The Myth of a Truly "Free" Will

Oops - double post

 

av1611jim is 100% correct.

God created persons, not puppets. Scripture as a whole attests to that.

 

Can you prove that those are the only two options?
-------------------------------------------------
Yep. You either HAVE the ability to choose or you do NOT. SEE?
--------------------------------------------------

 

Could Christ have done any differently than He did?

 

You call that a comparison?
Christ is God.
In case you missed it, we are NOT.

In His service;
Jim

 

Of course God gives people real choices. No Calvinist will ever say otherwise. Saying Calvinism is fatalism and reduces man to puppets is a straw man, plain and simple. Free agency teaches that we are all capable of choosing exactly what is in accordance with our character, just the same way God and Satan are able to choose. Our choices are real, and responsible, and so are theirs. If it is somehow not a "real" choice if one is unable to choose, then neither God nor Satan are capable of making real choices either since, by nature God can not sin and Satan can not not sin.

Calvinists don't deny free will. Calvinists teach that a person is free only as far as his nature permits him to be free. Therefore, what are the limits on the unbelievers freedom according to scripture?

The unregenerate is deceitful and sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mk 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).

If Adam and Eve who were not slaves to sin but chose to sin, what makes you think that the unsaved, who are slaves of sin, are going to choose to not sin by choosing God when the Bible says they cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and are haters of God (Rom. 3:10-12)?

Then why do some choose Christ and others reject Christ? If the Bible says the unbeliever is a slave of sin, dead in sins, cannot understand spiritual things, is a hater of God, is full of evil, and a slave of sin, then how does he freely choose God?

Note, Jim, in support of your position you use an illustration but no Scripture.

Sir, with respect the word for "can" in John 6:44 clearly says man can not come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. In John 8:43, Jesus said to his hearers that they did not believe in Him because they COULD NOT hear Him. Romans 8 clear says that unregenerate man does not submit his mind to God nor CAN he do so. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that natural man does not have the ability to understand spiritual things. One must understand one's need in order to respond positively. The need is spiritual and must be understood spiritually. People that do not accept Christ are not capable of spiritual understanding. Therefore, they can not and will not accept Christ. Just as Jesus own hearers in John 8 heard Him and verbally responded to Him, so is every other unbeliever. They hear and they respond in rejection. However, according to Jesus Himself they could not hear him. Now, either Jesus was wrong, since they clearly heard Him, or there is another kind of hearing in mind, that, if they could have heard Him, they would certainly have responded in faith, since John 6:45 says EVERYONE that is instructed by the Father comes to Jesus and will be raised on the last day. Every lexicon says that this word means ability. Can not, means "is not able." I suppose you also want to redefine the lexical meaning of "draw" to mean "entice" or "persuade," or, my personal favorite, "woo," as well?

The great irony, in my opinion, is that not even The Remonstrance and the Opinions, agrees with your own statement:

In other words, not even classical Arminianism affirms what you affirm concerning the moral ability of man. The issue that the Reformed position has with the contrary position is that it is inconsistent to affirm the above statement and then state that saving grace is not irresistible, because that logically grounds saving grace in man and not in God in answer the question, "Why does one man believe and not another?"

Only if that person deserves such an offer and only if God does not ask things we can not do when we really can't. What about man merits God give Him such a choice? Would God ask us to something we cannot do like believe in Him when we can't?

Yes, God would ask us to do something we cannot, doesn't God say, "Be holy, for I am holy," (1 Pet. 1:16)? It is right for God to command us to believe in Him (Ex. 20:1-3) because that is what all should do. We cannot be holy ourselves, yet God grants it to us in Christ. Likewise God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29) not of our own wills (John 1:13).

The Reformed position can also sucessfully show from the dynamics involved that God agrees that it is evil to offer something to persons if they are unable to accept it. Therefore, those persons that have accepted it are those to whom God has, in fact, offered it, since they are the ones that can hear, because God Himself has arranged for it so that they can hear spiritually. As a result, they believe. There is nothing evil in that, since the rest do not hear, can not hear, and do not want to hear, and do not deserve to be made to hear and thus respond.

Your position depends on the truth that God calls all mean equally and generally and not individually, which is just question begging on your part.

To offer a choice in your scenario requires that salvation be a matter of justice, not mercy. The moment you open yourself up to say that man has the moral ability as well as the natural ability to choose life, you open yourself up to the reasons they choose life and not death. Are they more intellectual? More spiritual? More afraid? Ultimately, you make faith a matter of merit, not a matter of mercy and grace.

Nobody that is unwilling to enter the kingdom is allowed into the kingdom. Nobody that is willing is left out of the kingdom. Because of man’s sinful nature, no one would ever come to God. Remember, it is man who cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23); does not seek for God (Rom. 3:11); is lawless, rebellious, unholy, and profane (1 Tim. 1:9); and is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). If it were left up to man, no one would ever be saved. God, in His loving predestination, assured to Himself His people, the ones who He called and predestined: “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.” By God’s own words, predestination is a loving doctrine.

 

You said that to offer a choice to one who is unable to choose is evil. Did Christ, fully God yet fully man, choose to lay down His life? Could He have done otherwise?

 

Gene, you said the following:

From my three-point perspective (TUP), it is better to compare a totally depraved human to a robot than to a puppet. A puppet needs someone to pull its strings all the time. A robot can make certain “decisions” according to its programming. That is the essence of free agency. A free agent can do what he wants to do according to his programming. That is not the same thing as free will. I believe that true free will occurs when a non-Christian is under the special conviction of the Holy Spirit and can form a bias from equipoise (neutrality). The non-Christian during this time is still spiritually dead in the sense that he is separated from God, but he is able to surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith because his depraved programming has been temporarily counteracted. The five-point Calvinist Arthur Pink said that Adam was in equipoise before he decided to commit his first sin:

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 1930 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2002), 134-135.

Gene, you also said the following:

Some five-point Calvinists use John 8:43 to argue that people who have not yet been regenerated cannot spiritually understand the gospel: “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.” Jesus continued speaking on the topic in John 8:47: “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” Three-point Baptists acknowledge that non-Christians who are not under the special, illuminating conviction of the Holy Spirit cannot spiritually understand the gospel. Jesus made it clear, however, that sometimes a dead person could hear (spiritually understand) the gospel and believe in God (John 5:24-25):

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live.”

In the above passage it is clear that life comes after hearing, not before it. One key phrase in the passage is the last one: “And those who hear shall live.” The word “hear” in that phrase is an aorist active participle. “Shall live” is a future indicative form. The time of an aorist participle always precedes the time of the leading verb when the leading verb is a future indicative form. Thus, the hearing precedes the living.

Some people argue that the dead people mentioned in verse 25 refer to physically dead rather than spiritually dead people, but the proximity to the reference to spiritual death in verse 24 and the clear reference to physically dead people (“all who are in the tombs”) in verse 28 seem to rule out that interpretation.

Leon Morris, visiting professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and former principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, commented on the verb “hear” which is followed by “voice” in the genitive case in John 5:25:

Five-point Calvinists say that the elect non-Christian must first be regenerated—be given new spiritual life—before he can hear (spiritually understand) the gospel. John 5:25 clearly refutes that contention.

The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, a former professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, agreed with Leon Morris that the people discussed in John 5:25 were spiritually dead, not physically dead:

A.T. Robertson, “The Fourth Gospel,” Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. V (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1932), 86.

Robertson later clarified that the life mentioned in this verse referred to new spiritual life:

Ibid., 86.

 

No, it does not. (The 1689 London Baptist Confession even understands this point on this specific verse). The text says that those who hear WILL live, without exception. If all that hear will live, then why are not all saved? John 5:25 only proves your position if and only if you beg the question. John 5:24 - 25 are in perfect harmony with John 6:44 - 45. The ones that hear are the ones that live. All the dead that hear also live.

So what? Pink also says there is no equipoise afterwards.

Where is equipoise taught in Scripture? You do understand that synergistic salvation involves one or more illogical processes, namely intrinsic monergism and/or intrinsic dualism, the second of which is heresy?

 

While you theo- loges are debating on the essence and principles of doctrine or heresy, may I say one thing?
You say before God called or elected me I didn't have a choice. Well I have one now. It is the same choice that Paul had when he said Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from.....you know the rest of the scripture. OK ...now...I didn't have a choice before but now that I am part of the elect I have a choice. A choice that sends me into the depths of sin and degredation if I so choose. A choice that brings judgement on my life and family if I choose to live for the flesh. A choice that can cause a weak brother to stumble and possibly never be what he could have been because I did not choose correctly. Well...this ain't much of a choice. You say I never had the first because it died in the garden but now I have what I have and God planned it like this. What a cruel joke God has played on me.
Thanks ------Bart

 

Gene, you said the following:

The 1689 London Baptist Confession indeed does not understand that John 5:25 states that hearing precedes life. On the contrary, the confession says that the quickening (giving of life) precedes the ability to answer the call, which contradicts John 5:25.
From the 1689 London Baptist Confession, Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/CreedsandConfessions/Confessions/bapt.cgi?chapter=10

The John 6:44-45 passage poses no problem for me. I believe that God must draw humans (by placing them under the special conviction of the Holy Spirit) before they can come to him in repentance and faith.

You next said the following:

True, but the fact that Pink recognizes the possibility of anyone forming a bias from equipoise is significant. R.C. Sproul, for example, says that forming a bias from equipoise is impossible.

Gene, you finally said what follows:

Gene, I’ve been accused of heresy (subtly or otherwise) many times by five-point Calvinists because I believe in free will. This is not the first time. It’s really sad that this charge is regularly made by five-point Calvinists against non-five-pointers. I have good friends who are five-point Calvinists, and thankfully they have not called me a heretic. I have never called a five-point Calvinist a heretic. True free will (the ability to form a bias from equipoise) is certainly implied in those places where God puts a choice before humans in Scripture. He would not offer them a choice between two alternatives if they were unable to choose either alternative. As mentioned earlier, God created individuals who would make the foreknown freewill choices and non-freewill choices that fit into His sovereign will. I also believe I can point you to an explicit example in Scripture.

Some examples of choices between alternatives:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

“And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

“And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people did not answer him a word.” (1 Kings 18:21)

“By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.” (Hebrews 11:24-26)

Let’s examine one of the passages above in more detail. The group mentioned in 1 Kings 18:21 was hesitating between two opinions. They had not yet committed themselves to either God or Baal. A lecturer in Hebrew and Greek studies at the University of Edinburgh, A. Graeme Auld, commented on the passage:

A. Graeme Auld, “I & II Kings,” The Daily Study Bible (Old Testament), ed. John C.L. Gibson (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1986), 120.

The Hebrew verb “to hesitate” can literally be translated as “to be wobbly,” “to be dislocated,” or “to be limping.” It also is used in 1 Kings 18:26 to describe the limping or dancing of the priests of Baal and in 2 Samuel 4:4 to describe the lameness of Mephibosheth. The word suggests instability, and it indicates that there was not an overriding inclination in either direction even though they were under pressure to make a choice. Thus, the group was in an unstable, neutral, transitional phase (equipoise). Elijah, King Ahab, and the prophets of Baal were already committed one way or the other and thus were not in equipoise.

Equipoise can be illustrated by a seesaw (teeter-totter). If my wife is on one end of a seesaw while her twin sister is on the other, the seesaw will be unstable and move because their weights are almost exactly equal (in equipoise). On the other hand, if I am on one side while my wife is on the other, the seesaw will be stable and will not move because my weight is much greater than my wife’s weight.

Elijah told the group to make a decision to follow either God or Baal. God’s power was demonstrated to the uncommitted group, and they formed a bias toward God. In verse 39 they fell on their faces and said, “The LORD, He is God.” Auld discussed the significance of this profession of faith:

Auld, page 120.

Immediately after they made their public profession of faith, they were asked to seize the prophets of Baal (verse 40). This act of obedience was performed in front of King Ahab and proved that their faith was genuine. They had truly become followers (disciples) of God.

A man in equipoise is literally a double-minded man. He is “of two minds.” He has two, equal, opposite inclinations. James said that the double-minded man is “unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8). Many Christian commentators feel that James was describing a Christian who was struggling with doubt resulting from the sin indwelling his flesh. If James was describing Christians, he was using hyperbole (literary exaggeration to forcefully make a point). All Christians are inclined toward God. They have “been freed from sin and enslaved to God” (Romans 6:22). The only people who can literally have two equal minds are those non-Christians who are in equipoise.

Speaking of instability, notice that the 1689 London Baptist Confession describes Adam as being in an unstable state. From Chapter 9 - Of Free Will:

Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God,(2) but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.(3)

2. Ecclesiastes 7:29
3. Genesis 3:6

http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/CreedsandConfessions/Confessions/bapt.cgi?chapter=9

The Bible says that non-Christians can reject salvation when God lovingly offers it to them:

“And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and began asking Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ ” (Mark 10:17)
“And looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him, and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But at these words his face fell, and he went away grieved, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!’ ” (Mark 10:21-23)

Jesus loved ( agapao in Greek) this man with the highest form of love, and the man obviously had the opportunity to receive eternal life, but he rejected the offer of salvation. Jesus said, “No one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:33). Non-Christians cannot earn their salvation by good works, but they must be willing to let Jesus be Lord of every area of their lives, including their possessions, to receive the gift of eternal life. Donald A. Carson, a professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, discussed the young man’s unwillingness to commit himself to Jesus:

D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed.: Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 424.

Notice that Dr. Carson described the young man as having a “divided heart.” Other passages which describe non-Christians making the wrong decision from equipoise are Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29. In Hebrews 6:4 the key phrase is “who have once been enlightened.” The word “enlightened” is a passive participle in Greek. The Greek adverb translated as “once” ( hapax ) means “one time only.” It is also used in 1 Peter 3:18 where Christ is said to have died for sins “once for all,” in Hebrews 9:27 where men are said to die “once,” in Hebrews 9:28 where Christ is said to have been “offered once to bear the sins of many,” and in Jude 3 where the faith is said to have been “once for all delivered to the saints.” Clearly, the most literal meaning of the phrase in Hebrews 6:4 is “having been once for all time enlightened.” Thus, the enlightenment in Hebrews 6:4 refers to a one-time event from which people fell in Hebrews 6:6. The reception of common grace, however, is not viewed by anyone as a one-time event. The enlightenment mentioned in Hebrews 6:4 must be viewed as a special, one-time event, and when people fall from it, they cannot return to it again. Non-Christians in equipoise (under the special conviction of the Holy Spirit) can temporarily give the impression of being Christians, as in the case of the rocky soil and thorny soil in the parable of the sower and the soils.

[ December 21, 2004, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: koreahog2005 ]

 

Bartimaeus, I noticed from your profile that you are located near Bowling Green. I was a pastor for eight and a half years in Wickliffe, way over in Ballard County next to the Mississippi River. I've been an SBC (IMB) missionary since December of 1995. If your church is SBC, you may be paying my salary! If you are, thanks!

 

Gene, do you have a brain block on or something? I hope no anticalvinists here are saying that man can come to God without God's help. That's not the point of the topic, although that's primarily what you try to prove, even though no one on the other side has tried to disprove that contention. Can man choose God without God's help? No. Can man choose God with God's help? Yes. If anyone on here disagrees with this then perhaps Gene's voluminous posts have been worthwhile; if not, what a futile waste of time.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

What did Jesus say?-----"no one takes my life, I willingly lay it down"

Now what does willingly mean? I know for some it will not mean what it means because it does not fit into the perameters of their preconcieved doctrinal system. We really need to let the Scripture establish our theology, and not let our theological system establish what the Bible says.

Bro Tony

 

Gene said, :"If it is somehow not a "real" choice if one is unable to choose, then neither God nor Satan are capable of making real choices either since, by nature God can not sin and Satan can not not sin."
--------------------------------------------------

Just as I said. You missed it.
God is God. His nature has no possibility of change.
Satan is a spiritual being whose nature is also fixed. No possibility of change.
God offers no choice to Satan. Your "if-then" scenario is invalid.

God gives man and only man the choice. Life or death. Choose life for why would ye die?

I do not discount the Holy Spirit's work on the unsaved. His work is to convict the sinner of his sin. Under such conviction the sinner is given the choice.
Then the sinner may choose life or death.
Simple. Why must you post such long and windy treatises? They only show your desperation to prove the unprovable.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I said something similar to this in another thread, and it fits here as well. Pardon me if this all seems rude. I apologize for possible rudeness but not for what I am saying.

Scripture and doctrine are supposed to bring unity...all that is happening here is contention, name-calling, and disunity. What does it matter if I have a free will or not? It doesn't. We don't have to convince anyone that they have one. The majority of people already assume that they do so constantly imbedding it in a congregation's head that they have a free will to choose God is a waste of time.

Granted, it is important to be Biblically accurate, but OBVIOUSLY Scripture seems to say yes we have one and no we don't have one. I think the fishbowl theory I mentioned earlier kinda fits with that. We are only as free as God allows us to be. Why is that so hard?

For many, to believe that something else is in control of them for even a moment is horrible because it means that they aren't the cause of it all. Experience proves that we don't have a completely free will. Did I choose for my girlfriend to break up with me a month ago? No. I had chosen for us to get married. What I chose didn't happen. Obviously some will somewhere is stronger than mine.

God is in control whether you're a Calvinist or an Arminian. It doesn't do anyone any good to sit and call eachother heretics cuz one person believes God has more control than someone else.

Arminianism and Calvinism BOTH have areas where they don't completely line up with Scripture!

It breaks my heart how some people are acting in this thread. It really does. Calling what other's believe words that can't be posted...using things other than Scripture to back their ideas. Where's the love?

I had a discussion with a Wesleyan brother the next to last day of classes for the semester over the issue of free will and how much control God has. Well...I wasn't in the discussion most of the time. My Wesleyan brother was discussion with an ex-catholic brother and when they got done, Mark, the Wesleyan, looked at me and said, "What does our resident Calvinist have to add?"

Here is my response.

Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases. (Psalms 115:3 HCSB)

The heavens are the LORD's, but the earth He has given to the human race. (Psalms 115:16 HCSB)


I think that answers it all. God does what He is going to do. He will do whatever He pleases. And we've been given this earth and are free to do what we please here. But since God made it, He is ultimately in control. And as Job so beautifully affirmed,

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:2 ESV)

I'll shut up now and let the stones be thrown.