Featured Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:6-9

There is a clear distinction between the mind of God and the mind of man. The struggle to define the boundaries of accountability and free choice is drawn between definitions of freedom. Free will is the ability to choose A or to not choose A without any compelling force that causes the choice, as opposed to determinism which is the view that God from eternity past has determined all things whatsoever comes to pass. Yet if determinism (viz, compatibilist freedom/soft determinism) is true, and our minds are simply following predetermined responses, then ultimately God is having a universal chess match with Himself.

Free will is important in distinguishing the difference between an infallible creator, and fallible humans. Permitting free will demonstrates that man makes choices that God would not make, and thoughts that God would not think, actions that God would not take. Free will shows that God's thoughts and actions are infinitely superior to humans. By God allowing man to think and act independently without any external of internal compulsion, man proves that he is incapable of making the best and wisest choices. When man is given the choice to decide between A and B, and chooses B where God would have chosen A, man's free will shows that he can not possibly be like God.

Free will proves the sovereignty of God far more than a deterministic system. If God determines that man chooses A, then ultimately man has not actually had the ability to make a decision that is independent from God, and if God controls the response as well as the decision, then there is no way to prove that man is not just as equally as intelligent as God.

In a compatibilist form of free will, compatibilists deny that man has the ability to refrain from choosing A or B, but only the freedom to incline and such inclinations being programmed into the man's will. Thus man is still doing what he wants to do out of the will that he has been programmed with.

Thus, if a computer prints out the letters "ABCDEFG", it does so not because it chooses to but because that is the manner in which the software has been designed to produce the sequence of letters. The computer is in effect printing what it wants to print based on the software that has given it its available options. However, if a glitch is introduced into the system that causes the computer to print "AXYZEFG" can the computer itself be blamed for its production?

The actions of the computer reflect the programming of the software designer. When a computer fails to produce what it was designed to produce, the creator of the software is held accountable because there is no distinction between the results produced by the computer, and the actions of the programmer. Thus ultimately, man that is pre-programmed to act out of a determined inclination can not be responsible or accountable for what he produces because his own actions and inclinations were not the cause or the ultimate origin of the glitches, but that of the programming.

For God to be the cause of man's sinful actions and poor choices, deprives God of the ability to claim that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts because inevitably, our thoughts ARE His thoughts if our thoughts are the result of His determining. Compatibilist freedom is no more than a human philosophical attempt to be God. It turns our frailties into God's attributes by proxy and extension.

Let God be true, and every man a liar (Rom 3:4). Albeit, man can not be said to be a liar if his thoughts and actions are concurrently dictated by that which God determines them to be predisposed to. Ultimately, God would be the cause of the lie, and could not consistently maintain His own truthfulness. The Bible shows an obvious distinction between choice and causation, yet determinism would opine that the 2 are equal:

"Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD" Deuteronomy 12:11

Only libertarian free will provides the distinction between God and humans. Only the permissive will of God that allows humans to act independently and autonomously proves that man is a complete failure in comparison to God. God proves nothing of Himself by determining men to fail. There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Prov 14:12. We see this concept often in our own families with our children. We often permit children to do things that we don't always approve of, only for them to return later and say "Dad, you were right". If we force them to do precisely what we desire, we can make no distinction between their reasons, will, and choices from ours. Thus we demonstrate that we are wiser than our children by allowing them to freely fail.

The concept of free will and accountability for choices is ingrained not only into our morals but also our governments. In the legal system, duress is a defense against actions that compelled the defendant to act otherwise than he would have chosen to. Likewise those who compel another to commit a crime are charged with conspiracy.The Bible is replete with examples of free will and accountability:

"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." 1 Kings 18:21

"But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself." Daniel 1:8

"There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" Genesis 39:9

" Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" Hebrews 11:25

"For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" Luke 14:28

"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee." 2 Samuel 24:12

" And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left." Isaiah 30:21

" But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them....I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" Deut 30:17,19.

Furthermore, the Old Testament is full of moments where God shows anger for rebellion against Him. Isaiah 65:2, 2 Sam 4:21, Exodus 4:14, 2 Kings 13:3, Numbers 12:9, Joshua 7:1-13, 2 Sam 24:1, Isaiah 5:25, Judges 2:14. That fact that God reacts negatively to decisions that are made against His will shows that God did not determine their actions. It would be absurd to imply that God is angry over actions that He determined and caused.

" And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Jeremiah 32:35

The fact that the Bible itself proscribes against compelling others to sin and choose to act negatively is telling of the character of God. Mark 9:42, Romans 14:21.

There are clear Biblical and logical reasons to reject any form of determinism and compatibilist freedom. Divine determinism is an affront to the sovereignty of God because it not only makes the human will and mind equal to God and provides no distinction between His thoughts and our thoughts as it only claims to limit capacity but not origin, it fails to prove that God always chooses that which is ultimately the best and wisest choices by eliminating any standard of comparison to that which is autonomously inferior, thus obscuring God's own will as well as turning options themselves into a deity equally rivaling God's omnipotence.

When determinism is compared to Scripture, and reduced to its logical denouement it fails miserably as a legitimate explanation of our relationship to God, our accountability and responsibility for decisions, the very existence of choices, and God's own autonomy and omnipotence. No Christian should ever be a compatibilist. Only free will rightly provides the distinction that demonstrates the holiness and sovereignty of God.

 

That is because you don't know how to read anything objectively and twist scripture to fit your presuppositions instead of letting the Bible speak for itself.

This verse says nothing of God compelling you against your will to DO and to WILL. When you YIELD to God, His will works in you to desire Him more and to do good. If God compelled us to act according to His will, then nobody would ever backslide. It is you that misinterpret Phil 2:13 to say something the text does not support.

.

Perfect example of you beginning arguments with your own conclusions, putting the conclusion before the premise and then building a straw man around the conclusion. You fail to see the difference in the post from the origin and nature of free will from the remedy against the causes of corruption and sin. God ultimately conquers all AFTER he has through his longsuffering allowed men to fail of their own free will as well as choose Him of their own free will. Your silly argument offers nothing to refute that.

I not only understand it far better than you do, I clearly illustrated it.

You clearly don't know how to view Scripture with Scripture. When God "causes" Israel.....ISRAEL to turn to Him at the END OF THE TRIBULATION and the remnant DURING the tribulation which is precisely what Ezekiel 36 is about, He does so by eliminating the Temptor, casting devils into hell, and the sin that is the cause of corruption conquered by the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Ezekiel 36 is about NATIONAL repentance, verse 28 proves that "and ye shall dwell in the LAND that I gave to your fathers". It is your persistent failure to understand the distinctions between the spiritual inheritance to the church that came through Judah in Christ, and the LAND and PHYSICAL blessings that came through Ephraim which are NOT TO BE RECKONED WITH THE GENEOLOGY OF JUDAH (where the CHURCH'S blessing through Abraham come). Genesis 48, 1 Chronicles 5:1-2.

1 Cor 1 is about the MEANS God chose for salvation (the "foolishness of preaching"). I have proven from the OP that it is clearly determinism that relies on human wisdom, and thus is further demonstrated by your consistent isolation of certain texts and then rationalizing your arguments into them instead of rightly dividing the word of truth, and ignoring the TONS and TONS upon TONS of texts that have been cited that show your are in gross error.

Isaiah 55:11 has NOTHING to do with determinism and compelling men to act against their will according to the word He sends out. It is quite simple: when God sends His word out, He says that those who believe will be saved, and His word accomplishes that salvation when those conditions are met. When they refuse to believe, His word is accomplished by justly punishing them for their rejection. Whether they freely believe or freely rebel, God's word was established in providing the boundaries and consequences of actions chosen for or against Him. The verse does not say "My word that I send out will cause you to do that which is against your will to do" but is SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO PROPHECY. It means that when God says something will happen, it happens. But in order for this to fit your bias, the verse would have to include God saying that He sends forth His word to cause men to do that which they were otherwise not inclined or compelled to do, and then God causes them to do it.

Stop reading things into the Bible that ARE NOT THERE.

 

First of all, Romans 1 completely annihilates the Calvinist view that man can not know anything about God apart from His regenerating them from their deadness.
Romans 1 in which you quote is a PERFECT example of FREE WILL. Romans says they hardened their OWN hearts, they willingly refused to glorify God, they BECAME VAIN in their OWN imaginations, not imaginations that God PUT INTO THEM.
Romans 1 REFUTES determinism, it certainly doesn't validate it.

 

That's putting the cart before the horse. We don't get a new heart first and then choose to believe (what your statement implies) we choose to believe first and THEN get a new heart.

This is easily refutable. You had 2 options: A to post; B not to post. You chose to not respond to some of my arguments, and chose to respond to others. You exercised BOTH A and B. So much for your theory.

There IS a difference between nation repentance and individual repentance because the NATIONAL repentance of Israel involves a promise and conditions that must be met in order to fulfill that promise that has been passed down through Ephraim. EVERY single OT passage that you keep quoting is in stark contradiction to the physical promises that God made to ISRAEL and ISRAEL ONLY in which you keep interjecting individual salvation. You are confusing the blessings of Abraham that the church inherited and the future restoration of Israel. Israel is under blindness at the moment which is clear from Romans 11. The fact that a distinction is made between Israel and the "times of the Gentiles" (Rev 11:2-4) shows a distinct program that is separate from Israel and the church.

Hebrews 8 and 10 are CLEARLY toward Israel. Hello?? The book is called HEBREWS for a reason.

"or this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people" Heb 8:10

Now I'm going to show you something that none of your other Covenant buddies or preterists GET.

" For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" Hebrews 8:8

Jesus Christ came from the line of Judah. That is the fulfillment of the promises through Abraham that are given to the church for both Jews and Gentiles alike. HOWEVER, the HOUSE OF ISRAEL is the covenant that is YET UNFULFILLED that came from Jacob to Joseph's son, Ephraim. The birthright and the land promise BELONG TO ISRAEL, NOT the CHURCH.

Hebrews is explaining to Israel that they have CORPORATELY been blinded into being offered the gospel and just as Gentiles had to come in through Israel in the OT, now Jews have to come in through the evangelism of the CHURCH of both Jews and Gentiles. But during the tribulation, the Jews will a REMNANT WITHIN ISRAEL that survives and is offered the gospel once again and because all of the non believing Jews that refuse to repent during this time leave a remnant of believing Jews, ALL ISRAEL IS SAVED because there are no LIVING Jews left.

Why do you think there are no GENTILES among the 144, 000 that are sealed in Revelation 7:4-8? When you fail to see the difference in the covenants and promises between the house of Judah from the house of Israel, you will (and have) misinterpret EVERY verse in the Bible about election and turn corporate blessings and fulfillment of promises related solely to Israel into presuppositions about individual salvation.

I see means listed in Corinthians, I don't see "effectual calling" within 10 miles of 1 Cor 1. IT ISN'T THERE. Effectual Calling is a man-made invention that blasphemes the Scripture and adds to the word of God. "Calling" in 1 Cor 1 is directly related to those called to be ministers (v 18, 21). It is God showing that He has chosen what man considers a foolish means of spreading His truth instead of using the carnal human wisdom of the world. This text has absolutely NOTHING to do with a call TO SALVATION, but everything with how God chooses the "foolishness of PREACHING" to confound the wise

Again, you fail to see the backwardsness of this and its illogical conclusion. Man can not be saved unless he believes in Christ. Yet you say that God GIVES man a heart which THEN causes him to believe. Thus REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH and that is totally backwards. God does not GIVE anything that we do not ASK FOR. God can not GIVE US ASKING ABILITY and THEN saved us because that is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches about repentance and faith. Belief and obedience to the gospel ALWAYS precedes regeneration and you can show one verse in the Bible that shows otherwise, or justify any other explanation with any rational common sense.

 

Wow dude are you BLIND??? It isn't about a DIFFERENT GOSPEL. It's about a DIFFERENT COVENANT that involves PHYSICAL PROMISES TO ISRAEL as well as opening their eyes to the offer of the gospel that they are NOW blinded to.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Romans 11:25

Do you know what UNTIL means? The nation of Israel is under blindness until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled and the church is gone. Then 144,000 JEWS are selected as witness, 12,000 of each TRIBE not CHURCH of the CHILDREN of Israel, and even their NAMES of the tribes are listed.

I have shown you plain as day that the spiritual promises to Abraham are DIFFERENT than the unfillfulled promises through Ephraim, and you still don't get it, you keep trying to force your straw man against something I did not and have never said.

The conditions are all through out the Bible, I'll show you just one of them from Christ:

" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

v38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

v39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Matthew 23:37-39

Israel rejected Christ of their own free will. Then Christ said they're house is left desolate (ROMANS 11:25), and they will not see Him UNTIL they says "blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord".

"For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." Hebrews 10:36

"Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." Revelation 14:12-13.

This is why neither Calvin nor Luther ever touched Revelation or prophecy with a 10 foot pole. They couldn't understand it, and it bucked against their theology because once you understand the Biblical terms for election, and the different promises to Israel and the Jew and Gentile, you will interpret the REST of the Bible correctly.

You keep dancing around every verse that shows conditions, consequences and specifically the fact that every proof text you cite unequivocally emphasizes that it is TO ISRAEL.

 

Calling to what?? Read the context the "calling" is not about salvation. It's about PREACHING and being MINSTERS OF THE GOSPEL. There is not one iota or inkling of anyone being called to salvation by an effectual call. That is pure eisegesis. It only demands "effectual calling" because you are ADDING CONTEXT and DEFINITIONS that ARE NOT THERE.