Questions Regarding Free WIll

[childeye]

Galatians 5:24 (LEB). Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh together with its feelings and its desires.​

You sure these desires of the flesh ARE THERE?

Good point. Once these carnal desires have all been crucified, then there is no choice between opposing desires, which makes free will disappear in the moral/immoral purview. It's as if free will exists only in our minds when we are believing that there's a legitimate option to God.

But still unanswered is this question. Can mankind accomplish the crucifying of his flesh without the Spirit of Christ? I don't think so.

 

[OzSpen]

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!

Please document what you are saying regarding: (1) Calvin, the church fathers and free will; (2) Warner's bold assertions without providing strong arguments.

That's what you have done here. You have made bold assertions but without providing the evidence to which you refer. We have a stack of information on the Internet. It is necessary to document your assertions.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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. "​

chessman,

Didn't you read the headings of the columns in this article by Tim Warner? A brief definition of free will was definitely given as the heading in the middle column:

Free Will
God's grace is given to
all who submit willingly

Then came this explication:

Prior to the writings of Augustine, the Church universally held that mankind had a totally free will. Each man was responsible before God to accept the Gospel. His ultimate destiny, while fully dependent on God's grace and power, was also dependent on his free choice to submit to or reject God's grace and power. In the three centuries from the Apostles to Augustine the early Church held to NONE of the five points of Calvinism, not one. The writings of the orthodox Church, for the first three centuries, are in stark contrast to the ideas of Augustine and Calvin. Man is fully responsible for his choice to respond to or reject the Gospel. This was considered to be the Apostolic doctrine passed down through the local church elders ordained by the Apostles, and their successors (Calvinism: Free will & the early church, Tim Warner).​

Seems as though you have a blind eye to this definition and exposition.

Eminent Southern Baptist theologian, Dr Roger E Olson, has written:

Ask yourself why Calvinism was literally unheard of before Augustine in the fifth century? That view of God’s sovereignty is completely absent in the earlier, Greek-speaking church fathers. The earliest church fathers rejected determinism and affirmed free will. How could someone like Irenaeus, late second century church father, have gotten it so wrong when he was trained in the Christian faith by Polycarp who was a disciple of John, the youngest disciple of Jesus? (What's wrong with Calvinism?)​

As for your statement that 'He thinks freewill means "independent-will" and that freewill is somehow in conflict with God's sovereignty', that is a statement from his introduction to Calvinism in which he was dealing with Augustine's and Calvin's views. Please do not distort what this writer wrote as you have done here.

Oz

 

[chessman]

Once these carnal desires have all been crucified, then there is no choice, which makes free will disappear.

Once the fleshly desires have all been crucified, then fleshly desires have been crucified. Exactly how does that mean freewill disappear? It doesn't follow from this verse.

 

[childeye]

Once the fleshly desires have all been crucified, then fleshly desires have been crucified. Exactly how does that mean freewill disappear? It doesn't follow from this verse.

This is very simple. If free will is defined as the ability to choose between the desires of the flesh and the desires of the spirit, then upon the eliminating of all carnal desire, there will no longer be a choice to make between the two. Hence free will disappears.

I realize that this is conflating choice/decision with choice/option. But it's necessary so as to point out why free will cannot be defined through such means.

 

[OzSpen]

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.


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.

What you have said about eminent apologist and theologian, Dr Norman Geisler, is abominable when you provide not one shred of evidence from his writings. Not a word from you about the content of what he wrote except 'Mr. Geisler would be laughed offstage'. Dr Geisler happens to have written more than 60 books and hundreds of articles. He speaks and debates nationally in the USA and internationally. Yet you have the audacity to call him an ignoramus who would be 'laughed offstage'.

It's time for you to become a person of knowledge and integrity about a person before you make such outlandish statements.

It's too late to tell me that 'Scripture doesn't teach freewill whatsoever'. I've done my research of OT and NT and found evidence to the contrary that I've written in my article, What is the nature of human free will?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Amen, and Geisler is a good read for theology and end times ideology.

Have you read Chosen but Free? His 4 volumes of systematic theology provide hundreds of pages of insight. He's one of God's special people in the evangelical world and not one who would be 'laughed offstage' (smaller's words).

 

[chessman]

Didn't you read the headings of the columns in this article by Tim Warner? A brief definition of free will was definitely given as the heading in the middle col

Yes, I read it and even tried to copy that heading into my post as the closet thing he wrote to describe what he meant by freewill, but on my phone, it didn't copy.

No clear definition is given by the author

A brief definition of free will was definitely given as the heading in the middle column:

Free Will
God's grace is given to
all who submit willingly

That's not a definition of freewill. And note, I said no CLEAR definition was given. I mistepresented nothing.

 

[childeye]

What you have said about eminent apologist and theologian, Dr Norman Geisler, is abominable when you provide not one shred of evidence from his writings. Not a word from you about the content of what he wrote except 'Mr. Geisler would be laughed offstage'. Dr Geisler happens to have written more than 60 books and hundreds of articles. He speaks and debates nationally in the USA and internationally. Yet you have the audacity to call him an ignoramus who would be 'laughed offstage'.

It's time for you to become a person of knowledge and integrity about a person before you make such outlandish statements.

It's too late to tell me that 'Scripture doesn't teach freewill whatsoever'. I've done my research of OT and NT and found evidence to the contrary that I've written in my article, What is the nature of human free will?

Oz

Please elaborate on what you mean by power of contrary choice? Contrary to what?

 

[chessman]

If free will is defined as the ability to choose between the desires of the flesh and the desires of the spirit, then upon the eliminating of all carnal desire, there will no longer be a choice to make between the two.

Umm, what about the desires of the new man? Why think there's ony two desires and not three?

 

[childeye]

Umm, what about the desires of the new man? Why think there's ony two desires and not three?

I would think that the new man would be made in the Image of Christ. This definition of a free will is one I could accept as truly free. This would require that having a free will is not based upon an ability/disability to equivocate.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Good point. Once these carnal desires have all been crucified, then there is no choice between opposing desires, which makes free will disappear in the moral/immoral purview. It's as if free will exists only in our minds when we are believing that there's a legitimate option to God.

But still unanswered is this question. Can mankind accomplish the crucifying of his flesh without the Spirit of Christ? I don't think so.

And that is the point, none but our Christ has been physically crucified, we are crucified only in the Spirit for the time being.

 

[childeye]

And that is the point, none but our Christ has been physically crucified, we are crucified only in the Spirit for the time being.

Please provide an example of what being crucified in the Spirit means to you.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Have you read Chosen but Free? His 4 volumes of systematic theology provide hundreds of pages of insight. He's one of God's special people in the evangelical world and not one who would be 'laughed offstage' (smaller's words).

That I have not read but I picked a copy of his Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics as soon as it came out and it is now in the hands of a younger preacher that teaches everything the Word of God touches on.

 

[OzSpen]

Please elaborate on what you mean by power of contrary choice? Contrary to what?

It means that if a human being is given the choice of A or B, he/she has the ability to choose between alternatives, A or B. If I am told that I can 'choose this day whom I will serve' (cf Josh 24:15 ESV), I have the power of contrary choice that I can choose (1) to serve the Lord or the contrary, (2) not to serve the Lord.

Oz

 

[chessman]

I would think that the new man would be made in the Image of Christ.

I agree. Able to now follow the leading of The Spirit, but distinct from The Spirit of God, none the less.

Galatians 5:25 (LEB) If we live by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit. ​

I see no reason to think the new man has lost freewill. Merely gained The Spirit and crucified the flesh.

 

[childeye]

I agree. Able to now follow the leading of The Spirit, but distinct from The Spirit of God, none the less.

Galatians 5:25 (LEB) If we live by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit. ​

I see no reason to think the new man has lost freewill. Merely gained The Spirit and crucified the flesh.

It depends on how one defines free will as to whether I would consider it lost or gained.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Please provide an example of what being crucified in the Spirit means to you.

I already have in past posts but alright. As a man slain in the Spirit, I now have the freedom I never had as a Lost Man. Before I laid down on the altar (Rom. 12:1) I did not have the freedom to boldly approach the throne of God as a son might do, now I do. Having been slain in the Spirit I am free to choose to turn from the sinful being I thought I enjoyed being and instead choose real and everlasting joy, real joy.

As a man slain in the Spirit I no longer need to sin, I am free. I am still tempted but I do not need to sin as I did before.

 

[th1b.taylor]

It means that every human being is given the ability to choose between alternatives. If I am told that I can 'choose this day whom I will serve' (cf Josh 24:15 ESV), I have the contrary choice that I can choose to serve the Lord or not to serve the Lord.

Amen!

 

[chessman]

It depends on how one defines free will as to whether it was lost or gained.

By the working definition given in the OP, I see no reason (Biblically or personally) to think man does not have freewill before and after the new birth.

Yes, we are influenced by the adversary, the flesh, other people, The Spirit and lots of other influences. So??? That doesn't mean we do not have freewill.