Isn't Free Will Arbitrary?

[Rick Otto]

How can people make truly "free" choices based on NOTHING at all without salvation becoming an arbitrary flip of the coin choice?

I know, right? As if God did not decide to have mercy up on whom He will have mercy, like Eph 1:4: says.

 

[Rick Otto]

So basically, the will is not free from reason.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Thanks for asking! Having done a lot of praying, thinking, researching on this question, my conclusion is this: Logically, God in some way has predestined everything that occurs, which doesn't mean he necessarily "likes" every outcome, but it is the outcome God has chosen.

Biblically, there are some really big and important questions. The various passages that indicate God wants to save all men, the passages that say God is upset when humans disobey him, etc. are all very convincing. However, the Book of Romans, especially when Paul speaks about Esau and Jacob, is very convincing on the side of the Calvinist. In short, the Bible seems to present conflicting messages.

Historically, and this is something I have been looking into a lot more recently, the earliest church fathers (prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD) definitely supported an interpretation that would be thought of today as "Arminian." Not every father spoke about these topics; many did not. But when they did, they often spoke definitively against what is thought of today as Calvinism. The belief was that although God was in control of the whole universe in one sense, man absolutely had free will to choose.

This is, of course, until you get to Augustine, who taught basically what John Calvin did later on regarding this subject (not all subjects). Many others at the time and after Augustine echoed those beliefs.

So, to be perfectly honest, I'm a bit torn. I hold to sola scriptura, so the scriptures are my highest authority, but I believe that the scriptures are not entirely clear on this. Generally speaking, in these sorts of situations, I would go to the church fathers, and they seem clearly to reject Calvin's view of predestination (as well as Luther's and Ambrose's and Augustine's). However, logic tells me Calvin's view on this subject is basically right, and I'm not sure how to get around those problems presented above and elsewhere.

There is a contention that Augustine held a Calvinistic approach to predestination.

IMVHO, freewill cannot be the objective of God's great plan of salvation.

The Bible says angels long to look into these things...is freewill a matter of curiosity to angels ?


As far as decision making goes, I concede God is much better at it than I.

Man is too ignorant and evil to be trusted to make an eternal assessment.

 

[bling]

Nowhere do you ever explain why one person WANTS to choose God or WANTS to come to faith. You keep repeating that it's all according to free will. Fine! Let's say it is. You still haven't answered the question. If two people, with absolute free will, hear the Gospel and come from the same household and everything, why is it one chooses faith and the other doesn't? Because one "wants" to and one does not? Ok, why? You still haven't answered the primary question here and neither has anyone else. You can say people, for whatever reason (greed, lust, power, stubbornness) want to stay in sin, but you can't tell me WHY one person values greed, lust, power, etc. over the person who forsakes it all for faith. And that's what the whole issue comes down to. WHY do some do that, even while others do not?

Again, you are making the choice of being (greed, lustful, power hungry, stubborn) verses not wanting these things. That is not the free will choice being made. It is also not choosing to have faith over choosing not to have faith.

The soldier at the moment of his surrendering is not choosing to join his enemy, hate his fighting comrades, or do anything commendable. At the moment of his surrender he can still hate his enemy (God), but he is willing to accept pure charity even from the enemy he hates.

The soldier can do this for all kinds of selfish reasons, like wanting to continue to live, but the difference is in his willingness to accept pure charity. The lowliest mature adult on earth can be humbly willing to accept pure charity, so there is nothing commendable about the person himself, but in doing so he will be showered with unbelievable gifts.

As I have said there is no distinguishable “difference” between the person that accepts and the person that rejects other than what the individual decides of his/her own sovereign free will, which is very small sovereignty ability. It is not random since the person is making a choice.

Prior to (from man’s perspective) the choice being made even God would not know, but since everything happens simultaneously for God, God has known from the beginning.

 

[bling]

Hi bling,


I understand your pov and agree to a point.

We need to be cautious that "free will" does not overshadow mercy and grace.

Free will is not the main thing. This makes salvation man-centered, not God-centered.

We have to ask did Jesus die so that we could exercise free will ?



Jinc asks a question no one has satisfactorily answered up to this point.

The free will choice by man does not take anything away from God.

The free will choice to humbly accept God’s charity, just allows God to not force His Love on the person, since that would not be Loving on God’s part.

 

[bottomofsandal]

The free will choice by man does not take anything away from God.

The free will choice to humbly accept God’s charity, just allows God to not force His Love on the person, since that would not be Loving on God’s part.

You say forced, but this terminology has no point of reference.

What exactly could we compare this to in our own lives ?

Isn't this really a false construct that is meaningless ?


The only reason we love God is God loved us first per 1John 4

God assertively and with persuasion made us fall in love with Him.

We did not randomly wake up one morning and decide to love God.


God draws us with cords of love. God demonstrated His love with force.

If God really wants to have someone, will God not have him or her ?

Don't get caught up in the ones that might appear to be passed over by God.

Focus on God's persuasive powers. God can make us fall in love with Him.


Explain God's enemies suddenly loving God, without any initiation by self.

Acts 9. How and why does Saul suddenly love God ? Freewill...nope !

Freewill is not God's cornerstone in salvation. Man is not even free !

 

[bling]

You say forced, but this terminology has no point of reference.

“Forced” is just imposing God’s will on a person against their will. A person may not want to die, but God has the right to quit providing life to that person, so in that case God is imposing His will over the person’s will. For the most part man can make very few free will choices, but God does not impose His will over man’s acceptance or rejection of His help (charity).

What exactly could we compare this to in our own lives ?

Isn't this really a false construct that is meaningless ?

“Forced” is just imposing God’s will on a person against their will. A person may not want to die, but God has the right to quit providing life to that person, so in that case God is imposing His will over the person’s will. For the most part man can make very few free will choices, but God does not impose His will over man’s acceptance or rejection of His help (charity).

The only reason we love God is God loved us first per 1John 4

The nonbeliever (someone that is refusing God’s charity) has no reason to “Love” God, since he is hell bound. The nonbeliever has to first accept God’s charity (forgiveness/Love/mercy/grace) in order to Love “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…”.

God assertively and with persuasion made us fall in love with Him.

God is doing all He can to help those that are still possibly willing to accept His help to accept His help, but we have to first humbly accept God’s help (Love) to Love God.

We did not randomly wake up one morning and decide to love God.

Very true, but like the prodigal son we can be driven to the point of being brought to our senses by our circumstances and thus choose to accept or reject the Father’s charity.

God draws us with cords of love. God demonstrated His love with force.

If God really wants to have someone, will God not have him or her ?

God wants all of us, but God is not going to “make” us Love Him, since that type of love for Him would be robotic.

Don't get caught up in the ones that might appear to be passed over by God.

Focus on God's persuasive powers. God can make us fall in love with Him.

Explain God's enemies suddenly loving God, without any initiation by self.

Loving God is not man’s first step in the relationship. The person who surrenders is still, very much hating his enemy, but he is just willing to accept the charity of his enemy, and this can be for totally selfish reasons. The Love comes as a pure charitable gift from God.

Acts 9. How and why does Saul suddenly love God ? Freewill...nope !

Saul is a very unique situation. Saul is zealous for the God of Abraham beyond all others, but has not yet been approached with the “Good News” to the point of pausing to hear what is being said.

Few if any have a Damascus Road experience, but few if any are like Saul in knowledge, zeal, wisdom, and stubbornness. Saul is knocked to the ground sees a bright light, is struck blind and hears a voice.

Saul still has the free will choice days later to reason: he experienced heat stroke, was blinded by the sun and all this was just a bad dream. Saul had time while he fasted to think it out, but this change would be huge for him, way beyond what anyone else was called to make. He had to humbly swallow his pride, risk everything, give up his dream, and by faith (without real knowledge) move forward in an uncharted world.

 

[jinc1019]

I will say ... The more I read the early church fathers, the more convincing it is that they held to a form of Arminianism. They certainly didn't believe in TULIP (Calvinism). I've been spending a lot of time reading the sources directly and in-context by the way, not just quotes on websites.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

Very similar to my thinking. Free will sounds great and seems the right way...until you look closer at what it implies. Then, you see that it has to mean that God controls the outcome anyway.

God does control the outcomes through the spiritual rules He set up, as outlined in His Word.

God gave man the ability to choose Him. That was HIS decision. Therefore, man's acceptance or rejection is ultimately within the confines of God's plan, and therefore, God is controlling the outcome according to His Will.

 

[samcarternx]

Free will means an independent will that has no sovereign. How do you explain that the king of this world has taken men captive to sin and whether they like it or not, whether they say they have free will or not, they are subject to sin. Only God's will is free and we must subject ourselves to His sovereignty in order to do it. If we can believe it, by His grace, He in us can do that will.

 

[Holoman]

I'll always remember what the priest first said to me when I started classes to become Catholic. He said none of you are here because you chose to be, you are hear because the Holy Spirit brought you.

I still have trouble getting my head around this issue, man has to have a free choice at some point, otherwise God is merely creating men without any chance of their redemption.

I also accept the arguments that man alone cannot find God by logic or reason, or simply choosing to. God is in all of us, and he draws us towards him, we do not draw ourselves towards him we merely let the Holy Spirit lead the way.

 

[Albion]

God does control the outcomes through the spiritual rules He set up, as outlined in His Word.

God gave man the ability to choose Him. That was HIS decision. Therefore, man's acceptance or rejection is ultimately within the confines of God's plan, and therefore, God is controlling the outcome according to His Will.

Not according to the reasoning you've laid out here. OTOH, it does illustrate the point I was making, which was that it doesn't take agreeing with the contentions of those who believe in Election to see that God rules and decides. The arguments of the Freewillers lead to the same conclusion.

 

[samcarternx]

There is a "way things are" that is independent of men's opinion. God set it up His way and it is for men to find it not to change it. No matter how many men said the world was flat, it was still round. Truth is, the way things are does not give a flip what men think

 

[Rick Otto]

I will say ... The more I read the early church fathers, the more convincing it is that they held to a form of Arminianism. They certainly didn't believe in TULIP (Calvinism). I've been spending a lot of time reading the sources directly and in-context by the way, not just quotes on websites.

Well, it is a mixed bag, as they were not all in uniform agreement on various topics, and some were "in" for awhile, and then "out", of a door that revolved on occasion.
So a majority making the mistake of Arminianism, is not a surprise.

 

[samcarternx]

A love for the truth is a gift from God to those that will come to Him and through the sacrifice Jesus made, all men could be saved. Anyone who ponders his own mortality knows he is doomed to die. God is the only hope, but light came into the world, and they love the darkness more. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

 

[fhansen]

I believe great arguments can be made by both Calvinists and Arminians from the Bible, and having read the earliest church fathers, I agree with Arminians that the early church did tend to focus on free will (although I'm not sure they ever did address WHY a person ultimately makes the free will choice.)

One of the great flaws I see in free will, however, is that it ultimately boils down to an arbitrary choice. If all people can choose, by God's grace, to reject or accept Him in faith, then why does one person have faith while the other does not? If it's because of some positive quality in the one who chose faith, or some circumstance in life, or really anything at all, then couldn't it easily be said that God is in fact ultimately behind the decision? In other words, if there is a reason one person chooses and another doesn't, then isn't that reason also ultimately foreseen and foreknown at the time of creation? If God knew this particular external force would keep people from faith, why did God create a universe with that external force within it?

I just don't see how a person can honestly escape God's sovereignty in all things at the end of the day.

We're called to choose righteousness, to choose good over evil, life over death. Faith is a righteous step for man, a matter of justice IOW. Unless we maintain that God simply cannot make free moral agents, with moral responsibility, then these choices aren't merely blind responses to some external forces or conditions but are, rather, our cooperation with and participation in the justice of God, a participation we can refuse, or, OTOH, that we can even grow stronger and more committed in. As this commitment grows we become more just, our choices responding to and working with grace.

 

[jinc1019]

Not according to the reasoning you've laid out here. OTOH, it does illustrate the point I was making, which was that it doesn't take agreeing with the contentions of those who believe in Election to see that God rules and decides. The arguments of the Freewillers lead to the same conclusion.

This was also my point. Having the ability to choose could even be thought of as a form of hyper-Calvinism, ironically. The reason I say this is because if people really are given the power to choose but the only difference between one person choosing God and another rejecting God is something inherent in the individual (in other words, something about the person who chooses God, DNA etc., makes that person choose God while the other rejects God) then ultimately the only reason people choose the way they do is because God essentially has designed them that way, or at least designed people so that they could be that way depending on how DNA turns out. This is even more problematic that mainstream Calvinism because it would mean God designs people to reject Him. Insisting man has a choice, which is often done as a way to put the responsibility on man, rather than God, logically leads to either accepting the idea all choices are arbitrary or the idea that God is designing people to reject him. Neither is biblical but both are logical based on that line of thinking. I'm not sure how anyone who supports man's power to choose can escape that conclusion.

 

[fhansen]

This was also my point. Having the ability to choose could even be thought of as a form of hyper-Calvinism, ironically. The reason I say this is because if people really are given the power to choose but the only difference between one person choosing God and another rejecting God is something inherent in the individual (in other words, something about the person who chooses God, DNA etc., makes that person choose God while the other rejects God) then ultimately the only reason people choose the way they do is because God essentially has designed them that way, or at least designed people so that they could be that way depending on how DNA turns out. This is even more problematic that mainstream Calvinism because it would mean God designs people to reject Him. Insisting man has a choice, which is often done as a way to put the responsibility on man, rather than God, logically leads to either accepting the idea all choices are arbitrary or the idea that God is designing people to reject him. Neither is biblical but both are logical based on that line of thinking. I'm not sure how anyone who supports man's power to choose can escape that conclusion.

Man's power to choose is the freedom to oppose even Gods will. This opposition was first committed by Adam -by his act of disobedience. If this power is impossible then God must've actually wanted Adam to sin, after telling him not to do so. And man would be nothing more than a moral automaton, not resposible for any of his actions.

 

[samcarternx]

 

[bling]

This was also my point. Having the ability to choose could even be thought of as a form of hyper-Calvinism, ironically. The reason I say this is because if people really are given the power to choose but the only difference between one person choosing God and another rejecting God is something inherent in the individual (in other words, something about the person who chooses God, DNA etc., makes that person choose God while the other rejects God) then ultimately the only reason people choose the way they do is because God essentially has designed them that way, or at least designed people so that they could be that way depending on how DNA turns out. This is even more problematic that mainstream Calvinism because it would mean God designs people to reject Him. Insisting man has a choice, which is often done as a way to put the responsibility on man, rather than God, logically leads to either accepting the idea all choices are arbitrary or the idea that God is designing people to reject him. Neither is biblical but both are logical based on that line of thinking. I'm not sure how anyone who supports man's power to choose can escape that conclusion.

You are assuming an autonomous free will choice, to just accept or reject God’s charity, is the result of some kind of “chemical” difference in the person (or maybe environmental). But if this one ability (one area of real autonomy) in a human is something God bestows on all mature adult individual than it is really something “magically” wonderful and God like and it is not inherent or God controlled. This one choice becomes the true free will choice of the individual. The individual themselves control this one choice. It is made one way or the other by what they decide to do, so it is not arbitrary and it is not determined by outside factors.