Limited Free Will

The idea we are free to choose from among available options is consistent with our experience. Scripture tells us God sometimes restricts our options, i.e. hardening the hearts of some such that they will reject the gospel, i.e. Romans 11.

"The absence of free will is, however, devastating to all theists since without it you cannot choose to be evil or good, and therefore deserve neither punishment nor salvation."
​

So the complete absence of free will is irrational and unrestricted free will is unbiblical. Some assert since we are free to choose among various sinful actions, but unable to choose the narrow path that leads to life, it makes sense for God to punish us for the sin we chose. Rational minds object.

We can harden our own hearts by the practice of sin. And God can harden hearts for His purpose, such as Romans 9. God can choose a person well on the way of hardening his own heart, and complete the process. Scripture does not rule any of the three out.

Some say whatsoever comes to pass is predestined to occur. Therefore God is the author of sin. Then some others say while it is true that God to be sovereign must predestine everything, that does not make God the author of sin. Rational minds object.

Why would God still blame us for our choices after He hardened our heart? My answer is He would not. But prior to that those hardened did make sinful choices, sealing their fate. The hardening, like physical death, simply ends the opportunity to obtain mercy. God, as the potter has the right to harden whoever He pleases.

Why would God do that, cut short the opportunity of some, and endure their hardened behavior? God did so to make known the riches of His glory (see Romans 11), including even us which He called not from Jews only but also from among Gentiles.

Our ability to make choices from among various options can be restricted by God for His purpose, thus the Biblical doctrine is "Limited Free Will."

Romans 9:16 teaches men can will and work to be saved, thus total spiritual inability as the result of the Fall is shown to be mistaken doctrine.

So when you see disputes raging over complete slavery to sin versus complete freedom of our will, consider that we are fallen and therefore predisposed to sin with a corrupt nature, but we are not so incapacitated as to not be responsible for our choices to reject Christ, or to not treat others as we would treat ourselves, because we have the capacity to accept Christ, and strive to do the will of God.

 

[Sorry for the double post but the edit timer timed out.]

The idea we are free to choose from among available options is consistent with our experience. Scripture tells us God sometimes restricts our options, i.e. hardening the hearts of some such that they will reject the gospel, i.e. Romans 11.

"The absence of free will is, however, devastating to all theists since without it you cannot choose to be evil or good, and therefore deserve neither punishment nor salvation."
​

So the complete absence of free will is irrational and unrestricted free will is unbiblical. Some assert since we are free to choose among various sinful actions, but unable to choose the narrow path that leads to life, it makes sense for God to punish us for the sin we chose. Rational minds object.

We can harden our own hearts by the practice of sin. And God can harden hearts for His purpose, such as Romans 11. God can choose a person well on the way of hardening his own heart, and complete the process. Scripture does not rule any of the three out.

Some say whatsoever comes to pass is predestined to occur. Therefore God is the author of sin. Then some others say while it is true that God to be sovereign must predestine everything, that does not make God the author of sin. Rational minds object.

Why would God still blame us for our choices after He hardened our heart? My answer is He would not. But prior to that those hardened did make sinful choices, sealing their fate. The hardening, like physical death, simply ends the opportunity to obtain mercy. God, as the potter has the right to harden whoever He pleases.

Why would God do that, cut short the opportunity of some, and endure their hardened behavior? God did so to make known the riches of His glory (see Romans 9), including even us which He called not from Jews only but also from among Gentiles.

Our ability to make choices from among various options can be restricted by God for His purpose, thus the Biblical doctrine is "Limited Free Will."

Romans 9:16 teaches men can will and work to be saved, thus total spiritual inability as the result of the Fall is shown to be mistaken doctrine.

So when you see disputes raging over complete slavery to sin versus complete freedom of our will, consider that we are fallen and therefore predisposed to sin with a corrupt nature, but we are not so incapacitated as to not be responsible for our choices to reject Christ, or to not treat others as we would treat ourselves, because we have the capacity to accept Christ, and strive to do the will of God.

 

Thanks for not posting a huge copy and paste. As you know, IMHO none of your claims of support to the inability of the lost to set their minds on spiritual things is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

You did not define "free agency" but I suspect it means we can do whatever we are able to do, but since we suffer from (in your opinion) total spiritual inability, we can only chose among sins, and never chose to accept Christ or strive to do the will of God.

This view of course just ignores the Opening post.

Questions for which you have no answers:
1) Why did Jesus speak in parables in Matthew 13, if the lost could not hear and understand the milk of the gospel?
2) Why did God harden the hearts of the disbelieving Jews in Romans 11, if they were already unable to respond to the gospel.

In my opinion, your view is obviously mistaken. So you will change the subject.

 

Lets review, my description to free agency was spot on, yet was claimed to not be accurate. Strike one.

1) Why did Jesus speak in parables in Matthew 13, if the lost could not hear and understand the milk of the gospel?

Answer Matthew 13 "10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 ]Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Jesus spoke in parables without providing an explanation to prevent them from seeing, hearing and understanding. Thus they had some spiritual ability that had to be countered by using parables.

2) Why did God harden the hearts of the disbelieving Jews in Romans 11, if they were already unable to respond to the gospel.

Answer Romans 11 "
7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
8 just as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day.”

9 And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.
10 “Let their eyes be darkened to see not,
And bend their backs forever.”

Scripture says God prevented the unbelieving Jews from seeing, hearing and understanding, which means they had that capacity before God hardened them.

Again, IMHO, it is obvious that Jesus spoke in parables and God hardened hearts to prevent the lost from using their limited free will to respond to the gospel.

 

LOL, Strike one, my free agency was spot on.
Strike two, no answer was provided for Jesus speaking in parables, if he did not need to.
Strike three, no answer was provided for God hardening to prevent seeing, hearing and understanding.

The fallen have limited free will, they can understand the milk of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 3:1, and they can seek God, Matthew 23:13.

 

This whole post is a "I am holier than you, why are you treating me so poorly" post.

You had no answers.
Matthew 13:10-13; Matthew 23:13, Romans 11:7-10; 1 Corinthians 3:1

 

Fallen people (unregenerate) have limited free will, they can choose what is good, such as the will of God or Jesus. They cannot make themselves perfect, holy, blameless, or justified. Only God can and does do that to those of His choosing.

 

This absurd claim is repeated and repeated, but it remains false with no support in scripture. Romans 9:16 clearly teaches fallen people can choose to will and to work to be saved. Matthew 23:13 clearly teaches fallen people were seeking God, they were in the process of entering the kingdom.

Scripture teaches God requires that we believe in Jesus, and everyone believing into Jesus will have eternal life. James 2:5 teaches God chose those that love God.

Fallen people can not understand the spiritual solid food of the Spirit. But they can respond and grow on the milk of the gospel. 1 Corinthians 3:1

 

I am sorry, but you have been unable to grasp my view for a number of years.
God and God alone puts us in Christ. We do not put ourselves in. But God requires that we believe and trust and rely on Jesus for our salvation. However, even if we do, that willing to be saved, does not save us. Salvation depends on God alone. If He credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He puts us in Christ.
It really is a simple, easily understood view of scripture. God did not put the second or third soils of Matthew 13 into Christ, even though they were willing.