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.

[mem]

But you haven't really said positively what free will is, only that you, for sake of this particular discussion, believe in it. (Unless you wish to carry over the idea of the "libertarian free will" you mentioned in another thread. Is that the case? I interpret this to mean "the power of contrary choice.")

I think properly speaking we should look at a free will as one that has the ability to do what is right; this is consistent with what we read of the reprobate (they cannot stop sinning), the regenerate (who war against the flesh, which cannot stop sinning, by the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and the eschatological fulfillment of the ages: complete freedom to enjoy our relationship with God unhindered by sin.

Looking at free will as the power of contrary choice loses that eschatological consistency (since we presumably won't be able to sin in heaven) and likewise denies the freedom of God (since he cannot, for example, lie).

The former is consistent with Scripture, and likewise admits that man can do right and good things from a selfish inclination (thereby sinning). It also avoids will worship (since the power of contrary choice forces us to make wrong choices to show that we are not influenced by circumstances). It also illuminates the freeing nature of obedience. There are probably a host of other ramifications I haven't thought through, either.

It is a dreadful deception that simply willing is the Good, as opposed to willing Good Things.

[Aaron Rathburn]

"Do subatomic particles have free will? Freedom, God’s Sovereignty, and Quantum Theory"

This is the title of my latest blog post. I uploaded it to Theologica for discussion, as well:
http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2124612%3ABlogPost...

You may find it interesting to think about.

"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

-ACR

[Crazyupstart]

Would you define "Free will" as: The ability to make choices of our own unaffected by outside influences?

Simply put, no one is borne with a truly free will. All are borne in (Adam's) sin and fall short not only of the glory of God but of having the ability to make an undefiled choice.

John 8:31-38
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

How can our wills be free if we are slaves?
Cheers

[Chris Cousine]

16 times in the NT the word elect is used. According to the dictionary, the word elect is defined as "chosen". What does it mean to be chosen? We who are God's chosen have been hand-picked so to speak. Couple this with John 6:44 (I know, you think this is taken out of context...not sure how). No man can come to me except those that the Father compels to do so. Key words. No man, meaning exactly that, not one. Except, a condition, in this case, the only one mentioned. Compels, an action that has no other option. How is this taken out of context?

Once one accepts that the Lord our God has elected us as His flock, one can't help but notice throughout the Bible that this theme permeates the text. It is only our pride that needs to feel as though we have played a role in our salvation, even if it is to "accept" the gift of salvation.

Love the topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

In Christ.

[Rey Reynoso]

I don't think I as a Free Will Person would see trusting God to save as having anything meritorious in it. I also likely wouldn't define dead the same way you would either. For instance: what does dead in trespasses and sins mean to you?


Fred said:

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?

[Aaron Rathburn]

Rey Reynoso said:

I don't think I, as a Free Will Person, would see trusting God to save as having anything meritorious in it.

Whether you intend to or not, it by default has inherit merit. You getting eternal life is credited to the fact that you chose, of your own free will.

"It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who was mercy."

-ACR

[Rey Reynoso]

Not necessarily. A drowning man saved by a lifeguard when he holds still isn't saving himself: he's letting the lifeguard save him. It just makes no sense to say because a person trusts God to save they are by default saving themselves. It doesn't apply in the physical world I don't see why there's application to the spiritual.

Aaron C. Rathburn said:

Rey Reynoso said:

I don't think I, as a Free Will Person, would see trusting God to save as having anything meritorious in it.

Whether you intend to or not, it by default has inherit merit. You getting eternal life is credited to the fact that you chose, of your own free will.

"It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who was mercy."

-ACR

[Rey Reynoso]

I don't know why election has to be to salvation. Why can't it be election of the group Why can't it be election to a position. Amount of word usage (especially when its so utterly debatable by scholars on both sides of the fence) doesn't necessitate removal of free will.

Would it be wrong to say contextually no-man doesn't always mean no-man when the same argument for Christ drawing all-men to himself is denied as not meaning all men? (John 12:32)

I actually don't think its pride at all that motivates a person to say "Our will is free." It's refusal to allow God to be besmirched by our sinfulness. It's standing on our own moral ground as being Wrong and God being right.

Chris Cousine said:

16 times in the NT the word elect is used. According to the dictionary, the word elect is defined as "chosen". What does it mean to be chosen? We who are God's chosen have been hand-picked so to speak. Couple this with John 6:44 (I know, you think this is taken out of context...not sure how). No man can come to me except those that the Father compels to do so. Key words. No man, meaning exactly that, not one. Except, a condition, in this case, the only one mentioned. Compels, an action that has no other option. How is this taken out of context?

Once one accepts that the Lord our God has elected us as His flock, one can't help but notice throughout the Bible that this theme permeates the text. It is only our pride that needs to feel as though we have played a role in our salvation, even if it is to "accept" the gift of salvation.

Love the topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

In Christ.

[Rey Reynoso]

I read the article but I didn't see (still don't really) the connection between quantum particles and human free will. If you have the article that they came up with that, I'd most appreciate it. Thanks.

As per your verse quote: does it mean that then no one has to have faith in God? Well, no that wouldn't make sense. Even Christian determinists will say that the person has to have faith of their own free choice after being regenerated so the verse can't possibly be referring to trusting God. Rather it must be speaking of something else altogether based on the context of the argument in Romans 9 - 11.

Aaron C. Rathburn said:

"Do subatomic particles have free will? Freedom, God’s Sovereignty, and Quantum Theory"
This is the title of my latest blog post. I uploaded it to Theologica for discussion, as well: http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2124612%3ABlogPost...

You may find it interesting to think about.

"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

-ACR

[Rey Reynoso]

For the purpose of this discussion I'll say freedom is the possibility to choose otherwise in an incompatibalistic manner. In other words, I am denying that there was an unchangeable event that determines whether events now are unchangeable. I just typed two words: there was nothing that forced my typing of those two words unchangeably dictated before the foundation of the world that ensured I'd type that.

I still don't understand what being born sinful means in regards to choosing.

Under your system freedom of will is anyone who can choose without influences: that makes very little sense. With that definition God has no freedom.

As to the defilement of the choice, I don't know what that means to the discussion. If a sinful individual makes a choice, the individual is still sinful--that doesn't mean that the choice is a sin ridden choice. How is the choosing of an apple over an orange sin-ridden?

Now if you were to say that because the person has a sinful predilection towards wanting apples and can't possibly choose oranges, that still makes no sense. Just because the person has a desire to choose apples doesn't mean they have to. They can tie themselves down and not choose the apple. They could destroy the apple.

Here Edwards would come alongside and say we choose according to our greatest desires. (Someone should probably make a real connection in that respect to try to prove Free Will wrong.)

As to your John passage: Christ starts off the discussion and tells them to continue in his word (as believers) and they will be real disciples (unlike the masses of disciples of John 6 who didn't believe). A few scant verses after the one you quoted He says that it is the Son that makes them free from sin. A Slave is still free to choose even in slavery--but his position is still a slave. Christ is telling them follow through with their belief, be trusting disciples, trust what I'm saying and who I am and I guarantee--you will be freed of sin.

Just because your in bondage to sin doesn't make you incapable of choices. It means you're under the wrong master.



Crazyupstart said:

Would you define "Free will" as: The ability to make choices of our own unaffected by outside influences?

Simply put, no one is borne with a truly free will. All are borne in (Adam's) sin and fall short not only of the glory of God but of having the ability to make an undefiled choice.

John 8:31-38
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

How can our wills be free if we are slaves?
Cheers

[Rey Reynoso]

I don't know why we would have to define free will as doing what is right--nor do I really understand how that is proper to go with that option. Even in a compatibalistic model being free doesn't necessarily mean doing what is right--you've committed a crime, you can either carjack someone to get away, or shoot your way out or give up red handed.

Free choices then are those choices where there is a chance of choosing an alternate possibility. When the possible becomes actual, that can not be changed. The fact you've robbed a bank can't be undone even if you chose that option earlier. The choice of car or cop-shooting or giving up then becomes the action. No one is argueing for freedom of doing the impossible.

This sort of freedom is available to God (He can choose otherwise) and its available to people. Freedom to do otherwise doesn't mean that when the choice is made that the outcome can be unmade. Therefore eschatological fulfillment is ensured since the outcome that God freely chose to provide (since He could've chosen otherwise) when it becomes actual is impossible to unchoose. Freedom maintained.

It is a dreadful deception that simply willing is the Good, as opposed to willing Good Things.

How? The main argument from determinists is that there is no freedom of choice. It has nothing to do with choosing good things or bad things. Compatibalists try to marry the two by saying freedom is compatible with determinism. For this argument, I'm denying both. In either case I don't see how its dreadful or a lie to have something good out of the possibility to choose otherwise. We applaud it in God. The fact that He's perfect is what makes His choosing Good things to assist us is what makes us say "Wow, how merciful!" so why is it a dreadful deception?




mem said:

But you haven't really said positively what free will is, only that you, for sake of this particular discussion, believe in it. (Unless you wish to carry over the idea of the "libertarian free will" you mentioned in another thread. Is that the case? I interpret this to mean "the power of contrary choice.")

I think properly speaking we should look at a free will as one that has the ability to do what is right; this is consistent with what we read of the reprobate (they cannot stop sinning), the regenerate (who war against the flesh, which cannot stop sinning, by the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and the eschatological fulfillment of the ages: complete freedom to enjoy our relationship with God unhindered by sin.

Looking at free will as the power of contrary choice loses that eschatological consistency (since we presumably won't be able to sin in heaven) and likewise denies the freedom of God (since he cannot, for example, lie).

The former is consistent with Scripture, and likewise admits that man can do right and good things from a selfish inclination (thereby sinning). It also avoids will worship (since the power of contrary choice forces us to make wrong choices to show that we are not influenced by circumstances). It also illuminates the freeing nature of obedience. There are probably a host of other ramifications I haven't thought through, either.

It is a dreadful deception that simply willing is the Good, as opposed to willing Good Things.

[Rey Reynoso]

The texts also show Pharaoh hardening his heart 6 times before God finally getting involved.

As for Abimelech, my argument doesn't necessitate that freedom of possible choice can't be limited by circumstance. If God ensures a person doesn't sleep with a lady by locking him in a closed room it doesn't mean that the person doesn't have freedom of choice: it just means that their freedom has been overridden in that specific case by not allowing the choice to do otherwise (besides standing or sitting in an enclosed room). The text doesn't mention how Abimelech was kept from sinning. Was it on account of a busy schedule? Was it on account of an argument with one of his many wives? We don't know: but whatever it was was credited to another Free Agent who had the possibility to do otherwise (like he did with Pharaoh 1.0 in Genesis 13).

The fact that God is a choosing agent that can interact with humans doesn't mean that there was no possibility for God to do otherwise. The fact that Abimelech was influenced takes

DAVY D HOBSON said:

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?