Free Will - A More Exhaustive Look

[Melach]

free will is never so. its a word people use all the time to explain all the evil in the world and its a christian's usual cop out answer when an atheist is pushing it.

"why didnt God stop such and such from happening" and the christian replies in utter panic "be-be-because free will, God gave people free will" but thats just not a good answer. because God can still intervene and stop bad things from happening, He just chooses to not do so. the only consistent position with free willism is open theism.

foreknowledge equals predestination, its the same thing. if you know how things will turn out and you choose to create the universe, everything is effectively predestinated already. when people say God created everything knowing how things will turn out but He is still just helplessly watching hoping people do whats right, it creates a very very weak and stupid view of God. this is why i say the only answer for you is to be an open theist if you want to have a God who tries His best and is surprised at what we do, and didn't know how bad things would get at creation.

consistensy is key.

not only that but our will is bound by sin, so we freely choose the evil that we do. it takes a work of God to give us a heart of flesh and give us His Spirit, only then we are truly free.

 

[Isaskar]

As many Church fathers argued, without free will man cannot be held responsible for his actions. A few quotes:

260-315 AD Methodius "Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. "

110-165AD Justin Martyr "We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." (Justin First Apology chap. 43)

These are both good arguments and hold true.

My own argument would be this: If there is no free will, God is teasing people and playing with them. Like me yelling at a dog to "Write a book, write a book, write a book!" And then hitting the dog if it doesn't do it. Of course the dog won't write a book, it cannot! Similarly, if God is telling people "Repent! Turn to me! Obey me!" yet people have no possible way of doing this, God is just being cruel and unjust and asking for the impossible, I will take it a step further and say that God is also a liar if there is no free will and humans are incapable of obeying His commandments. I say such a thing not for shock value, but because of verses like this:

Deuteronomy 30:11
“For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome,

Why would God say this if it isn't true?

 

[Beckie]

So, do we believe the Bible when it tells us that there is an Eternal Plan that revolves around the Tree of Life, who is Christ? Or, do we find a way around this crystal clear Biblical text?

Your post sounds as if you do not think i believe the Scriptures . Man's will is contrary to God's

 

[Nehemiah6]

Kinda paints a ugly picture of mans free will.

But without free will there would be no accountability, and there would also be no redemption according to God's plan of salvation. God already had the Second Adam in mind when he created the First Adam. Adam and Eve were a "type" of Christ and the Church (which is far higher and better).

But Adam had to freely choose to either love God and obey Him, or suffer the consequences. In practical terms neither Adam nor Eve had the slightest reason to go after forbidden fruit, when they had an entire glorious orchard to pick from. And Adam had no excuse for allowing Eve to dialogue with the devil when she should have been close by his side. Clearly he was negligent.

 

[Magenta]

As one who ardently believes in free will, I think the first thing is to define it. ... Free will means the freedom to choose between available options. The key here is the word "available". To be an option, there has to be at least 2 of them. And the person is free to choose either one. That is all free will is.

Eat or not eat? Are those the two options you are suggesting? Don't eat = obey, and eat = disobey? Just curious.

I prefer the term self will over free will. Man's will is constrained by too many factors to be truly considered free.

 

[Isaskar]

There are a few verses where God does cause people to do something, but where the calvinist goes wrong is he takes these verses and makes them the norm, rather than the exception.

Revelation 17:17For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

God puts something in people's hearts here, okay. Doesn't mean every single vile thought and idea is God ordained.

 

[Beckie]

But without free will there would be no accountability, and there would also be no redemption according to God's plan of salvation. God already had the Second Adam in mind when he created the First Adam. Adam and Eve were a "type" of Christ and the Church (which is far higher and better).

But Adam had to freely choose to either love God and obey Him, or suffer the consequences. In practical terms neither Adam nor Eve had the slightest reason to go after forbidden fruit, when they had an entire glorious orchard to pick from. And Adam had no excuse for allowing Eve to dialogue with the devil when she should have been close by his side. Clearly he was negligent.

What are your Scriptures for back up of your statement?

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Man's will is constrained by too many factors to be truly considered free.

Remarkable.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What are your Scriptures for back up of your statement?

Which statement or statements?

 

[Beckie]

Beckie said:
What are your Scriptures for back up of your statement?

Which statement or statements?

The same place you got this quote had your post with it . so as a poster i would take a good guess the question asked went with the post quoted with the question.

 

[Runningman]

Next on the timeline, chronological list is Deut 11:25. It reads as follows:

Deuteronomy 11:25 NLT - "No one will be able to stand against you, for the LORD your God will cause the people to fear and dread you, as he promised, wherever you go in the whole land."

God will put terror and fear into the Seven Nations so as to aid the routing and taking of the Land of Milk and Honey. So who and what is the source of these emotions of fear? Are they of the will of the individual (or group)? Or, is God causing these emotions amongst the enemies of Israel (as the text obviously concludes)? God doesn't do this to one or two people, but to all people in the land. God issues fear into all people and against their own choice . . . their own free will.

Was this right? Was this fair? Would the abominations of the Seven Nations have acted the way they did if the Lord had not caused them to be as they were?

If I understand this correctly, you're saying Deuteronomy 11:25, isolated from the rest of the context, seems to say that God will use mind control and emotional control to make people arbitrarily fear the Jews.

Again, like all things in the Bible, context is crucial here. There is always a cause and effect relationship because how people feel something like fear/dread and the actions that elicit such a response.

In Deuteronomy 11, the reason why they would have fear and dread is because no one would be able to stand against them.

Imagine having an army powerful enough to conquer larger armies and take any territory they want. That's the kind of army the Jews could have been. Imagine hearing "The Jewish army is moving through your land next week." Sheer terror as they knew it's a foregone conclusion they will sack their towns, topple their government, defeat their army, undo their way of life, and possibly kill all of the friends, family, and children.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

It goes both ways. Yes, everyone chooses to sin. But, salvation is based on being free to believe the gospel.

Actually, we possess the Human Nature, and the Human Nature is to serve. That said, and depending on who our Spiritual Father is, this is the one in whom we will serve. We will either serve the Devil or God the Father. We never serve ourselves, for even if we were to say that we serve ourselves, selfishness is the direct result of the Sinful Nature, and what comes from the Sinful Nature does not come from ourselves. Paul made this abundantly clear as he references his pre-Transformed life.

Romans 7:17, 20 NKJV - 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. ... 20 Now if I do what I will not to do] it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Hey, 2ndTimothyGroup.

Well, you know that you and I have seen eye to eye in the past, and I've prayed for a certain situation in your life in the past as well. I'm mentioning this to simply let you know that I'm NOT writing to you now as your enemy, but rather in a friendly manner.

That said and meant, I have to say that I believe that you've totally missed the mark on this road which you're presently headed down. I could easily substantiate the free will of man from scriptures galore, but I'll just address the scripture that you've cited here for now.

Here it is in the KJV, although my same point could be made from the NLT that you cited:

"There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the LORD your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you." (Deut. 11:25)

"As he hath said unto you"?

Yes, "as he hath said unto you".

Well, where did he say such a thing to them before?

Here's one place:

"Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee." (Deut. 2:24-25)

How was "the LORD your God" going to "lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon" (Deut. 11:25)?

Well, he was going to lay it upon them because they were going to "hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee" (Deut. 2:25) because they were going to "hear report" of how God delivered Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, into the hands of the children of Israel.

How does this allegedly violate their free will?

I mean, they were simply going to fear and dread because they expected the same type of judgment to fall upon them as fell upon Sihon the Amorite, right?

Was there any way for them to escape such a judgment?

I'd heartily suggest to you that there was.

For example, consider Rahab the harlot and her dealings with the two spies that she hid upon her rooftop:

Joshua chapter 2

[8] And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof;
[9] And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.
[10] For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.
[11] And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.
[12] Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token:
[13] And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.
[14] And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee.

In the case of the inhabitants of Jericho, the Israelites terror had fallen upon all the inhabitants of that land because they had heard how the LORD dried up the Red Sea for them, and what they had done unto the two kings of the Amorites.

Isn't this the same exact type of situation that we're presently considering in Deuteronomy chapter 11?

It certainly seems so to me.

Well, in the case of Jericho, Rahab made a pact with the Israelites in which her life and the lives of her family members were spared, so isn't it quite possible that the peoples' of the nations that you referred to could have done the same?

My point is that they only needed to fear because they were enemies of the LORD.

If, however, THEY CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE LORD...well, then that would have/could have changed things drastically.

With such being the case, why isn't FREE WILL a variable here?

I read nearly all of your post, but became hung up on your idea that I have "totally missed the mark."

Sir, I beg to differ. All that I have done, thus far, is offer Bible verses that are clear enough for a child to understand and have subsequently offered questions relating to them.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

As many Church fathers argued, without free will man cannot be held responsible for his actions.

What about this thought: Why should I be responsible for a Sin Nature that has nothing to do with me? My resultant Sin Nature was from the direct results of what Adam and Eve had done. Now, the Purpose of Christ is to Redeem His Holy Elect from this Curse, thus it is Christ who takes responsibility for the actions of His Elect.

The last thing that I'm going to do is feel bad over the things that I have done while in "the flesh." That "flesh" has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with me, for it was a condition that was inevitable to inflict my life. The Plan of God, though, it to resolve that crisis through Jesus. Jesus has a Purpose, a Work, and an Effect for and upon the lives of His Holy Elect.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Your post sounds as if you do not think i believe the Scriptures . Man's will is contrary to God's

My post is not directed at any one person. It is offered to all for consideration. Perhaps it is your past hostility toward me that causes you to feel as you do.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

but where the calvinist goes wrong is he takes these verses and makes them the norm, rather than the exception.

It is naive, not to mention rude, to blanket label people as Calvinists when perhaps they don't know a thing about Calvinism. I sure don't. I simply read the Bible and found these, and many, many more to come, to be utterly incredible in terms of how the Lord controls the minds of animals and humans alike (to fulfill His Plan).

I would lean toward maturity and discontinue the wild labeling.

 

[Beckie]

My post is not directed at any one person. It is offered to all for consideration. Perhaps it is your past hostility toward me that causes you to feel as you do.

When one quotes another's post and replies there is a strong implication of direction. . Although this is an open forum, so you do as you please , I am politely requesting that you do not quote my posts. thank you

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

When one quotes another's post and replies there is a strong implication of direction. . Although this is an open forum, so you do as you please , I am politely requesting that you do not quote my posts. thank you

I'll do better than that. Since you have been hostile in the past, I'll place you on Ignore and recommend that you do the same with me.

 

[Runningman]

I'll do better than that. Since you have been hostile in the past, I'll place you on Ignore and recommend that you do the same with me.

Did Jesus have an ignore list of all of the sinners and transgressors who offended Him? If so many people are hostile, how come you didn’t ignore yourself when you’ve been hostile too? It’s like you give so much grace, mercy, and forgiveness to yourself but the slightest infraction by others you cleave off and block all contact. Actually, I know I’m on your ignore list and it happened over an agreement of all things.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Third in the timeline, chronological list:

1 Samuel 14:15 NIV - "Then panic struck the whole army--those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties--and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God."

Clearly Stated: It was God who placed and sent panic into the hearts and minds of the Philistines. Now if they had "free will," wouldn't they be allowed to choose their own fears? The CSB translation states that this was a "terror spread from God." - Verses 19-20 show that the confusion from the Lord was increasing, thus verse 23 shows that it was God who brought victory to Israel.

1 Samuel 14:19-20, 23 NIV - 19 "While Saul was talking to the priest, the tumult in the Philistine camp increased more and more. So Saul said to the priest, "Withdraw your hand." 20 Then Saul and all his men assembled and went to the battle. They found the Philistines in total confusion, striking each other with their swords." ... 23 "So on that day the LORD saved Israel, and the battle moved on beyond Beth Aven."

Was it unfair that God took control of the minds of the Philistines? Was it wrong that He stripped them of their own choice of emotions? Was it wrong that He caused them to turn upon each other whereas if He had not controlled their minds, they wouldn't have behaved as they had? Where is "free will" in this scenario?