The limits of free will...

[Rippon]

Well brother, I do see a contradiction, thus I reject Calvinism. The reason you don't see the contradiction is you filter the Bible through the eyes of Calvin.

It is so tiresome for you to say the same old worn-out lines in every post Robert. You speak rubbish. I was referencing Romans 9 in case you didn't know -- not The Institutes.

Why don't you quote me from my post #58 and refute,if you can,what I posted line-for-line?

 

[glfredrick]

Did Satan and Adam/Eve As originally created, in perfect harmony with God...

Did they have "true" free will?
BUT
After fall of Satan and his hordes and Adam/Eve
These 2 falls brought Sin into the perfect Creation, so no longer even possible to have "real" free will?

But after new heavens/New earth Eternal State
all Creation and all created beings thatwere part of the saved/unfallen hosts would be able to exercise full free will, as ALWAYS doing perfect will of God forever more...

is free will really not real, as our ultimate goal is to be with LORD forever in Heaven and his will is always what I want to be doing anyways?

So, if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that we had free will before the fall into sin, but at that point, God constricted the level of that free will in some fashion. To what level is the will still free (or not at all...) after Genesis 3?

I also see you suggesting that after our glorification, our wills will be free in an absolute sense as long as they mirror the will of God, but is that free, actually? Seems limited.

 

[JesusFan]

So, if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that we had free will before the fall into sin, but at that point, God constricted the level of that free will in some fashion. To what level is the will still free (or not at all...) after Genesis 3?

before the fall, Humans actual had the full freedom to choose just the good, evil was able to be rejected, as they were still " in state of grace"
So full freedom, as could choose by own voliation to obey God always, and do His Will...
After the Fall, Humans all now born into a "State of Sin:, so lost the capacity to "freely" choose to do the good and avoid the evil, as outr nature now was at ementy against God and His ways...
Once a person receives jesus Christ as Saviour, receives Holy Spirit, than have the means to willfully choose to heed ways and Will of God...

I also see you suggesting that after our glorification, our wills will be free in an absolute sense as long as they mirror the will of God, but is that free, actually? Seems limited.

Not limiting, but finally FREE, as we will always be obeying and doing the Will of God, and don't we all agree His Will is the best way to go?
We will have All sin nature removed, no more presense of it, so will forever serve/obey/love the Lord?

If that is "limited" isn't that for our best?

 

[Van]

"Every single person deserves eternal condemnation." The Lord, however,has determined to have mercy on some and harden others. That's perfectly biblical and hence certainly not against the nature of God. He doesn't have mercy upon each and every person --past,present and future.

I was referencing Romans 9 in case you didn't know -- not The Institutes.
Why don't you quote me from my post #58 and refute,if you can,what I posted line-for-line?"

Hi Rippon, lets do as you requested of Mr. Snow.

(1) "Every single person deserves eternal condemnation."
True for we all have fallen short and our iniquity has caused a separation from God, unless we obtain mercy through faith in the truth. The concept of mercy includes not getting what we deserve. So we agree, except on how we obtain mercy.

(2) "The Lord, however,has determined to have mercy on some and harden others." This line looks to me like you have filtered Romans 9:18. It says God hardens whom He desires and has mercy on whom He desires. So if your statement was -ah - unfiltered it would read, The Lord, however, determines to have mercy on some and harden others." Your statement certainly accurately relates what God has done in the past, but leaves out that according to scripture it was on going when Paul wrote Romans 9.18 because all the verbs are in the present tense.

(3) "That's perfectly biblical and hence certainly not against the nature of God." Close but no brass right, because it left out that God was having mercy and inserted God has determined to have mercy. No biggy I often miss them mark a tad when referencing from memory.

(4) "He doesn't have mercy upon each and every person --past,present and future." There is absolutely nothing to nit pick here, you hit the nail on the head.
But that does not mean you did not filter the underlying scripture through Calvinism, but rather it could mean Calvinism is not wrong on this point.

So what was so wrong with what you said? By putting God's determination in the past, which I believe meant, but was left unstated, before the foundation of the world, you turned a verse toward Calvinism, when in fact it points, however faintly, away from the Calvinism. Anyway, that is my take.

 

[Van]

JesusFan, another outstanding point. Being limited or not allowed to exercise our will in one area, like under the influence of corrupt flesh, can be seen as being set free rather than limited. That is why when I refer to verses that address our ultimate sanctification in glorified bodies that are not corrupt, I usually include the line, free at last, free at last.

 

[glfredrick]

Ok.

You may need to be more specific, or just come out and make your point. I'm not sure how else to answer your question than what I've already provided.

I'm giving you and others an opportunity here to speak positively for the free will that you so often argue that we have. If you are very sure that we do indeed posses some level of free will, I would expect that you could define the limits (or lack of limits) in that will.

Motivation? I've found it relatively easy for those holding to a free will position to use pithy statements to shoot down a sovereign view of God, so I am instead asking you to share in a positive fashion the limits or lack of limits on the free will that you espouse. That should be relatively easy, considering that about half the regular posters on this board (in threads concerning the issue of will and sovereignty) are adamant that we do indeed have free will. If we have it, one should be able to define it! But perhaps in the minutiae of specific definition, the freedoms collapse? I don't know... I still await a coherent response to my OP question.

 

[glfredrick]

Not limiting, but finally FREE, as we will always be obeying and doing the Will of God, and don't we all agree His Will is the best way to go?
We will have All sin nature removed, no more presense of it, so will forever serve/obey/love the Lord?

If that is "limited" isn't that for our best?

I don't know... I believe we're still investigating.

 

[glfredrick]

"Every single person deserves eternal condemnation." The Lord, however,has determined to have mercy on some and harden others. That's perfectly biblical and hence certainly not against the nature of God. He doesn't have mercy upon each and every person --past,present and future.

I was referencing Romans 9 in case you didn't know -- not The Institutes.
Why don't you quote me from my post #58 and refute,if you can,what I posted line-for-line?"

Hi Rippon, lets do as you requested of Mr. Snow.

(1) "Every single person deserves eternal condemnation."
True for we all have fallen short and our iniquity has caused a separation from God, unless we obtain mercy through faith in the truth. The concept of mercy includes not getting what we deserve. So we agree, except on how we obtain mercy.

(2) "The Lord, however,has determined to have mercy on some and harden others." This line looks to me like you have filtered Romans 9:18. It says God hardens whom He desires and has mercy on whom He desires. So if your statement was -ah - unfiltered it would read, The Lord, however, determines to have mercy on some and harden others." Your statement certainly accurately relates what God has done in the past, but leaves out that according to scripture it was on going when Paul wrote Romans 9.18 because all the verbs are in the present tense.

(3) "That's perfectly biblical and hence certainly not against the nature of God." Close but no brass right, because it left out that God was having mercy and inserted God has determined to have mercy. No biggy I often miss them mark a tad when referencing from memory.

(4) "He doesn't have mercy upon each and every person --past,present and future." There is absolutely nothing to nit pick here, you hit the nail on the head.
But that does not mean you did not filter the underlying scripture through Calvinism, but rather it could mean Calvinism is not wrong on this point.

So what was so wrong with what you said? By putting God's determination in the past, which I believe meant, but was left unstated, before the foundation of the world, you turned a verse toward Calvinism, when in fact it points, however faintly, away from the Calvinism. Anyway, that is my take.

I'd appreaciate it if you saved this for a thread where we're talking on the subject.

What is you take on my OP question regarding the limit or lack of limit of free will? As I recall, you have yet to even deal with that question, and that is what this thread is concerned with.

 

[WestminsterMan]

it all depends upon the fact that that are 2 'free wills" for humans it would appear from the biblical viewpoint...

"Free will" for the unsaved person, one has not been rebirthed by the Holy Spirit Into becoming united with Christ, Baptized by Him into Body of Christ...

THAT person is said to be under bondgae to Sin, Flesh, and the Devil, that his nature is fallen, so his decision making ability is severly limited...

Still made in image of God, so can think and act, BUT
left to his own devices, will eventually keep on commiting the lyusts and desires of the Flesh, pride, lust, envy etc...

So someone without a new nature thru new birth cannot really do good on a constent basis, so can say they really have "limited" free will, as they will keep doing what seems "naturally" to them...

A Christian has new nature The Holy Spirit residing in himself, and thus is NOT under bondage to same things as unsaved, UNLESS he chooses to place himself under them again..
the believer can thus thru grace of God, by the power of the Cross and Spirit, decide to following the Lord and His ways...
So he has freedom in living and obeying God, something unsaved cannot do...

Seems that free will really relates more to ability to do what is the right thing and avoiding the wrong thing, and only the saved FULLY have that free will granted to them by being saved by grace of God in Christ jesus...

NNE other than God has absoute free will, but the saved def has great latitude in this than the unsaved!

New International Version (©1984)
"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."

Sounds as though St. Paul had problems with sinful behavior to me.

WM

 

[Van]

Glfredrick, funny you did not address your ire toward Mr. Rippon. I only responded to his post.

As for your question concerning the limits of free will, why don't you stop trying to badger and harass by asking a question that has been answered over and over.

Here is how I answered your question:

"What are the limits of Libertarian Free Will?
One of the questions concerning libertarian free will (if it should exist as suggested) is what are its limits, or are there limits to free will?"

I would toss limited free will (meaning the ability to make choices that change the outcome of our lives) into the spectrum that starts at one end with exhaustive determinism- free will does not exist - then to Compatibilism and then to limited free will and at the other end of the spectrum of beliefs, libertarianism.

The difference between libertarian free will and limited free will, is the range of choices assumed to be allowed by God. In the limited free will view, only when God allows a person to exercise choice in that area, are they able to make autonomous choices.

This view is consistent with "we make plans, but God directs our steps" verse in Psalms. Take the case of the unbelieving Jews hardened by God in Romans 11. Before they were hardened they could have chosen Christ and obtained mercy because that choice was allowed by God. But, when He hardened them, their free will became even more limited, now to the point where they could not choose to trust in Christ. So if scripture says something is foreordained, predestined, whatever it is has been applied to us, then we no longer have the ability to choose otherwise. So, according to my eternal security view, when God puts us spiritually in Christ, our free will to walk away from our faith and devotion to Christ is taken away. We can sure still backslide and quench the Spirit, but I believe in the heart of hearts of every born again believer, they love Jesus till the day they die because God keeps them by protecting their faith. 1 Peter 1:3-5.

In summary the limits imposed by God on our capacity to make autonomous choices are according to His purpose. He created us to bring Him glory, and when we repent we bring Him glory, so God allows us or grants us the liberty to choose to trust in Christ because that fulfills His purpose of creation.

The problem with Compatibilism is God says He sets life and death before us and desires that we choose life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20.) If our past dictated our choice, we would have either life or death before us because the alternative would not be available. Thus the view turns the meaning of choice into non-choice. If a person cannot pick one or the other, but must pick one and cannot pick the other, it is a non-choice. Thus the view is completely unbiblical.

If we were computers made of meat, to borrow a phrase, why would it bring glory to God for us to "repent" when that choice to forsake ourselves and trust in God, was the result of the compulsion of the past. That would be akin to thinking if a pull string doll said, "I love you" that would ascribe some honor or glory to whoever pulled the string.

Did God give us the Law which He knew none of us could follow perfectly to lead us to Christ? Yes. Did God give us Christ to set before us the choice of life or death and beg us to choose life? Yes, as ambassadors of Christ we are to beg the lost to be reconciled to God. Does compatibilism rewrite this truth as God set before some life, because they had no other choice, and death before the others because they had no other choice, being unable to alter the outcome that had been exhaustively determined. Yes.

The limits of our autonomous choices are set by God, and God does not leave those limits static for our lives. He can take away and He can add. Take away by hardening, and those limits can also be reduced by our practice of sin, so that what we had is taken away. To him who has, more will be given can be applied to receiving the Holy Spirit, where we are then able to understand the spiritual things discerned with the aid of our indwelt Spirit, and thus grow and alter our entry into heaven, because those that grow and earn rewards, enter abundantly.

We are limited in that we cannot do anything or think anything that will save us. Romans 9:16. But we can believe and if God credits our faith in the truth as righteousness, He puts us in Christ where we are given more range; we can now do good works that earn rewards.

God rules and does as He pleases, and scripture tells us it pleased God to create people who could choose life or death, and that God sets both options before them.

So by the numbers (1) Are there limits to LFW? Answer Yes (2) Does LFW exist? Answer No but limited free will does. (3) What are the limits to free will? Answer: The limits are the restrictions imposed by God to fulfill His purpose, as illustrated in the following: Adam was free to sin or not sin but once corrupted and separated from God nothing he could do or think could restore his former relationship with God. As a consequence of Adams sin, the many (everyone but Christ" were made sinners, predisposed to sin by our corrupted fleshly natures. However, in this limited condition, we can still set our minds on some spiritual things, the milk of the gospel, because men of the flesh are able to receive it. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. But this limited spiritual ability can be reduced further by (a) the practice of sinning, resulting in being like the first soil of Matthew 13, and/or (b) God hardening our heart - taking away are ability to trust in Christ - as described in Romans 11. On the other hand God can expand the range of our free will by sealing us in Christ with the Holy Spirit as a guide to understanding the spiritual things only understood with the aid the Spirit. Finally, when we are resurrected in glorified bodies, we are set free from the limits imposed through our corrupt flesh, free at last, free at last.

 

[glfredrick]

Glfredrick, funny you did not address your ire toward Mr. Rippon. I only responded to his post.

As for your question concerning the limits of free will, why don't you stop trying to badger and harass by asking a question that has been answered over and over.

Here is how I answered your question:

"What are the limits of Libertarian Free Will?
One of the questions concerning libertarian free will (if it should exist as suggested) is what are its limits, or are there limits to free will?"

I would toss limited free will (meaning the ability to make choices that change the outcome of our lives) into the spectrum that starts at one end with exhaustive determinism- free will does not exist - then to Compatibilism and then to limited free will and at the other end of the spectrum of beliefs, libertarianism.

The difference between libertarian free will and limited free will, is the range of choices assumed to be allowed by God. In the limited free will view, only when God allows a person to exercise choice in that area, are they able to make autonomous choices.

This view is consistent with "we make plans, but God directs our steps" verse in Psalms. Take the case of the unbelieving Jews hardened by God in Romans 11. Before they were hardened they could have chosen Christ and obtained mercy because that choice was allowed by God. But, when He hardened them, their free will became even more limited, now to the point where they could not choose to trust in Christ. So if scripture says something is foreordained, predestined, whatever it is has been applied to us, then we no longer have the ability to choose otherwise. So, according to my eternal security view, when God puts us spiritually in Christ, our free will to walk away from our faith and devotion to Christ is taken away. We can sure still backslide and quench the Spirit, but I believe in the heart of hearts of every born again believer, they love Jesus till the day they die because God keeps them by protecting their faith. 1 Peter 1:3-5.

In summary the limits imposed by God on our capacity to make autonomous choices are according to His purpose. He created us to bring Him glory, and when we repent we bring Him glory, so God allows us or grants us the liberty to choose to trust in Christ because that fulfills His purpose of creation.

The problem with Compatibilism is God says He sets life and death before us and desires that we choose life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20.) If our past dictated our choice, we would have either life or death before us because the alternative would not be available. Thus the view turns the meaning of choice into non-choice. If a person cannot pick one or the other, but must pick one and cannot pick the other, it is a non-choice. Thus the view is completely unbiblical.

If we were computers made of meat, to borrow a phrase, why would it bring glory to God for us to "repent" when that choice to forsake ourselves and trust in God, was the result of the compulsion of the past. That would be akin to thinking if a pull string doll said, "I love you" that would ascribe some honor or glory to whoever pulled the string.

Did God give us the Law which He knew none of us could follow perfectly to lead us to Christ? Yes. Did God give us Christ to set before us the choice of life or death and beg us to choose life? Yes, as ambassadors of Christ we are to beg the lost to be reconciled to God. Does compatibilism rewrite this truth as God set before some life, because they had no other choice, and death before the others because they had no other choice, being unable to alter the outcome that had been exhaustively determined. Yes.

The limits of our autonomous choices are set by God, and God does not leave those limits static for our lives. He can take away and He can add. Take away by hardening, and those limits can also be reduced by our practice of sin, so that what we had is taken away. To him who has, more will be given can be applied to receiving the Holy Spirit, where we are then able to understand the spiritual things discerned with the aid of our indwelt Spirit, and thus grow and alter our entry into heaven, because those that grow and earn rewards, enter abundantly.

We are limited in that we cannot do anything or think anything that will save us. Romans 9:16. But we can believe and if God credits our faith in the truth as righteousness, He puts us in Christ where we are given more range; we can now do good works that earn rewards.

God rules and does as He pleases, and scripture tells us it pleased God to create people who could choose life or death, and that God sets both options before them.

So by the numbers (1) Are there limits to LFW? Answer Yes (2) Does LFW exist? Answer No but limited free will does. (3) What are the limits to free will? Answer: The limits are the restrictions imposed by God to fulfill His purpose, as illustrated in the following: Adam was free to sin or not sin but once corrupted and separated from God nothing he could do or think could restore his former relationship with God. As a consequence of Adams sin, the many (everyone but Christ" were made sinners, predisposed to sin by our corrupted fleshly natures. However, in this limited condition, we can still set our minds on some spiritual things, the milk of the gospel, because men of the flesh are able to receive it. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. But this limited spiritual ability can be reduced further by (a) the practice of sinning, resulting in being like the first soil of Matthew 13, and/or (b) God hardening our heart - taking away are ability to trust in Christ - as described in Romans 11. On the other hand God can expand the range of our free will by sealing us in Christ with the Holy Spirit as a guide to understanding the spiritual things only understood with the aid the Spirit. Finally, when we are resurrected in glorified bodies, we are set free from the limits imposed through our corrupt flesh, free at last, free at last.

Please cite the source for that post... Plagiarism is not in keeping with truthful scholarship.

And I just didn't see Rippon's response, or I would have done likewise. If you look, I've done likewise with everyone who posts something other than in response to the OP question.

And, you have jumped back on the compatiblist bandwagon here, but STILL not dealt with the OP question.

I'm not interested in arguing all the technicalities of free will, who is right or who is wrong. I am SPECIFICALLY interested in discussing the limits (or lack of limits) to the free will that some say we have.

 

[glfredrick]

Is that a problem, that one not understand either:

A. the question
B. pondering the concepts of limits to free will

I stated earlier the obvious knowable limits, are those limited to the constraints with the "system" (creation) however, all of "those limits" may not as of yet be understood, as mankind does not yet possess the "equation for everything". (not that we ever will)

Man cannot "create" rather only "re-create", fashion things from the known constituent atomic matter.

I think that the "problem" is that many offer free will as a means to explain their theology, but they have never really thought through what that free will ultimately means -- whether there are limits or not, how far the free will exists (into eternity?) etc. Now, confronted with the question, and no easily accessible website that discusses that and "feeds" the answer, there are not many responses.

I'll note that in further discussions... :thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

There is a difference. The law was given to show what God required. We can at least attempt to keep it. God also knew we would fail, so there were sacrifices to atone for our failures. Of course, this atonement was fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

It is different for God to tell people to repent and trust Him when in truth, according to the Calvinist, it is limited to only a few. This sounds deceitful to me, something that goes against the nature of God.

Robert, I'm primarily interested in a discussion of the limits (or lack) of free will, with justification for whatever limits (or lack) that are cited.

This isn't a purely Calvinistic/Arminian debate as are some of the others. The only reason I even mentioned any particular side in this debate is that one side is obviously more in favor of a free will expression, as so often argued on the board.

So, if you would deal with the OP question regarding free will, limited or not, I'd surely appreciate it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm giving you and others an opportunity here to speak positively for the free will that you so often argue that we have. If you are very sure that we do indeed posses some level of free will, I would expect that you could define the limits (or lack of limits) in that will.

Motivation? I've found it relatively easy for those holding to a free will position to use pithy statements to shoot down a sovereign view of God, so I am instead asking you to share in a positive fashion the limits or lack of limits on the free will that you espouse. That should be relatively easy, considering that about half the regular posters on this board (in threads concerning the issue of will and sovereignty) are adamant that we do indeed have free will. If we have it, one should be able to define it! But perhaps in the minutiae of specific definition, the freedoms collapse? I don't know... I still await a coherent response to my OP question.

I would also be interested in an academic rundown of free will belief (but without derogatory commentary pointed at Calvinistic Believers Ive been reading regularly). Since you once were a Calvinist, you should be able to posture it in some way where perhaps you can compare & contrast it....your call.

 

[glfredrick]

I am not a student of the many theories on will, this is why I was reluctant to enter this conversation. I see things simply and depend on scripture.

I do agree that we cannot believe what we do not know (Rom 10:14). We also see that a child is limited by lack of knowledge to choose between good and evil (Isa 7:16).

But this is not the issue. I generally agree that a person will always follow and choose their greatest motivation. Therefore, the question really becomes does man have free motives? And I believe scripture shows they do.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

This verse tells me that men can create or invent their own motivations. Therefore, not all motives originate in God. God does not create the thought or motive in man to sin, men are fully able to invent this sinful thought or motive themselves. Thus, the scriptures teach that God never tempts any man (Jam 1:13).

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This verse shows men corrupted themselves, their corruption was not decreed or caused by God.

And we see in Jer 32:35 that men committed sin that God never commanded, that did not come into his mind or heart, and that he did not cause.

So, if you are asking whether men can act independently of God, I believe the scriptures say he can.

How does this play out in the limits (or lack) of free will? I'm not really asking IF there is free will. I'm asking a more specific question...

 

[glfredrick]

Every single person deserves eternal condemnation. The Lord, however,has determined to have mercy on some and harden others. That's perfectly biblical and hence certainly not against the nature of God. He doesn't have mercy upon each and every person --past,present and future.

There is no contradiction to tell everyone to repent and believe in Christ and the fact that the Holy Spirit has His own picked out whom He spiritually arrests.

Rippon, I'll address you as I have everyone else...

I'm mainly looking to examine the limits (or lack of limits) for free will, and any justification for those limits or lack of limits.

 

[Jim1999]

All creation falls under the absolute sovereignty of God. After the fall, man's freedom of choice is limited by this absolute sovereignty, in a term in theology was term the permissive will of God:"Thus far and no further." Now apply man's free will under these terms. "free" becomes a relative term, and not an absolute. Only God is absolute.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[glfredrick]

First off, anything with "limits", means there are restrictions, correct? So with restrictions, then you don't have something considered free, correct? So then the only viable definition of free will, is "free will". Y'all may not agree with free will, but y'all do have to agree with the definition.

So, could I count that you are in favor of true unlimited free will?

How far, or where does that unlimited free will exist? Even into eternity?

BTW, I noted your Scriptural references. Thanks! They do build a case for some extent of free will. I am not really even disputing that, for that is (I believe) what the Scripture teaches. I do not find that God is "deterministic". I'll refrain from carrying the debate in that direction, however, for in this thread, I'm trying to hold a more specific and narrow topic.

What I am trying to explore is the LIMITS of that free will.

 

[glfredrick]

I would also be interested in an academic rundown of free will belief (but without derogatory commentary pointed at Calvinistic Believers Ive been reading regularly). Since you once were a Calvinist, you should be able to posture it in some way where perhaps you can compare & contrast it....your call.

What do you mean "once were a Calvinist?" :smilewinkgrin:

I don't recall changing my theology.

 

[glfredrick]

All creation falls under the absolute sovereignty of God. After the fall, man's freedom of choice is limited by this absolute sovereignty, in a term in theology was term the permissive will of God:"Thus far and no further." Now apply man's free will under these terms. "free" becomes a relative term, and not an absolute. Only God is absolute.

Cheers,

Jim

I tend to agree with you, but I am attempting to discern the limits of God's permissive will (or lack of limits as the case may be).