Free will

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jim1999: I think there are a lot of people who fail to understand Calvinism, as readily displayed on these forums. They pick and choose the doctrines that centre around man rather than the sovereignty of God. It mostly has to do with the mythical "free will" of man.

The best man can do with so-called free will is under the permissive will of God, and that is limited by His sovereignty. I much prefer my sovereign God over the puny god that is so often displayed in other theological formulations.

HP: I have heard about straw men arguments, but never ‘puny god’ ones. It is one thing to make such rash statements and completely another to defend such remarks with logic and reason. Now I know that Jim likes to just throw out ideas and at times shy’s away from discussions, but I believe the time has come for him, or others of like feather, to ‘in the name of fairness and Christian charity' to defend such remarks or strike them from the record as rash and uncalled for.

He has clearly suggested that one that believes in the free will of man believes a myth, and that have chosen a ‘puny god’ over the Almighty God of Heaven and Earth.

To start off this topic I would like to hear Jim and or others explain to us why in fact they would deny such an obvious fact as free will and what is it about believing in a free will that would merit such remarks.

 

[Brother Bob]

It takes a God much more powerful and Loving that in His complete Soverniegnty could make a man so "complex" that he

could choose good or choose evil and "Salvation" still be completely in the hands of God by Grace, which Grace is God's Love.

This C/A debate always ends up with words being put in the mouths of so called Free-Willers when we all believe that the Spirit

of God has to do the leading of man to Salvation, but its just we believe God gave us all that chance, if we would take heed

to His Spirit that is striving with all mankind.

If God made man that he was able to choose good or evil then its still God's Sovereignity that did so. To me that would be a

much more Sovereign God than one who made man that completely fell and He chose to change a few of their hearts and just

leave the rest on their own to have their own Sovereignity and God not have anything to do with them.

Now its either God chose to change a few of their hearts so they would beieve in Him.

Or God chose to send His Spirit to strive with all to believe in Him.

Either case God would still be the one who did it so therefore Sovereign.:saint:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: Now its either God chose to change a few of their hearts so they would beieve in Him.

Or God chose to send His Spirit to strive with all to believe in Him.

Either case God would still be the one who did it so therefore Sovereign.

HP: There is yet another option available. A Sovereign God granted to man a free will and made a provision through the atoning work of a Savior that makes possible the salvation of all men, or provides everything needed for the salvation of all men, but God, in accordance to Ro 9:18 has mercy on whom He so desires. “ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

When we understand that God is under no obligation to save any one, for He gave to everyman that comes to the age of moral accountability and enters that state, the abilities requisite of obedience, we also can see that if He chooses to allow some to receive the good news yet others do not, it is totally within His sovereign purview to do so. God’s only obligation towards man was to grant man the power of contrary choice if He was going to punish or praise man for their moral intents. Having done that, God is totally just in granting the actual opportunity of salvation to those He chooses to receive it.

God for purposes known only to Him, has chosen the means of salvation to be spread by the coupling of efforts with believers. It is our solemn obligation to be the messengers of God’s grace to a lost and dying world, without with such cooperation by man, some have never had the opportunity and some most likely never will. We are commanded to go to the lost world and give to man the message of hope God has provided through the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Brother Bob]

God is totally just in granting the actual opportunity of salvation to those He chooses to receive it.

If that had of been what He said. God is all in all and can do all but one thing He cannot do and that is lie. He said
"go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature and he that believeth and is baptized SHALL be saved. amen,

 

[gekko]

predestination = God predestinated for all to be saved - unfortunately, the world, with their freedom of choice - chooses not to be saved.

free will sent many a soul to hell - but never a soul to heaven.

its not us that gets us saved.

we do make the choice, yes - but its free choice - free-will is some odd term. who knows what it really means...

 

[Briguy]

Hi all, it is not possible to talk about "free will" without speaking directly about election. There is scripture to support both ideas or perhaps they work so complexly together that we should not try to seperate them. If by "free will" we are saying that God is taken out of the equation then I won't even cosnider "free will" as a theory or a doctrine. God is God. He chose Saul and He chooses us. Perhaps we need to understand that God sees our hearts directly. He does not wait for us to prove ourselves worthy, He already knows. He knows who to choose and thus election is the correct doctrine to believe in. Free will is a side issue to election. Below are 2 verses from Acts 13 (NASB) They show election in the light of the gospel being preached to the Gentiles.

47"For so the Lord has commanded us,
'(CW)I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A (CX)LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
48When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying (CY)the word of the Lord; and as many as (CZ)had been appointed to eternal life believed.

KJV says ordained instead of appointed. Either way it takes a hop, skip, and a jump to get away from these verses, without election being an absolute, at least for the Gentiles. Think about the Jews, they were God's chosen people. All true believers are now God's chosen people. God has always been in the business of making the choices for His creation.

I will stop here and see what questions arise from what I have said so far.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[J. Jump]

There is scripture to support both ideas

This statement by default can not be a true one, because there is only a single Truth in Scripture. So the idea that there is Scripture to support both ideas (Calvinism or Free Will) is false, becuase only one is right and leaving the other false with not support.

Granted there is "seeming" support, but it is because of a lack of understanding on one side, whichever side be incorrect. The Bible only gives us one correct interpretation of the Words of God. And if we will die to self and allow the Spirit to teach us He will lead us and guide us into all Truth. The problem is we are humans and we stick our noses into the interpretation business and mess things up :laugh: actually :tear:

I am of the opinion that the Calvinism and Free Will debate should be non-existant because election folks are arguing from and eternal salvation platform when election, predesitnation, calling and all that they say belongs to eternal salvation doesn't speak to eternal salvation at all. It is speaking of what happens after eternal salvation.

Here is a great article on the subject: http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Erjvelema/rve_e/predelcn.pdf

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Briguy: God has always been in the business of making the choices for His creation.

HP: You present nothing short of necessitated fatalism. If it is God making all the choices, it is preposterous to speak of freedom. Freedom can only exist where for any given antecedent there is more than one possible consequent. If God has made the choices and we cannot avoid carrying them out, no freedom of the will can be predicated of man. It becomes all of God and nothing of man.

Freedom of the will and election are not two separate issues if I follow you, but rather election eliminates free will all together. There can only be election under the scenario you paint for no freedom can or does exist.

 

[Jim1999]

When I post statements, I presume that others had read some of the classic texts on systematic theology. I neither have the time to rewrite texts, nor would the Baptistboard appreciate my consuming page after page of repetition. Any good text will rightly explain the various aspects of theology.

On freedom. Freedom does not preclude absolute random abandon. Freedom is always under laws. Society demonstrates this clearly. The highway act determines the speed limit and a penalty exists for those who violate it. Freedom is not freedom where it violates another's rights.

Free will is a relative term used by man, and if you follow my demonstration of two circles, one inside the other, showing, God's sovereignty and God's permissive will, it can be clearly seen.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[BD17]

It becomes all of God and nothing of man.

As it should be. Why is it free-willers always throw out the Fatalism argument? So elementary.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jim1999:
On freedom. Freedom does not preclude absolute random abandon. Freedom is always under laws. Society demonstrates this clearly. The highway act determines the speed limit and a penalty exists for those who violate it. Freedom is not freedom where it violates another's rights.

Free will is a relative term used by man, and if you follow my demonstration of two circles, one inside the other, showing, God's sovereignty and God's permissive will, it can be clearly seen.

HP: Thanks for joining this discussion. No need to rewrite any texts, for it is us, not the writers of any texts that are in discussion. I am interested in your views and the views of those on those list. I am not interested in critiquing other men, other than to how it may or may not apply to the views represented here.

No one that I have ever known or read believe in absolute random abandon. To have an exercise a free will, i.e. to be created in such a way as to be seen as the first cause of your intents and subsequent actions, in no way implies there is not parameters to ones freedoms. When we are addressing the issue of freedom of the will, we are focusing primarily upon the formation of intents judged by God as blameworthy or praiseworthy. We are dealing in the area of morals, and the ability of contrary choice in respect to the freedom granted to us by God as moral agents making possible the formation of intents ether in agreement to benevolence or selfishness which rightfully gender personal responsibility and blame or praise by God and our fellow sentient beings.

It matters not how you draw your circles, if there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent in regards to a given relationship, no freedom is possible and necessity is the only possible outcome. Freedom of any kind and under any relationship can only be predicated of an intent or action if two or more possible consequents are possible for any single antecedent. If your circles preclude or eliminate two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent, your circles depict nothing short of deterministic fatalism, and that alone. In such a case your circles would have nothing whatsoever to do in depicting freedom of the will in any measure whatsoever.

Now explain to us whether or not God’s permissive will allows for true freedom, or if in fact it is mere necessitated fate. Is man the cause of his moral intents or the mere puppet of God, allowing for man to only 'do as one wills,' i.e. only chosing within the necessitated boundaries of ends already established and writen in stone from eternity past which in reality denies the ability of contrary choice and the possibility of two or more possible consequents being possible for any given antecedent.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Briguy: God has always been in the business of making the choices for His creation.

HP: You present nothing short of necessitated fatalism. If it is God making the choices, it is preposterous to speak of freedom in regards to the will of man. Freedom can only exist where for any given antecedent there is more than one possible consequent. If God has made the choices and we cannot avoid carrying them out, no freedom of the will can be predicated of man.

Freedom of the will and election are not two separate issues if I follow you, but rather election, according to what I see you making of it, precludes and eliminates free will all together. There can ‘only’ be election under the scenario you paint, for no true freedom can or does exist.

Freedom, if it exists, must lie God allowing for man, yea creating man with the distict ability, to be the cause of his moral intents apart from coercion or force. Man can only do as he wills. Some speak of freedom as the ability to 'do as one wills.' This is no freedom whatsoever. The doing is tied to the willing by necessity, not freedom. Again, amn can ONLY do as one wills.

True freedom lies in the ability God grants to man that allows for contrary choice, being able to pick between two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent.

 

[LeBuick]

I hope you guys don't mind but let me flip the question over, if man is predestined, how is he freed from the bondage of sin? In other words, he was part of the elect from the foundation of the world. This implies he was never in the bondage of sin does it not?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Lebuick: I hope you guys don't mind but let me flip the question over, if man is predestined, how is he freed from the bondage of sin? In other words, he was part of the elect from the foundation of the world. This implies he was never in the bondage of sin does it not?

HP: I like the usage of the sound logic you employ here, as I believe it has great merit. I will listen closely to the response of the others posting on this most important question you raise.

Just the same, the problem surrounds the nature of predestination, not the mere fact of us being predestined. I believe Scripture is clear that indeed we are predestined to be conformed to His image, but that does not imply that our wills are not free to exercise contrary choice, it just shows that from God’s perspective, which is Omniscience, that He foreknows the choices that will be made, NOT that He forced or determined, in the sense of necessitating, them to come to pass. (referring to moral choices in which God blames or praises man for their intents)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: I like the usage of the sound logic you employ here, as I believe it has great merit. I will listen closely to the response of the others posting on this most important question you raise.

Just the same, the problem surrounds the nature of predestination, not the mere fact of us being predestined. I believe Scripture is clear that indeed we are predestined to be conformed to His image, but that does not imply that our wills are not free to exercise contrary choice, it just shows that from God’s perspective, which is Omniscience, that He foreknows the choices that will be made, NOT that He forced or determined, in the sense of necessitating, them to come to pass. (referring to moral choices in which God blames or praises man for their intents)

You call this, "sound logic"? I guess I shall waste my breath to answer; nevertheless will.

No one chosen or rebrobate is ever freed from the bondage of sin. The only difference between them is the chosen is counted with and in Christ - Christ is his ONLY righteousness. The reprobate will insist he has some righteousness of his own - like having a free will - a will that CAN choose between right or wrong. Poor guy.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: You call this, "sound logic"? I guess I shall waste my breath to answer; nevertheless will.
No one chosen or rebrobate is ever freed from the bondage of sin. The only difference between them is the chosen is counted with and in Christ - Christ is his ONLY righteousness. The reprobate will insist he has some righteousness of his own - like having a free will - a will that CAN choose between right or wrong. Poor guy.

HP: If you desire to convince one of your positions, you are going to have to do something besides throwing stones and beating on the pulpit. Set forth evidence from Scripture reason or experience that establishes your points to the demise of those I or others have established.

Establish that the simple notion of having a will to determine it's intents, i.e. being the cause of ones intents, is establishing 'righteousness of his own' merit. I will be listening carefully.

 

[LeBuick]

No one chosen or rebrobate is ever freed from the bondage of sin. The only difference between them is the chosen is counted with and in Christ - .

???? Sin is transgression against the God which commonly means transgressing his word or his law. Those in Christ are not under the penaly or effects of the law so we are made, "sin free" because we are not bound by that which defines sin. Not only are we freed from the bondage of sin, Paul encourages us not to subject or put ourselves back in bondage by putting ourselves back under the law.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Ro 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

HP: Notice the clarity of these verses, in that nothing is mentioned about being made free from sin ‘positionally’, but rather they speak directly to the formation of intents in so much that we are become ‘servants’ of righteousness, and have our ‘fruits’, i.e., our intents of the heart as shown by our actions, unto holiness.

Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world

;

Notice carefully that in this verse again it speaks not to any positional righteousness, but rather directly to the intents of the heart as evidenced by righteous and godly actions, while we walk in this PRESENT world.

Numerous are the passages that depict a holy walk as being the reasonable results to expect of one claiming to be a Christian.

“Ro 12:1 ¶ I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jim 1999: On freedom. Freedom does not preclude absolute random abandon. Freedom is always under laws. Society demonstrates this clearly. The highway act determines the speed limit and a penalty exists for those who violate it. Freedom is not freedom where it violates another's rights.

HP: Who is addressing this sense of freedom? The issue of free will we are trying to address is not concerned directly with whether or not a certain action is in compliance with certain laws, or whether or not it violates the rights of others. Free will speaks directly to the intents of the heart, and whether or not man is the cause of those intents. Is man the author of the moral intents of his heart and subsequent actions, or is man and the intents of his heart the mere product of coercion? Are we creators of our intents, or are we mere puppets of necessitated force? Has man, that has reached the age of accountability, been granted abilities by God of contrary choice in the area of morals, the ability to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, or are we simply the product of necessitated fate?

What is it that makes punishments or rewards just for moral intents? Are punishments and rewards proof of moral accountability? Is it just to punish or praise one that could not have done anything other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances? These are some of the questions we need to address.

 

[gekko]

Election? what the dill is that?

where God predestinated who would be christian and who would not? is that was election is?
---

if that's what it is - its heresy according to scripture. God desired for all to be saved - that's your predestination right there.

then theres the free-choice - and unfortunately - many decided not to go according to God's predestination.
---