Freewill vs. Determinism

Did you read my response to Ken? I provided him with many references that promote the concept of free-will (Gen. 4:7; Deut. 11:26-28; 30:19; Joshua 24:15, 22; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 3:22; Matt. 11:28; 19:17; 23:37; John 5:40; 7:17; Acts 17:30-31; 26:20; Rom. 2:14-15 (NCV); 6:16-17; Heb. 7:25; James 4:5-8; Rev. 3:20 and many others).

Now if you are looking for a passage that specifically states that man has a free will, well, there are several that allude to man giving to God a FREEWILL offering. Look it up in your concordance. Logically, one must possess free will to give an offering that is a FREEWILL offering.

Now, here's my challenge to you: find my a Scripture that specifically states that man's will is in bondage - and not one that you have to reinterpret in order to read your theology into it.

I am always amazed at how the Calvinist just so easily reads his theology into evey Biblical text, while excluding others of equal importance. First, your Calvinism is not consistent so I am not sure if you are a four pointer, three pointer, or just one of those who make it up as they go along. Anyway, I am not sure how you can draw limited free will from that text.

While I agree that it takes a convicting work of the Holy Spirit to get men to see the truth and see the opportunity that he has to accept or reject salvation, I do NOT agree that it has anything to do with a man's "limited" will. It has more to do with man's desire to live in darkness and his lack of knowledge of the truth. Yet, there are plenty of Scriptures that show that when this truth is revealed to some men and they do come under the conviction of the Spirit (or are drawn by Him), they have still rejected Christ. Man remains in bondage, not because he lacks free will. On the contrary, because he has a free will he can choose to stay in bondage and remain a slave to sin. This is why God is justified in judging men and sending the rebellious to hell.

Let's not forget that Jesus says, And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

[quote=Ruht]In regard to choosing salvation or not, that is true, but the Bible states that the will of the unsaved is controlled by the spirit of sin (Romans 7:18; etc.), and the will of the saved is controlled by the Holy Spirit (Philippians 2:13; etc.)

You really miss the point of Romans 7 when you attempt to take a few verses out of context to promote an erroneous position. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 should be read together. When that is done you will see that Paul was not saying that the unsaved man's will is in bondage or limited. If it were then Paul would not have even had the desire to be delivered from his "body of death" (vers 24). REading further into verse 25 and even more into chapter 8, Paul acknowledges that he cannot overcome sin in his own power, but he needs Christ's power to help him.

God even told Cain the first murderer that he could master sin if he chose to (see Gen. 4:7). He chose not to. Nonetheless, God's statement to Cain proves that his will was not limited. Cain acted FREELY.

Then tell me, why do Christians who the Bible says were made "slaves to righteousness" (see Romans 6) still sin?

That ain't what my Bible teaches. John 14 does teach that the Holy Spirit will abide with you forever but when we go to the 15th chapter we find Jesus giving some conditions. Furthermore, we also find plenty of Scriptures throughout the NT that states the very opposite of what you are saying here.

Typical Calvinist response. If the Calvinist system is that complicated then it is far removed from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3)

I suppose you really mean this by saying that the so called "Doctrines of Grace" presents God's perspective. I seriously doubt it but I doubt that I could convince you otherwise.

He has done that and more already. One ways is by opening my eyes to what I believe is an erroneous theological system - Calvinism.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

None of your references truly support your position; sorry.

"Freewill" and "free will" are not the same thing. Notice the separation of the two syllables. Look them up in the dictionary.

Logically, no, not a total free will. "Freewill" and "free will" are not the same word.

Romans 7:18.
Philippians 2:13.

(KJV)

ALL scripture has to be interpreted properly, but at least these two scriptures specifically mention the "will," and demonstrate that it is not free, either in the unsaved or the saved.

"Man is held responsible for his own actions because God has granted man a limited free will in which to chose salvation or not. But even now this limited will is in bondage to the spirit of sin and can only be freed by the Holy Spirit:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..." - John 6:44"

I didn't, I have drawn it from spiritual discernment through the Holy Spirit while reviewing many scriptures.

Man's will is in control by the spirit of sin until he is saved (Romans 7:18), therefore man can't even come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws him to Christ (John 6:44).

I'm sorry that you do not understand this. What part of "no man can come unto me, except the Father... draw him" don't you understand.

Yes, being drawn to Christ and accepting Christ are two different things; although the latter needs the former in order to occur.

You are presenting two different things. Man is in bondage to sin by the spirit of sin which lives in him until he is saved. However, man can be freed of this bondage by getting saved. While he is in this bondage, however, the spirit of sin is stronger than his own will (Romans 7:18).

Yes, and it is the Holy Spirit which lifts him up. Christ is God, Christ is the Holy Spirit, and all three are one.

"In regard to choosing salvation or not, that is true, but the Bible states that the will of the unsaved is controlled by the spirit of sin (Romans 7:18; etc.), and the will of the saved is controlled by the Holy Spirit (Philippians 2:13; etc.)"

I have read them together.

Paul was referring to himself when he was an unsaved Jew living under the law, not to his present, saved state, in verses 7-25 of Romans chapter 7.

God is referring to the faith of Cain in that passage, not about any alleged "free will" of Cain. Cain's offering had been rejected because he had offered the Lord his works, rather than his faith in Christ.

"In regard to salvation, yes. But once the choice is made, one is still a slave to one or the other, and no slave is free."

They don't. (I John 3:9; etc.)

"No, we can't. The Holy Spirit remains in the saved forever. A person cannot be unsaved."

Then perhaps you should get a different Bible, one from the Lord.

I stand behind what I have stated. If you are using the Holy Bible, then you are simply misinterpreting scripture.

"Well you simply do not understand the "doctrine of grace," then."

Grace is the hidden wisdom of God (I Corinthians 2:7), it can only be properly understood through the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 2:14).

"Well, actually it all depends on God's perspective, as he is the author of scripture and only he can properly interpret it unto another (I Corinthians 2:6-16)"

Grace is indeed the doctrine interpreted by the Holy Spirit:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are FREELY given to us of God." - I Corinthians 2:12

The Holy Spirit interprets within scripture that salvation is entirely FREE; the spirit of the world interprets the opposite in scripture.

God bless.

Consider this: Free-will and pre-determinism or pre-destination go hand in hand. Our Father, in all His wisdom and foreknowledge, can look down the "corridors of eternity" and know which of us will choose to accept His gift of salvation and which of us will stubbornly refuse it. He therefore calls those of His creation whom He foreknows will respond to his offer. Although He knows our choices and decisions even before we do, the decision is still ours to make. This makes our acceptance of His love and our responsive love for Him so much more sweet!!!

Hey. Good post. I'll respond with the **************'s below:
>
> Compatibilism is the idea that God has absolute control over every
> event that happens (as an author controls his story), including the
> actions and choices of man, and yet man can still be held
responsible
> for his actions. In other words, human beings are responsible
> creatures (who can choose, decide, obey, rebel, and so on) but our
> responsibility does not limit God's ability to have absolute
control.


**********************************In other words, there can be a
square circle. There are objects with four sides that have no sides
and objects that have no sides with four sides. See Kierkegaard for
a defense of this view.


> We cannot resist God's decree and plans.

****************************But we are responsible for what God has
decreed and planned...even though we cannot resist.



What follows is a simple
> description of compatibilism:
>
> God can have absolute control over men's actions and men can
still
> be held responsible for their actions. These two claims are not
> logically contradictory, even if they seem so at first glance.


**************************A circle can be a square and this is not
logically contradictory even if this seems so at first glance.

>
> A moment of reflection will reveal this principle at work in the
death
> of Christ. Everything that happened, including Judas's betrayal and
> Pilate's apathy, which led up to Calvary was not only in God's
plan,
> but was ordained by God to happen the way it did. . . If a
> man performs an evil act or falls away, God "made" him do it
because
> God controls everything. The compatibilist will not explain why the
> man may be held responsible and punished. He simply asserts, along
> with the Bible, that the man can be held responsible.

************************In other words, the compatibilist will agree
with the Bible that God makes it so and I'm responsible because the
Bible says so. It's not a logical contradiction and the
compatibilist will not attempt to explain why it is not a logical
contradiction. The compatibilist "SIMPLY ASSERTS" that it is the
case. So, the compatibilist will not explain how there can be a
square circle....s/he will SIMPLY ASSERT it. Wow. There's some tight
reasoning there. Can't really argue against someone who says that
they will "simply assert" it. By the way, I have six pack abs. I
will not try to argue or justify that I have six pack abs. I
will "simply assert" it. But, damn, when I lift my shirt my "simple
assertions" seem to have no power there. Try this: ON your next math
exam. Just write this:

X=3. I will not try to defend this position. I will simply assert
it.

How many points will you get for that one? :-)



For more
> discussion, see the FAQ about predestination and human
responsibility.


***********************I'll bet that they have LOTS OF FAQ. I'm
sure "huh" and "What the....?" are two of those FAQ.


>
> Modern compatibilists also present the following philosophical
> arguments which show that we do not have enough understanding to
deny
> compatibilism. The following approach was taken from a discussion
by
> D. A. Carson.
>
> First, we cannot understand how an eternal God operates within
time.
> We do not understand timelessness or eternity. Does God know
sequence?
> If God makes a promise, then later adds a condition, how does that
> affect his faithfulness?


****************************Wow. I don't know any modern
philosophers that offer this argument because there is no argument
present. Rather, it's a series of questions. If I sum these up what
I get is "I don't know." Okay, that's not really an argument but if
we take it seriously, it doesn't win them any points.


>
> Second, if free will involves the ability to choose something other
> than what you chose, compatibilism disintegrates, because God can
not
> have control. But if free will depends on choosing what you want,
then
> Jonathan Edwards's argument preserves compatibilism.

****************??????????????????? What argument???????????????
>
> Third, we have no concept of how God can be both sovereign and
> personal – yet the Bible asserts both.


********************************Okay. The bible also contains
talking snakes, a solid-dome firmament in which the stars are
embedded that circle the Earth, people living to be 700 years old, a
woman giving birth in her 90s, demon possession of pigs, a woman
being turned into a pillar of salt, etc. And, the point is..........





D.A. Carson explains:
>
> We talk with one another, ask questions, hear answers, respond
> with love or wrath, cherish friendships, and so forth – and all of
> these elements demand the passage of time and presuppose finite
> actors. Similarly, in Scripture God can be portrayed asking
questions,
> hearing answers . . . yet other texts insist he is also sovereign,
the
> one "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his
> will" (Eph. 1:13). . . . In short, the mystery of compatibilism is
> traceable . . . to what we do not know about God.



*************************In other words, Mr. Carson
actually "explains" nothing......but his mouth is moving and words
are coming out.

>
> But because the compatibilist cannot explain why men are held
> responsible for something they are "forced" to do, their opponents
> often chide them, claiming that they must "cry mystery" when they
are
> cornered.


*****************************What is beyond the human mind except
for that which we don't know or that which we can't know. If the
compatibilist can't know how it makes sense to claim there is a
square circle, then I'd be a fool to believe him. If he doesn't
know, I'd be an idiot to believe him. Also, notice the shifting of
responsibility. This article claims that it is the responsbility of
the determinist/freewillist to explain why God CANNOT know and
compel everything but still legitimately hold us accountable. It's
probably because it is logically contradictory that I would have
free will while being compelled with no other choices. But, they
say, prove it is wrong without pointing out the contradiction. The
contradiction-thingy doesn't work because we "simply assert" that it
doesn't. I would think that the compatibilist who claims that I can
be free in the absence of any ability to choose would have the
burden of showing how this is possible. Right?



However, the appeal to mystery is made by many facets of
> Christian belief!

*************************Okay. He's right on this one.


> And so, we must be careful in our thoughts to reconcile God's
> sovereignty with our responsibility.


*************************MY GAWD! Is he really believing that he has
been careful in his thoughts by simply asserting. How is it possible
that his simple assertions could ever overcome my simple assertions?
I'm picturing Who Knows TV:

I simply assert X.
Well, I simply assert NOT X.
Well, you need to be more careful with your thoughts, like me.
You were not careful with your thoughts...we are both simply
asserting. How can one simply assert with a greater degree of
caution?
Well I am.
No you aren't.
Yes I am.
No you aren't.
You nutball.
You nutball.




We can't leave some of the Bible
> texts behind!

*******************Okay.


The strength of compatibilism is that it asserts, along
> with many Biblical passages, that God has absolute control but it
also
> acknowledges that men are held responsible, in accordance with the
> Bible. It does not deny one Biblical concept in order to preserve
the
> other.

***********************Whoo hoo. The strenght of compatibilism is
that it supports the Bible And, notice, he is using the bible to
support compatibilism which supports the bible which supports
compatibilism which supports the bible which supports
compatibilism....and I told you all along that this had everything
to do with circles.

Read the contect of that verse agian, expeccaily what comes before it.

__________________

all this that i have
is all that you are
cutting for love
a new trophy scar
just not worth the tears
and the penance
not worth the blood
that we both pour
i want to live
without the guilt we give
i want to die without this pain
i want to live
without the guilt we give
i want to die
without your name
without this pain

Your OT ones don't even refer to salvation.

Mathewh 11:28 Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

But it's a question of who will come to Christ ans how.

Who will come to Christ?

The ones whom the father have given Him the elect.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

And how can they come?

Not on their own, but because of God's drawing.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


I don't exactly see you point on 19:17....

As for 23:37 listen to this:

http://www.prbc.org/Sermons/jwSS081901.ram


John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

No contradiction here.


John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.

Agan it's a matter of who will come to Christ and how.


I dont see your point on Acts 17:30-31...




Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

In the same book we see that those who came to Christ were ordained to that belief.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.


Nor do I see your point on Romans 2:14-15....


The context about 6:16-17 does not refer to salvation.



Hbr 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.


Again it's a matter of who eill come to Christ and how.



Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Don't even mention that this was written specifically to a Christian church.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

(emph. mine)

1Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.


You try to put theat in the same context of John 6:35-45 and it doesn't work. Look at the context of John 12.....

What does this have to do with free will vs. determination?

__________________

all this that i have
is all that you are
cutting for love
a new trophy scar
just not worth the tears
and the penance
not worth the blood
that we both pour
i want to live
without the guilt we give
i want to die without this pain
i want to live
without the guilt we give
i want to die
without your name
without this pain

I just realized how old this thread is.

__________________

all this that i have
is all that you are
cutting for love
a new trophy scar
just not worth the tears
and the penance
not worth the blood
that we both pour
i want to live
without the guilt we give
i want to die without this pain
i want to live
without the guilt we give
i want to die
without your name
without this pain

I'm not a "calvinist," but if we have free will why don't people simply choose to stop sinning?

For all who are Christians, why do we continue to sin if our will's are free?

1 John 5
18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Hebrews 10
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

It is free will that allows us to sin. Otherwise you have to conclude that God created you because he wanted you to sin.

This topic is interesting and hotly debated through the centuries. There is an inherent tension between omniscience, omnipotence and free will. If God created the universe, and could have created it any way he wanted, but also knew exactly what was going to happen, there is no true free will. We are all just acting out the part dictated to us from the dawn of time. Under this construct even God has no free will since he knows from the dawn of time exactly what he will do. But if God actually created a creature "in his own image" capable of surprising even God (surely God could do that if he wanted to), the creation would have that much more value -- even to God. If God and man both have free will to change the future, the interplay of the Bible makes more sense: God creates the world calls it "good" and "very good;" the first humans choose to disobey him; the first born man commits murder; a few chapters later God "regrets" his creation as he contemplates its complete destruction; God promises not to do that again; God tries a covenant with man; and eventually decides to send his only son who becomes a sacrifice for the sins of man. There is no topic that goes more to the heart of our relationship with God. To me, God's creation is that much more wonderful and beautiful if we actually have an active part in the future.