Life is "empty" w/o free will?

[GrayAngel]

One of the common arguments for free will is that life without free will is empty. I have a problem with that statement. Not only is this argument used as a substitute for Biblical evidence, but it portrays free will as if it's the central most important thing to them. Suddenly, it's no longer about living for Jesus, but it's about our power to act on our own.

So which is it? Is it Christ who gives our lives meaning, or is it free will? Christ is still the same, with or without the free will to follow Him. Christ is still the one who died for the sins of the world so that we could have life more abundant. So why does it sound like free will is more import to some than Jesus?

 

[NEW SONG]

One of the common arguments for free will is that life without free will is empty. I have a problem with that statement. Not only is this argument used as a substitute for Biblical evidence, but it portrays free will as if it's the central most important thing to them. Suddenly, it's no longer about living for Jesus, but it's about our power to act on our own.

So which is it? Is it Christ who gives our lives meaning, or is it free will? Christ is still the same, with or without the free will to follow Him. Christ is still the one who died for the sins of the world so that we could have life more abundant. So why does it sound like free will is more import to some than Jesus?

Amen... A person can choose many things. He can choose his church, the kind of food he eats, a new pair of shoes. But he cannot choose his color of skin, when and where he was born or his parents and no where in the bible does it say a person can choose his own salvation.

 

[elopez]

One of the common arguments for free will is that life without free will is empty. I have a problem with that statement. Not only is this argument used as a substitute for Biblical evidence, but it portrays free will as if it's the central most important thing to them. Suddenly, it's no longer about living for Jesus, but it's about our power to act on our own.

Free will implies moral responsibility, and life without responsibility is rather empty. That to me doesn't mean the concept of free will is of the utmost importance, but it is relevant.

So which is it? Is it Christ who gives our lives meaning, or is it free will? Christ is still the same, with or without the free will to follow Him. Christ is still the one who died for the sins of the world so that we could have life more abundant. So why does it sound like free will is more import to some than Jesus?

False dilemma. Christ gives our lives meaning but I don't understand how that would preclude free will?

 

[NEW SONG]

Free will implies moral responsibility, and life without responsibility is rather empty. That to me doesn't mean the concept of free will is of the utmost importance, but it is relevant.


False dilemma. Christ gives our lives meaning but I don't understand how that would preclude free will?

To to start with how about showing is freewill when it comes to our salvation in scripture??????

 

[HaveHope]

One of the common arguments for free will is that life without free will is empty. I have a problem with that statement. Not only is this argument used as a substitute for Biblical evidence, but it portrays free will as if it's the central most important thing to them. Suddenly, it's no longer about living for Jesus, but it's about our power to act on our own.

So which is it? Is it Christ who gives our lives meaning, or is it free will? Christ is still the same, with or without the free will to follow Him. Christ is still the one who died for the sins of the world so that we could have life more abundant. So why does it sound like free will is more import to some than Jesus?

Good question. I asked a similar question regarding the common argument that true love requires free will, but I didn't get any response defending that specific position. I think both of these ideas are linked - people believe life without free will is empty at least partly because they believe that for love to be genuine and meaningful it must be a free will choice.

I'd love to see some Biblical evidence for either of these beliefs.

 

[NEW SONG]

Good question. I asked a similar question regarding the common argument that true love requires free will, but I didn't get any response defending that specific position. I think both of these ideas are linked - people believe life without free will is empty at least partly because they believe that for love to be genuine and meaningful it must be a free will choice.

I'd love to see some Biblical evidence for either of these beliefs.

Man has a will. But what is free about it???

But so does God.
The Muslin is Islam>
The pagan in India.
It is God's Will I desire not my own.

 

[GrayAngel]

Free will implies moral responsibility, and life without responsibility is rather empty. That to me doesn't mean the concept of free will is of the utmost importance, but it is relevant.

You assume that moral responsibility is dependent on free will, but it's not. According to scripture, we're created to be the way we are. Evil was created to be evil. But the origin of where that evil came from is irrelevent. God doesn't judge us based on our ability to choose, but He treats us according to our purpose.

The saved are like fine china, which had no part in creating itself, yet it is given the honor and protection appropriate for its function. And then the unsaved are like paper plates: useful for a moment, but tossed away when they're usefulness has passed.

Romans 9:10-21 - Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,


“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

False dilemma. Christ gives our lives meaning but I don't understand how that would preclude free will?

In my experience, people are more protective of their notion of free will than they are in their belief in Jesus. If I even dare bring up predestination, sparks immediately start flying as people are compelled to correct me on the evils of my position. But if somebody brings up Jesus, they're much more tolerant, much more accepting of points of view that are different from their own.

This, I think, is why people refuse to stop believing in free will, even after they see the mountain of Biblical evidence that is against them.

EDIT: I've even seen the claim made that Calvinists are not real Christians, as if our salvation depends on our faith in free will.

 

[cygnusx1]

"life is empty without free will " ?


Until you hit a disaster !

 

[GrayAngel]

"life is empty without free will " ?


Until you hit a disaster !

Could you elaborate, please? I don't know what you mean.

 

[Presentist]

Free will implies moral responsibility, and life without responsibility is rather empty.

What about when you get to Heaven, will you still have "Free Will?"

Will life (for eternity) in Heaven be "rather empty?"

.

 

[elopez]

You assume that moral responsibility is dependent on free will, but it's not.

No actually, I assume free will is intertwined with moral responsibility.

According to scripture, we're created to be the way we are. Evil was created to be evil. But the origin of where that evil came from is irrelevent. God doesn't judge us based on our ability to choose, but He treats us according to our purpose.

Also according to Scripture man is held accountable for what he does, whether it be good or evil. God judges us based on our deeds which is correlated to out choice, though I don't believe free will can be defined so simply as the ability to choose.

In my experience, people are more protective of their notion of free will than they are in their belief in Jesus. If I even dare bring up predestination, sparks immediately start flying as people are compelled to correct me on the evils of my position. But if somebody brings up Jesus, they're much more tolerant, much more accepting of points of view that are different from their own.

I don't have that experience but I do however have experience of people clinging onto the notion of a libertarian free will over the Biblical concept of God, which is really no far different than your experience, so I know where you're coming from.

This, I think, is why people refuse to stop believing in free will, even after they see the mountain of Biblical evidence that is against them.

All I'm saying is free will doesn't have to be defined so fallaciously as to neglect Christ or God. It can be understood in light of God and Christ.

EDIT: I've even seen the claim made that Calvinists are not real Christians, as if our salvation depends on our faith in free will.

Calvinists are Christians, so that's not what I'm claiming, so why don't we deal with that instead?

 

[GrayAngel]

No actually, I assume free will is intertwined with moral responsibility.

Is there a difference? It looks like you just rephrased what I said.

Also according to Scripture man is held accountable for what he does, whether it be good or evil. God judges us based on our deeds which is correlated to out choice, though I don't believe free will can be defined so simply as the ability to choose.

You are right that people are judged for their actions, but where does it say that those actions are performed out of their own free will? According to scripture, our every step is determined by God.

Proverbs 16:9 - In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.

Proverbs 20:24 - A person’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand their own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 - LORD, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps.

I don't have that experience but I do however have experience of people clinging onto the notion of a libertarian free will over the Biblical concept of God, which is really no far different than your experience, so I know where you're coming from.

I gather you are a Compatibilist?

All I'm saying is free will doesn't have to be defined so fallaciously as to neglect Christ or God. It can be understood in light of God and Christ.

How do you define it, then?

Calvinists are Christians, so that's not what I'm claiming, so why don't we deal with that instead?

I'm glad that you don't think that way, but you must acknowledge that this is not an uncommon attitude people have towards Calvinism.

 

[cygnusx1]

Could you elaborate, please? I don't know what you mean.

Free will sounds OK until disaster strikes

Disasters and calamity set to rest we are NOT masters of our own fate . Free will cannot defend us from disaster , it is beyond our control , it is unplanned by us and makes us realise how weak and dependant our lives truly are .

When disaster strikes , given Free will ideology , what possibly can we ask God to do that He could not do before ?

Free will theory results in an indifferent distant God who must shrug his shoulders at our pain and say "don't ASK ME for help it's out of my control , bad things just happen , and may happen again , so good luck "

"free will" theory can bring no comfort when disaster strikes

 

[GrayAngel]

Free will sounds OK until disaster strikes

Disasters and calamity set to rest we are NOT masters of our own fate . Free will cannot defend us from disaster , it is beyond our control , it is unplanned by us and makes us realise how weak and dependant our lives truly are .

When disaster strikes , given Free will ideology , what possibly can we ask God to do that He could not do before ?

Free will theory results in an indifferent distant God who must shrug his shoulders at our pain and say "don't ASK ME for help it's out of my control , bad things just happen , and may happen again , so good luck "

"free will" theory can bring no comfort when disaster strikes

That's a good point.

There are two kinds of disasters: natural and man-made. With man-made disasters, free will means that God has no purpose for letting things happen. He just let's them happen because He doesn't want to interfere with free will. God doesn't protect us, and we're at the mercy of the world until we're dead.

And what about natural disasters? We can't say that all of the world's problems are the fault of men abusing their free will. If God doesn't cause bad things to happen, then how do we explain natural disasters?

With free will, God is either too weak or just unwilling to prevent disaster from coming on us, and there is no purpose for those disasters. But with predestination, God is in control of everything, including disasters, and He allows them to happen for our good.

Also, there is scriptural evidence that says that God causes disasters. I'm having trouble finding it now, but it's one of those problem verses that atheists bring up a lot.

 

[Skala]

Cygnus hit the nail on the head!

Only when one believes God is in control, of both the good and the bad, can one find comfort in Him and an actual reason to turn to him.

We can deal with the bad because "all things work together for the good" of God's people. Romans 8

That God is in control of all things is the reason this promise of Romans 8 can remain true.

 

[elopez]

Is there a difference? It looks like you just rephrased what I said.

It may look that way but do you really think there is no difference between the implications of "dependent" and "intertwined"? I can explain the difference if need be, I just thought it was a little clear is all.

You are right that people are judged for their actions, but where does it say that those actions are performed out of their own free will? According to scripture, our every step is determined by God.

Proverbs 16:9 - In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.

Proverbs 20:24 - A person’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand their own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 - LORD, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps.

The Bible doesn't explicitly state that our actions that are judged are preformed of our own free will but I would say that Scripture certainly implies just that. If sin is not preformed of our will then who's will performs it? Surely not God's... So then who's??

The passages you quoted do not say that all our our actions are determined by God. I believe in predestination, so I see no reason why these verses cannot be correlated to predestination and as such only matters of salvation, not the entirety of one's life.

I gather you are a Compatibilist?

Yes.

How do you define it, then?

The ability to act how we please without any external or internal factors either preventing or forcing us to act. That implies that we know and understand how we are acting and the consequences that come.

I believe the elect have free will once predestined and drawn to God as one is overwhelmed by the Spirit and desires to follow God, and as one desires to follow God he still obtains free will. The reprobate still have free will as there is absolutely no external or internal factor forcing them to sin; they sin because they want and desire to, hence they are morally accountable and thus free.

I'm glad that you don't think that way, but you must acknowledge that this is not an uncommon attitude people have towards Calvinism.

Oh I acknowledge this alright.

 

[granpa]

I've never been able to understand what a person would do with freewill if they had it.

 

[nobdysfool]

I've never been able to understand what a person would do with freewill if they had it.

Post of the day, right here!

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

When SALVATION has not come,nor been received from GOD INFINITELY HIGHER~OUTSIDE AND OTHER THAN yourselves. A person's belief in salvation can only proceed from themselves.


Blessing's...
SC

Isa 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

 

[heymikey80]

No actually, I assume free will is intertwined with moral responsibility.

So let's say a mass murderer is found to have a brain condition that he can't resist, which compels him to murder. He's automatically not blamable for the murder? What if he were a real, intentional murderer of his own free will, who also had such a brain condition that compelled it? How is such an intentional murderer absolved, just because he's also compelled to do so?

Also according to Scripture man is held accountable for what he does, whether it be good or evil. God judges us based on our deeds which is correlated to out choice, though I don't believe free will can be defined so simply as the ability to choose.

The concept of free agency simply means the will being inclined to do something, and having only natural restraints against carrying that action out. In other words, the term "free will" should be carefully distinguished from this concept. Even Calvinists hold to free agency (cf Boettner, "Predestination").

The reason why Calvinists generally reject the use of "free will" as "free agency" is that it's quickly confused with libertarian free will, which tends to conclude that our wills have the freedom to engage in pure, uncorrupted decisions without God.

All I'm saying is free will doesn't have to be defined so fallaciously as to neglect Christ or God. It can be understood in light of God and Christ.

And that's what Calvinistic Compatibilism engages in.