Questions Regarding Free WIll

[smaller]

Do we ever have the right to even boast of our faith? Is God in control or we?

If I didn't believe that I would not bother with God and would only bother with "freewill, freestanding" self interests.

 

[chessman]

Mark 4:15 happened to them both for example, and that shows they were not "alone" in their decision making. So does 1 John 3:8, shows the same thing.

Freewill essentially "removes" God from interactions and interference with His own creation.

Freewillers see only man. That is NOT how scripture presents man.

You (and some other posters in this thread too) are re-defining "freewill" from the definition given in the OP:

First, I will define free will as the ability for a person to choose to do good or evil, regardless of the influences, for good or for evil, that may work upon them.

Evil influences that work upon a person does not mean a person does not have freewill. God's influences that work upon a person does not mean a person does not have freewill.

Gravitational influences upon a person does not mean a person cannot freely jump up in the air (or not).

 

[Hospes]

2 Peter 3:8-9 (NKJV) But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. ​

Peter says that God is not willing that any of the beloved should perish. He DOES NOT say that God is not willing that any of the un-beloved should not perish.

Nor does Jesus:

John 3:16 (NKJV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ​

Notice, Jesus DOES NOT say 'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that the world should not perish'

John 3:18 (NKJV) “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ​

I would respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what Peter wrote and fully agree with what you think John wrote.

In the Peter passage he is writing to the beloved, but he is writing about showing patience for those yet to be saved. Also, we know God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11 ESV)

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:23 ESV)
​

So the question remains: if God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked, why does not do as he pleases and save all? (I am not implying he does.)

The free-will and non-free-will folks are on equal footing with 2 Peter 3:8-9; both believe God desires all to be saved, but have different reasons for why God does not save all. As best I can tell, the free-will folks see it as a matter of God having a greater competing desire to give people free-will even if it results in Him not pursuing to completion His lesser will that all be saved.

 

[smaller]

You (and some other posters in this thread too) are re-defining "freewill" from the definition given in the OP:

The poster said it was only his definition. Not that there is actually any legitimate definition of freewill to start with, because there is not.

I've pointed out this quite basic flaw in freewill postures many times. IF we claim as believers, that the Spirit of Christ is "in us" then no choice can take place in a vacuum of only the believer. It's impossible to attribute any choice solely to the person IF the Spirit of Christ is in them. His Spirit also has choice. Any choice can take on some pretty interesting consequences to the believers on both sides of the ledgers of good and evil.

I might hope that this mix is seen and understood. No freewill, which I define for a believer as a will that functions alone and only of the individual, can exist within a believer in light of the Will of God in Christ operating in them.

And for the unsaved it is even more easily proven that their wills are NOT free whatsoever. See Mark 4:15, Acts 26:18, Romans 11:8, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph. 2:2 for instant proof of their slaveship to the demonic will of Satan IN them, over their wills.

Evil influences that work upon a person does not mean a person does not have freewill.

I would point out that no choice eradicates the presence of evil withIN us, nor does it change the adversity withIN us that evil presents, NOR does it prove that any choice is not influenced in some way by that obviously non cooperative working of evil withIN us.

The flesh and the Spirit are factually opposed to each others. Gal. 5:17. This alone proves that we reside in perpetual contention. And that any choices made are made from an internal basis of contention.

God's influences that work upon a person does not mean a person does not have freewill.

The fact that another influence, much stronger than we, exists, proves to us that our will or choice does not and can not exist as a stand alone matter. Freewill in the face of Gods Will is merely a hollow assertion.

IF God chooses, by His Spirit, to be against the flesh, which HE DOES CHOOSE, there is no amount of freewill choice, internal or external, that can change that conclusion.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I'm glad you clarified. It didn't sound that way in the post I addressed. For the record I don't condemn "freewillers" to potential hell based on their understandings of freewill. Determinist positions have problems too.

It is my, long held, view that any position that cannot be reconciled with any scripture is problematic and that is how I arrived where I now stand. It was the only position I could, with or without the Spirit's leading, reconcile with all of scripture. The study, if seriously undertaken, is a study to rip one apart because, even with the leading of the Holy Spirit, so much of the Bible must, simply, be accepted because there is nothing on this Earth to give us relation to some aspects of God, save the scriptures.

 

[smaller]

So the question remains: if God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked, why does not do as he pleases and save all? (I am not implying he does.)

If we observe Paul here we might see somethings interesting regarding Gods Will and choices made by Paul.

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 are factually TWO parties in the above depiction. There is Paul and there is the messenger of Satan in the flesh of Paul.

God chose to save Paul. That choice of God can not be changed. But in Paul's flesh there is a party that is not Paul, that God chooses to damn to the LoF, which has not transpired yet.

No choices made by Paul would be able to "justify" the other party. And no actions by the other party are capable of damning Paul, other than to put him back into temporal slaveship in his flesh, which CAN and DOES happen.

In this factual equation does God intend to SAVE ALL? Uh, no. Obviously that is not the case. All in Paul's case was only Paul, not the other party. So God was going to be "saving" all of Paul as we might look upon Paul in the flesh? No.

The free-will and non-free-will folks are on equal footing with 2 Peter 3:8-9; both believe God desires all to be saved, but have different reasons for why God does not save all. As best I can tell, the free-will folks see it as a matter of God having a greater competing desire to give people free-will even if it results in Him not pursuing to completion His lesser will that all be saved.

God has quite purposefully bound "all" people with the spirit of disobedience. Eph. 2:2. Romans 11:32.

IF His Intentions were to save all, which is not the case, then the spirit of disobedience would simply have to be eliminated. And that can only happen if and when God CHOOSES to have it happen. Which choice will eventually be realized. And even for believers to be saved, the spirit of disobedience has to be REPELLED back by the Spirit of Christ, in order for US to see.

God will have HIS MERCY. And if He, by His Own Will, has purposefully put man in a position of need for same, by placing them UNDER the spirit of disobedience, then that spirit of disobedience can and will get much much worse to PROVE our need of His Mercy. We all remain in a state of perpetual NEED of His Mercy.

Paul did not land in a sinless state after salvation. Quite the opposite. Paul claimed to be the chief of sinners after salvation. 1 Tim. 1:15. Paul made that statement in the LIGHT of the messenger of Satan in his flesh. It was not showing us "just and only Paul" making good choices resulting in sinlessness because that never happened. Paul was not "its" slave, but "it," that other agent, was present with him in his flesh. Paul carried that contention with an entirely different party in his flesh, all the days of his flesh life.

In this way the spirit of disobedience is His, Gods servant, to FORCE us to our Maker. In this way His Ways are in fact Sovereign over the whole earth. On the dire side I might add.

 

[smaller]

It is my, long held, view that any position that cannot be reconciled with any scripture is problematic and that is how I arrived where I now stand. It was the only position I could, with or without the Spirit's leading, reconcile with all of scripture.

I do not come to the same conclusion for the same reasons. Even though I started with that imposition of freewill at the start. I know for no uncertain fact that the will of my flesh is in contention with and against the Spirit. Gal. 5:17. Therefore there is no such animal as only "my" will. Gal. 5:17. I "willed" to not have that contention, but the Spirit wills otherwise.

Both scripture and reality have proven this to me beyond any doubt. And I think the same proof can be made by anyone taking an honest look at their own flesh, which is contrary to the Spirit.

That is no indication of free whatsoever. The flesh is not free. The Spirit is against it. Therefore it can not be free. And no choice will change what the Spirit has chosen to be against.

 

[chessman]

freewill, which I define for a believer as a will that functions alone and only of the individual,

So do you consider your definition legitimate in light of the fact that you say there is no legitimate definition?

Not that there is actually any legitimate definition of freewill to start with, because there is not.

Anyway, that was my point, you are re-defining the freewill definition of the OP, then arguing against that re-definition rather than the original one.

 

[smaller]

So do you consider your definition legitimate in light of the fact that you say there is no legitimate definition?

I'm open to other definitions. But in over 3 decades of studying the subjects I haven't really seen a decent definition. I might think that most of us realize that choice does originate internally and it's internally that it must be viewed. Not based on how high one can jump externally.

Jesus tells us all for no uncertain fact that evil comes from within. This is NOT a maybe. And no choices that we make can change this "internal" reality.

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

Anyway, that was my point, you are re-defining the freewill definition of the OP, then arguing against that re-definition rather than the original one.

I do not accept the OP definition of freewill, nor do I think that was the posters intention. It was only how he described it. And he doesn't accept the premise to start with anyway. IF I was a proponent the definition I gave [a will that functions alone and only of the individual] would be more of an expression of what freewill might be, even though I don't accept it either. I might even expect that a freewiller who was passionate enough about the subject could come up with a better definition. I've just yet to see one.

We might all also recognize that when it comes to dealing with "internals" of the mind/heart, it is NOT an arena of empirical facts or forensic matters. Just like sin and evil are not in those arenas either. We know for example that sin dwells in our flesh and evil is present with us from Romans 7:17-21. But we can not cut open the flesh to see it forensically, or prove it empirically.

Therefore these subjects are "spiritual" in nature. And this differentiates theology from science.

 

[WIP]

WIP, it's always dangerous to figure out implications so let me know if I am wrong about what I see your your question implying.

I think God owes us nothing. “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” (Romans 11:35 ESV) Also, I find it vile to think that before I was redeemed - an enemy of God who had continually from birth rejected the Fount and Living Water and worked hard at trying to find satisfaction elsewhere - had leverage on God. (Jeremiah 2:12-13) So I think you intended your question as rhetorical on one level.

Also, I think you are implying that the receiver of a gift has no grounds for boasting, if the gift was from a person who has zero obligation to give, regardless of what the receiver did to get the gift. This is a strong argument. The only possible weakness I see is in the question "If a gift is worked for, can it be a gift or does the receiver's work obligate the giver?" Which leads to another question regarding free will:

Does the free will decision to believe the Gospel obligate God to save the person? In essence, does it have God "over the barrel?" (My apologies to anyone not familiar with the colloquialism "over the barrel".)

BTW, it was a very thought provoking question. Thanks.

Yes. I agree that God owes us nothing. I think too often we put God in a box of our own choosing or we at least try to. God is sovereign, God is in control, God is the creator (potter).... No matter how good we are....no matter how perfect....no matter what we do of ourselves in the final analysis it is God's decision and His alone if we are to be saved. Who are we to question God? Job 38 comes to mind. It is truly amazing and a blessing that God gave His son so that we might not have to endure that which we truly deserve.

 

[chessman]

In the Peter passage he is writing to the beloved, but he is writing about showing patience for those yet to be saved. Also, we know God finds no pleasure in the

I agree that he is writing to the beloved (I mean that's what he says so it's clearly the case). Just as clearly as when he says in the next sentence that God is longsuffering toward us...

2 Peter 3:9 (LEB) The Lord is not delaying the promise, as some consider slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance.​

I don't see any exegetical justification for thinking that Peter switches mid-sentence from discussing a promise made to us (the beloved), to a discussion of God's desire that people "yet to be saved" not perish. At least in this passage.

I didn't say God takes any pleasure in those outside The Promise perishing. That's another topic.

 

[childeye]

I don't find this kind of statement anywhere in Genesis 2.

Childeye said: "Adam had free choice of all the trees in the garden except one".
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If you recall you had used these scriptures to assert that a power was given to Adam, and you described that power as the "power of contrary choice" applied to the moral/immoral purview. To me you have simply said that God gave Adam the power to distrust God and thereby disobey Him. When did God give Adam any reason to distrust Him in the first place? The serpent was the one provided the accusation that God had lied. The serpent suggested the lie that Adam had the power of a contrary choice.

 

[childeye]

You (and some other posters in this thread too) are re-defining "freewill" from the definition given in the OP:

You're right about this. The definition is flawed. Free will in this op is defined as the ability to choose, and not freely choose. To understand the difference, one must comprehend the difference between making a choice and being held responsible for that choice. Hence it is disingenuous to claim that free will means to choose, when the spirit behind it is to assign blame and credit to the chooser. Moreover, since blame and credit are being assigned to the chooser, so also is being righteousness and un-righteousness counted as being left to a person's own discretion.

For example Paul was once Saul, and Saul chose to persecute and murder those who preached the Gospel in obedience to the temple in Jerusalem. But it was through blindness to the Truth that he chose to do this. Saul therefore could not freely choose to believe the Truth of the Gospel, even because he believed he was serving the truth by killing those who preached the Gospel. Saul thought that he was being righteous and those he was persecuting were being un-righteous.

Hence Stephen, who was stoned to death would not lay a charge against Saul, nor hold him responsible for his choice, because he knew that Saul could not choose otherwise.

 

[JohnDB]

What did the Philippian jailer say to Paul & Silas after the great earthquake left them and the other prisoners out of prison? What was Paul & Silas's answer to the jailer's request?

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household"' (Acts 16:30-31 ESV).​

Oz

But doesn't Satan and his followers believe in Jesus? Their reaction of trembling Is one of terror though and not blessed assurance.

That is why I am saying what I am saying. Faith is what credits us with righteousness...but the right kind of faith that produces works out of love. Which is what kind Abraham had. Beliefs in A God isn't enough. Beliefs that Jesus the man existed isn't enough.

Beliefs that Jesus the son of the living God loved us so much that he placed himself as the perfect sacrifice that we wont pay the wages of sin and that we might do the same in loving others...that just might do the trick.

 

[Douglas Summers]

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. If they walked in the door, shouldn't they be free to walk out?

No. A born again believer is called, he does not join. A born again believer's faith is a gift from God. Man's will in this is to repent after being enlightened by the word of God and washed with the word of Truth and CONVERT. Convert is not salvation. Convert is a human act meaning (a change in mind about God and man to seek God). God does the rest. He regenerates. Regeneration is the act of God. Regeneration is a creation...not an emanation. A creation by God. You see, free will in the Adamic nature can be a curse or a blessing. It is up to you, your choice. God did not make us robots. Maturity, grace, learning, evil, greed, charity, selfishness and all other human traits come from choice and experience of life, but those who learn from life that they need God in their life by His word (or calling) and converts, God regenerates (gives us a new man) rebirth, in the image of His Son. We are now in the hands of God. It is irreversible. It is now in the hands of God and the new man. While He gave us a new man, He never changed the old. And the old man is constantly at odds with the new man. The born again man's flesh is out of the fight, it is now the battle of the Spirit against the old nature. by free will, you have already made the choice.
God is your keeper.

 

[OzSpen]

I'd be satisfied if you even understood them.

Not one of us would be able to understand anything either of us writes if it is not understood in context.

 

[OzSpen]

Logical fallacy, reasoning our way around what God has wrought, has so infected the Church that few are we that, just, accept what God has said, period.

Which logical fallacy? Please name it. Who was committing it?

 

[OzSpen]

But doesn't Satan and his followers believe in Jesus? Their reaction of trembling Is one of terror though and not blessed assurance.

That is why I am saying what I am saying. Faith is what credits us with righteousness...but the right kind of faith that produces works out of love. Which is what kind Abraham had. Beliefs in A God isn't enough. Beliefs that Jesus the man existed isn't enough.

Beliefs that Jesus the son of the living God loved us so much that he placed himself as the perfect sacrifice that we wont pay the wages of sin and that we might do the same in loving others...that just might do the trick.

Act 16:31 (ESV) tells us what we need to do to become Christians: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household'.

James 2:19 (ESV) states, 'You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!' This is belief that God IS an NOT belief IN the Lord Jesus Christ. See 'the devil believes'.

That's the difference. Belief about the existence of God by anyone, including the devil, does not bring salvation. Belief IN the Lord Jesus does bring salvation, i.e. putting one's total trust in him. The devil does not do that.

You say 'faith is what credits us with righteousness'. I agree. However, 'Believe' and 'faith' come from the same Greek word, pisteuo. So to believe in or have faith in are saying the same thing in the Greek language.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Childeye said: "Adam had free choice of all the trees in the garden except one".
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If you recall you had used these scriptures to assert that a power was given to Adam, and you described that power as the "power of contrary choice" applied to the moral/immoral purview. To me you have simply said that God gave Adam the power to distrust God and thereby disobey Him. When did God give Adam any reason to distrust Him in the first place? The serpent was the one provided the accusation that God had lied. The serpent suggested the lie that Adam had the power of a contrary choice.

When did God give Adam the power to disobey him? A straight forward reading of Genesis 2 & 3 (which I have already covered) tells us that they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What did they do? They ate.

By the evidence in the biblical text, it tells us that Adam and Eve had the ability to refuse to do what God asked them to do. God warned them what would happen the moment they ate: They would die. At that moment death and its consequences entered the human race.

The evidence is clear. From the beginning, our first parents had the ability to obey or disobey God, the ability of free choice. That's Bible!

Oz

 

[th1b.taylor]

Childeye said: "Adam had free choice of all the trees in the garden except one".
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Nope, sorry but you have sought to impose your will on the text. In verse 16 God declared that he and ultimately they were free to choose to eat from any tree in the Garden. Now, remembering that the Bible, as is the case with any written work, must be held in context to begin to understand any hidden or even openly exposed meaning, God gives him/them the first command with it's punishment listed.

He and later she was free to eat of any tree but eating of one required more than the animal/human instinct to live, that one tree was permitted but was it desirable to eat of it if they died? There had to be other factors such as the obvious I stated earlier, but it upsets people to deal with their baser desires, the desire God built into every one of us meant for our mates. And that requires free will to disobey God, intentionally.

Let me add some real life experience. In late November of 1966 God called me, He made me, an Atheist, very aware of Him and I became, of my free will, a Deist. For the next 23+ years, knowing I would die in the Lake of Fire/the Abyss I drank White Cadillacs for breakfast, sang C&W and the Blues at every chance and bedded any 17 to 25 year old woman I could and bragged about my sin.

God has no part with sin and God did not build that path for me to follow, that was the free will of a man that already knew God had marked him out.