The Absence of Free Will

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

All of the predestined or chosen language fits in with the foreknowledge and love for mankind to choose all. To predestine a salvation plan for all mankind but with the foreknowledge of knowing who would choose. This never limits free will.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

All of the predestined or chosen language fits in with the foreknowledge and love for mankind to choose all. To predestine a salvation plan for all mankind but with the foreknowledge of knowing who would choose. This never limits free will.[/QUOTE]
In your comments, you make the statement " foreknowledge of knowing who would choose". I call your attention to my reference of Psalms 53:2 that explains what God saw by his for foreknowledge.

Conclusion if Free Will is false:
1. Laws of logic do not exist (example the law of noncontradiction)
2. Sin and evil are of God
3. All manmade laws are just due to all are predetermined.
4. Judiciary systems are not needed because true justice cannot convict anyone if all are determined by God.
5. Genuine love isnt genuine if forced
6. Scriptures that tell us to abide, follow, and beware of false teachers are misleading if free will didn't exist.

Please justify these 6 points.

Looking forward to the thoughts, thanks.[/QU If God had not given a free will to man, then we would all be still living in the garden of Eden in perfect harmony with God. and Adam would not have chosen to sin. Because God gave man a free will to choose how he wants to live his life here on earth (but not on his eternal destination) is the reason this world is so depraved. Man's decisions without consulting God leads to destruction. Your 6 conclusions would all be null and void.

In your comments, you make the statement "foreknowledge of knowing who would choose". Sense you have

What does a world look like in the absence of free will. I understand this will knock on the Calvinist door but it also knocks on the atheists door also. And the atheist is who I usually spend time debating as to why I am challenging that worldview and that view has unknowingly persuaded other Christians. The world of a true materialist is a world absent of free will.

Before I explain the a world absent of free will, I will define my key words.

Libertarianism Free will: I hold the Libertarianism view which is the concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances. ( Not related to politics)

Interactionism or interactionist dualism: is the theory in the philosophy of the mind which holds that matter and mind are two distinct and independent substances that exert causal effects on one another.

Metaphysics: is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of being, existence, and reality. It does not explore religious beliefs and laws created by man, but rather, it explores the immutable laws of nature, set by The Creator, God/Universal Presence, in the creation of the Universe. The observed affects of a unseen cause.

Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Matter: In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that we can touch are ultimately composed of atoms.

Primordial soup: is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup.

Evolution: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization.

Animal instincts: Instinct is an inherent behavior; a fixed action pattern that is unlearned. Animals are born with certain instincts which are common to all those in their breed. Some instinctual behaviors require a certain amount of maturation before they begin. The most obvious one is the instinct to mate and propagate.

Herd: is a social group of certain animals of the same species. Bonded together to better their chances of survival.

Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to examine and explain social behavior in terms of evolution.

As described above in materialism the only thing that exists is the physical realm, the natural realm or made of matter. All of life on Earth came from a natural cause. The most held theory is called the primordial soup. We first began through a random event by a systematic game of chance in a billions of years timeframe.

Many theories suggest how the primordial soup came to be but one day all the elements for life came together and began a gradual chemical evolution of molecules. This gradual change is usually what the secular scientific world calls evolution.

Speed up time from soup, to fish, to vertebrate mammal, to ape, to caveman, and finally to modern human.

Where did free will enter the biological mix?

Well it couldn't of under a only natural cause. Everything is a chemical reaction. The brain is all material and thus only reacts to its surroundings. We are in many ways just more Intelligent animals that are predetermined by natural selection, instincts inherited by past species like the ape, environmental factors like survival of the fittest, and robots reacting to chemical reactions.

This is how a true materialist must deny the idea of a objective morality. They must deny sin, evil and good. Everything is subjective and truth is only true to the individual as they are only responding to the environment from internal evolutionary programming.

Under this explanation. What kind of world would this be if truly followed?

1. Obviously morality couldn't exist
2. Just laws wouldn't exist
3. Justice wouldn't exist
4. Life isn't sacred
5. Sin doesn't exist
6. In the Animal kingdom whoever is the strongest controls the environment. Everyone else responds to the strongests actions in order to survive.

Examples: Someone like Hitler couldn't be judged by others because good and evil doesn't exist. His actions was only him responding to his brain. In reaction he was only surviving in a herd type of complex. The sociobiological response led to his choices of enacting genocide, eugenics and environmental control of surrounding countries. All in order to survive and protect his herd.

Laws are just subjective and change with environmental factors, human needs, and the top dogs actions.

Justice is a illusion because technically no right and wrong exists. Just survival.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So what happens if from a theological perspective if we use the absence of free will concept? Well we must first examine what free will looks like before comparing the absence of free will.

In more detail free will is
1.The Man is the origin and cause of his own actions.

2: The Man, in most cases, will have the ability to choose between 2 or more options. And whichever option he chooses, he did not have to make that choice. He could have chosen one of the alternatives.

3: The Man’s choice was undetermined. Nothing internal or external to the man causally determined the man to make the choice he did. His choice was uncaused or undetermined.

Interactionist dualism is simply the mind and brain are separate but work together. The mind is metaphysical while the brain is physically material.

Interactionism was propounded by the French rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes (1596–1650), and continues to be associated with him. Descartes posited that the body, being physical matter, was characterized by spatial extension but not by thought and feeling, while the mind, being a separate substance, had no spatial extension but could think and feel.

So Mind= thinking and feeling
Brain= physical response to the mind.
-Rene Descartes

This simple sentence is a mental exercise that shows we are free thinkers. I doubt and think shows a boundary beyond just instincts or chemical responses.

The evidence of morality is evidence for God. The moral law is evidence of a metaphysical right and wrong universal standard that we all knowingly or unknowingly react to. Also proving immaterial things exist.

A world without free will but belief in God means everything is predetermined. God is the author of sin and evil. If free will doesn't exist neither was the actions of Satan. Everything was predetermined by God.

Now obviously in light of the evidence for free will, morality, and the characteristics of God being all just, all good, and Holy. A God who is the author of sin and evil isnt the God of the Bible.

A world with God and absence of free will is also a world absence of morality, absence of just laws, absence of true justice, and life predetermined is every action also is within God's will including Hitlers.

Conclusion:

A Atheistic worldview just doesn't follow reality or any belief without free will. Free will is a tricky thing to pretend it doesn't exist.

If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist. If all things are causally determined, then that includes all thoughts and beliefs.’ If our thoughts and beliefs are forced upon us, and we could not have chosen better beliefs, then we are simply left assuming that our determined beliefs are good (let alone true).

Except we also use the laws of logic to reason and come to a rational explanation for the reality we live in. Therefore for anyone to debate against free will they must use reason and logic and proving free will at the same time. Otherwise you must admit your not really thinking but only reacting.

If this sounds confusing. It can be when you start trying to deny reality.

View attachment 204151

If the world was absent of free will we would all be living in perfect harmony with God in the garden of Eden. God did not give a free will to man in choosing their eternal destination, and if he had not given man a free will, the world would not be in the mess that it is in. So, your 6 conclusions are all null and void.

If the world was absent of free will we would all be living in perfect harmony with God in the garden of Eden.

God did not give a free will to man in choosing their eternal destination...

... and if he had not given man a free will, the world would not be in the mess that it is in...

TWO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN THE SAME BREATH

You are confirming the existence of free will

Now you are denying the existence of free will.

Now you are confirming the existence of free will.

So deep down you know that God gave mankind free will, but if you were to honestly admit it, you would have to TOTALLY REPUDIATE Calvinism. Would that be more painful than admitting the truth?

True he definitely doesn't follow all 5 points of Calvinism. So I was trying to understand what he did believe.

My current conclusion is he actually believes free will for the pre chosen damned and the pre elect saints do not. As to why evil exists because God left the pre chosen damned to their carnal nature.

I think he believes the elect do not have free will and somehow I guess the sins of Paul like being a murderer was of God because he was elected.

Now I'm trying to see if free will is re-established for the believer to coincide with scripture like abide or warnings to resist false teachers.

Very interesting

Alright so free will exists then, right? Just not for the chosen people? God saw none would seek him, right? As to why scripture also says God first seeks us, right? Through natural and non natural revelation. The only way we could of ever responded to God is by his spiritual persuasion. Our choice to respond or not is only by faith alone. You still have to answer
5. Genuine love isnt genuine if forced
6. Scriptures that tell us to abide, follow, and beware of false teachers are misleading if free will didn't exist.

How is it genuine love if at any point you try making your wife to love you?

And number 6 so your saying free will is active until one is chosen? And then do they regain free will after that or not? Because in light of the scriptures many are misleading or false if you didn't have free will after becoming a Christian then scripture on abide, follow, listen, choose, etc are pointless.

TWO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN THE SAME BREATH

You are confirming the existence of free will

Now you are denying the existence of free will.

Now you are confirming the existence of free will.

So deep down you know that God gave mankind free will, but if you were to honestly admit it, you would have to TOTALLY REPUDIATE Calvinism. Would that be more painful than admitting the truth?

True he definitely doesn't follow all 5 points of Calvinism. So I was trying to understand what he did believe.

My current conclusion is he actually believes free will for the pre chosen damned and the pre elect saints do not. As to why evil exists because God left the pre chosen damned to their carnal nature.

I think he believes the elect do not have free will and somehow I guess the sins of Paul like being a murderer was of God because he was elected.

Now I'm trying to see if free will is re-established for the believer to coincide with scripture like abide or warnings to resist false teachers.

Very interesting

But, God did create evil.... we had to have a choice...

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Isaiah 45:7&version=KJV

But, God did create evil.... we had to have a choice...

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Isaiah 45:7&version=KJV

What does a world look like in the absence of free will. I understand this will knock on the Calvinist door but it also knocks on the atheists door also. And the atheist is who I usually spend time debating as to why I am challenging that worldview and that view has unknowingly persuaded other Christians. The world of a true materialist is a world absent of free will.

Before I explain the a world absent of free will, I will define my key words.

Libertarianism Free will: I hold the Libertarianism view which is the concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances. ( Not related to politics)

Interactionism or interactionist dualism: is the theory in the philosophy of the mind which holds that matter and mind are two distinct and independent substances that exert causal effects on one another.

Metaphysics: is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of being, existence, and reality. It does not explore religious beliefs and laws created by man, but rather, it explores the immutable laws of nature, set by The Creator, God/Universal Presence, in the creation of the Universe. The observed affects of a unseen cause.

Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Matter: In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that we can touch are ultimately composed of atoms.

Primordial soup: is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup.

Evolution: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization.

Animal instincts: Instinct is an inherent behavior; a fixed action pattern that is unlearned. Animals are born with certain instincts which are common to all those in their breed. Some instinctual behaviors require a certain amount of maturation before they begin. The most obvious one is the instinct to mate and propagate.

Herd: is a social group of certain animals of the same species. Bonded together to better their chances of survival.

Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to examine and explain social behavior in terms of evolution.

As described above in materialism the only thing that exists is the physical realm, the natural realm or made of matter. All of life on Earth came from a natural cause. The most held theory is called the primordial soup. We first began through a random event by a systematic game of chance in a billions of years timeframe.

Many theories suggest how the primordial soup came to be but one day all the elements for life came together and began a gradual chemical evolution of molecules. This gradual change is usually what the secular scientific world calls evolution.

Speed up time from soup, to fish, to vertebrate mammal, to ape, to caveman, and finally to modern human.

Where did free will enter the biological mix?

Well it couldn't of under a only natural cause. Everything is a chemical reaction. The brain is all material and thus only reacts to its surroundings. We are in many ways just more Intelligent animals that are predetermined by natural selection, instincts inherited by past species like the ape, environmental factors like survival of the fittest, and robots reacting to chemical reactions.

This is how a true materialist must deny the idea of a objective morality. They must deny sin, evil and good. Everything is subjective and truth is only true to the individual as they are only responding to the environment from internal evolutionary programming.

Under this explanation. What kind of world would this be if truly followed?

1. Obviously morality couldn't exist
2. Just laws wouldn't exist
3. Justice wouldn't exist
4. Life isn't sacred
5. Sin doesn't exist
6. In the Animal kingdom whoever is the strongest controls the environment. Everyone else responds to the strongests actions in order to survive.

Examples: Someone like Hitler couldn't be judged by others because good and evil doesn't exist. His actions was only him responding to his brain. In reaction he was only surviving in a herd type of complex. The sociobiological response led to his choices of enacting genocide, eugenics and environmental control of surrounding countries. All in order to survive and protect his herd.

Laws are just subjective and change with environmental factors, human needs, and the top dogs actions.

Justice is a illusion because technically no right and wrong exists. Just survival.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So what happens if from a theological perspective if we use the absence of free will concept? Well we must first examine what free will looks like before comparing the absence of free will.

In more detail free will is
1.The Man is the origin and cause of his own actions.

2: The Man, in most cases, will have the ability to choose between 2 or more options. And whichever option he chooses, he did not have to make that choice. He could have chosen one of the alternatives.

3: The Man’s choice was undetermined. Nothing internal or external to the man causally determined the man to make the choice he did. His choice was uncaused or undetermined.

Interactionist dualism is simply the mind and brain are separate but work together. The mind is metaphysical while the brain is physically material.

Interactionism was propounded by the French rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes (1596–1650), and continues to be associated with him. Descartes posited that the body, being physical matter, was characterized by spatial extension but not by thought and feeling, while the mind, being a separate substance, had no spatial extension but could think and feel.

So Mind= thinking and feeling
Brain= physical response to the mind.
-Rene Descartes

This simple sentence is a mental exercise that shows we are free thinkers. I doubt and think shows a boundary beyond just instincts or chemical responses.

The evidence of morality is evidence for God. The moral law is evidence of a metaphysical right and wrong universal standard that we all knowingly or unknowingly react to. Also proving immaterial things exist.

A world without free will but belief in God means everything is predetermined. God is the author of sin and evil. If free will doesn't exist neither was the actions of Satan. Everything was predetermined by God.

Now obviously in light of the evidence for free will, morality, and the characteristics of God being all just, all good, and Holy. A God who is the author of sin and evil isnt the God of the Bible.

A world with God and absence of free will is also a world absence of morality, absence of just laws, absence of true justice, and life predetermined is every action also is within God's will including Hitlers.

Conclusion:

A Atheistic worldview just doesn't follow reality or any belief without free will. Free will is a tricky thing to pretend it doesn't exist.

If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist. If all things are causally determined, then that includes all thoughts and beliefs.’ If our thoughts and beliefs are forced upon us, and we could not have chosen better beliefs, then we are simply left assuming that our determined beliefs are good (let alone true).

Except we also use the laws of logic to reason and come to a rational explanation for the reality we live in. Therefore for anyone to debate against free will they must use reason and logic and proving free will at the same time. Otherwise you must admit your not really thinking but only reacting.

If this sounds confusing. It can be when you start trying to deny reality.

View attachment 204151

Joshua 24:15-16, " 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” 16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods,

Genesis 4:7, “If you do right, will it not be accepted? If you don’t do right, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to overcome it.”

The choice is yours, come choose wisely.

Too important a point to concede. We WERE spiritually dead. We needed to be born again. We do NOT decide to birth ourselves and Scripture SPECIFICALLY says we can't. Those who are not born again are right now are spiritually DEAD and condemned. That does NOT mean that they won't be quickened upon hearing the Gospel and THEN become born again through the faith that was activated upon their hearing.

John 1:12-13 New King James Version (NKJV)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [a]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, NOR OF THE WILL of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL of man, but of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 New King James Version (NKJV)
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So in our DEAD Spiritual state we are incapable of choosing Christ or choosing in essence to save ourself by our decisions.

You had ZERO say in your physical conception and birth. Why on earth would you think you can decide to conceive and birth yourself Spiritually?

So I can't move beyond this point. GOD CONCEIVES US, GOD BIRTHS US, GOD ALONE SAVES US.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

All of the predestined or chosen language fits in with the foreknowledge and love for mankind to choose all. To predestine a salvation plan for all mankind but with the foreknowledge of knowing who would choose. This never limits free will.

One thing to point out: Anytime you read CHOOSE this or that in the Bible. NOTHING is said of the CAPABILITY of man to choose! Often overlooked!

If you want to see man's capabilities you have to look at OTHER passages that state man is dead in sins and trespasses, cant do no good, cant please God without faith and ON and ON.
Thats why faith is a gift!

Thats why its important to remember: seeing CHOOSE dont speak of our capability as sinners to choose. Leopard cant change their spots! NEEDS A WORK OF GOD!

A truly educated Reformed individual acknowledges free will, but not libertarian free will.

Free will is exercised under the constraints of one's nature. For example, a fallen man "freely" pursues sin because of his fallen nature. A regenerated man "freely" pursues righteousness because of his regenerate nature. Neither may be perfectly successful at always maximizing their sinfulness or righteousness due to many factors I won't bother to mention.

A good analogy would be fish in a pond. A fish that is in a pond can swim all around the pond as he wills. But, he cannot jump onto land and decide to live there for any more than a few moments.

This is the type of "free will" that any man has. His pond or nature defines his decisions in general.

As far as salvation goes, though, it doesn't really matter. God has exhaustive foreknowledge (Is 46:9-10). God's knowledge is perfect, and cannot be proven to be wrong. Therefore, the fate of every single individual is already certain. I know when I am talking to someone about the gospel that this is true, from God's perspective. As I look into their eyes, I know they will either suffer eternal punishment or experience eternal life, and that's already determined.

That's why consistent non-Reformed people are open theists, but they can't explain away exhaustive foreknowledge so their effort is futile

I am assuming that you know that all scriptures must harmonize to be the truth that Jesus taught. How do you harmonize 2 Cor 5:14-15 with John 6:38? You say that God had the foreknowledge of who would seek him. That statement is true that he had foreknowledge, but he saw through his foreknowledge that no one would seek him, no, not one (Psalms 53:2). The "all" in 2 Corinthians is "all of God's elect". Not all of God's elect understands the full truth and those that have been revealed the full truth, by the Holy Spirit, live a different life. This is explained by the wide gate that leads to destruction and the strait gate that leads to life, not eternal life, but a good life here on earth by honoring God in following his commandments.