The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of God

[Rufus]

Over all I liked your post.
I'm confused. I think you are saying God does not have Free Will which seems to contradict your definition:


I don't understand how you can say God's will does not have a host.

God’s will is a necessity that arises from his nature, because of which, such must be the will of God, that he wills himself, his existence, and the relations of the persons of the Godhead.
As to all else than himself, God wills freely, whether his will has regard to their existence, or mode of existence, or their actions, or the events which influence or control them. He does his own will, not that of another. He chooses what, and whom he will create, and the times, places and circumstances in which he will place those he creates. He marks out to all his intelligent creatures the paths of their lives. He uses them for his purposes.
When it is said, however, that God wills freely, it is not meant that no influence is exerted upon his will. It is only intended to deny that his will is influenced from without. In all his outward acts, as well as in those within, he is governed by his own nature. That nature, and that will, must always be in unison. As he is infinitely wise, so must his will and action be directed towards wise ends in the use of wise means. His infinite justice forbids that he should will or do anything contrary to the strictest justice. The God of truth must also purpose in accordance with truth and faithfulness. James Boyce – Systematic Theology

Excellent! So, yes, both the Creator and his created image-bearers have "free will"; for in both cases the choices they make freely rise from their nature! Of course, in the case of the Creator from his holy nature; and in the case of his fallen image-bearers from their depraved nature.

 

[Kermos]

Agreed, "free-willians think they choose to choose to want(will) to choose".
Agreed, this is circular logic. It's not my logic, it's the logic of "free-willians".

Agreed. I believe free-willian philosophy leads to destruction, but more on that in a moment. When we examine the Scripture, "freewill" is absent (please keep in mind the "Largely" paragraph).

I believe in hard determinism. I find the compatibilists become "free-willians" when it comes to the origin of sin. (All theodocies are somewhat distasteful).
When it comes to man's "default state" I believe God gave man his "default state"; otherwise, you're back to circular logic.

I don't know what you mean with "hard determinism", here, particularly as you progress to circular logic. Please expand.

Is "hard determinism" as you use the phrase found in "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority, daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10)?

In that previous paragraph is some of the reference about destruction made in the 1st paragraph.

Aside: Sometimes I pray to be forgiven for concepts I believe to be true but I know could be wrong ... something like Job who got 'raked over the coals' for his concepts of God though he was well meaning IMO.

I pray to Lord Jesus for guidance, again and again, for His Truth to shine visible!

Hmmm, interesting point. Seeing as the NASB is the only version to use "FREE WILL" it seems highly suspect.

WOW ... you knowledge on the subject dwarfs mine. (not the it's an important doctrine... giggle)

Here is some more of the reference about destruction in the 1st paragraph.

I believe the distinction of "freewill offering" in contrast to "impelled generous offering" for the Hebrew word נְדָבָ֖ה (Strong's 5071 - nedabah - נדבה - ndbh - impelled generous offering) is of salvific import because I also believe free-willian theology denies Christ of which the English term "freewill offering" is a place where free-willians have repeatedly pointed as support for God imparting freewill into man (You brought up "freewill offering" in the OT, yet I do not mean this paragraph to indicate that you are a free-willian).

God gives me understanding. I am not my own.

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

 

[Kermos]

Excellent! So, yes, both the Creator and his created image-bearers have "free will"; for in both cases the choices they make freely rise from their nature! Of course, in the case of the Creator from his holy nature; and in the case of his fallen image-bearers from their depraved nature.

What Scripture states God has a free-will?

What Scripture states man has a free-will?

Free will (detached will) does not exist because a will requires a host; therefore, a will must, of necessity, be attached to a host.

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

 

[Rufus]

What Scripture states God has a free-will?

What Scripture states man has a free-will?

Free will (detached will) does not exist because a will requires a host; therefore, a will must, of necessity, be attached to a host.

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

Free will is implied, otherwise if God and his moral creatures (mankind and angels) do not have free will, then this can only logically mean the will of all moral beings is under bondage or all choices are coerced from without. However, there is third option: All choices are contingent. All choices are ultimately determined by desires that arise out of our nature. Can God sin? Can God even have any evil desires? Conversely, can man not sin? I believe the most fundamental Law of Logic of them all known as the Law of Identity answers this problem. This law simply states: A cannot be B, nor can B be A. Jesus' analogy of good and bad trees applies here. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. But a tree is still a tree. Whether good or bad, it will still bear fruit because that is its nature. Likewise, since only God alone is good, he can only choose to do that which is consistent with his goodness. Conversely, since no man is innately good, Paul's indictment of the human race in Romans 3 is just; for all unregenerate men can only do evil. As far as God's will is concerned, I would refer to passages such as Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; Dan 4:35; Rom 9:18; Eph 1:11.

 

[fastfredy0]

So, yes, both the Creator and his created image-bearers have "free will"; for in both cases the choices they make freely rise from their nature! Of course, in the case of the Creator from his holy nature; and in the case of his fallen image-bearers from their depraved nature.

I don't think you have defined "free will" but I am in agreement as to the cause of man doing X or Y. Our will is determined by our sin nature which man did not choose and thus I would say our will is not our Free as it is not a self-determined will.

 

[fastfredy0]

I don't know what you mean with "hard determinism", here, particularly as you progress to circular logic. Please expand.

Determinism is a consistent application of divine sovereignty over everything. It is a denial of any form of dualism (good and evil are separate entities) or deism (the universe is self-sustained). Determinism affirms that God controls everything about everything that is anything, including every aspect of every detail of every human decision and action in such a way that man has no freedom in any meaningful or relevant sense. This position holds that there is no such thing as a "passive" or a "permissive" decree (compatibilism) with God, that it is unbiblical and impossible for a divine decree to be "passive" or "permissive."
Johnathan Edwards argued that since the principle of causality demands that all actions are caused, then it is irrational to claim that things arise without a cause. For Edwards a self-caused action is impossible, since a cause is prior to an effect, and one cannot be prior to himself. Therefore, all actions are ultimately caused by a First Cause (God). "Free choice" is doing what one desires, but God gives the desires or affections that control action. Hence, all human actions ultimately are determined by God. Vincent Chueng

I pray to Lord Jesus for guidance, again and again, for His Truth to shine visible!

Yeah, but we know from the large variances in doctrine that God does not grant that prayer to most people. 1 Cor. 2:14 says He grants Christians more guidance than non Christians so that's a plus. Maybe I'd be happy with 72.3% correct ... *giggle* ... if God doesn't guide to some degree you end up in hell .... would suck to have that little guidance.

God gives me understanding. I am not my own.

Agreed

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

Amen

 

[Rufus]

I don't think you have defined "free will" but I am in agreement as to the cause of man doing X or Y. Our will is determined by our sin nature which man did not choose and thus I would say our will is not our Free as it is not a self-determined will.

Actually, man did choose to sin, therefore he chose to corrupt his nature and his heart -- the heart which is the seat of all our faculties. He chose to be a slave to sin. As stated earlier, if man's will is not free, then this must mean all his choices are forced upon him from without. And if his choices result from coercion, then how can man be morally culpable?

 

[Josheb]

Free will is implied, otherwise if God and his moral creatures (mankind and angels) do not have free will, then this can only logically mean the will of all moral beings is under bondage or all choices are coerced from without.

Why cannot all three conditions exist to various degrees at various times?

However, there is third option: All choices are contingent. All choices are ultimately determined by desires that arise out of our nature.

So we add a fourth option.

Can God sin? Can God even have any evil desires?

Scripture answers that question in James 1. God cannot be tempted. How then would he be dragged away and enticed?

Conversely, can man not sin?

Sure, depending on how you define your terms. People not-sin every minute of every day. BUT they also punctuate their periods of sinlessness with episodes of sin.

I believe the most fundamental Law of Logic of them all known as the Law of Identity answers this problem. This law simply states: A cannot be B, nor can B be A.

That is true but the problems of ambiguity and false equivalence must be avoided. Sin is defined several ways in scripture. The earlier question "Can man not sin?" could and should be asked, "Can man not be sinful?" because sin is not solely about conduct and the earlier question leaves plenty of room to say, "Certainly, man can not sin," but there is no room for man - once having committed a sin - not also being sinful.

Man is sinful because he sins and sins because he is sinful.

Jesus' analogy of good and bad trees applies here. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. But a tree is still a tree. Whether good or bad, it will still bear fruit because that is its nature.

The problem here is Jesus was speaking with a degree of hyperbole. Anyone and everyone who has ever looked at a fruit tree know otherwise good trees always have some bad fruit on them BUT a tree that produces only bad fruit cannot and will not produce a few good fruits. Every single person in attendance when Jesus said those words understood that. Only legalists make it absolute and absolutely estrange the two kinds of trees irreconcilably. The create a false dichotomy Jesus never intended.

Likewise, since only God alone is good, he can only choose to do that which is consistent with his goodness.

Here again an important detail deserves mention because when Jesus said no one is good he was speaking to sinful sinners in a post-disobedient world and Jesus knew two people had previously been declared good by God Himself. The one to whom Jesus was speaking at that would have understood that. He would have understood Jesus' words to mean "No one but the predisobedient Adam and Ever are good and they messed it up for everyone, so now only God is good."

Conversely, since no man is innately good, Paul's indictment of the human race in Romans 3 is just; for all unregenerate men can only do evil. As far as God's will is concerned, I would refer to passages such as Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; Dan 4:35; Rom 9:18; Eph 1:11.

I completely agree.


What does this have to do with whether or not God's will is free?

 

[Rufus]

Why cannot all three conditions exist to various degrees at various times?

So we add a fourth option.

Scripture answers that question in James 1. God cannot be tempted. How then would he be dragged away and enticed?

Sure, depending on how you define your terms. People not-sin every minute of every day. BUT they also punctuate their periods of sinlessness with episodes of sin.

That is true but the problems of ambiguity and false equivalence must be avoided. Sin is defined several ways in scripture. The earlier question "Can man not sin?" could and should be asked, "Can man not be sinful?" because sin is not solely about conduct and the earlier question leaves plenty of room to say, "Certainly, man can not sin," but there is no room for man - once having committed a sin - not also being sinful.

Man is sinful because he sins and sins because he is sinful.

The problem here is Jesus was speaking with a degree of hyperbole. Anyone and everyone who has ever looked at a fruit tree know otherwise good trees always have some bad fruit on them BUT a tree that produces only bad fruit cannot and will not produce a few good fruits. Every single person in attendance when Jesus said those words understood that. Only legalists make it absolute and absolutely estrange the two kinds of trees irreconcilably. The create a false dichotomy Jesus never intended.

Here again an important detail deserves mention because when Jesus said no one is good he was speaking to sinful sinners in a post-disobedient world and Jesus knew two people had previously been declared good by God Himself. The one to whom Jesus was speaking at that would have understood that. He would have understood Jesus' words to mean "No one but the predisobedient Adam and Ever are good and they messed it up for everyone, so now only God is good."

I completely agree.


What does this have to do with whether or not God's will is free?

 

[Rufus]

Josheb:

Why cannot all three conditions exist to various degrees at various times?

Then how can man be culpable before God? Of course, when Adam sinned, he died spiritually which put him and all his posterity in bondage to their sin nature. But Adam freely chose to sin! He was not coerced. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to eat. Therefore, he owns his decision. His choice came from within his own heart, which means he freely sinned.


And what makes his sin especially egregious is that Adam, unlike us, did not come into this world with a sinful nature! Adam was a "living soul". He was alive unto God but still chose to sin.

So we add a fourth option.

Which is the only viable option! Our volition in inextricably linked to the rest of our faculties, and in fact is driven by them. Our thoughts, motives, intentions and desires drive our choices. (See Gen 6:5, 11-12; Jas 1:14-15.) Why do you think God found it necessary to give his elect new hearts, (Ezek 36:26) as one of his precious gifts of salvation?

Sure, depending on how you define your terms. People not-sin every minute of every day. BUT they also punctuate their periods of sinlessness with episodes of sin.

That is true but the problems of ambiguity and false equivalence must be avoided. Sin is defined several ways in scripture. The earlier question "Can man not sin?" could and should be asked, "Can man not be sinful?" because sin is not solely about conduct and the earlier question leaves plenty of room to say, "Certainly, man can not sin," but there is no room for man - once having committed a sin - not also being sinful.

Sin is lawlessness (1Jn 3:4). Sin is also disobedience to the [gospel] truth (Rom 2:8; 6:17; 2Thes 1:8; 1Pet 4:17). Therefore, all unbelievers -- every single last one of them -- live in sin 24/7. They must! The have neither faith in God or love for him, which means God is displeased with them 24/7 (Heb 11:6) for their lack of faith, and since we all came into this world with our hearts at enmity with God, then all unbelievers are in perpetual disobedience to the greatest commandment of all which is to love God. Moreover, even believers are not perfected in this life. While believers cannot live a lifestyle of sin, nonetheless there is no righteous believer who never sins in this life (Eccl 7:20).

Given the above facts, we can take this maxim to the bank: Man cannot not sin! Period! And this includes the unregenerate and regenerate alike in this age! A sinner IS what man IS! As you said, he's a sinner because he IS sinful. It's what he is in his essence, and therefore what he will express in thought, word and deed. As Paul teaches in Rom 3, "there is none righteous, no not one"!!! He means, of course, no one is inherently righteous.

But do these biblical facts mean that God who cannot sin and man who cannot not sin have no free will? The passages I cited about God's will in my previous post teach that God does all according to his good pleasure, and that all his choices find their ground in the counsel of his own will. This means God's choices are never contingent upon anyone or anythng outside of him. And it is this narrow sense that it can be rightly said that God's will is free or autonymous. And so it is with his image-bearers. Our moral choices are as "self-contained" as our Creator's whose image and likeness we bear.

The problem here is Jesus was speaking with a degree of hyperbole. Anyone and everyone who has ever looked at a fruit tree know otherwise good trees always have some bad fruit on them BUT a tree that produces only bad fruit cannot and will not produce a few good fruits. Every single person in attendance when Jesus said those words understood that. Only legalists make it absolute and absolutely estrange the two kinds of trees irreconcilably. The create a false dichotomy Jesus never intended.

Perhaps. But on the other hand, only perfectly good trees will make it into the kingdom. Thanks be to the Lord for the great doctrine of Justification.

I gotta run. Perhaps more later.

 

[Josheb]

Why cannot all three conditions exist to various degrees at various times?

Josheb:

Then how can man be culpable before God? Of course, when Adam sinned, he died spiritually which put him and all his posterity in bondage to their sin nature. But Adam freely chose to sin! He was not coerced. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to eat. Therefore, he owns his decision. His choice came from within his own heart, which means he freely sinned.

Stop. That is not an answer to the question asked. You just ignored the question and non-answered the question with another question and if you expect me to answer your questions then you should have the respect and courtesy of first answering questions first put to you because of things you posted. I can explain to you how man can be culpable. Can you answer my question(s)? If so, then please do so. If not then say, "I do not know the answer to that question."

Why can't there be more than one condition for human volition?


Please just answer the question. Do NOT say, "Because then humans could not be culpable to God because that is simply not correct." Btw, there is no such thing in the Bible as "spiritual death." Instead of just answering the question asked, instead of immediately and directly answering the question the conversation has now been obfuscated with an ignored question, a rhetorical non sequitur and additions to scripture. Just answer the question asked. Use scripture, beginning with the most explicit statements therein you can gather.

Why can't there be more than one condition for human volition?

 

[Josheb]

Why cannot all three conditions exist to various degrees at various times?

Free will is implied, otherwise if God and his moral creatures (mankind and angels) do not have free will, then this can only logically mean the will of all moral beings is under bondage or all choices are coerced from without. However, there is third option: All choices are contingent. All choices are ultimately determined by desires that arise out of our nature.

[Okay,] So we add a fourth option [to the three previously listed].

Which is the only viable option! Our volition in inextricably linked to the rest of our faculties, and in fact is driven by them. Our thoughts, motives, intentions and desires drive our choices. (See Gen 6:5, 11-12; Jas 1:14-15.) Why do you think God found it necessary to give his elect new hearts, (Ezek 36:26) as one of his precious gifts of salvation?

Four options is the only viable option? I agree. Of course, if you meant to ignore your own post and also ignore my questions then the response is not an answer to what was asked and you're playing some kind of undisclosed game. Just answer the question asked, please.


First of all, free will, or the ability to make choices not controlled by another is described in scripture without labeling it "free will." So too can examples where a person's choices are limited and thereby controlled by temporal circumstances. Scripture also describes situations in which an individual's will is decidedly decided by God or sin and the person's choices are completely compatible with that condition. The problem lies in claiming only one option or condition exists when that is not the case, or might not be the case. I asked you a question and you just ignored it.

Why can't three (or four) options or conditions exist?

Why do you think God found it necessary to give his elect new hearts, (Ezek 36:26) as one of his precious gifts of salvation?

There it is again. Another example of my asking a very valid question based on your post's actual content and that question ignored!

Why do you think God found it necessary to give his elect new hearts, (Ezek 36:26) as one of his precious gifts of salvation?

Why do you expect me to answer your questions without showing me the respect and courtesy to answer mine?


Why can't there be multiple conditions pertaining to human volition?



Keep in mind I might agree with 95% of what you have posted, and we'd end this exchange with overwhelming agreement, but you'd still have expected all your questions answered and mine ignored.

Matthew 7:11-12
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Please answer the question asked.

 

[fastfredy0]

Actually, man did choose to sin, therefore he chose to corrupt his nature and his heart

Adam chose to sin, I did not. God gave Adam a sin nature and saw to it that I got one too; said nature I did not choose. (Aside: God is perfect, His purpose is always accomplished)
Also, God being all knowing knew Adam would choose to sin and God created Adam knowing Adam would sin and thus God would be the first cause as without knowingly creating Adam there would not be sin as I am sure God could have created an Adam2 that God would know would not sin. Afterall, God's has create 2/3s of the angels and seen to it that they do not sin and in the next life we will not be able to sin so even if you believe in Free Willianism you must also believe that our free will (if there even was such a thing) will be taken away when we are in heaven when it comes to sin ... just like God could have done with Adam1 (prevented Adam 1 from sinning)

As stated earlier, if man's will is not free, then this must mean all his choices are forced upon him from without.

Force is defined as "Power made operative against resistance; exertion." You cannot correctly say our choices are FORCED on us since we sin because that is our will/desire.
Now, if you want to say our sin was predetermined I can go along with that.
.

And if his choices result from coercion, then how can man be morally culpable?

You are morally culpable is an authority (God in this case) says so. If God says you shall not breathe on Thursdays then you are morally culpable to do so. God tells us to not sin knowing we are not capable.

 

[fastfredy0]

Free will (detached will) does not exist because a will requires a host

I've never heard of a definition of Free Will that says it must have a host. Your definition is unique IMO. By definition a 'will' must have a host so your definition makes the idea of Free Will impossible.

 

[Rufus]

Stop. That is not an answer to the question asked. You just ignored the question and non-answered the question with another question and if you expect me to answer your questions then you should have the respect and courtesy of first answering questions first put to you because of things you posted. I can explain to you how man can be culpable. Can you answer my question(s)? If so, then please do so. If not then say, "I do not know the answer to that question."

Why can't there be more than one condition for human volition?


Please just answer the question. Do NOT say, "Because then humans could not be culpable to God because that is simply not correct." Btw, there is no such thing in the Bible as "spiritual death." Instead of just answering the question asked, instead of immediately and directly answering the question the conversation has now been obfuscated with an ignored question, a rhetorical non sequitur and additions to scripture. Just answer the question asked. Use scripture, beginning with the most explicit statements therein you can gather.

Why can't there be more than one condition for human volition?

I thought I explained why there cannot be "more than one condition" for volition in any moral agent -- God, angels or man! The will is either free from outside control or it is not. It seems to me the law of logic known as the Law of Excluded Middle applies here. There is no third option to the best of my knowledge. Further the concept is most certainly found in the bible. With respect to the Creator, I provided several biblical cites earlier. With respect to man, here's a link to a short read with several cites.

What is free moral agency?

What is free moral agency?

www.biblequestions.org

As far as your claim that there is no such thing as spiritual death, that is just plain wrong (Gen 2:17; Eph 2:1; 5-6; 5:14; ; Col 2:13; 1Tim 5:6; Lk 9:60; 15:24, 32; Jn 3:3, 7; 1Pet 1:23; Rom 6:13, etc. Plus...if the sons of men are not spiritually dead, why does anyone need to be born again? Does not a new birth (or even "new creation") logically presuppose death? Or do you believe as Nicodemus did when he questioned Jesus on his use of the phrase "must be born again"?

I hope this post is clear enough for you. So, I'll ask again: If God and his moral agents (angels and men) are not free moral agents, then how can any of God's moral agents be morally culpable?

 

[Rufus]

Adam chose to sin, I did not. God gave Adam a sin nature and saw to it that I got one too; said nature I did not choose. (Aside: God is perfect, His purpose is always accomplished)
Also, God being all knowing knew Adam would choose to sin and God created Adam knowing Adam would sin and thus God would be the first cause as without knowingly creating Adam there would not be sin as I am sure God could have created an Adam2 that God would know would not sin. Afterall, God's has create 2/3s of the angels and seen to it that they do not sin and in the next life we will not be able to sin so even if you believe in Free Willianism you must also believe that our free will (if there even was such a thing) will be taken away when we are in heaven when it comes to sin ... just like God could have done with Adam1 (prevented Adam 1 from sinning)


Force is defined as "Power made operative against resistance; exertion." You cannot correctly say our choices are FORCED on us since we sin because that is our will/desire.
Now, if you want to say our sin was predetermined I can go along with that.
.

You are morally culpable is an authority (God in this case) says so. If God says you shall not breathe on Thursdays then you are morally culpable to do so. God tells us to not sin knowing we are not capable.

Hmm...sounds like something a fascist tyrant would do.

As far as God allowing Adam to sin: God is not culpable. Could God have prevented the Fall? Most certainly he could have? But since He didn't, then of course you're going to ask: "Why didn't he?". A good part of that answer is found in Isa 55:8-9. God, evidently, thought it would be better for man to have the knowledge of Good and Evil rather than not have it. Again, you might ask "Why?" Because a greater good would be served, perhaps? After all, God can bring good out of evil! I would refer you to Joseph's story in the OT. Or for that matter, Job's story.

 

[Josheb]

I thought I explained why there cannot be "more than one condition" for volition in any moral agent -- God, angels or man! The will is either free from outside control or it is not. It seems to me the law of logic known as the Law of Excluded Middle applies here. There is no third option to the best of my knowledge. Further the concept is most certainly found in the bible. With respect to the Creator, I provided several biblical cites earlier. With respect to man, here's a link to a short read with several cites.

What is free moral agency?

What is free moral agency?

www.biblequestions.org

As far as your claim that there is no such thing as spiritual death, that is just plain wrong (Gen 2:17; Eph 2:1; 5-6; 5:14; ; Col 2:13; 1Tim 5:6; Lk 9:60; 15:24, 32; Jn 3:3, 7; 1Pet 1:23; Rom 6:13, etc. Plus...if the sons of men are not spiritually dead, why does anyone need to be born again? Does not a new birth (or even "new creation") logically presuppose death? Or do you believe as Nicodemus did when he questioned Jesus on his use of the phrase "must be born again"?

I hope this post is clear enough for you. So, I'll ask again: If God and his moral agents (angels and men) are not free moral agents, then how can any of God's moral agents be morally culpable?

I understand all of that and have always understood it and nothing I have ever posted should ever be construed to say otherwise. The problem is it is 1) misrepresentative, and 2) incomplete.

The reason it is misrepresentative is because NOWHERE in all of Christian thought has the term "free will" EVER mean autonomous or completely absent of all control and/or influence AND/OR free of any and all limits. People who say free will means the complete absence of all control, influence, and limits are arguing a straw man. You've been concerned with the laws of non-contradiction and fallacy of false dichotomy (neglected middle) but ignored the problems of red herring and straw man.

The reason the position you've taken is incomplete is because it assumes one condition in all arenas. It assumes all "Laws" are equally applicable in all circumstances when that may not be the case. It certainly has not been proven in this op! Now, as far as I can tell from your posts, we appear to agree, at least implicitly because we agree a person can choose his favor pizza toppings but cannot choose salvation unaided. Two different arenas (pizza, salvation) with two different sets of limits - one less deterministic and with greater liberty than the other.

Which brings me to a third point. The debate of free will specifically applies to salvation. It is a soteriological debate. Normally people understand that but synergists are often abusing monergism with straw men but applying non-soteriological volitional agency to Calvinism. All of that is out of place in this thread because this thread is NOT about human will, human volitional agency, human choices - soteriological or otherwise. This thread is about the will of God, not the will of man. This op is the third op in a series by this author that denies the uncontrolled always-at-liberty will of God.

It's not about human volition.

This is not the Arm v Cal soteriology board.



According to your post history, you dropped in Monday, added a few thoughts in this thread, a few thoughts previously in the thread on Daniel 9. Otherwise, nothing in any of @Kermos' three ops. You've come late to the party . This op was posted because of conflict arising in the previous two threads. If you read through this thread, you'll see it is very difficult to get a direct, immediate, unqualified answer to the simply, valid, very op-relevant question, "Does God have a will? Does God possess volitional agency of any kind to any degree?" Why would anyone not answer that question with an immediate unqualified, "YES!"? So, (I hope) you see this thread is not about what you've been posting.

I, personally, will cut you some slack because you've come late to the party. Our fellow forum member @Kermos has asserted some very unusual views and argued them with equally unusual methodology (it cannot correctly be called "logic") despite the protests to the contrary, and it does not appear there is any willingness to learn from respondents or amend the ops in any way. The "case" or "argument" (using that term in its broadest sense) begins with the premise God is attached to Himself and therefore God has a will but it is not free because anything attached cannot possibly be free. @Kermos can correct me if I have erred in presenting his position but any objective reading of all three threads shows him making these claims. The first op asserts Adam lacked a free will - a will lacking any and all volitional agency - despite being made in God's image, because Adam was sinful. He was subjected to futility because of his disobedience. Various post-disobedient verses have been erroneously, eisegetically, irrationally, fallaciously applied to the pre-disobedient Adam. Verses pertaining to something that happened long after the beginning have been applied to the Adam "from the beginning of creation."

That is the history and context for "free will" in this thread. It has nothing to do with salvific free will.

 

[Josheb]

@Rufus,

Let me see if I cannot establish some common ground for/between the two of us.

• God has a will.
• God's will is not under the control of anyone other than God Himself and He and He alone, is able to do whatever He so desires (given any limits inherent in HIs character). God has a will, God has a will that is free, and God alone has a will that is free.
• Humans were created with a will. They were created to be volitional creatures with volitional agency; the ability to make real choices.
• Human volition is not free, it is not without control or influence AND humans are not able to choose anything always as they desire. There are, instead a myriad of controls AND limits on human volition, some of them divine (God can always over-rule man any time He chooses) and some of them temporal (time and space are temporal limits with deterministic controls).
• The biggest control AND the biggest limiter on human will is sin. God permits man to do many things sin does not permit. Sin is so egregious in its control over the human will it has made humanity dead and enslaved. Sinful man is not free and does not possess anywhere near the level of volitional agency sinless man possesses.
• Prior to Genesis 3:6 Adam, and by inference the rest of humanity, was sinless. Genesis 1:31 declares Adam good and Romans 5 describes how he was also sinless prior to his act of disobedience. Adam was good AND sinless prior to Genesis 3:6-7.
• AFTER Genesis 3:6-7 Adam's condition changed and with Adam all of humanity AND the world in which we live changed. We went from being good and sinless with a will unfettered by sin to being not-good and sinful with a will now fettered by sin and all the sinful conditions existing in the world because of one man's disobedience.
• The effects of sin have not eradicated the will. Human will still exists.
• The effects of sin have limited the agency of the human will.
• The chief limitation is that sinful man cannot choose God salvifically anymore. This is what we now call "Total Depravity," and it is not an Arm v Cal position because Arminius agreed: man in his sinful state is incapable of doing anything that might please God salvifically. Man cannot in his own power do any salvific good unaided by God.
• Other controls and their limitations are the linear nature of time and space for humans. Our intellectual faculties do not permit us to know or wholly understand ALL of the predicate influences coming to bear on any given moment of choice. Neither can we understand all the possible consequence on all the possible others any one single choice might have on others throughout the time line. We are completely ignorant of all those controls and others not stated.
• Despite the above, the classic monergist position (as articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith) is that God ordained all things from eternity without doing violence to the human will AND without doing violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. In other words, even monergists implicitly affirm the existence of the human will the existence of secondary causes, and the existence of contingencies. It does not matter whether you agree; I am simply stating doctrine affirming both volitional agency and controls and limits so that no one mistakenly thinks the term "free will" literally means free. It does not and never has.
• Even Pelagians in their misguided heretical views believe human volition exists and exists in a compromised stated once a person has sinned.
• Not only does God have a will not controlled by others that is able to work and will as He desires, the position He lacks either is both a normative and statistical outlying position NOT representative of orthodox, historical Christianity as a whole.
• Because of sin, Man is in need of salvation from that condition of sin and the commensurate wrath of God but no matter how strongly, how frequently or how enduringly man wills otherwise, he cannot save Himself from sin.
• God, because He has a will, and a will that is free, has freely chosen to save some.

I assume that at least some of that received a hearty "Amen!"

Most of it has nothing to do with this op. This op is about the unchangeableness of God and His will, not humanity's. This op claims God's will is not free. This op states there are only two options, either a man's will is controlled by God, or a man's will is controlled by the man. The op says nothing about the human will controlled by sin. Logically speaking, the op has implicitly argued when a man's will is controlled by God it is a human will controlled by a God who Himself does not have free will and cannot do as He pleases. The last sentence of this op claims every person has a will that is either self-willed or a will in Christ, and in ALL CAPS the op states,

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT GOD HAS A FREE-WILL. NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT MAN HAS A FREE-WILL.

No scripture states The Creator exists external to creation but that is, nonetheless, the undeniable, inescapable, logically necessary conclusion to "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So we find the op contains a lot of flaws, including but not limited to arguments from silence, begged questions, false causes, false equivalence, false dichotomies/neglected middles, straw men and red herring (no one actually believes free will is completely absent any and all control or limits). The dissent has been uniform (no one agrees with any of the three ops), although different respondents have approached it in different ways. The ensuing defense has added to the problem of faulty reasoning by adding ad hominem, loaded questions, shifting onus, and appeals to purity (no true Scotsman). I tell you this for three reasons: 1) if you're going to engage the op expect more of the same, 2) you seem to have some knowledge of logic and I appreciate that, and 3) I share that knowledge and appreciation.

Read all three opening posts. Reading all three threads in their entirety isn't necessary for the sake of this op (even though this op is predicated on the first two and one he did not author). The opening ops speak for themselves.

 

[Rufus]

@Rufus,

Let me see if I cannot establish some common ground for/between the two of us.

• God has a will.
• God's will is not under the control of anyone other than God Himself and He and He alone, is able to do whatever He so desires (given any limits inherent in HIs character). God has a will, God has a will that is free, and God alone has a will that is free.
• Humans were created with a will. They were created to be volitional creatures with volitional agency; the ability to make real choices.
• Human volition is not free, it is not without control or influence AND humans are not able to choose anything always as they desire. There are, instead a myriad of controls AND limits on human volition, some of them divine (God can always over-rule man any time He chooses) and some of them temporal (time and space are temporal limits with deterministic controls).
• The biggest control AND the biggest limiter on human will is sin. God permits man to do many things sin does not permit. Sin is so egregious in its control over the human will it has made humanity dead and enslaved. Sinful man is not free and does not possess anywhere near the level of volitional agency sinless man possesses.
• Prior to Genesis 3:6 Adam, and by inference the rest of humanity, was sinless. Genesis 1:31 declares Adam good and Romans 5 describes how he was also sinless prior to his act of disobedience. Adam was good AND sinless prior to Genesis 3:6-7.
• AFTER Genesis 3:6-7 Adam's condition changed and with Adam all of humanity AND the world in which we live changed. We went from being good and sinless with a will unfettered by sin to being not-good and sinful with a will now fettered by sin and all the sinful conditions existing in the world because of one man's disobedience.
• The effects of sin have not eradicated the will. Human will still exists.
• The effects of sin have limited the agency of the human will.
• The chief limitation is that sinful man cannot choose God salvifically anymore. This is what we now call "Total Depravity," and it is not an Arm v Cal position because Arminius agreed: man in his sinful state is incapable of doing anything that might please God salvifically. Man cannot in his own power do any salvific good unaided by God.
• Other controls and their limitations are the linear nature of time and space for humans. Our intellectual faculties do not permit us to know or wholly understand ALL of the predicate influences coming to bear on any given moment of choice. Neither can we understand all the possible consequence on all the possible others any one single choice might have on others throughout the time line. We are completely ignorant of all those controls and others not stated.
• Despite the above, the classic monergist position (as articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith) is that God ordained all things from eternity without doing violence to the human will AND without doing violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. In other words, even monergists implicitly affirm the existence of the human will the existence of secondary causes, and the existence of contingencies. It does not matter whether you agree; I am simply stating doctrine affirming both volitional agency and controls and limits so that no one mistakenly thinks the term "free will" literally means free. It does not and never has.
• Even Pelagians in their misguided heretical views believe human volition exists and exists in a compromised stated once a person has sinned.
• Not only does God have a will not controlled by others that is able to work and will as He desires, the position He lacks either is both a normative and statistical outlying position NOT representative of orthodox, historical Christianity as a whole.
• Because of sin, Man is in need of salvation from that condition of sin and the commensurate wrath of God but no matter how strongly, how frequently or how enduringly man wills otherwise, he cannot save Himself from sin.
• God, because He has a will, and a will that is free, has freely chosen to save some.

I assume that at least some of that received a hearty "Amen!"

Most of it has nothing to do with this op. This op is about the unchangeableness of God and His will, not humanity's. This op claims God's will is not free. This op states there are only two options, either a man's will is controlled by God, or a man's will is controlled by the man. The op says nothing about the human will controlled by sin. Logically speaking, the op has implicitly argued when a man's will is controlled by God it is a human will controlled by a God who Himself does not have free will and cannot do as He pleases. The last sentence of this op claims every person has a will that is either self-willed or a will in Christ, and in ALL CAPS the op states,

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT GOD HAS A FREE-WILL. NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT MAN HAS A FREE-WILL.

No scripture states The Creator exists external to creation but that is, nonetheless, the undeniable, inescapable, logically necessary conclusion to "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So we find the op contains a lot of flaws, including but not limited to arguments from silence, begged questions, false causes, false equivalence, false dichotomies/neglected middles, straw men and red herring (no one actually believes free will is completely absent any and all control or limits). The dissent has been uniform (no one agrees with any of the three ops), although different respondents have approached it in different ways. The ensuing defense has added to the problem of faulty reasoning by adding ad hominem, loaded questions, shifting onus, and appeals to purity (no true Scotsman). I tell you this for three reasons: 1) if you're going to engage the op expect more of the same, 2) you seem to have some knowledge of logic and I appreciate that, and 3) I share that knowledge and appreciation.

Read all three opening posts. Reading all three threads in their entirety isn't necessary for the sake of this op (even though this op is predicated on the first two and one he did not author). The opening ops speak for themselves.

Don't have a lot of time right now to post, let alone post tomes. First of all the scriptures I posted about God doing all according to the own counsel of his will should tell you that his will is not contingent on anything external to himself. Scripture clearly teaches that He does ALL according to HIS OWN Pleasure.

Secondly, I never included limitations in my definition free moral agency. And the reason is because ALL free moral agents have INTERNAL limitations. The omnipotent God of the entire universe cannot do certain things. He cannot lie! He cannot deny himself! In short, he cannot sin. Or stated differently, He cannot violate any laws of logic of his creation, including the Law of Identity! As stated very early on in our conversation, all free moral agents are limited by their essence (i..e. nature). If you're going to deny that God is a free moral agent, then you must provide proof of that from scripture, and you must also inform us what external forces exert control over God's choices. Enlighten us, please, on how clay pots can exert power over the sovereign free moral agency of the Potter. Or does Satan and his army of demons exert control over God's decisions? Who or what exerts control over the King's decisions? To posit that the Creator is not a free moral agent is to say that his will is contingent on something or someone external to himself. What or who is that external entity?

Also, influence doesn't mean diddly squat. For influences do not force our decisions. The whole human race is literally bombarded 24/7 by "influences" from without from every quarter imaginable: Advertisements, TV, radio, news, internet, blogs, opinion pieces, education, sports, religion, politics, etc, etc., etc. Everyone under the sun is selling something! So, does this irrefutable fact absolve all buyers? Everyone is innocent because how can anyone survive this kind of mass, non-stop carpet bombing?

 

[Kermos]

Determinism is a consistent application of divine sovereignty over everything. It is a denial of any form of dualism (good and evil are separate entities) or deism (the universe is self-sustained). Determinism affirms that God controls everything about everything that is anything, including every aspect of every detail of every human decision and action in such a way that man has no freedom in any meaningful or relevant sense. This position holds that there is no such thing as a "passive" or a "permissive" decree (compatibilism) with God, that it is unbiblical and impossible for a divine decree to be "passive" or "permissive."
Johnathan Edwards argued that since the principle of causality demands that all actions are caused, then it is irrational to claim that things arise without a cause. For Edwards a self-caused action is impossible, since a cause is prior to an effect, and one cannot be prior to himself. Therefore, all actions are ultimately caused by a First Cause (God). "Free choice" is doing what one desires, but God gives the desires or affections that control action. Hence, all human actions ultimately are determined by God. Vincent Chueng

Yeah, but we know from the large variances in doctrine that God does not grant that prayer to most people. 1 Cor. 2:14 says He grants Christians more guidance than non Christians so that's a plus. Maybe I'd be happy with 72.3% correct ... *giggle* ... if God doesn't guide to some degree you end up in hell .... would suck to have that little guidance.

Agreed

Amen

Does "It is a denial of any form of dualism (good and evil are separate entities)" mean that "good is the same thing as evil"?