create or predetermine ahead of time, yet that quality exists because he created the heart. I don't understand how that can be, but I have to accept that me, a mere human being, simply can not understand everything about the nature and science of a Mighty Creator.

 

[chessman]

It is a reminiscent picture of the LIGHT dawning on Peter after the rooster crowed and after Peter was wrapped in denial of Jesus, in the dark, predicted of course in advance, by Jesus.

Okay, thanks. Just making sure you have the freewill to answer questions.

 

[smaller]

Okay, thanks. Just making sure you have the freewill to answer questions.

I don't credit any speakings to my will alone. All speakings should be judged, according to the scriptures and Spirit, for validity and alignment to written disclosures and discourses.

1 Corinthians 4:4
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

I do accept the judgment of the Lord against my flesh.

 

[smaller]

If you want to put it in simplistic human terms, then yes, God does not have the freewill to be evil.

The freewiller God can only sit on His Cloud, away from His creation, away from reality, and hope that our freewills can perform. He can not intervene in the will or life of a "free" agent. He can do nothing. He is in such claims a powerless ineffective God. Unable to render judgments on the earth. Unable to bring retributive evil to evil.

He is, in short, unable, without the aid of man's free will, to do anything.

The freewill of man has defeated and immobilized Him. And we in our supposed free standing state can only beg and hope that He might actually "intervene."

Anyone who buys even a fraction of such narratives has gone south for theological winter.

Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

God created the wicked and will also take great pleasure in destroying them.

Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.