The Fallacy of Freewill

[Stan53]

Hate to do this to you Ernest, brother, but... How can there be free will if you admit that God already knows how you are going to react? Doesn't seem like those are compatible things: human free and Divine Omnipotence.

Foreknowledge is part of God's Omniscience, not to put to fine a point on this.

Omnipotent = ALL powerful
Omniscient = ALL knowing
Omnipresent = NOT subject to time.

 

[Pard]

Omnipotent = ALL powerful
Omniscient = ALL knowing
Omnipresent = NOT subject to time.

Gonna blame that on Google's word correction tool... ;)

 

[John O]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Paul did not ask for options, much less what they were if he had any. Furthermore, Jesus answered "arise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou MUST do. " the word "must " does not indicate a choice is available like the word "should " is used.

Give us mankind a break, Saul responded to a revelation and asked His God what he should do in response to that revelation. I have already responded how due to the journey Saul had been on with the promptings of the Holy Spirit he was ready to do anything God asked of him.

John O

 

[Slider]

Give us mankind a break, Saul responded to a revelation and asked His God what he should do in response to that revelation. I have already responded how due to the journey Saul had been on with the promptings of the Holy Spirit he was ready to do anything God asked of him.

John O

Ok, John O. Just to be sure I didn't misunderstand you I went back and reread your post. I'm afraid I still feel the same way.


You said Paul's journey led him the the state that made him willing to do whatever Jesus wanted him to do. The only evidence you gave (to my recollection) was he had studied the the law and he was more zealous than his peers. There are two problems with that.

First, why did he do it? He was a Pharisee. That's what they did! He didn't study the law to get closer to Jesus. He used that knowledge to persecute him as did most of the Pharisees. Granted he was the MVP of Pharisees, but there were hundreds of others doing the same thing.

Second,how did Paul feel about his education? He called it "dung ".

Next, unless I am misunderstanding what you were saying, you make it sound like Paul was juuust about ready to turn the corner in his thoughts about Jesus. As if he needed just one little nudge. That he had been contimpating all along that perhaps he should convert. Well, if we were talking about Nicodemus who also was a Pharisee and followed by night I might agree.

But that doesn't sound like Paul in acts 9. Again, just to be sure I reread the other accounts, including chapter 26. If that's the Paul you see, his own testimony is 180 degrees from that. Paul was as gung ho as ever to go to Damascus, arrest Christians and have them put to death. This was not a man ready to turn to Christ!

Again, I don't believe we view the graveness of Paul's conversion with the same level of intensity. Jesus blinded him (and left him blind for an hour even after finding annanias ) terrified him and caused him to fall to the ground (I will concede that he may not have physically been knocked to the ground, but it is possible ). Jesus was scolding him himself!

Sure, Paul received a "revelation". But calling it a mere revelation is like saying Jesus died on the cross when the reality is that he was falsely accused, mocked, beaten, tortured, and murdered! John received revelation, Peter received revelation. Jesus didn't have to blind them and scare the wits out of them!

In my response I was a bit gruff and could've been more gentle. However the spin people put on this account without regarding the truth in attempt to protect the theory of free will is enough to make anyone grumpy. Paul's conversion was clearly a case of Jesus intervening, holding him captive and taking drastic measures to change his mind. To put it mildly, when a bully puts you in a headlock and makes you cry uncle, you aren't doing it out of free will.

I will say that if you want to talk about what Paul did after that, then you have a good case. I would have a hard time arguing against Paul's "freewill " then. But on his conversion ... please don't squirt me with a garden hose and try to convince me it's raining!

 

[2bfoundinhim]

I think that it is possible, and very probable that this man was Saul/Paul.


Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.


Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

 

[John O]

Ok, John O. Just to be sure I didn't misunderstand you I went back and reread your post. I'm afraid I still feel the same way.


You said Paul's journey led him the the state that made him willing to do whatever Jesus wanted him to do. The only evidence you gave (to my recollection) was he had studied the the law and he was more zealous than his peers.

I was referring to the goads as per:
Act 9:3 But in going, it happened as he drew near to Damascus, even suddenly a light from the heaven shone around him.
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who are you, lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.

Paul recounts later how he considered all that he was before His salvation as dung. So that which prepared him was the prodding of the Holy Spirit and that alone.

I will say that if you want to talk about what Paul did after that, then you have a good case. I would have a hard time arguing against Paul's "freewill " then. But on his conversion ... please don't squirt me with a garden hose and try to convince me it's raining!

I would appreciate your thoughts on my thoughts. Please note that Salvation is given by God alone man can do nothing to obtain it. Responding to God's mercy for some is considered work or self seeking but I challenge anyone not to respond if the creator of the universe intersects with you daily life as Jesus did to Paul.

So how could it be works Saul was not reaching out to God, God reached out to him.

John O

 

[Stan53]

Ok, John O. Just to be sure I didn't misunderstand you I went back and reread your post. I'm afraid I still feel the same way.


You said Paul's journey led him the the state that made him willing to do whatever Jesus wanted him to do. The only evidence you gave (to my recollection) was he had studied the the law and he was more zealous than his peers. There are two problems with that.

First, why did he do it? He was a Pharisee. That's what they did! He didn't study the law to get closer to Jesus. He used that knowledge to persecute him as did most of the Pharisees. Granted he was the MVP of Pharisees, but there were hundreds of others doing the same thing.

Second,how did Paul feel about his education? He called it "dung ".

Next, unless I am misunderstanding what you were saying, you make it sound like Paul was juuust about ready to turn the corner in his thoughts about Jesus. As if he needed just one little nudge. That he had been contimpating all along that perhaps he should convert. Well, if we were talking about Nicodemus who also was a Pharisee and followed by night I might agree.

But that doesn't sound like Paul in acts 9. Again, just to be sure I reread the other accounts, including chapter 26. If that's the Paul you see, his own testimony is 180 degrees from that. Paul was as gung ho as ever to go to Damascus, arrest Christians and have them put to death. This was not a man ready to turn to Christ!

Again, I don't believe we view the graveness of Paul's conversion with the same level of intensity. Jesus blinded him (and left him blind for an hour even after finding annanias ) terrified him and caused him to fall to the ground (I will concede that he may not have physically been knocked to the ground, but it is possible ). Jesus was scolding him himself!

Sure, Paul received a "revelation". But calling it a mere revelation is like saying Jesus died on the cross when the reality is that he was falsely accused, mocked, beaten, tortured, and murdered! John received revelation, Peter received revelation. Jesus didn't have to blind them and scare the wits out of them!

In my response I was a bit gruff and could've been more gentle. However the spin people put on this account without regarding the truth in attempt to protect the theory of free will is enough to make anyone grumpy. Paul's conversion was clearly a case of Jesus intervening, holding him captive and taking drastic measures to change his mind. To put it mildly, when a bully puts you in a headlock and makes you cry uncle, you aren't doing it out of free will.

I will say that if you want to talk about what Paul did after that, then you have a good case. I would have a hard time arguing against Paul's "freewill " then. But on his conversion ... please don't squirt me with a garden hose and try to convince me it's raining!

OK Pard, I won't squirt you, I'll just ask you to focus on Acts 9:5, “Who are you, Lord?†Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,†he replied.

The truth of this was clear to Paul, as he called Him Lord. Paul knew enough from his studies as a Pharisee that this was a Godly intervention. After that, Paul obeyed in faith because he knew it was God, just as we obeyed in faith when God touched our lives and called us to salvation.

 

[Slider]

OK Pard, I won't squirt you, I'll just ask you to focus on Acts 9:5, “Who are you, Lord?†Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,†he replied.

The truth of this was clear to Paul, as he called Him Lord. Paul knew enough from his studies as a Pharisee that this was a Godly intervention. After that, Paul obeyed in faith because he knew it was God, just as we obeyed in faith when God touched our lives and called us to salvation.

He he ... poor Pard! I put forth the argument and he's the one being squirted!

My answer to you is the same as what I'd tell John O, so I hope he's reading as well.


Paul did indeed know this was a godly intervention but he didn't know who it was (he had to ask ). I do believe Paul knew of the prophecies about Jesus but up to this point he either didn't believe them and/or didn't acknowledge them. Thus, his studies weren't really that useful, wouldn't you agree?

In a "God's ways are higher than man's " line of thinking, we can see how it was useful to God. Paul had the earthly knowledge to debate the most learned Pharisees, and Jesus (through Paul's own testimony ) could say that even the most vile offenders could change. Perhaps God wanted examples of ignorant men as well as the educated. So yes, perhaps in that sense Paul's journey did prepare him.

However, it didn't help him actually coming to Jesus. Both you and John O both recognized this was an intervention. With that we are now starting to see eye to eye. What I'm saying is that this intervention didn't leave him with a free will choice. If so, what were they?

After that (from acts 9:6 onward ) if you want to say Paul acted on free will, I have very little to debate with. I still think it was the will of God, but I can't say Paul didn't embrace it, and do it gladly.

So, are you and/or John O still claiming Paul had free will DURING the intervention?

 

[Elijah674]

I would appreciate your thoughts on my thoughts. Please note that Salvation is given by God alone man can do nothing to obtain it. Responding to God's mercy for some is considered work or self seeking but I challenge anyone not to respond if the creator of the universe intersects with you daily life as Jesus did to Paul.

So how could it be works Saul was not reaching out to God, God reached out to him.

John O

Elijah here. Had you two covered Acts 7 of Stevens trial where the
conscience of Saul was being pricked? ( compare Gen. 6:3) And there was NO FORCE there! And the verse that you give, what did Christ tell Saul that he 'MUST DO' but after Saul asked the surrendering question! Christ did not speak the Words of healing his blindness, & his 'free/will' MUST be surrendered to be Born Again as I see it. And the Lord sent him to the church that He had shortly before started up.

 

[former atheist]

He he ... poor Pard! I put forth the argument and he's the one being squirted!

My answer to you is the same as what I'd tell John O, so I hope he's reading as well.


Paul did indeed know this was a godly intervention but he didn't know who it was (he had to ask ). I do believe Paul knew of the prophecies about Jesus but up to this point he either didn't believe them and/or didn't acknowledge them. Thus, his studies weren't really that useful, wouldn't you agree?

In a "God's ways are higher than man's " line of thinking, we can see how it was useful to God. Paul had the earthly knowledge to debate the most learned Pharisees, and Jesus (through Paul's own testimony ) could say that even the most vile offenders could change. Perhaps God wanted examples of ignorant men as well as the educated. So yes, perhaps in that sense Paul's journey did prepare him.

However, it didn't help him actually coming to Jesus. Both you and John O both recognized this was an intervention. With that we are now starting to see eye to eye. What I'm saying is that this intervention didn't leave him with a free will choice. If so, what were they?

After that (from acts 9:6 onward ) if you want to say Paul acted on free will, I have very little to debate with. I still think it was the will of God, but I can't say Paul didn't embrace it, and do it gladly.

So, are you and/or John O still claiming Paul had free will DURING the intervention?

What do you mean; did Paul have free Will during the intervention? Again, as I understand Free Will: Free Will is the freedom from the power of God, granted by God, and so that humans can make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by Gods divine intervention or by divine force.

What in the passage indicates to you that God, by his divine intervention or by his divine force, forced Saul to decide to do what God commanded of him to do? Did God leave Saul without choice?

It is obvious at least to me, that God, by his commands and requests of Saul, didn’t force him to do anything.

Secondly, it should be considered in this argument that Saul felt he was a Godly man, a man who followed the Law in his love for and obedience too God. However, given the proof of God in Christ, why would you think that God would even need to force Saul to serve him? Saul, from Saul’s perspective, was already serving God even until Christ Jesus scorned him with his wrongdoing. Saul, upon hearing this, Saul, obeyed God. What a surprise… I mean really? The man chose a life beforehand to serve God. Saul made some errors in his life, God scorned, Saul repented and served correctly. It doesn’t seem to me to be all that crazy to think that Saul had a choice in all of this. Obey or not Obey.

 

[Slider]

What do you mean; did Paul have free Will during the intervention? Again, as I understand Free Will: Free Will is the freedom from the power of God, granted by God, and so that humans can make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by Gods divine intervention or by divine force.

What in the passage indicates to you that God, by his divine intervention or by his divine force, forced Saul to decide to do what God commanded of him to do? Did God leave Saul without choice?

It is obvious at least to me, that God, by his commands and requests of Saul, didn’t force him to do anything.

Secondly, it should be considered in this argument that Saul felt he was a Godly man, a man who followed the Law in his love for and obedience too God. However, given the proof of God in Christ, why would you think that God would even need to force Saul to serve him? Saul, from Saul’s perspective, was already serving God even until Christ Jesus scorned him with his wrongdoing. Saul, upon hearing this, Saul, obeyed God. What a surprise… I mean really? The man chose a life beforehand to serve God. Saul made some errors in his life, God scorned, Saul repented and served correctly. It doesn’t seem to me to be all that crazy to think that Saul had a choice in all of this. Obey or not Obey.

1. Please list the choices Paul had acccording to the Bible.

2. Is being blinded, terrified, scolded and being forced to the ground by Jesus not a devine intervention?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Paul had a choice to obey or disobey the heavenly vision, Acts 26:19. Of course, God foreknew what free will choice Paul would make before He approached Saul on that road. Therefore God did not have to force Saul to make a choice that Saul would make for himself.

 

[Pard]

Here's the catch, guys. You are all presuming that a man CAN make a choice for the good of his own salvation without the divine intervention of the Creator! That is not something that can be done!

If you guys are willing to wait until tomorrow, or later tonight when I get home from work, I will show you guys that there is no way that an unchanged man can make a decision for his own salvation.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Here's the catch, guys. You are all presuming that a man CAN make a choice for the good of his own salvation without the divine intervention of the Creator! That is not something that can be done!

If you guys are willing to wait until tomorrow, or later tonight when I get home from work, I will show you guys that there is no way that an unchanged man can make a decision for his own salvation.

The bible does teach man is able to choose the good, is able to choose salvation. In Acts 2 Peter told his listeners to 'save yourselves' and in 1 Tim 4 Paul wrote to Timothy to "save thyself'. How can this be true if man was not able to choose?

The problem with what you say above is that if I am lost, it would be due to the fault and failure on God's part to 'intervene'.

 

[Slider]

Paul had a choice to obey or disobey the heavenly vision, Acts 26:19. Of course, God foreknew what free will choice Paul would make before He approached Saul on that road. Therefore God did not have to force Saul to make a choice that Saul would make for himself.

Acts 26:19 does not mean he had a choice
Yes, he wilfully submitted. But after the captivation. It was a faith altering intervention.

It does not mean Paul had options during it. A man in a headlock does not cry uncle on his own accord.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Acts 26:19 does not mean he had a choice
Yes, he wilfully submitted. But after the captivation. It was a faith altering intervention.

It does not mean Paul had options during it. A man in a headlock does not cry uncle on his own accord.

Acts 26:19 shows he had a choice to disobey but he of his own will chose to obey.

My point in this is that God already knew, foreknew, that if He approached Saul on that road, Saul of his own will would choose to obey God's will in obeying the gospel in choosing to be a born again Christian and then taking that gospel to the Gentiles. I do not see where in the context God put Saul in a 'headlock'. Again, why would God need to force Saul to do anything by putting Saul in a headlock if God already knew that Saul of his own will would choose to willingly obey Him?

 

[Slider]

Acts 26:19 shows he had a choice to disobey but he of his own will chose to obey.

My point in this is that God already knew, foreknew, that if He approached Saul on that road, Saul of his own will would choose to obey God's will in obeying the gospel in choosing to be a born again Christian and then taking that gospel to the Gentiles. I do not see where in the context God put Saul in a 'headlock'. Again, why would God need to force Saul to do anything by putting Saul in a headlock if God already knew that Saul of his own will would choose to willingly obey Him?

No, God forknew if he blinded Paul, terrorized him, pinned him to the ground.,chided him demanded obedience and let the punishment linger and personnally did it himself, Paul would obey.

Paul had no more say or choice than Jonah did.

Oh wait! Now you are going to tell me a man. Who was put in hell has free will!

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

No, God forknew if he blinded Paul, terrorized him, pinned him to the ground.,chided him demanded obedience and let the punishment linger and personnally did it himself, Paul would obey.

Paul had no more say or choice than Jonah did.

Oh wait! Now you are going to tell me a man. Who was put in hell has free will!

No, if God foreknew that Paul would willingly obey him, then why would God have to terrorize, force him to the ground and force Saul to obey when Saul would choose of his own will to obey? God did not have to terrorize/force Saul to do what Saul would volunteer of his own will to do.

God did not suspend His foreknowledge and just randomly chose Saul and just hoped that Saul would obey Him. And if Saul did not obey, then God would have to force Saul to obey. God already foreknew He would not have to force Saul to obey him.


As for Jonah, God told him to go to Nineveh and instead he went to Tarshish. If man had no free will, then Jonah could only have done what God told him to do and go to Nineveh. But Jonah excercised his free will and used it to disobey God. [see Mt 23:37 how the Jews used thier free will and would not do what Christ would have them do]
God punished Jonah for his disobedience and God has that right. Just as if you use your free will to violate the law of the land, the state has the right to punish you and put you in jail and make little rocks out of big rocks. The punisment does not mean you have no free will but that you will use your free will in the future more judiciously. After getting out of jail you would probably be less likely to choose to violate the law again. After God punished Jonah, he was less like to disobey God's law again. Sure enough "And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.", Jonah 3:1,2. How did Jonah use his free will and respond? "So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD.", verse 3. Note that God did not force Jonah to go to Nineveh this second time, Jonah wised up, sometimes hard heads can be softened. You can be hard-headed and choose to break the law again and go to jail again and do this over and over till you have spent most of your life in jail.

 

[Slider]

Ernest. T. Bass. How long am I going to have to deal with this utter nonsense? If God forknew he didn't have to force Paul,then why did he? If God did not have to blind him, terrorize him, cause him to fall to the ground then why did it happen?


Why would God put such a man who would willingly do whatever God asked him to through all of that? Perhaps I'm the spiritually most ignorant person on the planet, but it really doesn't make sense to me.

God didn't need to devinely intervene but he did?

I'm not even going to bother with asking why God saw it fit to make such a willing servant like Jonah spend three days and three nights in a whale's belly

 

[reba]

The evidence is the testimony in the garden.