I Believe In Free Will

[Rey Reynoso]

For the sake of this discussion, I believe in complete free will. Luther was wrong. Edwards is wrong. They deny reality with philosophical constructs. Romans 9 is misinterpreted. John 6 is taken out of context. Ephesians 2 has nothing to do with it.

What say you?

Feel free to attack.

[Rey Reynoso]

Moderators, don't close this topic. I'm actually more irenic than this topic appears--I merely want a repository where attacks against free will arguments can be happily located.

[Fred]

Rey,

I'm not "attacking" free will. Ever since post-Apostolic times, this term is misunderstood by so many, therefore folks like Augustine/Luther rightfully refused to use it. Rather throwing in my own 2cents I'll try to let the Scruipture speaks for itself:

Rom 8:5-8 "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

[Rey Reynoso]

The passage speaks to me but I doubt it is speaking to you the same way. It's probably better that you explain what you think the passage is saying.

[JL Vaughn]

What do you mean by complete free will? Last winter, I could choose blueberries out of season. Ten years ago I couldn't.

I still can't choose a house with an ocean view, convenient to work. They are and probably always will be out of my price range.

Only God has complete free will. The rest of us are limited by our circumstances. However, that limit is largely over-rated.

Blessings.

[Fred]

Ah, the art of hermeneutics ;-) [what happened to all my emoticons?]

Paul is saying that there are two classes of people: those who have the Spirit and who who do not have him. Those who do not have the Spirit are "in the flesh", and Paul explicitly mentioned their minds. If their minds are "dead", how can they choose to live in the Spirit? How can a mind that is hostile to God and is indeed dead (spiritually speaking) exercise a free choice to convert itself? Paul says, "Indeed it cannot".

This is one of many arguments Luther used to argue against using the term "free will", since the will of a natural man (in the flesh, not in the Spirit, un-converted, etc) is in bondage to Sin. With sin as the master of a sinner, the sinner cannot turn to God by himself.

Jonathan Edwards said it slightly differently. He affirmed the "freedom of choice", but qualifies it by saying that the will simply does what the heart's desire. The will only does what a person wants, and sinners only want to rebel against God. Hence, a sinner does not (and cannot) will himself from sin to God with grace.

Well, of course if Luther and Edwards and John and Paul are wrong, then I'm open to alternative explanations.

[Rey Reynoso]

I speak of Free Will in the natural sense.

Yes there are things that impede our ability to do something (I can't decide to fly because it's not physically possible for me to fly without assistance) and there's some form of causality that necessitates my inability to do that (physics, body mass, gravity, etc.) but these things are merely part of a system which is naturally running without any pre-determinative factors that impede my decisions.

I am free to eat fruit or eat meat as long as those things are available to me I can do that, and but I can always Freely Want or choose in that direction even without it technically being there. You can want a home not in your price range but you can't magically make it appear: it's still an option to you if not an attainable option in this present reality.


JL Vaughn said:

What do you mean by complete free will? Last winter, I could choose blueberries out of season. Ten years ago I couldn't.

I still can't choose a house with an ocean view, convenient to work. They are and probably always will be out of my price range.

Only God has complete free will. The rest of us are limited by our circumstances. However, that limit is largely over-rated.

Blessings.

[Rey Reynoso]

So you're arguing for (1) inability to choose and (2) regeneration to allow ability to choose


Fred said:

Ah, the art of hermeneutics ;-) [what happened to all my emoticons?]

Paul is saying that there are two classes of people: those who have the Spirit and who who do not have him. Those who do not have the Spirit are "in the flesh", and Paul explicitly mentioned their minds. If their minds are "dead", how can they choose to live in the Spirit? How can a mind that is hostile to God and is indeed dead (spiritually speaking) exercise a free choice to convert itself? Paul says, "Indeed it cannot".

This is one of many arguments Luther used to argue against using the term "free will", since the will of a natural man (in the flesh, not in the Spirit, un-converted, etc) is in bondage to Sin. With sin as the master of a sinner, the sinner cannot turn to God by himself.

Jonathan Edwards said it slightly differently. He affirmed the "freedom of choice", but qualifies it by saying that the will simply does what the heart's desire. The will only does what a person wants, and sinners only want to rebel against God. Hence, a sinner does not (and cannot) will himself from sin to God with grace.

Well, of course if Luther and Edwards and John and Paul are wrong, then I'm open to alternative explanations.

[Fred]

So are you saying that a non-believer (or what I once was) is neutral before God? The passage in Rom 8 I quoted explicitly states that there are two kinds of people: those in the flesh and those in the Spirit. Those in the flesh do not, indeed cannot, submit to God.

What you said above made sense to Edwards: that you "freely" do what you are given without be coerected. Nevertheless, the Bible (and Luther and Augustine and Edwards) says that man is dead in their trespass and are children of wrath. Without Christ we are not neutral, we are enemies of God.

[Rey Reynoso]

I'm pretty sure that Romans 1 argues that all are guilty sinners under the wrath of God, Romans 2 argues that even moralists are under the same condemnation, Romans 3 argues for the equality of all sinners before God, Romans 5 argues that because of Adam we are now people judged on a cosmic scale as being sinners, Romans 6 argues for the ability of having sin reign in your life and Romans 7 argues for a constant battle with sin in the flesh.

I don't know that I ever set up the straw man of sinners being neutral before God. I will set up my own straw man soon enough though.

Back to Romans 8 you quoted it speaks of something else altogether. 1 Corinthians 1-4 has a direct connection to this passage in Romans. They spoke of themselves as Spiritual but Paul says, no: you're Fleshy. And you walk down the Fleshy road that's a road that's in enmity with God. When you walk down the Spirit road then you're leaning on the Mind of Christ.

The Fleshy and the Spirity are diametrically opposed spheres of being: either one that a believer can partake in, or so it seems when Paul makes that point in verse 13 and in 1 Corinthians. A person who focuses on the Fleshy (as the Corinthians) are not pleasing God, they can not please God: they're operating in the wrong category.

Unbelievers of course can't please God when they're operating in the Fleshy. They need to switch over to Spirit and that can only be made possible in one way: by trusting God to accomplish that change.

(Rey now sets up a straw man) Unless you're implying that Saving Faith is a pleasing work and thus not possible for the Fleshy. Or worst, unless you're saying Saving Faith is where all its at and we can be made perfect by Fleshyness!

GASP!

Fred said:

So are you saying that a non-believer (or what I once was) is neutral before God? The passage in Rom 8 I quoted explicitly states that there are two kinds of people: those in the flesh and those in the Spirit. Those in the flesh do not, indeed cannot, submit to God.
What you said above made sense to Edwards: that you "freely" do what you are given without be coerected. Nevertheless, the Bible (and Luther and Augustine and Edwards) says that man is dead in their trespass and are children of wrath. Without Christ we are not neutral, we are enemies of God.

[Rey Reynoso]

You know I've been thinking: I'm being pretty cruel in this subject and letting my comments fly.

It's not right and its not becoming of a Christian nor does it respect one who has been convinced in his position likely out of hours of constant study.

I'm sorry about that: the web makes one's fingers fly off the handle.

[Fred]

Hi Rey,

To me it's been a pretty good and fair discussion, and no offense taken and I hope it's the same for you.

You said "Unbelievers of course can't please God when they're operating in the Fleshy. They need to switch over to Spirit and that can only be made possible in one way: by trusting God to accomplish that change."

So we're on the same page in affirming that unbelievers cannot please God, ie they are already condemned (John 3). The question is how they can turn to God if they are dead in their trespass? Can one who is evil and under God's wrath repent in his own strength? If he can, he has some measure of goodness (faith and repentance) in him, right?

[Davy D Hobson]

Exodus 8:32, "Pharaoh hardened his heart", and then Exodus 10:27, "the Lord hardened Paraoh's heart" and then Exodus 7:3, 10:20, and 9:12. Can we say the same Sun that melts the ice, hardens the clay? I am not sure that is an appropriate analogy for this subject of "free will".
And then there is Genesis 20:6 where God told King Abimelech that he had kept him from sinning against him. In the end, is it summed up here in Romans 9:16-17?