Free Will?

[Revmitchell]

Having perimeters does not completely remove all freedom.

 

[convicted1]

Agreed. I do use the term free will with both natures. I have found to do so confuses most people. The will must always operate within its own boundaries. The reason I always use free will when describing the natural or regenerate man is, to do otherwise, makes God sound like a tyrant to most people. He doesn't make me chose grape or orange soda....he doesn't force me to sin....I do that myself. But even with my "complete liberated free will" of the regenerate man. My will must always be bent when it bumps up against God's will.

I look at 'free' will like this. A convict gets released from prison after serving his time in jail. We were prisoners of Satan as unregenerate. Once that prisoner is turn loose into society, is he/she truly free? Of course not. Howso? They have the laws to obey. If they break one, five, fifteen, they're still guilty.

Same with us. We were set free from the bondage if Satan. Yet, in this freedom, we have parameters set up we mustn't cross or expect punishment. We have the Laws of God written on our hearts, placed in our minds, per Jer. 31, Heb. 8 & 10. Jesus takes Satan's yoke off of us and places His on us. We go as far as that yoke allows us and then He yanks us back in line...

 

[convicted1]

Having perimeters does not completely remove all freedom.

All I am saying is the Truth sets us free, and if the Truth(Jesus), sets us free, we're free indeed. Now, that doesn't mean we're free to sin. I know you're not stating that, just using it for an example. But our freedom, as Bro. Aaron once stated on here, "Is slavery to Christ."

 

[Revmitchell]

All I am saying is the Truth sets us free, and if the Truth(Jesus), sets us free, we're free indeed. Now, that doesn't mean we're free to sin. I know you're not stating that, just using it for an example. But our freedom, as Bro. Aaron once stated on here, "Is slavery to Christ."

Ok well none of this has anything to do with what I was addressing. You said:

No will is 'free'. It has parameters,

Here you implied that because there are limits to our freedom it cannot actually be called freedom. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[McCree79]

Having perimeters does not completely remove all freedom.

No, of course not

 

[convicted1]

Ok well none of this has anything to do with what I was addressing. You said:





Here you implied that because there are limits to our freedom it cannot actually be called freedom. Correct me if I am wrong.

No freedom is free. Millions of people have died to retain our freedom. Christ died to procure our freedom. Our lives became His when He saved us. Paul referred to himself as Christos Doulous, and Peter and I think James referred to themselves as slaves/servants to Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

No freedom is free. Millions of people have died to retain our freedom. Christ died to procure our freedom. Our lives became His when He saved us. Paul referred to himself as Christos Doulous, and Peter and I think James referred to themselves as slaves/servants to Christ.

Ok so what did you mean when you said:

No will is 'free'. It has parameters,

 

[convicted1]

Ok so what did you mean when you said:

A deer can't eat meat because its nature dictates otherwise. A lion can't eat grass because its nature dictates otherwise. Apple trees can't grow pineapples because its nature dictates otherwise. Sinners can't do righteous acts because their nature dictates otherwise.

A sinner's will has to be changed first, as you and I have discussed before. At the heart of one's nature is their heart. God must first change that heart befoe anything good before Him is acknowledged. People do good deeds as we see them. But before God, they're nothing but a used menstual rag. God has to us through Christ to see us as good.

Which brings us back to the will. God is truth, can He lie? Of course not. He can't sin, because lying is against His nature.

 

[Revmitchell]

A deer can't eat meat because its nature dictates otherwise. A lion can't eat grass because its nature dictates otherwise. Apple trees can't grow pineapples because its nature dictates otherwise. Sinners can't do righteous acts because their nature dictates otherwise.

A sinner's will has to be changed first, as you and I have discussed before. At the heart of one's nature is their heart. God must first change that heart befoe anything good before Him is acknowledged. People do good deeds as we see them. But before God, they're nothing but a used menstual rag. God has to us through Christ to see us as good.

Which brings us back to the will. God is truth, can He lie? Of course not. He can't sin, so lying is against His nature.

Until God enables man to choose Him or to choose to reject Him. Regardless of how man is enabled if man can make a choice to do one thing or its opposite that is freedom.

However, maybe your use of the word perimeters was not appropriate.

 

[convicted1]

Until God enables man to choose Him or to choose to reject Him. Regardless of how man is enabled if man can make a choice to do one thing or its opposite that is freedom.

Freedom within the parameters it has. It's just like us. We're free to go anywhere in the USA. No one will infringe upon that right. But, we're not free to rob, molest, kill, beat, destroy someone else's property, &c. So we're free, but in that freedom, we can only act free so far. Freedom is not truly free.

Here's some definitions of free...

--not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

--not physically restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded.

--without cost or payment.

Let's look @ these from a biblical perspective...

1) are we not under the power or control of Another? Nope. God's our Master now. If He is our Master, then as slaves, we're free to move within the confines of His bondage/yoke, with a easy yoke and light burden.

2) are we unimpeded as Christians. Absolutely not. We have the laws of the land and God's Law we have to obey.

3) was our freedom without cost or payment? Christ gave His life for our sin debt, He paid it for us. In our freedom, we gave up our lives. My life I live is no longer mine, but His...

 

[convicted1]

In place of parameters, insert boundaries. The will moves freely within the boundaries of the nature...

 

[HankD]

Ananias of course had the ability to give an honest offering. He could have said. Here is half of my money. He probably would have lived if he had been honest. The disposition of his heart was his down fall. We always have free will, lost or saved, to break God's perceptive will. That is how it is possible to sin. Ananias lacked the ability to give a love offering to God. He was of the world and is enmity with God. He was in capable of using his will to give an offering out of love to God. His will is in capable of that. His will must do the things of his sinful nature. Which is only do things out of his own inclination....his own sinful nature. This is not to say that the lost do not do nice things for people. The donate millions of dollars every year, they volunteer, they help the homeless, they help old ladies across the street. But they do it for there own reasons, not God's. They do it for self worth, for tax deductions, to impress a girl.....a 100 other reasons. They not once do it to please God. Never for the glory of God. They lack the will to do things for God.

Hi McCree, the motivation of love and/or internal goodness keeps entering into the debate and unnecessarily prolonging it but that is not the issue.

To sin or not to sin is the issue.

Notice I said back in the beginning that we have limited free will.

To sin or not to sin was in content limited to the decision Ananias and Sapphira both made - to give part but lie and say they gave all.

The scripture indicates that they (in this instance) chose to sin but had the power to not sin apart from motivation and based solely upon the choice they had the very real ability to make. The scripture gives no indication as to their salvation.

My motive was/is to disprove the theory that they had no choice in this matter and made the only "decision" they could have made being slaves to their sin nature.


HankD

 

[DHK]

The King originally decreed that the rebuilding of Jerusalem stopped. That of course was not God's plan for his redemptive purpose. Why did the King change his mind, did God compel him? Did Nehemiah tall him into it? I think it is save to say. Without the petition of Nehemiah, a servant of God, the King would have not allowed the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

The king certainly didn't have to give into Nehemiah's request, just as the king later on didn't have to give into Esther's request.

Similar with Pilate. Jesus could have probably talked his way out of crucifixion. Jesus made no argument for his own release. He left Pilate to his bonded will. Pilate was afraid for his own being. Pilate was always going to choose crucifixion. It was built in to his nature. It was Pilate's desire, inclination, his will. Which was in bondage to sin. His two decisions were....1. Crucify Jesus and save himself or sacrifice his position, possible his life. Save Jesus...doing something selfless to save Jesus, which Jesus being God, this would be doing a selfless act for God. The world is enmity with God James 4:4. Pilate was the enemy of God. He could not choose to do good by God.

With Pilate, three times he declared Christ innocent. He didn't want to release him to be crucified. He knew that the Jews had their own way of punishing him. The Jews could have stoned him like they stoned Stephen. He even tried to give them Barabbas in a fair exchange. They wouldn't accept it. His wife warned Pilate: "have nothing to do with this man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him" (Mat.27:19). By all accounts Pilate wanted to release him, but he gave into the pressure of the Jews. He was a spineless coward who made the wrong choice.

 

[McCree79]

The king certainly didn't have to give into Nehemiah's request, just as the king later on didn't have to give into Esther's request.


With Pilate, three times he declared Christ innocent. He didn't want to release him to be crucified. He knew that the Jews had their own way of punishing him. The Jews could have stoned him like they stoned Stephen. He even tried to give them Barabbas in a fair exchange. They wouldn't accept it. His wife warned Pilate: "have nothing to do with this man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him" (Mat.27:19). By all accounts Pilate wanted to release him, but he gave into the pressure of the Jews. He was a spineless coward who made the wrong choice.

I'm not trying to make a point that we do not have choices. I am saying that when are will bumps up against God's Sovereign will. Are will must be bent to conform with his plan. The king obviously had a choice in front of him, but he was powerless to stop God's redemptive plan. People, events, circumstances, inclination of the heart, etc....all are things that will shape our decisions. The king changed his mind because a servant of God was sent to him to make a petition. Pilate made his decision, because his natural condition, his inclination, his circumstances presented only one choice for him to desire.

God is not a puppet master of human choices, but he will not allow our "free will" to trump his sovereign will.

The free will of the carnal man cannot make a choice that pleases God. Romans 8:7-8.....sorry for the horrible paraphrase.... So their free will is in that sense not free. They do not and cannot choose the things of God.

Sorry, if I am leading is off of our original debate. I have 3-4 different conversation going on in this thread. Having hard time not mixing them.

 

[McCree79]

The king certainly didn't have to give into Nehemiah's request, just as the king later on didn't have to give into Esther's request.


With Pilate, three times he declared Christ innocent. He didn't want to release him to be crucified. He knew that the Jews had their own way of punishing him. The Jews could have stoned him like they stoned Stephen. He even tried to give them Barabbas in a fair exchange. They wouldn't accept it. His wife warned Pilate: "have nothing to do with this man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him" (Mat.27:19). By all accounts Pilate wanted to release him, but he gave into the pressure of the Jews. He was a spineless coward who made the wrong choice.

....and I disagree with nothing you said about the King or Pilate just now. I just believe God had more control than you stated....in complete control in fact.

 

[convicted1]

....and I disagree with nothing you said about the King or Pilate just now. I just believe God had more control than you stated....in complete control in fact.

Egg...zactly...:thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

....and I disagree with nothing you said about the King or Pilate just now. I just believe God had more control than you stated....in complete control in fact.

And furthermore, the Jews freely chose to crucify our Lord. No one made them do this. God's sovereign will and human's will freely working together...

 

[convicted1]

I'm not trying to make a point that we do not have choices. I am saying that when are will bumps up against God's Sovereign will. Are will must be bent to conform with his plan. The king obviously had a choice in front of him, but he was powerless to stop God's redemptive plan. People, events, circumstances, inclination of the heart, etc....all are things that will shape our decisions. The king changed his mind because a servant of God was sent to him to make a petition. Pilate made his decision, because his natural condition, his inclination, his circumstances presented only one choice for him to desire.

God is not a puppet master of human choices, but he will not allow our "free will" to trump his sovereign will.

The free will of the carnal man cannot make a choice that pleases God. Romans 8:7-8.....sorry for the horrible paraphrase.... So there free will is in that sense not free. They do not and cannot choose the things of God.

Sorry, if I am leading is off of our original debate. I have 3-4 different conversation going on in this thread. Having hard time not mixing them.

:thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

....and I disagree with nothing you said about the King or Pilate just now. I just believe God had more control than you stated....in complete control in fact.

God always is in control. His control is not based on: predestination, Unconditional Election, Depravity of Man, etc. This is a man-made system that contradicts itself at many places.
Esther had a decision to make. It was her decision. However she asked that Mordecai and their people fast and pray for three days. This would be ridiculous and of no consequence if everything was predestined, predetermined by God. Why pray at all. There would be no reason for it. The outcome is fixed.

When Esther made a choice, it was her choice. It was clearly marked by her words: "If I perish, I perish." It was a move of great courage. But if Esther believed as you believe (really fatalism); everything is predetermined, she wouldn't have said that. "I will just go; "que sera, sera;" Whatever will be, will be." That wasn't quite the attitude expressed in the words she uttered.

 

[convicted1]

God always is in control. His control is not based on: predestination, Unconditional Election, Depravity of Man, etc. This is a man-made system that contradicts itself at many places.
Esther had a decision to make. It was her decision. However she asked that Mordecai and their people fast and pray for three days. This would be ridiculous and of no consequence if everything was predestined, predetermined by God. Why pray at all. There would be no reason for it. The outcome is fixed.

When Esther made a choice, it was her choice. It was clearly marked by her words: "If I perish, I perish." It was a move of great courage. But if Esther believed as you believe (really fatalism); everything is predetermined, she wouldn't have said that. "I will just go; "que sera, sera;" Whatever will be, will be." That wasn't quite the attitude expressed in the words she uttered.

You're teetering upon open theism with this statement.

Start with Acts 15:18 and work your way out. All His works were known unto Him from the foundation of the world. You're stating that Esther had a choice to make, and that's correct. What if, for sake of furthering the discussion, Esther chose not to do what she chose to do? What if Ruth had chosen to stay in Moab? What if Pilate had released Jesus and Barabbas(sp?) was crucified? Then God's plan of redemption would have be thrawrted.

But Esther, Ruth, and Pilate freely made their choices in accordance with God's sovereign will.