Questions Regarding Free WIll

[Hospes]

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.

My apologies. I made the assumption you had read what Calvin wrote about the topic. I refer you to Chapter 2 of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. It does take a bit of concentration, so it is harder than reading what someone claims Calvin taught. BTW, usually it is a good idea to read the original writer and not just what his critics write about him, regardless of the critic's pro/con position.

Here is Warner giving "bold assertions" without providing strong arguments for making them. The second of which is a serious charge against any brother in Christ and shows a lack of love. (For some it seems love-one-another is a discardable commandment when arguing Christian doctrine.)

• "In the three centuries from the Apostles to Augustine the early Church held to NONE of the five points of Calvinism, not one."
• "They [Calvinists] seem to hold a higher opinion of philosophers, like Augustine, than of the Apostles themselves..."

As I wrote, "we are all prone to such error, but it's not a good practice to cite such writers as authoritative." I stand guilty as charged for making assertions without references to base them on. My apologies.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Yes, I also have a copy of his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. That's a goldmine of apologetic material and includes lots of the articles he has written and had published on apologetics over the years.

His Chosen But Free is still the best I've read on this election vs free will theological debate. It presents a sensible position that affirms God's sovereignty and foreknowledge, while also affirming the human responsibility to accept or reject God.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

My apologies. I made the assumption you had read what Calvin wrote about the topic. I refer you to Chapter 2 of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. It does take a bit of concentration, so it is harder than reading what someone claims Calvin taught. BTW, usually it is a good idea to read the original writer and not just what his critics write about him, regardless of the critic's pro/con position.

Here is Warner giving "bold assertions" without providing strong arguments for making them. The second of which is a serious charge against any brother in Christ and shows a lack of love. (For some it seems love-one-another is a discardable commandment when arguing Christian doctrine.)

• "In the three centuries from the Apostles to Augustine the early Church held to NONE of the five points of Calvinism, not one."
• "They [Calvinists] seem to hold a higher opinion of philosophers, like Augustine, than of the Apostles themselves..."

As I wrote, "we are all prone to such error, but it's not a good practice to cite such writers as authoritative." I stand guilty as charged for making assertions without references to base them on. My apologies.

You have made a false charge against me. I HAVE read Calvin and do not accept his exposition. Instead I accept the biblical position of free will that I've articulated in my article, What is the nature of human free will?

Better than reading Calvin, Augustine, the early church fathers, or Arminius, I have chosen to go to Scripture. Isn't that where we find the best exposition of God's sovereignty, free will, and human responsibility?

Oz

 

[smaller]

Gal. 5:17 demonstrates that there are two wills present in the Saved Man to choose from

And which of those wills (2) is "free?"

At least you made it to 2 wills operating in conflict. Are either of these wills released from battle or do they remain actively against each others?

When done with the above you can tell me how the Spirit is a loser. Would love to hear your apologetic for that.

Gal. 5:17

Then perhaps we'll examine how free a will of the flesh is that is contrary to the Spirit.

Should be quite fun.

 

[By Grace]

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,

There are a number of theological terms for which there are not agreed definitions. It is still worthwhile discussing these terms to try to work through the issues.

I'm thinking of terms such as predestination, election, atonement, grace leading to salvation, eternal security, etc. Let's not close down discussion of a range of theological issues, simply because we don't have agreed definitions. It could be that the dialogue over the terms and theology could assist any one of us to reach a satisfactory definition.

I think that is addressed in this phrase, "and have not solved it for us, "

 

[smaller]

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?

Would you say sin does not dwell in the flesh and evil is not present therein? Romans 7:17-21.

I don't understand how any believer can make a case for evil being "free will" to start with. Seems somewhat absurd.

There is a price for evil. It is not free.

 

[OzSpen]

I think that is addressed in this phrase, "and have not solved it for us, "

Christian luminaries HAVE SOLVED it for us. See:

• Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free (BethanyHouse Publishers 2010);
• Roger T Forster & V Paul Marston, God's Strategy in Human History (Wipf & Stock Publishers 2001), and
• Roger E Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006).

Oz

 

[childeye]

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

Regarding Joshua 24:15,I don't think this scripture is a good example of a free will. I take note that one must first consider it evil to serve God before being able to regard any alternative as a preference. "If it seems evil in your eyes to serve Lord God, then choose this day whom you will serve".

As for your description of the power of contrary choice, I don't actually see any power here. You're conflating the existence of an option with a man's need to decide. The will exhibits a desire which is made clear for the record after the choice is made. All I see is God sifting.

Here's how I see the definition of free will that you have presented. I have a mouse in a box. Then I create a second room in the box by installing a partition, complete with a door so that the mouse can freely choose which room to be in. I have now given the mouse a free will because he now has an option. If I were to apply this to Eve and the serpent, the serpent would be the one who provided the choice to believe God or not, and therefore gave mankind a free will.

 

[childeye]

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.

You're describing a change of will. Did you ever reach a point in your sinful life that some would call hitting rock bottom? Were there people praying for you?

 

[OzSpen]

Regarding Joshua 24:15,I don't think this scripture is a good example of a free will. I take note that one must first consider it evil to serve God before being able to regard any alternative as a preference. "If it seems evil in your eyes to serve Lord God, then choose this day whom you will serve".

As for your description of the power of contrary choice, I don't actually see any power here. You're conflating the existence of an option with a man's need to decide. The will exhibits a desire which is made clear for the record after the choice is made. All I see is God sifting.

Here's how I see the definition of free will that you have presented. I have a mouse in a box. Then I create a second room in the box by installing a partition, complete with a door so that the mouse can freely choose which room to be in. I have now given the mouse a free will because he now has an option. If I were to apply this to Eve and the serpent, the serpent would be the one who provided the choice to believe God or not, and therefore gave mankind a free will.

To the contrary, from the beginning of time in the Garden God gave human beings the ability of contrary choice (Genesis 2 & 3 ESV). After the fall into sin, that choice has not been changed.

Joshua 24:15 is a good choice as but one example because it shows how people could choose which way to decide. I can choose to continue to follow Jesus (which I have decided to do), or I could choose to give him the flick.

Are you a determinist in regard to a person's will?

Oz

 

[childeye]

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.

The definition of the Op just means to be alive. Most all animals have free wills according to the definition of the op. Even bugs make choices at some elementary level.

The distinction to be made with the definition of the OP, is the term free will doesn't mean simply to choose because it actually implies being responsible for one's choices in the moral/immoral purview. I believe we have a master that we serve, which belief in free will keeps a person blind to. Notice in scripture, that the Ox knows it's master but Israel does not know.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Respectfully, you have framed the discussion to say that free will means to be alive and sentient. Every moment of life is a choice/decision happening. But there are those of us who of course are not arguing that we are dead. We are sincerely trying to establish whether mankind is able to be righteous according to one's own discretion. For example, some men can choose to kill so as to steal five dollars, but I cannot choose to do that.... Why? Free will doesn't address the question of where a person's righteousness or unrighteousness comes from. In fact, it evades the issue by first asserting and then concluding that since there exists options, we simply choose.

Free will is choice, and by free will a man can be a good man, But no man from Adam to this present time can be a righteous man by His own discretion before God. But by his own discretion a man can claim He is righteous, and is usually ready to point out everyone else faults. In Scripture, a righteous man never means a perfect man (he is still a sinner). He is righteous, only because he trust in and worships the Lord. His unrighteousness comes rebellion from the Adamic nature (inherited) You are capable of murder and theft in the Adamic nature. Your profile says you are a Christian, then you have a new man that is contrary to the old man, that is why you do not want murder or steal. Unrighteousness come from the Law, and so does righteousness. Disobedience and rebellion comes from man. Before the law, free will in man had no consequences in the mind of man because there was no condemnation or moral accuser. Mans Adamic nature was his ruler. (Rom. 5:12-21) God's creation, Including man is under a curse (Rom. 8:18-27). Some men are born wicked (Psalms 58:3) Because God gave man a conscience and reasoning and memory and a body that can feel pain and eyes that can see, all men have the facility to reason (in them selves) as in God's image, but not His holiness.

 

[childeye]

To the contrary, from the beginning of time in the Garden God gave human beings the ability of contrary choice (Genesis 2 & 3 ESV). After the fall into sin, that choice has not been changed.

Are you referring to God giving the command not to eat of the fruit, or are you talking about Satan tempting and suggesting a viable alternative?

Joshua 24:15 is a good choice as but one example because it shows how people could choose which way to decide. I can choose to continue to follow Jesus (which I have decided to do), or I could choose to give him the flick.

Yes, it shows HOW one thinking it was evil to serve the Lord, could choose to decide in favor of some other God. But it doesn't show how one decides to see serving God as evil. Where's the power in such a decision? Ignorance? Isn't darkness an ignorance, and the knowledge of God Light?

Are you a determinist in regard to a person's will?

I believe there are a certain order of events as told in scripture that have corrupted men's wills. I would describe this corruption as begun through belief in a false imagery of god that trends to vanity. I regard this corruption as a disability in the will and it's end is death. However, I then see God re-creating from inside the Creation through the Christ, and quickening what was once corrupted. This Image of God is of a Glorious Love that I never could have imagined. Therefore I never chose to believe in Jesus. I was shown a Truth in which I wanted to believe. I didn't choose to want to believe in it, and therefore neither could I choose to not want to believe. There was no power of contrary choice happening, only the power of the Truth of God replacing lies. Those to me are the order of events that have brought me where I am, still growing in Christ and he in me.

 

[childeye]

Free will is choice, and by free will a man can be a good man, But no man from Adam to this present time can be a righteous man by His own discretion before God. But by his own discretion a man can claim He is righteous, and is usually ready to point out everyone else faults. In Scripture, a righteous man never means a perfect man (he is still a sinner). He is righteous, only because he trust in and worships the Lord. His unrighteousness comes rebellion from the Adamic nature (inherited) You are capable of murder and theft in the Adamic nature. Your profile says you are a Christian, then you have a new man that is contrary to the old man, that is why you do not want murder or steal. Unrighteousness come from the Law, and so does righteousness. Disobedience and rebellion comes from man. Before the law, free will in man had no consequences in the mind of man because there was no condemnation or moral accuser. Mans Adamic nature was his ruler. (Rom. 5:12-21) God's creation, Including man is under a curse (Rom. 8:18-27). Some men are born wicked (Psalms 58:3) Because God gave man a conscience and reasoning and memory and a body that can feel pain and eyes that can see, all men have the facility to reason (in them selves) as in God's image, but not His holiness.

Okay, you've said a lot. I still don't see how a free will can be proven to exist just because there exists an option. The will doesn't freely desire as you have pointed out, so therefore the will chooses according to it's nature. Hence a wicked man does wicked things. The existence of options doesn't actually have anything to do with the will.

Yes, a man does reason within himself and he does have a conscience. However when the mind reasons upon a false image of god as it's core premise, then this reasoning is corrupted even because of this corrupt image. Likewise I believe a man's conscience is also then defiled. You should read what I just wrote in Post #293 to get a better idea of what I mean.

 

[th1b.taylor]

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.

I do try not to offend people but I have found that in the perverted society we presently live, the Politically Correct World, telling the truth is evil on many levels. That being said, I do not think well of modern education where context in reading and how to learn what is unknown being no longer taught, not even in our colleges.

I, perhaps, often mislabel these people as intentionally ignorant and/or intentionally stupid. It is not entirely wrong because God gave every single one of us the desire to know and because of the Free Will they have failed to address God about, it is still their own faults.

I entered the Church under the directional influence of the Holy Ghost, having already, fully, committed my life to Him so that when the Free Will was the class of the day, I was already practicing what I was learning and when Missionary Richard Clark preached on understanding Scripture Through Hermeneutics, I was eating the pages of my copy as though they were sweet, sweet, candy and when I took the scriptures with the understanding that no scripture, passage of scriptures, nor any collection of scriptures could ever be fully understood without the light of all scripture shining on them, suddenly the Holy Spirt's task with me was greatly simplified.

But you see, the church is filled with Elders, Deacons, and Pastors that know nothing of what I teach because they, like the Pharisees, Sadusees, and the Scribes have held their bully positions for years and years and fear losing face more than they do losing their salvation.

Hence, we have an issue with understanding Free Will even though God clearly teaches it.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You're describing a change of will. Did you ever reach a point in your sinful life that some would call hitting rock bottom? Were there people praying for you?

Yes but no! People tend not to pray for drug abusing, alcoholic, C&W singers.

edit: I lied, there were likely some of the good Christian men that got drunk every Friday Night as they chased the Cowgirls around the Dance Floor that prayed their wives never fell under my spell, I had on nasty, nasty, reputation.

 

[smaller]

Are you sure that's true (the flesh is in charge) of every person?

Never made that claim. Sorry. What I do cite is that the flesh is contrary to the Spirit and the Spirit is contrary to the flesh and that no flesh can make itself otherwise by will, free or otherwise.

Since the flesh is contrary to the Spirit the flesh will actually lie about it's condition and can not tell the truth of this matter, freewill or not. Gal. 5:17

 

[smaller]

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'.

Geisler tries to play it both ways. I wouldn't consider his attempts remedying Divinely chosen but freely choosing valid middle ground. It's called compatibilism.

But hey if it works for you, great. I'd call it double talk, trying to play it both ways.

One thing I know for a certainty. That the flesh of Mr. Geisler or any other person is contrary to and against the Spirit, regardless of their choices, freewill or otherwise, to have it not be so. Gal. 5:17. The will can not free itself of these by choices.

The existence of contrariness or evil present (Romns 7:21) or sin indwelling the flesh (Romans 7:17-20) is not evidence of freewill. It is evidence of a working that is contrary to the Spirit and in contention with the Spirit.

 

[smaller]

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

And you continue to miss a very basic point. Regardless of what choice is made the choice to make the flesh not contrary to the Spirit and against the Spirit doesn't exist. Gal. 5:17. No choice can eliminate this contrary state.

Our supposed freewill can not choose to NOT have sin indwelling our flesh. Our supposed freewill can not choose to NOT have evil present with us. Romans 7:17-21.

Regardless of the produce of any choices these conditions remain, are adversarial to the Spirit and the Spirit adversarial to these conditions.

 

[smaller]

My will chooses constantly to ignore evil! Yes the evil is there with every one of us but we need not yeild to it. Free Will!

It may very well. But no choice anyone makes can eliminate it from happening. That's kinda the point. Romans 7:17-21 does not change by choices.