Free Will ~yet again.

[Rella]

PART 2


But beyond that is the freedom within freewill.
Got Questions states...
The question of why God gave humans a free will often comes up in a discussion about the problem of evil. Someone will ask why there is so much evil in the world, and the answer is that human beings have chosen to do evil things. God is not to blame. The follow-up question is, if God knew all the evil things that people would choose to do, why would He give us free will?

The “standard” answer seems to be that, for love to be real, it must not be coerced. If we did not have the ability to reject God, then neither would we have the ability to truly love Him. Some theologians even go so far as to say that human freedom is the highest good and that even God will not violate it. Genuine love and genuine good can only exist in a world where there is an opportunity for genuine rejection and genuine evil. Some add that, since God knows all possibilities past, present, and future (foreknowledge), the world He created must be the one where the greatest amount of good would result. Out of all possible worlds, the one He made is the best. The problem with this line of thinking is that, although it may be somewhat satisfying intellectually, it is never articulated in Scripture.

What follows are a few more thoughts that may help us formulate some conclusions as to why God gave us a free will. At least they will give us the full weight to the biblical evidence.

First, we have to admit that “free will” is limited by physical possibilities. “Free will” cannot mean we are free to do anything we want to do. Probably a lot of people would like to fly like Superman or be as strong as Samson or teleport from one location to another, but physical limitations prohibit them from doing it. On one level, this may not seem to be an issue of free will, but it is not completely extraneous, because God created a world in which people desire to do these things but have no ability to do them. In this sense, God has curtailed “free will”—it is not truly free as popularly defined.

When we pray for something, we often are praying that another’s “free will” will be curtailed by outside circumstances and physical limitations. If a brutal dictator invades a neighboring country, and we pray for his defeat, we are certainly praying that the dictator will be unable to do what he wants to do. In this case, the person praying is asking God to intervene with another person’s will to prevent a person from accomplishing what he has chosen to do. In the way God created the world, He has built in many limitations that stymie our wills and limit our choices. Likewise, He may intervene to further limit our choices by circumstances beyond our control.

With this in mind, perhaps we might define free will as the ability to choose whatever we want, within the bounds of physical limitations. This brings up the second problem, which has to do with what we want. To deal with this issue, Martin Luther wrote his treatise The Bondage of the Will. The problem is not that we are not free to choose what we want, but that what we choose is severely limited by our desires. We freely choose to disobey God because that is all we want to do. Just as we cannot fly like Superman due to our physical limitations, we cannot obey God due to our spiritual limitations. We are free to choose all sorts of ways to disobey God, but we simply cannot choose to obey God without having our desires radically reorganized (some would say regenerated)—and we are powerless to do this on our own. Apart from God and left to our sinful selves, we will choose sin (Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Romans 3:10-12).

Romans 8:5–8 identifies the spiritual limitations to our “free will”: “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God” (emphasis added). From the context, it is clear that those who “live according to the flesh” are unbelievers. Their wills are in bondage to sin, and so sin is all they want to do. They cannot submit to God’s law.

If this is the case, who then can be saved? “All things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27). The Lord so works in some to energize their spirits and give them a desire to repent and believe (see Acts 16:14). Sinners do not do this on their own but only under the convicting power of the Spirit. If it were otherwise, the saved could boast that they possessed some wisdom or moral superiority that caused them to choose to repent and believe when confronted with the facts, even while so many others continue to reject the gospel. But we are saved by grace, and no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8–9). God is not obligated to save anyone (He has free will), yet He desires that all would be saved and come to repentance (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). He offers salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11) yet He will not force anyone to come to Him. By His sovereignty, unchanging character (Malachi 3:6), foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 11:2), love (Ephesians 1:4-5), and plan and pleasure (Ephesians 1:5) He predestines some to salvation. Others He allows to continue in rebellion—which is exactly what they want to do. In either case, people make real, uncoerced choices.

Coming to faith in Christ frees our will to obey God, to desire the things of God, yet Christians still have an old nature that pulls them in the other direction. Romans 6:12–14 says, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” One day, believers will be confirmed in holiness (glorified) and will no longer be able to sin—yet their love for God will be genuine. They will be free to do what they want, but they will not want to do anything that displeases God.

Prior to the fall, man could be said to have had a “free” will in that he was free to obey God or disobey God. After the fall, man’s will was corrupted by sin to the point where he fully lost the ability to willingly obey God. This doesn’t mean that man can’t outwardly obey God. Rather, man cannot perform any spiritual good that is acceptable to God or has any salvific merit. The Bible describes man’s will as “dead in transgressions and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) or as “slaves to sin” (Romans 6:17). These phrases describe man as both unable and unwilling to submit to God’s sovereign authority; therefore, when man makes choices according to his desires, we must remember that man’s desires are depraved and corrupted and wholly rebellious toward God.
GO TO PART 3 AS THIS HAS 9505 CHARACTERS ACCORDING TO MY COUNTER BUT WONT POST

 

[Rella]

PART 3



God created a world where people could choose to disobey, and He allows people today to continue to rebel against Him In the process, God’s power and forbearance are clearly seen: “What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?” (Romans 9:22–23). The whole plan of redemption is to the praise of God’s glory (Ephesians 1:14). As should be expected, this doctrine is wholly unsatisfying to those who are in rebellion against God and have no desire to give Him glory. When we engage in evangelism or apologetics, we are often tempted to offer another, more “satisfying” answer that focuses salvation on the benefit to humanity. We should resist that temptation and keep the focus on God’s glory.

God does not coerce people to reject Him; He simply allows them to do the only thing they want to do (sin), and He allows them to do it with a great deal of variety and creativity. God does not coerce people to accept Him, but He persuades them with tactics that cannot be refused. God is in control, but humans make real choices. Somehow, God’s control and human freedom are perfectly compatible.

In the final analysis, there are questions that simply cannot be fully answered or fully understood, and we must never put ourselves in the place of judging God by declaring what a loving God “should do” or a just God “should have done.”

After finishing a long section on God’s control and human choice (Romans 9—11), Paul concludes with this:

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
‘Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?’
‘Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?’
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Romans 11:33–36).

And Paul ends the letter to the Romans with this: “To the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen” (Romans 16:27).

God created the world as He did and gave humans the freedoms they have in order to bring glory to Himself. The glorification of God is the greatest possible good.

 

[Arial]

Will you accept not just my definition but the definition from people and corporations that are far smarter then I?

Free is all of the following.

And I have to cut some out because of the 10000 word limit.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

1. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.
   "felt free to go."

Cambridge dictionery

(NOT LIMITED)
B2
not limited or controlled:

Collins dictionary
B2
Someone or something that is free is not restricted, controlled, or limited, for example by rules, customs, or other people.

Further
In John 8:36 Jesus makes a wonderful statement of victory. He says, "So if the Son sets you free you will be free indeed." If you look at the Greek, you will discover this word free can mean to liberate or to exempt from liability

Jesus sets us free from our self-centeredness. He frees us from the power of sin in our lives. He frees us from the captivity that Satan has upon us, and he frees us from cultural captivity. Ultimately setting us free to be in union with Him.

GO TO NEXT POST PART 2

IOW the definition of "free" can in no way be applied to the human will. Our will is not autonomous. It always answers to us, to our desires.

 

[Arial]

Got Questions states...
The question of why God gave humans a free will often comes up in a discussion about the problem of evil. Someone will ask why there is so much evil in the world, and the answer is that human beings have chosen to do evil things. God is not to blame. The follow-up question is, if God knew all the evil things that people would choose to do, why would He give us free will?

This begins with an assumption without ever defining what it means. God did not give us a free will. If He had, there would have been no consequences for disobeying Him. The consequences came because, even though we could make choices and act on them, we were bound to do His will. We were not free to do as we pleased.

 

[Rella]

This begins with an assumption without ever defining what it means. God did not give us a free will. If He had, there would have been no consequences for disobeying Him. The consequences came because, even though we could make choices and act on them, we were bound to do His will. We were not free to do as we pleased.

Unless that was in the original plan.

If humans had no freewill. If they could not chose to sin or cloister themselves in prayer. why would something like a predestination fate even be needed.

We would all me little AIs or bots roaming the earth doing exactly as we were programmed.

 

[Arial]

Unless that was in the original plan.

"Unless "requires something from Scripture to support the possibility. We should not presuppose something and then say it is so. That goes for everyone, all the time, in Bible study.

We can start with who God is since everything that exists comes from Him. That makes Him the owner of all things.
Ps 24:1-2 The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.
1 Cron 26:11 Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the Majesty for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.

God created man in His image and likeness, and gave him stewardship over the earth to steward it according to that image and likeness. As such (in a sense Adam was a vassal king of God The King over the creation), he was to do things God's way, and doing them a different way, Adams way--- he was not free to do. That is the epitome of not free. Yes, he had a could make choices and his desires would move him to make them. That does not make his will free. His will follows his desires, not the other way around.

If humans had no freewill. If they could not chose to sin or cloister themselves in prayer. why would something like a predestination fate even be needed.

It is not a will that is free to chose one thing over another, it is our desires. Our will is bondage to our desires and our desires are in bondage to sin. We don't sin all of the time, but neither do we do what is right in the sight of God all the time---and furthermore we do not even want to. We would prefer to have our cake and eat it too. That is why grace is needed to supply what humanity no longer has. Grace of God must break the chains that bind us. Those God elects to set free by giving them to Jesus are predestined to come to Christ in faith to fulfill God's decree of election of them.

We would all me little AIs or bots roaming the earth doing exactly as we were programmed.

That would only be the case if God had created mankind without desires, and without a will to act on the desires we have.

 

[Ritajanice]

Not until you define the word Christianity which is not in the Holy Book.

Not until your define the word Bible which is not in the Holy Book.

Not until you define the word Discipleship which is not in the Holy Book.

Not until you define the word Rapture which is not in the Holy Book. ( which I understand you and yours do not believe in.)

Not until you define the word Halo which is not in the Holy Book. (Often used as a description of angels)

Not until you define the word Problem which is not in the Holy Book. ( Interesting no? If no problems are mentioned in Scripture, then what are we trying to fix?)

Not until your define the word Trinity which is not in the Holy Book. (Therefore where is proof that it might exist. There is none, right?)

Not until your define the word Responsibility which is not in the Holy Book. ( Judas had no responsibility for leading the the Jesus)

Is it not possible that the differing words used by many are merely different facets of a beautifully cut gem, each reflecting a unique perspective of the same brilliant truth?

How about general accepted assumptions that are not in the bible?

Three wise men.

A whale swallowed Jonah.

Be in the world , but not of the world.

All things work together for good.

Jesus wants to live in your heart.
God won't give you more than you can bear.
Pray the sinner's prayer.
God is in control.
God helps those who help themselves.
Hate the sin, love the sinner.

But it is useless to even suggest an intelligent discussion because I firmly believe that “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, ergo human beings do have a free will
and you do not.

Found this online about freewill....what do you think?


For examples, "free will" is taught in Matthew 23:37 and Revelation 22:17.

 

[Josheb]

"Limitations" automatically removes "free".

Exactly.

Wouldn't "free will" be a term that one can chose to do anything within their limitations?

Limited freedom is like reality show. It's a contradiction in terms .


So....., if we can all agree there are limitations then perhaps we can discuss what are the specific limitations when it comes to salvation (according to scripture) as opposed to limits when buying a car or choosing a flavor of ice cream.

 

[Rella]

Found this online about freewill....what do you think?


For examples, "free will" is taught in Matthew 23:37 and Revelation 22:17.

Yes, I see it in both.

Matthew 22:37
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Consider
So far as the gospel of Matthew is concerned, these are the last words Jesus will speak to Jerusalem in a public setting. He has more yet to teach, and the two chapters will contain extensive records of those words. This, however, is the point where Jesus' public ministry ends (Matthew 23:39). Prior to this, Jesus has been condemning Israel's failed religious leadership (Matthew 23:1–3). Those words were delivered with a cutting, direct mood. Here, Christ's words are significantly more mournful. Looking ahead to the disaster that will come on the city, Jesus speaks with a tender and longing tone.

Despite being the chief city of God's chosen people, Jerusalem has earned a sad legacy over the generations (Acts 7:52). This city of David has become known as the city that kills prophets and stones the messengers God sends to her. That legacy will be emphasized eternally within the week as Jesus Himself is condemned and killed in Jerusalem (Matthew 26:1–5).

Jesus describes the role He would have rather held in relationship to the city and the people of Israel. Speaking from the perspective of God, as a member of the Trinity, Jesus notes how often He would have stepped in to protect Jerusalem and her children. The symbolism here is unique in Scripture and carries an almost maternal sense. Jesus, the Son of God, describes His heart motive to protect His people.

Of course, since God is omnipotent, that raises the question of why God did not, in fact, offer that level of protection. Why did they suffer so much judgment and death? Why will the city be exposed to the destruction yet to come (Matthew 24:1–2)? The answer is not complex, though it can be hard to accept: the people were not willing to receive His protection. They rejected God, and His messengers, and His message (John 5:39–40). And so, judgment fell, and would soon fall again.

They rejected God, and His messengers, and His message

Certainly, a rejection is one of choice. And that choice definitely is because they were free to reject this. A plus for the "freewill" side of things.

----------------------------------------------

Rev 22:17

The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.' And let the one who hears say, 'Come.' And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires, take the water of life without cost.

Paul affirmed the truth that salvation is a free gift (Ephesians 2:8–9). This verse extends the final invitation to sinners to come to Christ and quench their spiritual thirst. The Holy Spirit extends this invitation through the Bride, the church. Those who come to Christ drink the water of life freely.

An invitation to those who are free to decline.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus met a spiritually thirsty woman at a well. Her reputation was wretched and she drew water alone and at an inconvenient time of day. Jesus asked her for a drink of water and engaged her in a conversation about water. He told her that water from Jacob's well would quench thirst only temporarily but the water He offered would quench thirst forever: salvation curing a spiritual thirst (John 4:13–14). The woman responded gladly to Jesus' offer of living water. Soon she brought the people of the city to the well to "come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?" (John 4:29).

She would have been free to decline his offer.....

Another example of a rejection is one of choice. And that choice definitely is because she was free to reject this offer. Another plus for the "freewill" side of things.

 

[Rella]

Exactly.

Limited freedom is like reality show. It's a contradiction in terms .


So....., if we can all agree there are limitations then perhaps we can discuss what are the specific limitations when it comes to salvation (according to scripture) as opposed to limits when buying a car or choosing a flavor of ice cream.

First decide when limitations take place.

 

[Rella]

Wouldn't "free will" be a term that one can chose to do anything within their limitations?

I forget who it is that says if you have limitations there can be no free will... BUT YOU are 100% correct for if you were physically handicapped, that would not necessarily stop one from doing whatever they want, with imagination.

 

[Rella]

Agreed ... slain your definition of "free will" to @Josheb ... I don't think he knows what you are talking about either.

Why did you turn Cinderella into a tranny?

 

[Josheb]

Will you accept not just my definition but the definition from people and corporations that are far smarter then I?

I do not care what anyone else anywhere else thinks. This is your op, not Calvin's or Barrett's or Ricky's or Lucy's. I asked you to define the word as you intend it to be used. Will I except it? That depends. If it's a completely unscriptural, irrational definition then the answer is no, but I will then ask you some questions in hopes we can arrive at mutually agreed upon definition that will also serve the discussion you want to have.

Free is all of the following.

And I have to cut some out because of the 10000 word limit.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

1. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.
   "felt free to go."

Cambridge dictionery

(NOT LIMITED)
B2
not limited or controlled:

Collins dictionary
B2
Someone or something that is free is not restricted, controlled, or limited, for example by rules, customs, or other people.

Great!

That is exactly the same definition I posted. See how easy that was? I would like you to make note of this because what just happened should not happen again. You're not going to like it I ignore the questions you ask me. You're not going to like it if I delay, and obfuscate, and try and change the subject or, even worse, impugn your personal faculties. I assume when you ask me a question, you'd like an immediate, direct, and succinct op-relevant topical answer to the question asked and not answers to questions not asked. If I have assumed incorrectly then let me know because I hope that from here on out, you will make the effort pay attention to the details and answer questions asked when answered.

If that is amenable, then here's my first question based on the definition you provided and with which I completely agree. I've read Post 291, and appreciate your succinctness there, but I'd like for us to establish the matter and build from as much consensus as we can, instead of the typical rancor that ensues in the free will debate.


Is the will of the sinful person not restricted, controlled, or limited by anything else?

Or.... to word the question in positive language:

Is the will of the sinful person restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything?


Again: I remind you an immediate, direct, succinct answer is expected. We move the conversation forward when we do that for/with each other. It's a yes or no question. If the answer is, "Yes," then perhaps you'd care to list 3 or four restrictions, controls, or limits. If the answer is "No," then perhaps you'd care to add a few sentences explaining how/why the sinner's will has absolutely no restrictions, controls, or limitations. I'll try to work with whatever you post, as long as it is an answer to the question asked.


Is the will of the sinful human restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything?

 

[Josheb]

First decide when limitations take place.

Wish I'd seen that before finishing Post 293.

Your op. You take the lead (btw, I've already provided some commentary on that subject, but I'll happily summarize it and add more to it once you answer your own question). To show goodwill and good faith I will say this: There are a multitude of limitations placed on the human will that stem from God's design of creation and many more take effect the moment a person disobeys God, or sins. There are others that ensue as a consequence of the sinner's sin, sinful thoughts, sinful actions, etc., but limitations on human volition are inherent in creation.

Tell me if the will of the sinful human is restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything..... and, if any do exist, then tell me when those limitations take place. Take your time because I gotta go. I'll check back later, maybe tonight if I can.

Thanks

 

[Rella]

I do not care what anyone else anywhere else thinks. This is your op, not Calvin's or Barrett's or Ricky's or Lucy's. I asked you to define the word as you intend it to be used. Will I except it? That depends. If it's a completely unscriptural, irrational definition then the answer is no, but I will then ask you some questions in hopes we can arrive at mutually agreed upon definition that will also serve the discussion you want to have.

Great!

That is exactly the same definition I posted. See how easy that was? I would like you to make note of this because what just happened should not happen again. You're not going to like it I ignore the questions you ask me. You're not going to like it if I delay, and obfuscate, and try and change the subject or, even worse, impugn your personal faculties. I assume when you ask me a question, you'd like an immediate, direct, and succinct op-relevant topical answer to the question asked and not answers to questions not asked. If I have assumed incorrectly then let me know because I hope that from here on out, you will make the effort pay attention to the details and answer questions asked when answered.

If that is amenable, then here's my first question based on the definition you provided and with which I completely agree. I've read Post 291, and appreciate your succinctness there, but I'd like for us to establish the matter and build from as much consensus as we can, instead of the typical rancor that ensues in the free will debate.


Is the will of the sinful person not restricted, controlled, or limited by anything else?

Or.... to word the question in positive language:

Is the will of the sinful person restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything?


Again: I remind you an immediate, direct, succinct answer is expected. We move the conversation forward when we do that for/with each other. It's a yes or no question. If the answer is, "Yes," then perhaps you'd care to list 3 or four restrictions, controls, or limits. If the answer is "No," then perhaps you'd care to add a few sentences explaining how/why the sinner's will has absolutely no restrictions, controls, or limitations. I'll try to work with whatever you post, as long as it is an answer to the question asked.


Is the will of the sinful human restricted, controlled, or limited in any way by anything?

Possibly.

They may be blind, deaf, or a cripple. There may be a physical handicap or a mental one. Each would offer a complication to certain actions of the will of the person. But not necessarily stopping.

Example: Someone who is an avid porn watcher who finds themself having gone blind. I am certain they would find a work around if by no other way then books on tape with descriptions.

I will try to be as immediate as possible but will remind you I am the only caregiver for my mother who has advanced dementia.

Is that succinct enough for you?

 

[Tambora]

"Limitations" automatically removes "free".

Thanks for pointing out the obvious objection to advance a little deeper in understanding and ask further questions.

So here's a further question to keep digging deeper:
Can God be said to have free will when He has limitations (such as cannot lie)?

 

[Carbon]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious objection to advance a little deeper in understanding and ask further questions.

So here's a further question to keep digging deeper:
Can God be said to have free will when He has limitations (such as cannot lie)?

If any being has free will it is God. But again, define free will.

Suppose God said something that you don't agree with, or, you think it's against what He previously put in place.

You would never know it, question it, or have a discussion about it, because whatever God speaks is truth.

 

[Tambora]

I am the only caregiver for my mother who has advanced dementia.

Good son.

 

[Tambora]

If any being has free will it is God. But again, define free will.

It's probably best to define it the way the ancient people who wrote scripture meant it to mean in the context of which they used the term.

Suppose God said something that you don't agree with, or, you think it's against what He previously put in place. You would never know it, question it, or have a discussion about it, because whatever God speaks is truth.

That's when I try to remind myself of Ecc 3:1-8 and try not to force it to be only one or the other, but could possibly reflect either one depending on the situation at hand.

 

[Carbon]

It's probably best to define it the way the ancient people who wrote scripture meant it to mean in the context of which they used the term.

Okay, and how is that? and in which way does it differ from our modern definition?

That's when I try to remind myself of Ecc 3:1-8 and try not to force it to be only one or the other, but could possibly reflect either one depending on the situation at hand.