Questions Regarding Free WIll

[smaller]

I do not fail to recognize it, nor have I said to the contrary. That Scripture is not hard to understand, it means exactly what it says. You are the one that says I fail to recognize it. There must be some other thing I posted that gives you that impression that is not compatible with your theology?

The failure is in not recognizing that the contrary state of the flesh to the Spirit and vice versa is not changed by choices, freewill or otherwise.

Here is an example of a believer, speaking honestly, about his "choices."

Romans 7:
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

It might appear to be an utter failure of will and choice.

 

[th1b.taylor]

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.

And, in the end proves free will!

 

[smaller]

And, in the end proves free will!

As stated, no choice removes the contrary will. The will is not free to do so. The reality of Romans 7:21 changes by no choices of man.

 

[th1b.taylor]

As stated, no choice removes the contrary will. The will is not free to do so. The reality of Romans 7:21 changes by no choices of man.

I am almost tired of asking you to think in context but what you, incorrectly term a contrary will is or has nothing to do with any Christian and is more accurately termed a contrary influence. And I've explained until my fingers are nothing but nubs that, as scripture, the Word of God points out, a.k.a. teaches us, God does not need nor does He want robots, God wants beings that love Him and without free will there is no love, before nor after any given event without free will. Please, you are using circular logic and you make yourself small and silly running in a never ending circle trying to disprove the Word of God.

 

[chessman]

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

Sure it does.

But (and it's a big but) I'm not in the flesh any longer. That fleshly body is dead/crucified. So it depends on who you are asking the question about. You should read just a little further in Gal 5 and Rom 7.

As with the Gal 5:17 passage, Paul says just a little later on of a Christian:

Romans 8:9 (LEB) But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.
Romans 8:10 (LEB) But if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. ​

When you post Gal 5:17 (18 times in this thread alone) and/or Rom 7:17-21 it is applicable to those who have not yet crucified the flesh and do not have The Spirit of God living in them. Including Paul at one time.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

What expositions on free will by Dr Norman Geisler have you read?

 

[Hospes]

I see posts that teach God is not responsible for sin because he gave us free-will. 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? 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 I am not seeing free-will as a good argument for getting God off the hook for my evil.

In the book of Job, we get a behind the curtain look at God allowing Satan to do evil, tho limited, to Job. Nowhere Job blames Satan; he believes God has brought his calamities. ("Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”) At the end of Job, God does not correct this belief in Job. Finally, the writer of Job writes

Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. ... (Job 42:11 ESV)​

It seems clear to me, God gave Satan leeway for doing evil to Job and Job and the writer had no hesitation to assign to God what was happening and look to Him for relief.

There are numerous examples of God using evil agents to execute his will: Assyrian king, Babylonian kings, and Pilate. They were evil, but God was the one acting, using them to accomplish what He foreordained.

I guess my point is that the explanation that free will is the reason for evil in the world is not as tidy of an explanation as people propose. Maybe, like Job, we should have the humility to confess to God

"I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." (Job 42:2-3 ESV)​

 

[childeye]

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.

Sounds like you were out of control to me. If you didn't care about what you did to another man's wife, then you lacked the empathy to stop yourself.

 

[smaller]

I am almost tired of asking you to think in context but what you, incorrectly term a contrary will is or has nothing to do with any Christian and is more accurately termed a contrary influence.

I've said no differently. It is a will that functions (internally) apart from the will of the believer. Paul notes how this works and what it is quite intimately in Romans 7 and other citings.

And I've explained until my fingers are nothing but nubs that, as scripture, the Word of God points out, a.k.a. teaches us, God does not need nor does He want robots,

That is entirely presumptive on freewillers parts. Do our wills still function regardless of the internal adverse will from the presence of sin in the flesh and evil present, Romans 7:17-21? Of course. But the observation remains that another will IS in play internally AS IS the Will of God in play, internally, who made us in this fashion. And that other internal working does defile the body of flesh, individually and collectively. Phil. 3:21, Matt. 15:19-20, Mark 7:21-23, Matt. 5:28.

IF there is any robotics in play it is the universal robotics of sin in man. No freewill choice makes us sinless. 1 John 1:8

God wants beings that love Him and without free will there is no love,

That statement is tantamount to saying without man God doesn't exist. I find that non-credible.

We of ourselves DO NOT produce a love that is satisfactory and acceptable for God. We have reflected love given to us from God. We are NOT Gods originator, producing what He Is and has ever been.

before nor after any given event without free will. Please, you are using circular logic and you make yourself small and silly running in a never ending circle trying to disprove the Word of God.

IF you don't understand the scriptural reasoning resorting to petty slurs is not getting us anywhere nor does it mean "you win." The intents of these conversations is not to win.

 

[smaller]

Sounds like you were out of control to me. If you didn't care about what you did to another man's wife, then you lacked the empathy to stop yourself.

A male and female sinner outside the marriage bed engorging and manipulating each other with their bodies by sex is not an indication of freewill, but slaveship to sin. It assuredly does not show freewill. It shows captivity of the flesh. Captives claiming freewill. Captives claiming freedom without repercussions. There is no freewill shown by such captivity.

If anything it serves to show how badly the flesh LIES. Gal. 5:17

Free to be captives doesn't make much sense either does it? What we'd really need to see to prove freewill is anyone who made themselves sinless by their individual freewill. There are no examples of this with any man other than God Himself in flesh.

 

[childeye]

In the book of Job, we get a behind the curtain look at God allowing Satan to do evil, tho limited, to Job. Nowhere Job blames Satan; he believes God has brought his calamities. ("Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”) At the end of Job, God does not correct this belief in Job. Finally, the writer of Job writes

Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. ... (Job 42:11 ESV)​

It seems clear to me, God gave Satan leeway for doing evil to Job and Job and the writer had no hesitation to assign to God what was happening and look to Him for relief.

There are numerous examples of God using evil agents to execute his will: Assyrian king, Babylonian kings, and Pilate. They were evil, but God was the one acting, using them to accomplish what He foreordained.

I guess my point is that the explanation that free will is the reason for evil in the world is not as tidy of an explanation as people propose. Maybe, like Job, we should have the humility to confess to God

"I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." (Job 42:2-3 ESV)​

Free will is about personal responsibility for one's choices, particularly during trials and tribulations. In Job, Satan is confident that even the most upright of men only Love God for what He blesses us with. But as God proves to Satan, there is a deeper source of integrity between Job and God. As I see it, Job doesn't have the free will to curse God as Satan presumes. Satan is therefore projecting himself upon mankind.

 

[childeye]

A male and female sinner outside the marriage bed engorging and manipulating each other with their bodies by sex is not an indication of freewill, but slaveship to sin. It assuredly does not show freewill. It shows captivity of the flesh. Captives claiming freewill. Captives claiming freedom without repercussions. There is no freewill shown by such captivity.

If anything it serves to show how badly the flesh LIES. Gal. 5:17

Free to be captives doesn't make much sense either does it? What we'd really need to see to prove freewill is anyone who made themselves sinless by their individual freewill. There are no examples of this with any man other than God Himself in flesh.

Exactly. Just because I can stumble around doing stupid or harmful stuff doesn't prove I'm in control. Moreover, vanity can first cause a man to stumble, and then cause a man to claim he meant to do it. If we're going to be responsible for our actions, we must first start with being honest in all humility. I believe that God has to convict us for that to happen.

 

[smaller]

Sure it does.

But (and it's a big but) I'm not in the flesh any longer.

I've posted these several times now. Let's examine what Paul did after salvation for comparison to your claims:

Romans 7:
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

What was the end result of this for Paul? Was it a state of sinless perfection in the flesh? No, it was the exact opposite claim:

1 Timothy 1:
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Not "was." Not "used to be." I am, present tense.

Paul deploys this contrary state twice, vividly, in Gal. 4:29 and shows what is essentially the same statement in Gal. 5:17.

Does any of this show sin in the flesh and evil present defeated by freewill? Of course not.

The Grace and Mercy of God abides upon SINNERS. Christianity 101.

That fleshly body is dead/crucified.

It is 'ACCOUNTED' that way. But that is not a reality for the flesh. The flesh does not accept this conclusion nor is it apt to anytime soon. The flesh remains "actively" against and contrary to the Spirit and vice versa. These are in factual contentions with each others. Gal. 5:17. This is REAL contention.

Paul does also show that sin takes adverse resisting power in the flesh of BELIEVERS, from the law. Romans 7:7-13, 1 Cor. 15:56.

Anyone who claims they are sinless is not speaking truthfully in comparison to Paul or to John in 1 John 1:8 for examples. Paul made some ugly and derogatory claims about himself in his post salvation position. Few freewillers venture into the same scriptural claims that Paul made for himself. Perhaps their freewill lacks the capacity to speak in similar manners to Paul?

I observe say it's almost impossible for freewillers to step into Paul's shoes in those claims and that the freewill has taken them into fantasyland, not scriptural narratives.

 

[smaller]

What expositions on free will by Dr Norman Geisler have you read?

This thread was not started to examine the claims of Norman Geisler.

If you trot out a sectarian doctor of theology claiming that he is the winner because of his pedigree, that does not make him a sectarian authority in alignment with other sectarian doctors of theology. We all know that doctors of theology do not agree on everything or we'd all be roman catholics.

 

[childeye]

I am almost tired of asking you to think in context but what you, incorrectly term a contrary will is or has nothing to do with any Christian and is more accurately termed a contrary influence. And I've explained until my fingers are nothing but nubs that, as scripture, the Word of God points out, a.k.a. teaches us, God does not need nor does He want robots, God wants beings that love Him and without free will there is no love, before nor after any given event without free will. Please, you are using circular logic and you make yourself small and silly running in a never ending circle trying to disprove the Word of God.

Mr. Taylor, where does scripture teach that without free will there is no Love unto God?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Sounds like you were out of control to me. If you didn't care about what you did to another man's wife, then you lacked the empathy to stop yourself.

And point is?

 

[Douglas Summers]

It might appear to be an utter failure of will and choice.

It is not an utter failure of will and choice to walk after the flesh, for that is the nature of the beast, For Paul has the will to agree with God's assessment of man's nature, but has no way in himself to accomplish it, he had the will to do so, but not the nature to do so. And that was the whole purpose of the law, to condemn man of his utter failure of will to live according to God's law. But man does have the knowledge of good and evil. He knows the difference. The Law is not sin. It is man's inherited nature that can not obtain righteousness by his own nature and the law bares that out. For the law is Spiritual, we are not, (Rom. 7. 7-14)

For Saul had the will (Rom. 7:15-23) but did not have the choice until God called him out (on the road to Damascus). Rom. 7:7-23) is Saul in the Adamic or natural man and his battle within, But (Rom. 7:23-8:27) is the victory, because he now had a choice to save him from the body and condemnation of the natural man. He did not have that choice before. All he had was the law, The law that condemned him, but did not change him or his nature. Romans 7 & 8 are easy for the born again believer to understand. But those who are not Spiritual, it is philosophic. Now that a man who was convicted by the Law, met the Grace of God, He had no choice before to choose from. Many took the law and refused to think they were sinful, and used the law to justify them self (the Adamic nature of pride).

The Salvation of man and the creation are created by God. God made man in his likeness. We were not made Holy with free will like the angels. But we were made perishable and innocent with free will in the beginning to achieve a Holy fellowship and a kingdom with God. (1 Cor. 15:12-58) For man was made a little lower than the angels (for a while) to be brought up with Christ above the angles.(Heb. 2:5-18) For while the Angels were made Holy and sinned. They never had a body that could feel the consequences and pain of sin like man does. Therefor God did not create the body that He wanted, but the flesh was the seed to be cultivated to fruitfulness.

 

[smaller]

It is not an utter failure of will and choice to walk after the flesh, for that is the nature of the beast,

What Paul shows us in Romans 7:15 & 19 is reality. Not some delusion of the freewill, claiming to making itself sinless.

Paul shows us in Romans 7:17-21, both "I" and "no longer I" in operations.

No one makes their evil present, the sin indwelling the flesh, obedient, legal, in faith, under Grace or Gods Mercy.

For Paul has the will to agree with God's assessment of man's nature,

I would not term "no longer I" Paul's nature because he did not. Neither did he deny that those workings are real, adverse, in the flesh. The will of man in Paul's case was NOT ABLE to stop those workings from happening by "his will", which he clearly says in Romans 7:15 & 19. He actually shows the opposite to be the case. That he wants to do good but instead does what he hates, and does evil. IS that a claim of freewill? Never.

IF these workings of "no longer I" made Paul do things he hated and made him do evil by his own open confessions, then so it is with ALL of us, likewise, seen or UNseen.

but has no way in himself to accomplish it, he ha the will to do so, but not the nature to do so. And that was the whole purpose of the law, to condemn man of his utter failure of will to live according to God's law.

The Law has many purposes. Not the least of which is to empower sin, making it utterly sinful. Romans 7:13, 1 Cor. 15:56. No one changes this relationship with the law and sin. It is a law, that evil is present with us. Romans 7:21.

But man does have the knowledge of good and evil. He knows the difference. The Law is not sin. It is man's inherited nature that can not obtain righteousness by his own nature and the law bares that out. For the law is Spiritual, we are not, (Rom. 7. 7-14)

Again, Paul did not describe the sin indwelling his flesh as "I" but "no longer I." Nevertheless his flesh served the law of sin, meaning that where the Law, the Word is sown, indwelling sin, "no longer I" reacts in adversarial fashions, BREAKING the law via the insertions of lusts, internally. Romans 7:7-13.

Jesus describes this as "evil thoughts" which DO defile us. Matt. 15:19-20 and Mark 7:21-23 and Matt. 5:28. This happens internally regardless of any "freewill claims" that it doesn't.

The end result is to bring us all quite solidly into this position:

Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

When it comes to sin the freewill of believers will not and can not make us one iota better than any other sinners:

Romans 3:
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

This is the basis of no one, no not one, being "legal." It's not even possible because of "no longer I."

For Saul had the will (Rom. 7:15-23) but did not have the choice until God called him out (on the road to Damascus). Rom. 7:7-23) is Saul in the Adamic or natural man and his battle within, But (Rom. 7:23-8:27) is the victory, because he now had a choice to save him from the body and condemnation of the natural man.

I would not consider the God of all creation striking a man down to blindness with His Light any kind of CHOICE of that man. That is simply ridiculous. That event required exactly ZERO on Saul's part or Paul's, if you prefer. Saul was selected, elected by God to do what he did. Crediting Paul was the last thing on Paul's checklist. Paul had the right Spiritual outlook on both man and the flesh given to him.

Galatians 6:3
For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

He did not have that choice before.

Nor did he after by his own admissions. Paul described himself as the chief of sinners AFTER salvation. 1 Tim. 1:15. I might observe that Paul was not only seeing "himself and his choices" in these matters, but ALSO the factual workings and adverse choices of "no longer I" in his own flesh. I doubt that any of us would look upon Paul and see him as an "external sinner" doing every kind of vile thing either. It was an internal matter of the flesh, exactly as Paul describes in many places.

All he had was the law, The law that condemned him, but did not change him or his nature. Romans 7 & 8 are easy for the born again believer to understand. But those who are not Spiritual, it is philosophic. Now that a man who was convicted by the Law, met the Grace of God, He had no choice to choose from. Many took the law and refused to think they were sinful, used the law to justify them self (the Adamic nature of pride).

The point of the matter is and remains that the will of "no longer I" remains functioning in the flesh. It is indwelling sin, it is evil and it is also of the devil, our adversary. Romans 7:17-21, 1 John 3:8.

Nobody makes the devil obey the law or make sinless choices.

The Salvation of man and the creation are created by God. God made man in his likeness. We were not made Holy with free will like the angels. But we were made perishable and innocent with free will in the beginning to achieve a Holy fellowship and a kingdom with God. (1 Cor. 15:12-58) For man was made a little lower than the angels (for a while) to be brought up with Christ above the angles.

(Heb. 2:5-18) For while the Angels were made Holy and sinned. They never had a body that could feel the consequences and pain of sin like man does. Therefor God did not create the body that He wanted, but the flesh was the seed to be cultivated to fruitfulness.

How you portray "man" is not the portrayal of scripture, as shown above. Most freewillers are nearly incognizant of the will of sin and evil in the flesh. They quite falsely think "it's just I." It's not.

We are shown in scriptures what man is:

Mark 4:15, Acts 26:18, Romans 7, Romans 11:8, 2 Cor. 3:14 & 4:4 among many many others show that man is NOT a freewill agent whatsoever, but a slave of sin in the flesh, and evil present, which is demonic ownership of the flesh.

This places TWO parties "in man." Not one. One of them Paul defined as "no longer I."

Paul shows this identical principle, another agent, in his own flesh, here:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

There is "no longer I" revealed.

 

[chessman]

Let's examine what Paul did after salvation for comparison to your claims:

Okay. But I did already.

Romans 8:9a (LEB) But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. ​

Thus I claimed:

I'm not in the flesh any longer.

Pretty simple really. Paul says you are not in the flesh if the Spirit of God lives in you. The Spirit of God lives in me. Thus, I claimed I am not in the flesh any longer. Don't you agree?

What was the end result of this for Paul?

That's easy too:

Romans 8:15-16 (LEB) For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself confirms to our spirit that we are children of God,​

Adoption as a child of God.

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

It is 'ACCOUNTED' that way. But that is not a reality for the flesh.

Not according to Paul.

 

[Douglas Summers]

What Paul shows us in Romans 7:15 & 19 is reality. Not some delusion of the freewill, claiming to making itself sinless.

Man from the beginning has always thought he was smarter then God or at least man thinks he can know as much as God knows (Gen. 3:1-6) Even early around 60 A. D. There were those who claimed the flesh was not responsible because it could not change it's nature. There will be many philosophers that will (with pride of so called knowledge) explain God by the wisdom of man (which is not wisdom) to put everything neatly in a box. But God has not told us all of the secret things that belong to Him, but every thing we need to know for salvation.