Question about Free Will

Yes. The bird decided that he'd rather leave the fireplace and fly to the blue sky. It appealed to him. He wanted it. The bird didn't decide to stay in the fireplace, which what his other choice.

The bird didn't provide the "salvation", you did in providing a path to "salvation". The bird had a choice to make. In the birds free will, it chose one of two options. The bird didn't save itself, but rather accepted the path presented to it. The bird "repented" of the fireplace and turned to follow the path to salvation.

 

Just a thought that is sort of on topic, and I mention it only to open it up to discussion, I am not married to the idea...

Sentient beings excercise some level of freedom in the choices they make [I will pressume that this is self evident, and seeing no value in debating the obvious, I will proceed from there]. Said another way, we have the freedom to ignore whatever personal morality (in the case of the unregenerate) or spiritual conviction we possess and act on our desires.

However, and this is the point I bring up: While we are free to slake our appetites, are we equally free to choose those appetites? That is, I may choose to act on a desire, but did I choose to have that desire in the first place? Do we have the liberty to pick and choose those desires that we find desireable, or is 'free will' a choice more or less limited to a select sphere of desires which we possess, but had no part in selecting?

Thoughts?

Searcher.

 

God had to place cherubims with flaming swords at the entrance to the garden because Adam could CHOOSE
to go back and eat of the tree of life. Adam knew God in the garden intimately, and wanted to go back for that fellowship or he would have never offered a lamb for his sins later. Did Adam offer sacrifices because he was unconditionally elected and forordained and chosen? Go ahead Sir Calvin...
God gave Cain a Choice. Why? Especially if he could not choose.
Thanks ------Bart

 

IMO, this is the pivotal matter when it comes to debating free will and salvation. My answer to your question -- and I believe it is the Biblical answer -- would be, no, we do not choose our inclination. We are inclined from the start to be without God. We may choose "freely" which ways we will attempt to please ourselves without God, but we are never inclined to please God, therefore we will not "choose" to please God. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God"

The above quote from Romans speaks directly to ability, which makes it seem as if it isn't a matter of inclination. IMO, that's because our inclination limits our ability. One might insist that we are free to put our faith in God, but even if such an assertion were true it would be purely academic, because we are by nature unwilling, and therefore effectively unableto choose something contrary to our inclination.

 

Well Sky, thoroughly confused yet? This is what happens when you get into any of the letters in Calvinism's T.U.L.I.P. This pertains to the "T":
Total depravity. Just what choices does mankind have? Really only one thing is important and Joshua said it best: Joshua 24:15 (in part), "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." This day is right now, where we are. Who is God and what does He want and expect from us? Someone asked the Lord Jesus, "What must I do to do the works of God?" Jesus answered, "This is the work of God, that He believe on Him whom He has sent."
It boggles the mind that it could be so simple, but that's it! Also, He clearly says that WHOSOEVER WILL can come to Him. Rest assured that includes you and I and everyone else can come to Him, or refuse to do so. We can choose to serve Him, or refuse to do so.

 

Jer. 29:13 says, "`You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart."

It seems that there is the part God does and the part that is our responsibility.

 

Dear Sky,
Getting back to your original question, it is interesting to note that currently the good angels have no choice of disobeying God - or better yet, they 'will' never turn away from God! Or, to put it in a question form, how come that the good angels don't keep falling or why is it that the bad angels can not repent? God must have shut the door on both of these groups... Obviously there is a great deal of difference between the angels' 'will' and our human 'will'. See Augustine's discussion on this issue!! - excellent

Also, as all of us might have predicted, every time a thread is started with the word 'will' in it, regardless of the intentions of the original post, the whole thread ends up in a clash of the arminian/calvinist debate. Unless the thread turns back to the original question, this needs to be moved to the A/C debate section.

I can not be silent on this matter however and would like to ask:
What did Jesus mean when He said: 'if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed'?

God bless you

Felix

 

The only problem is that: "THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD" Rom 3:11

Felix

 

Ok Sir Calvin.......
So the joke is on me. Before I was saved God by His Sovereign will gave me a will to seek Him, yet after I fulfilled his Sovereign decree to be saved from the foundation of the world, He left me with a will that has in it the "law of the flesh" and now I am frustrated during the rest of my entire life.
Why doesn't He take it away and make me serve Him now? I didn't have a choice before but now I do and it is no fun. Calvin drank too much French wine before he went to studying his scripture.
Thanks ------Bart

 

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Who did He foreknow?
Who was foreordained?
Who did He call?
Who did He justify?
Who did He glorify?

 

Scripture teaches us (twice) that there is none righteous, no not one. When God repeats something, I for one, perk my ears up. Scripture teaches us that the natural man does not receive the things of the spirit of God because they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. Scripture teaches us, as mentioned above, that the carnal mind is emnity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be. Scripture further teaches us that he that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light. The idea that we are depraved is not one that was dreamed up by Calvin, but reflects what scripture has always said.

We certainly have the free will to do whatever is in our heart. But scripture makes this point - our heart, (which is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked), because it is carnal, fallen and out of fellowship with God, will never of its own accord seek after a holy God. The natural response to God by fallen man is hatred (emnity).

I chose to follow the Lord freely, but I would never have had the desire to without His divine call. I simply would have continued on in sin.

Before we were saved sin ruled in our life, we had no choice - that was true. But when you are regenerate, sin no longer has dominion over you. You are free from the power of sin. An unregenerate man fears the consequences of his sin, but the regenerate man understands that he is accepted by God in Christ the beloved. That his acceptance before God is founded on God's love of Christ, and not on his own merit. Your sin does not make you less acceptable to God, but it does spoil you fellowship with Him. The Christian desires to be free from sin that he may be pleasing to God. That is a little different that being afraid of punishment.

Calvin was likely not drunk on french wine; I expect he was being kept filled with the Holy Spirit, as scripture commands.

I don't imagine that I have arrived. I struggle against sin because I am regenerate. The unregenerate man does not struggle against offending a holy God, they struggle against what people will think, or whether someone will find out.

Our flesh will never be redeemed - that is why we are a new creation. It is the unredeemed flesh (that includes our brains....) that continues to desire sin. Even though we have a new nature, that new nature rests in unredeemed flesh, and it is the new nature that abhors the sins of the flesh. Why didn't God redeem our flesh, or take us out the world right away? How then would men hear the gospel?

That is just my thoughts.

Searcher
<><

 

First of all, the Bible does not say that "whosoever will" can do anything. It says "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

The word "whoever" or "whosoever" does not require free will (or even choice, for that matter). One could just as easily say "whosoever is born with blond hair is more likely to get a sunburn." One could also just as easily say "whosoever believes that his salvation is in his left sock will perish." That doesn't tell you anything at all about why one person believes in Jesus and another in his left sock, it simply tells you that believing in Jesus has one result, and believing in your left sock has another.

Here's an interesting exercise: I challenge anyone here to choose of their own "free will" to believe they have salvation in their left sock. I'd love to hear from anyone who succeeds.

 

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, (Ephesians 1:4-9)

Romans 8:30 says that those whom God predestined, "He also called." God's calling is where His eternal plan intersects with your life. In eternity past, He predetermined to love you - He predestined your salvation. "Whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." The calling here is an effectual call. It's not an invitation to just anyone; it's an invitation that will inevitably be received.

As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10-12)

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. (1 Th 1:4-5 NIV)

Man's will participates in response to God's promptings as Paul makes clear when he says the Thessalonians received the Word. Two or more unsaved people may hear the same message of the gospel, but the power of the Holy Spirit comes upon only whom God chooses, and they are convicted.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. (John 6:37 NIV) "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44 NIV)

2 Timothy 1:9 (ESV)9 God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

I like the way Charles Spurgeon spoke on the apparent conflict of God’s election and man’s free will: "If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.”

In Prov. 16:9 we read, "The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps." Passages such as this may teach that man has a measure of self-determination, while at the same time indicating that what man freely chooses is also (on some level) directed by God.

The question of man's free will is made more complicated by the fact that we must examine it in man, in terms of how the will functioned before and after the fall of Adam. Most important for us today is how the Fall affected man's moral choices.

1. posse pecarre-referring to the ability to sin.
2. posse non-pecarre-referring to the ability not to sin, or to remain free from sin.
3. non-posse pecarre-referring to the inability to sin.
4. non-posse, non-pecarre-referring to the inability not to sin.

Adam had possessed both the ability to sin (posse pecarre) and the ability not to sin (posse non-pecarre). Adam lacked the exalted state of the inability to sin that God enjoys (non-posse pecarre). God's inability to sin is based not on an inner powerlessness of God to do what he wants, but rather on the fact that God has no inner desire to sin. Since the desire for sin is utterly absent from God, there is no reason for God to choose sin. During his time of "probation" in the garden, he had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose to exercise the ability to sin and thus plunged the race into ruin.

As a result, Adam's first sin was passed on to all his descendants. Original sin refers not to the first sin but to God's punishment of that first transgression. Because of the first sin human nature fell into a morally corrupt state, itself partially a judgment of God. When we speak of original sin, we refer to the fallen human condition which reflects the judgment of God upon the race. No longer does man have the posse non-pecarre. In his fallen state the plight of man is found in his inability to keep from sinning (non-posse, non-pecarre). In the Fall, something profoundly vital to moral freedom was lost. Augustine declared that in his prefallen state man enjoyed both a free will (liberium arbitrium) and moral liberty (libertas). Since the Fall, man has continued to have a free will, but has lost the moral liberty he once enjoyed.

With respect to the making of choices, fallen man still has the natural ability and the natural faculties necessary to make moral choices. Man can still think, feel, desire. All of the equipment necessary for the making of choices remains. What fallen man lacks is the moral disposition, the desire, or the inclination of righteousness. He is naturally free, but morally enslaved to his own corrupt and wicked desires. Man is still free to choose; but if left to himself, man will never choose righteousness, precisely because he does not desire it.

Man still has not only the ability, but also the built-in necessity, to choose according to his desires. Not only can we choose what we want, but we must choose what we want. It is at this point that the protest is sounded: Is free choice an illusion? If we must choose what we choose, how can such a choice be called free? If we are free to choose what we want but want only what is evil, how can we still speak of free will? This is precisely why Augustine distinguished between free will and liberty, saying that fallen man still has free will but has lost his liberty. It is why Edwards said that we still have natural freedom but have lost moral freedom.

Why talk of freedom at all, if we can choose only sin? The crux of the matter lies in the relationship between choice and desire, or disposition. Edwards's thesis is that we always choose according to the strongest inclination, or disposition, of the moment. Again, not only can we choose according to our strongest desires, but we must choose according to our strongest desires of the moment. Such is the essence of freedom-that I am able to choose what I want when I want it.

If I must do something, then in a sense my actions are determined. If my actions are determined, then how can I be free? The classic answer to this difficult question is that the determination of my choices comes from within myself. The essence of freedom is self-determination. It is when my choices are forced upon me by external coercion that my freedom is lost. To be able to choose what I want by virtue of self-determination does not destroy free will but establishes it.

To choose according to the strongest desire, or inclination, of the moment means simply that there is a reason for the choices I make. At one point Edwards defined the will as "the mind choosing." The actual choice is an effect, or result, which requires an antecedent cause. The cause is located in the disposition, or desire. If all effects have causes, then all choices likewise have causes. If the cause is apart from me, then I am a victim of coercion. If the cause is from within me, then my choices are self-determined or free.

But we are creatures of changing moods and fleeting desires who have not yet achieved a constancy of will based upon a consistency of godly desires. As long as conflict of desire exists and an appetite for sin remains in the heart, then man is not totally free in the moral sense of which Edwards spoke, nor does man experience the fullness of liberty described by Augustine.

Sorry for writing a book!

 

First, I really enjoyed and agree with your entire post!

A prime example of this is how the flesh continues to do battle with the Spirit even after we are saved.

 

This subject seems to be coming up a lot recently. I read on another thread the opinion that God never overrides our free will. The truth is that He often overrides it. Anytime we pray for the Lord to save someone, we are in effect asking Him to change the mind/heart of a human being, to override their stubborn opposition to Christ. We want Him to do this, and we never complain that the invasion of God into a person's thinking is unfair. I can't imagine a Christian praying, "God, please save my friend, but don't violate his free will!" Doesn't happen. How, then, is this different from God overriding my will in order to direct me to do a certain thing (particularly since I am probably not going to be aware that He is doing this)? We may speak of this process as God softening our resistance, of changing our hearts so that we obey Him. But this is merely another way of saying that He overrides our free will. This overriding never lessens my responsibilty, and the popular notion that free will is necessary to moral accountability is simply not a biblical one.

 

Originally posted by npetreley:
Originally posted by Watchman:
Also, He clearly says that WHOSOEVER WILL can come to Him. [...] We can choose to serve Him, or refuse to do so.

First of all, the Bible does not say that "whosoever will" can do anything. It says "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

"Whosoever" and "Will" are used 29 times in the scriptures 13 times it applies to making a choice for God, Jesus or salvation.

The word "whoever" or "whosoever" does not require free will (or even choice, for that matter). One could just as easily say "whosoever is born with blond hair is more likely to get a sunburn." One could also just as easily say "whosoever believes that his salvation is in his left sock will perish." That doesn't tell you anything at all about why one person believes in Jesus and another in his left sock, it simply tells you that believing in Jesus has one result, and believing in your left sock has another.
Here's an interesting exercise: I challenge anyone here to choose of their own "free will" to believe they have salvation in their left sock. I'd love to hear from anyone who succeeds.

What?
This is the play that the Calvinist must make on words to make Calvinism work. "Whosoever will is not whosoever will, all is not all, world is not world, everyone is not everyone, trust me."
As to Total Depravity: IT is true, man has
absolutely nothing within himself that merits favor with God and is totally unable to save himself. However, Calvinism goes to the unscriptual point of Total inability.
Again and again scripture speaks of God being clearly seen, that man is without escuse, that He calls upon man to make the right choices.

 

I found 32 incidences of "whosever" and "will" in the same verse in the KJV, and NONE of them say anything close to what you had claimed: "He clearly says that WHOSOEVER WILL can come to Him" -- that is, if one wills it to be so, one therefore has the ability to come to Jesus. If you truly believe any such verse exists, I'd appreciate it if you'd quote it and give chapter/verse as a reference.

Quite the contrary, it is the free will advocate who imposes his/her opinion on the interpretation of "whosoever will". I can even give you more simple examples to illustrate why "whosoever will" does not necessarily mean what you want it to mean. "Whosoever will die tomorrow won't be around for Christmas this year." I see no free will there. "Whosoever will believe that red is green is obviously color blind." I see no free will there.

It is clear that "whosoever will" does not necessarily mean that the person who "does" or "wills" anything does so by a free-will choice. It is also clear that "whosoever will" may simply be a statement of fact -- whosoever will do this, for whatever reason, will experience that consequence.

Obviously, it is also possible that "whosoever will" might refer to a free will choice. But given that the "free-will" interpretation of "whosoever will" is not the ONLY possible interpretation, it would be foolish to base one's entire view of soteriology on such an ambiguous phrase. In addition, that interpretation can only be true if it does not contradict the clear meaning of other verses and passages in the Bible. Unfortunately for your case, it does contradict other passages, many of which others have already posted in this thread.

 

Watchman,

Please explain the following verses from a “free will” perspective:

Ephesians 1:4-9
Romans 8:29-30
Romans 3:10-12
1 Th 1:4-5
John 6:37,44
2 Timothy 1:9

There are many more, but if you can get through these successfully defending “free will” from them, you will have succeeded where no one else has.

 

Hi npetreley! Hi John!
Two to respond to now, well, that's alright.
I went to your websight npetreley and found it informative. I didn't know that Arminius refuted some of the doctrine that was attributed to him. But, as I hope to point out later, there is evidence that Calvin, late in life, refuted some of what is attributed to him as well.
John: Whenever I've seen any post from you on this board I cannot recall even one where I've disagreed with you. So, we disagrre on this. I for one do not believe that we should avoid, or think any less of someone because they have some disagreement with that person over one difference of opinion. I love everyone.
It is difficult, here at work, to research all of the scriptures you have given and give a suitable responce here. If the Lord be willing, I will in another post. I will respond here to one of the scriptures you've given now:
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44
This begs the question: who are they that the Father draws? You are coming to conclusion, no doubt, that it is the elect. One must always compare scripture with scripture to come to a firm conclusion. I am sure (I hope anyway) that you agree that scripture does not contradict itself. Jesus Himself answers the question:
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32
It would seem this leaves no room to ask: "Who is drawn?" The answer is in the text: ALL.
As to the word Whosoever: Webster's dictionary is not canon of scripture, but I know of no other place to look for the meaning of words. Whosoever is said to be and old word not used anymore and refers to WHOEVER. That is fine with me, that is the word found in other versions anyway. It is defined:
"Whatever person, no matter who"
Replace that meaning with whoever (whosoever) in:
John 3:16, Luke 12:8, John 4:13-14, Acts 10:43, 1Jn 5:1, Rev 22:17.
Sorry, must go now. May God grant you two (And all for that matter) a blessed day!
Charles

 

Watchman,

I agree that we can disagree and debate our differences in love! Interesting verse and one that I’ve dealt with many times.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

First, let me give some examples of why it is unwise to take literally the word “all” as it is used in the Bible.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. (Matthew 2:1-3)

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (Matthew 9:35)

All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matthew 10:22)

then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. (Acts 4:10)

Are we to assume the assurd that every single person in Jerusalem (1 million or so) even heard about, much less was disturbed concerning these events? It's a historical fact that Jesus did not visit every single town in Israel. And obviously, not "all men" hate Jesus. You and I certainly don't! Did all the people of Israel hear of the proclaimed words? Hardly!

I could literally give you hundreds of examples, but I think you get the point that “all” is a very ambiguous word, as it is applied in the Bible. So the question is, is “all” in John 12:32 used in a literal or non literal sense?

The Cross exerts a universal attraction, and people of all nationalities, Gentiles as well as Jews, will be saved through it. “All” means all kinds of people without distinction, not all members of the human race without exception. - New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Jn 12:32). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

the correct explanation is that the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus resulted in all kinds of people being drawn to Him. It does not mean all people without exception, but people from every nation, tribe, and language. - MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jn 12:32). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

“Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. (Matthew 13:47)

Notice this direct analogy to Jesus’ words does not say that all fish will be caught, but rather all kinds. That is precisely what “all” in John 12:32 is referring to.

Jesus does not suggest all will be saved, but that all humanity is invited to look to the Cross and live. Perhaps this is His answer to the Greeks who approached Philip. The Cross was His message to them, as it is to all. - Richards, L. (1991). The Bible reader's companion. Includes index. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

And finally, the verse is referring to: “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15) Is it “all” or “everyone who believes?”

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. (Jeremiah 24:7)

In Christ,
John