DO We Have Free Will?

[Shiloh1-49-10]

What happened with man before the flood does not surprise me at all (and I know very little about man), so would it really “surprise” God? God does not speak without thinking it through.
I would agree that nothing much 'surprises' us as to what man is capable of (being steeped in sin ourselves) but I do wonder whether or not it would have been possible for God even, omnisicient as He is, to have knowledge of that which would have been foreign to His universe before the advent of fallen man (though Lucifer had rebelled) whereby the open wickedness" produced by that fallen nature might have caused God to regret He had made man upon the earth. Not being dogmatic, just thoughtful.

...but that does not mean God would do it differently if God could have another chance.
Agreed. He knows the end from the beginning but that, of course, does not mean He orchestrates all in between as was said before. The zigs and zags in man's history of 'walking with God' (the eventual faithful, not the unregenerate) is a result of man's will and the fact that God created man so as to let him have a say in the way he went. Unfortunately for us, initial sin skewed us all to the left, as I said before, so that now not only has God unilaterally opened the way back (via Christ of course) He also has to draw us away from ourselves to Himself, and that against ourselves (by His Holy Spirit) and this I believe to be the true meaning of Faith...I have to believe God; I have to believe that what He says of me is correct and I have to go against myself, against my own will, to come to Christ; taking sides with God against myself..not my will but Thine be done...is the laying down of my life and accepting His, for me. That's not "Free Will"...I don't really have it...I have to be drawn by an outside power (outside myself)...which is the Spirit of God...to come, against everything in my being because I am by nature...and practice...anti-God. I haven't the ability within me to weigh the good and bad choices, and choose the good...not in and of myself, Another has to work with me. I cannot put it more simply than that.

You said you agreed with that last part of what I stated back in post 280 which stated (see post 280):
An unregenerate man cannot choose to love and thereby please God by fulfilling what you consider to be man's key objective. He has to take his place as a lost sinner, accept the offer of salvation presented by Christ's sacrifice, and then, and only then, can he even attempt to fulfil God's command to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'. In other words love can only be the 'fruit of a new life" in Christ; it cannot be the 'root to achieving that new life', for by nature we are rotten to the core.
Bling, all that Rick Otto writes in response to your jottings on post 280 I wholeheartedly agree with and he puts it more clearly than I could, so I recommend you read what he has to say rather than write more here.

...accepting God’s forgiveness (which means we have to sin first).
You speak of 'sinning' as if we needed to 'plan to sin'. Scripture tells us repeatedly that "All have sinned"...we sin when we are infants (just watch them at play and see how they share things) but those sins are not imputed, and we continue to sin all through our lives every day. They are imputed when we know "our left hand from our right" and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin", which means 'everything' the unregenerate man does is sin, including such mundane things as "plowing"...so the thought of having to go out and sin is ludicrous when measured by scripture. Just knowing this should be enough...do I believe what God has said about me?...to make me want to get rid of the sins I have, not go and do more. "Go and sin no more", Christ said to the woman taken in adultery. He says the same to you and I.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

But do you also see in what you said: “…acknowledging I am a lost sinner and I need my sins washed away in order to come into the presence of a Holy God.” That you have to sin first?
Hopefully, what has been already penned is sufficient to convince you that our natures insure that that last condition is fulfilled many times over...but not to our credit.


I am not a premillennialist so much of what you say does not apply to my thinking.

Then maybe you might need to change your thinking? Maybe good for another thread? I would like to hear why you are not.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

As God, can He not "program" or "create" a being capable of love? Of course He can. He created us & we can love.


Love is a healing, nurturing force and it is always in opposition to forces of destruction. Would it be like God to let His toddler Son run out into traffic simply out of fear of "forcing love" on Him? It is absurd to consider. So it is absurd to consider the force of God's love to be like a shotgun. Rather the shotgun is judgement which we bring upon ourselves, not love.




Right. In fact the person is UNlovable,... damned in fact, & an enemy of God, completely spiritualy depraved because he is in fact, spiritualy dead.

The will is spiritualy dead & has no knowlege or desire of spiritual things until made spiritualy alive. (1Cor2:14)


But the 'body of corruption', - our flesh still has its appetites. So it becomes a struggle to not identify with those appetites.
Imagine the regret & Self-loathing that would ensue, knowing You could've saved them, knowing their will was not spiritualy alive, free of imperfection, mature, & strong.

Like what you have to say here, Rick Otto.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

and then,

When the LORD smelled the sweet odor, he said to himself: "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man's heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done.
​

He learned to accept that this is part of our nature, and he chooses to live with us in spite of that.

For the most part I like what you said, just wanted to raise one thing. My KJ translation puts the end of the above verse like this:
"neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done."

I take that to mean 'destroyed by a flood'...otherwise how would we interpret 2 Peter and the destruction of the world by fire? Sounds to me that the judgment of this whole world is about to be carried out because of sin and the crucifixion of the One sent to remove it.
Acts 17 seems to tell us that the judgment has been rendered...Because He has appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained...and we await only the execution of that judgment. Doesn't sound to me like "he chooses to live with us in spite of that"...or did I read you wrong?

 

[bling]

As God, can He not "program" or "create" a being capable of love? Of course He can. He created us & we can love.

There is a huge difference between Godly type Love (some call it “agape”) and all the other types of love. Yes animals and humans have lots of instinctive types of love, but is that what God’s Love is like?


A robot can be programmed to have a kind of a “love” (like an instinctive love), but would that be Godly type Love?

Can God make a being that has for eternity past had Godly type Love, since the being would have to have been eternal and never made?

If the Love is programmed into the being it is a robotic type of love as compared to a Love that is the result of a free will choice with likely other alternatives.

Love is a healing, nurturing force and it is always in opposition to forces of destruction. Would it be like God to let His toddler Son run out into traffic simply out of fear of "forcing love" on Him? It is absurd to consider. So it is absurd to consider the force of God's love to be like a shotgun. Rather the shotgun is judgement which we bring upon ourselves, not love.

Right. In fact the person is UNlovable,... damned in fact, & an enemy of God, completely spiritualy depraved because he is in fact, spiritualy dead.

The will is spiritualy dead & has no knowlege or desire of spiritual things until made spiritualy alive. (1Cor2:14)

The free will choice we make is one a spiritually dead person can make, the same free will decision the spiritually dead prodigal son made (dead according to Jesus’ definition of dead). It is not the result of some unselfish behavior, but is out of self-preservation.

But the 'body of corruption', - our flesh still has its appetites. So it becomes a struggle to not identify with those appetites.

I am not saying: “We can no longer sin or do not have desires to sin”, but we no longer need to sin (there is no purpose for the Christian to sin).

Imagine the regret & Self-loathing that would ensue, knowing You could've saved them, knowing their will was not spiritualy alive, free of imperfection, mature, & strong.

I do not understand your comment or how it addresses my answer?

 

[bling]

Hopefully, what has been already penned is sufficient to convince you that our natures insure that that last condition is fulfilled many times over...but not to our credit.

We seem to agree that for the mature adult sin is inevitable, but is it not also necessary?

You also say “our natures insure that” so does that mean our nature has to be different then Adam and Eve’s since they also sinned when it was made very easy for them not to sin (having only one way while we have thousands of ways)?

Then maybe you might need to change your thinking? Maybe good for another thread? I would like to hear why you are not.

I have studied revelation several times with the same conclusion, but I am in a study right now with a world renowned expert on revelation Dr. Ian A. Fair using his latest commentary he wrote on just Revelations: “Conquering in Christ”. He has taught both senior level and graduate level courses in Revelations for at least the last 17 years.

This is a paper he wrote on the different Millennium views: http://www.hcumedia.com/uploads/MILLENNIAL_CHARTS.pdf

This is what he wrote on the Rapture:
http://www.hcumedia.com/uploads/The_Rapture.pdf

, but I would get his Commentary

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=bling; There is a huge difference between Godly type Love (some call it “agape”) and all the other types of love. Yes animals and humans have lots of instinctive types of love, but is that what God’s Love is like?

Yes. Not what it is, but what it is like. It is still love.

A robot can be programmed to have a kind of a “love” (like an instinctive love), but would that be Godly type Love?

No, a robot made by humans, cannot be programmed to love, nor can man put instincts into a machine.

Can God make a being that has for eternity past had Godly type Love, since the being would have to have been eternal and never made?

He gives eternal life to His elect.

If the Love is programmed into the being it is a robotic type of love as compared to a Love that is the result of a free will choice with likely other alternatives.

You just have a word hang-up. God made you to love Him. If He didn't, you wouldn't.
No sense in comparing a human invention to a Godly creation.

The free will choice we make is one a spiritually dead person can make, the same free will decision the spiritually dead prodigal son made (dead according to Jesus’ definition of dead). It is not the result of some unselfish behavior, but is out of self-preservation.

The prodigal son was not spiritualy dead. He was misled by his "free" will. His will was not free of the influences on his mind - ambition, pride, etc. Sheep get lost, they don't turn into goats.

 

[bling]

[I would agree that nothing much 'surprises' us as to what man is capable of (being steeped in sin ourselves) but I do wonder whether or not it would have been possible for God even, omnisicient as He is, to have knowledge of that which would have been foreign to His universe before the advent of fallen man (though Lucifer had rebelled) whereby the open wickedness" produced by that fallen nature might have caused God to regret He had made man upon the earth. Not being dogmatic, just thoughtful.

I think you really might be underestimating God’s knowledge and wisdom. I do not see how God could have done anything better than the way He has done it. The more I study it, the better every action of God appears and His timing is perfect. It has always been the best it could be and is today the best it can be. Everything fits the objectives.

Agreed. He knows the end from the beginning but that, of course, does not mean He orchestrates all in between as was said before. The zigs and zags in man's history of 'walking with God' (the eventual faithful, not the unregenerate) is a result of man's will and the fact that God created man so as to let him have a say in the way he went. Unfortunately for us, initial sin skewed us all to the left, as I said before, so that now not only has God unilaterally opened the way back (via Christ of course) He also has to draw us away from ourselves to Himself, and that against ourselves (by His Holy Spirit) and this I believe to be the true meaning of Faith...I have to believe God; I have to believe that what He says of me is correct and I have to go against myself, against my own will, to come to Christ; taking sides with God against myself..not my will but Thine be done...is the laying down of my life and accepting His, for me. That's not "Free Will"...I don't really have it...I have to be drawn by an outside power (outside myself)...which is the Spirit of God...to come, against everything in my being because I am by nature...and practice...anti-God. I haven't the ability within me to weigh the good and bad choices, and choose the good...not in and of myself, Another has to work with me. I cannot put it more simply than that.

If I was reading the Bible for the first time and you where guiding by using scripture to provide the answers: what scripture would you use to show humans lost their free will with Adam and eve’s first sinning? Yes the relationship changes and there was knowledge of evil, but where does it say free will was removed?

Also think about this: If God is removing free will from humans because they sinned, why do they keep on sinning? If humans stopped sinning after Adam and Eve sinned there would be a good case for free will being removed.

Also without man having free will there is no reason for God to not provide everyone with a saving faith. God is the epitome of Love and it would be more “loving” to provide saving faith to two humans then to just one human so God would have to provide it to everyone? Man’s free will eliminates Universalism.

An unregenerate man cannot choose to love and thereby please God by fulfilling what you consider to be man's key objective. He has to take his place as a lost sinner, accept the offer of salvation presented by Christ's sacrifice, and then, and only then, can he even attempt to fulfil God's command to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'. In other words love can only be the 'fruit of a new life" in Christ; it cannot be the 'root to achieving that new life', for by nature we are rotten to the core.
Bling, all that Rick Otto writes in response to your jottings on post 280 I wholeheartedly agree with and he puts it more clearly than I could, so I recommend you read what he has to say rather than write more here.

Yes! Yes! Yes! “An unregenerate man cannot choose to love…” or really do anything of value. That Love is an unconditional undeserved gift from God to the unregenerate man. The unregenerate man is an enemy of God fighting against God and yet some wimp out, surrender to their enemy, gives up, and are not willing to take their deserved punishment like a man. The unregenerate man just has to be willing to accept the gift and not refuse the gift (Charity of God). Even a soldier that surrenders does not join his enemy at the moment of his surrendering and even surrendering does not mean you will not be tortured and killed for all your past war crimes, but He is willing to accept the mercy of his enemy.

You speak of 'sinning' as if we needed to 'plan to sin'. Scripture tells us repeatedly that "All have sinned"...we sin when we are infants (just watch them at play and see how they share things) but those sins are not imputed, and we continue to sin all through our lives every day. They are imputed when we know "our left hand from our right" and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin", which means 'everything' the unregenerate man does is sin, including such mundane things as "plowing"...so the thought of having to go out and sin is ludicrous when measured by scripture. Just knowing this should be enough...do I believe what God has said about me?...to make me want to get rid of the sins I have, not go and do more. "Go and sin no more", Christ said to the woman taken in adultery. He says the same to you and I.

Sin is what the unbeliever does and what the Christian should no longer do.

 

[bling]

Yes. Not what it is, but what it is like. It is still love.

In languages other than English it would not be the same word “love” try German?

No, a robot made by humans, cannot be programmed to love, nor can man put instincts into a machine.

A robot can be programmed to act very much like a pet animal and we sometimes refer to our pets as loving us.

He gives eternal life to His elect.

That is not what I asked: Can God make a being that has for eternity past had Godly type Love, since the being would have to have been eternal and never made?

You just have a word hang-up. God made you to love Him. If He didn't, you wouldn't.
No sense in comparing a human invention to a Godly creation.

You say: “God made you to love Him”, so if I make you to do something and you cannot do anything else am I not forcing you?

Jesus teaches us “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”, so in that sense if I am forgiven of a unbelievable huge debt I would automatically Love with an unbelievable huge Love (a Godly type Love), but that still means being forgiven first. God’s forgiveness is an act of pure charity (mercy/grace/Love), so obtaining this forgiveness is really the allowing of God to Love you (we Love because he first Loved us…) What keeps God’s Love from all people all the time (God or Man)? Does God “force” His Love on man or does man have to (of man’s free will) accept God’s Love?

The prodigal son was not spiritualy dead. He was misled by his "free" will. His will was not free of the influences on his mind - ambition, pride, etc. Sheep get lost, they don't turn into goats.

Jesus could put any words he wanted into the prodigal son’s Father to best represent God, and Jesus chose to describe the prodigal son as “dead” when the Father knew the son had been physically alive Luke 15: 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

There are times and people that are like lost sheep and/or lost coins, but there are also times some people are like the prodigal son (dead) and yet in that dead state, without any help from outsiders (servants sent) their own self-created situation brings them to their senses and they make a free will choice.

 

[Rick Otto]

If I was reading the Bible for the first time and you where guiding by using scripture to provide the answers: what scripture would you use to show humans lost their free will with Adam and eve’s first sinning? Yes the relationship changes and there was knowledge of evil, but where does it say free will was removed?

Well,... I would point out that Adam died the day he sinned, just like God said, but not physicaly like we reflexively think when we hear the words "die" & "death". Then I would ask you if you can think of a part of us that is more "us" than our physical bodies are.

Also think about this: If God is removing free will from humans because they sinned, why do they keep on sinning?

"Lord I believe; help my unbelief." said the father who had just seen Jesus heal his son (from demon posession if I remember correctly - it was just after some totaly sick guy's friends lowered him thru a hole in the roof on a stretcher to get past the crowd. Paul mentioned still being in a "body of corruption" and needing to "subdue the flesh". You see, when we are brought to eternal life (born again), we are immature and vulnerable, and still resident in flesh which has 'a mind of its own' by way of instincts & it is at war with the spirit & will be until we are either resurrected or, if we are alive at that time, perhaps our existing, unresurrected bodies will be "glorified", which I take to mean it will be purified of these lower appetites. Not that we won't be without them, but they will not exceed their functional limits.

If humans stopped sinning after Adam and Eve sinned there would be a good case for free will being removed.

The world would be heavenly by comparison. My boss would actualy pay me what I'm worth & I could live decently & pay my bills without anxiety. I'm guessing, of course. I'm sure the devil wouldn't sit back & just take it.

Also without man having free will there is no reason for God to not provide everyone with a saving faith.

Except that would contradict His plan as He set forth in Romans 9:22-23

God is the epitome of Love and it would be more “loving” to provide saving faith to two humans then to just one human so God would have to provide it to everyone?

Then why did He choose only Israel instead of everyone? & why isn't all of Israel saved? Paul says not all who are of Israel are Israel. If God provided us nothing but comfort, we wouldn't appreciate it because we would know no discomfort.

Man’s free will eliminates Universalism.

Perhaps, but universalism kind of eliminates itself in lack of types & shadows - the annual atonement sacrifice was only for the chosen people, not for all of mankind. A guy here named squint might present some strong disagreement to that, but I have to admit I haven't gone lookin' down that road for stones to turn over, maybe 'cause I let God worry about all those people I don't know.

Add to that the theologicaly dubious teaching of eternal torment & we get brain freeze.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Augusta Vradica;Free will is the ability of agents to make choices.

I rather strongly disagree. The only criteria for making choices is having a will, not in it being free, which even in relative terms it is not, because we are indoctrinated both by nature & nurture.

In philosophy controversy exists as to what degree and under what circumstances free will is possible. Two quotations illustrate the wide range of positions held on the topic of free will:
"Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwords...he will be what he makes of himself...there is no determinism: man is free, man is freedom."
—Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, pp. 29, 32

I read his "No Exit" when I was 15. I think it is wonderful that philosophy is hip to the fact that "free" is a very relative term.

"We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."
—Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. xxi

My brother studied psychology uinder B.F. Skinner, author of "Beyond Freedom & Dignity" whom some consider to be the 'father' of biological determinism.

To pursue the matter, consider the philosophical position of nomological determinism, which holds that future events are determined completely by preceding events. From this position, common sense would suggest that if all events are determined, so are our choices, so free will is logically incompatible with nomological determinism (a view called incompatibilism).

I like that, given that I believe a good God is the determiner. I would rather be the most embarrased person in heaven than the proudest person in hell.

We are then faced with two alternatives: if nomological determinism applies to everything in the universe, then free will does not exist (the position of hard determinism). Alternatively, if nomological determinism does not apply (that is, the universe is indeterministic), then free will might exist (the position of metaphysical libertarianism). The hard incompatibilists hold that even if the universe is indeterministic, free will does not exist.

Well, I certainly have a limited capacity to determine stuff, not being omniscient.

One might note that it is open to discussion whether the assertion of nomological determinism, "that future events are determined completely by preceding events", goes too far in extending its claims to the entire universe. The position of indeterminism is either that only some future events are determined in whole or in part by preceding events, or that at least some limitations upon scope are a matter requiring exploration.

An omniscient being could allow for deviation, but only knowingly & to what extent. God fits the profile for a "First Cause".

Those who hold determinism to be compatible with free will are called compatibilists. Compatibilists thus consider the 'either-or' debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will versus determinism a false dilemma. Some compatibilists hold even that determinism (at least in some arenas) is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, a process that requires some sense of how choices will turn out.

I think omniscience rules out surprises, so God knew every choice that would ever be made in creation even before He created. I think the description "determinate council" is used to describe this in Peter's explanation in Acts 2:27.

Historically, the dominant concern in philosophical considerations of free will has been determinism. However, many others define free will without reference to determinism, and posit (as do compatibilists) that freedom from specific constraints is more relevant, and the focus should be upon what are these constraints, some examples being physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), or mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).

Which is either to admit that the will is not in fact free, but constrained & compulsed, vulnerable to fear & deformity or infirmity.

The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific, implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will place restrictions on the autonomy of consciousness, showing that unconscious neural activities are important to our actions.

Amen. I believe individual responsibility is established by secondary causation. Acts 2:23 asserts that by calling those men wicked.
God creates evil (Isaiha 45:7) but that doesn't make Him the "author" of sin.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thanks, interesting stuff.
You might find the book "The Politics of Experience" interesting, by research psychologist, R.D. Laing

 

[bling]

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices. In philosophy controversy exists as to what degree and under what circumstances free will is possible. Two quotations illustrate the wide range of positions held on the topic of free will:

"Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwords...he will be what he makes of himself...there is no determinism: man is free, man is freedom."

—Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, pp. 29, 32

"We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

—Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. xxi

To pursue the matter, consider the philosophical position of nomological determinism, which holds that future events are determined completely by preceding events. From this position, common sense would suggest that if all events are determined, so are our choices, so free will is logically incompatible with nomological determinism (a view called incompatibilism). We are then faced with two alternatives: if nomological determinism applies to everything in the universe, then free will does not exist (the position of hard determinism). Alternatively, if nomological determinism does not apply (that is, the universe is indeterministic), then free will might exist (the position of metaphysical libertarianism). The hard incompatibilists hold that even if the universe is indeterministic, free will does not exist.

One might note that it is open to discussion whether the assertion of nomological determinism, "that future events are determined completely by preceding events", goes too far in extending its claims to the entire universe. The position of indeterminism is either that only some future events are determined in whole or in part by preceding events, or that at least some limitations upon scope are a matter requiring exploration.

Those who hold determinism to be compatible with free will are called compatibilists. Compatibilists thus consider the 'either-or' debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will versus determinism a false dilemma. Some compatibilists hold even that determinism (at least in some arenas) is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, a process that requires some sense of how choices will turn out.


Historically, the dominant concern in philosophical considerations of free will has been determinism. However, many others define free will without reference to determinism, and posit (as do compatibilists) that freedom from specific constraints is more relevant, and the focus should be upon what are these constraints, some examples being physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), or mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).


The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific, implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will place restrictions on the autonomy of consciousness, showing that unconscious neural activities are important to our actions.

If you leave God out of the picture, there could easily be no free will for man. If there is free will it would have to be the result of God’s involvement with each individual in giving them this almost magical ability to independently chose anything.

We can determine the choices of very simple animals by their genes and environment. So it would seem if you knew enough you could determine the actions of more complex animals by their genes and their environment, so is man have something more than just his genes and his environment? And if so why?

 

[bling]

Well,... I would point out that Adam died the day he sinned, just like God said, but not physicaly like we reflexively think when we hear the words "die" & "death". Then I would ask you if you can think of a part of us that is more "us" than our physical bodies are.

Does death = separation? Does Spiritual death = separation from God?
How is Spiritual death = removal of free will? Where does it say that when you are made spiritually alive you get free will?

"Lord I believe; help my unbelief." said the father who had just seen Jesus heal his son (from demon posession if I remember correctly - it was just after some totaly sick guy's friends lowered him thru a hole in the roof on a stretcher to get past the crowd. Paul mentioned still being in a "body of corruption" and needing to "subdue the flesh". You see, when we are brought to eternal life (born again), we are immature and vulnerable, and still resident in flesh which has 'a mind of its own' by way of instincts & it is at war with the spirit & will be until we are either resurrected or, if we are alive at that time, perhaps our existing, unresurrected bodies will be "glorified", which I take to mean it will be purified of these lower appetites. Not that we won't be without them, but they will not exceed their functional limits.

Mark 9: 24 Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”
This was said before the son was healed.


This is not addressing the question is: If God is removing free will from humans because they sinned, why do they keep on sinning?

Instincts are God’s preprogramming of man, so why are they sinful instincts after the free will is removed?

The world would be heavenly by comparison. My boss would actualy pay me what I'm worth & I could live decently & pay my bills without anxiety. I'm guessing, of course. I'm sure the devil wouldn't sit back & just take it.

The point is Adam and Eve had free will and sinned, so God took away man’s free will, but we still find man sinning, so how can we say the free will was removed?

Except that would contradict His plan as He set forth in Romans 9:22-23

This requires a full understanding and explanation of all of Romans and especially Ro.9-11, but just taking:

Ro. 9: 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, 24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

Paul just got through talking about God (the potter) making vessels with a special purposes (represent the Jewish race) and vessels made for a common purpose (representing the gentiles). From both these groups; some will wind up being destroyed (fitted for destruction by the choices they made) and the others will wind up accepting God’s mercy and thus be glorified (both Jewish and gentile Christians.

Bottom line it does not matter how you were made to begin with (in Ro. That means Jewish made for a special purpose or Gentile made for a common purpose).

No matter how you look at Romans 9 it does not tell us why God chose not give everyone saving faith if they do not have free will. If they have free will then it does not matter in the final analysis if they were made for a special purpose or common purpose their salvation is still up to their free will.

Then why did He choose only Israel instead of everyone? & why isn't all of Israel saved? Paul says not all who are of Israel are Israel. If God provided us nothing but comfort, we wouldn't appreciate it because we would know no discomfort.

Right!! It does not matter if you were born a Jew or a Gentile, since that does not determine your eternal salvation, since your free will choices determine your salvation. BUT if you believe man does not have free will then why is God’s love not great enough to save everyone?

Perhaps, but universalism kind of eliminates itself in lack of types & shadows - the annual atonement sacrifice was only for the chosen people, not for all of mankind. A guy here named squint might present some strong disagreement to that, but I have to admit I haven't gone lookin' down that road for stones to turn over, maybe 'cause I let God worry about all those people I don't know.

You have to remember the only Jewish sins “atoned” for under the Old Testament where unintentional sins which are listed out several times. Intentional sins for the most part had harsh punishments of stoning or being sent out of the Promised Land. If the Jews followed these Laws to the letter, there might not be a Jew around in the first century. The Old Testament is following God’s interaction mainly with individuals and secondly with the nation of Israel, for the obvious reason of following the story of the Messiah. Those that are not part of the story of Christ we know very little about and have the glimpse in the Jonah story of a short time in Nineveh, so what might we learn from that?

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

We seem to agree that for the mature adult sin is inevitable, but is it not also necessary?
"All have sinned" I believe would take in more than just the 'mature adult'. As to its being inevitable, true, because the fruit is a product of the root, and the root is sin. Let me just say, however, that the born again believer has no licence to sin...he has been given a new nature that cannot sin and if we walked daily according to the dictates of the new nature only, we would not sin. Sin comes in when my old nature (which I still have because I am still here in the flesh) becomes active...every day, it seems. And as to its being necessary I should say not. We are looking forward to a day when "sin shall be no more"...and Christ came to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"; thus it would be counter-productive to keep on sinning so that grace might abound.

You also say “our natures insure that” so does that mean our nature has to be different then Adam and Eve’s since they also sinned when it was made very easy for them not to sin (having only one way while we have thousands of ways)?
Our nature is different from theirs only in this respect, I believe: they were created so as to have no predisposition towards good or bad...but we were born with that predisposition (towards the bad) already in place. They chose the forbidden fruit...we didn't, but we produce it naturally. Not our fault? No. And we are not held responsible for it. But we are held responsible to accept the antidote to that which we produce so naturally...sins...it's the Blood.

I have studied revelation several times with the same conclusion, but I am in a study right now with a world renowned expert on revelation Dr. Ian A. Fair using his latest commentary he wrote on just Revelations: “Conquering in Christ”. He has taught both senior level and graduate level courses in Revelations for at least the last 17 years.

This is a paper he wrote on the different Millennium views: http://www.hcumedia.com/uploads/MILLENNIAL_CHARTS.pdf

This is what he wrote on the Rapture:
http://www.hcumedia.com/uploads/The_Rapture.pdf

, but I would get his Commentary

When I have more time I will look up these references and have a read. Thanks.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

If God is removing free will from humans because they sinned, why do they keep on sinning?

My understanding of "free will" does not include the 'removing' of it by God but the 'losing' of it by disobeying God. Adam did that.
In order for me to have true "free" will, to my understanding, I would not only need to know the difference between good and evil, but I myself would have to be neither, for if I am the one or the other, I am already skewed in that direction. That's my point. Only Adam was neither, being in innocence, and he truly had "free" choice. I'm already skewed, so I don't.

But when Adam made the choice sin entered, his nature changed (remember, he knew was was unclothed...fig leaves...and he felt guilty before God...hid among the trees). God didn't 'take it away', he 'lost it'. And he couldn't get it back. As a child of Adam I was born with that defect. I never had a "free" will from the beginning but what did God do?

He gave Adam and all those who fell via him something none of the other creatures had...a conscience. The God-given spirit (that third part the animals don't have) works a wonder. You see, the lion that kills the gazelle doesn't feel bad that it did so, and he will devour its prey in plain sight. Is this what Cane did when he killed Abel? Why did he try to cover up? Because his God-given conscience told him it was wrong.

So even though we have a nature that cannot but sin, and we delight in it, we also have a conscience that makes us want to cover it up. But "His Spirit works with our spirit" (since both are of God) and it is the Spirit's role to expose to us our lost condition and lead us to confess (expose instead of cover); if we do so He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. We still would have a will that would delight in sin but we would also have that new nature that, in its right operation, would delight "to do thy will O God". But the battle would be a continuous one as Galations 5 brings out...the spirit against the flesh.

 

[bling]

My understanding of "free will" does not include the 'removing' of it by God but the 'losing' of it by disobeying God. Adam did that.

Where in scripture does it even suggest such free will was lost? Adam and Eve gained knowledge and lost some things, but free will was not mentioned as being lost. Adam and Eve continued after sinning making decisions which weren’t also bad.

In order for me to have true "free" will, to my understanding, I would not only need to know the difference between good and evil, but I myself would have to be neither, for if I am the one or the other, I am already skewed in that direction. That's my point. Only Adam was neither, being in innocence, and he truly had "free" choice. I'm already skewed, so I don't.

Wait just a minute you say Adam and Eve had free will prior to “know the difference between good and evil” which you now say is a needed for free will?

Free will does not mean you are neutral, that is not the same thing, God has free will and God is not what we might call neutral?

I would not even consider that Adam and Eve were in a neutral situation while in the Garden prior to sinning since they were up against a spiritual satan. Our genes, our environment, our abilities and spiritual beings all influence our thoughts and actions, yet the free will does come into how we react to all these influences (that is our free will actions and what we are held accountable for making).

But when Adam made the choice sin entered, his nature changed (remember, he knew was was unclothed...fig leaves...and he felt guilty before God...hid among the trees). God didn't 'take it away', he 'lost it'. And he couldn't get it back. As a child of Adam I was born with that defect. I never had a "free" will from the beginning but what did God do?

Adam had increased knowledge not decreased free will, there is a huge difference.

He gave Adam and all those who fell via him something none of the other creatures had...a conscience. The God-given spirit (that third part the animals don't have) works a wonder. You see, the lion that kills the gazelle doesn't feel bad that it did so, and he will devour its prey in plain sight. Is this what Cane did when he killed Abel? Why did he try to cover up? Because his God-given conscience told him it was wrong.

Yes, humans were made in God’s image which includes a conscience and a conscience helps us make better decisions the next time, but if we do not have free will why do we need a conscience?

So even though we have a nature that cannot but sin, and we delight in it, we also have a conscience that makes us want to cover it up.

So which is it delight or burden or both? Sin can have its pleasure for a season, but it will cause us problems and burden our conscience unless we allow our hearts to be hardened completely.

But "His Spirit works with our spirit" (since both are of God) and it is the Spirit's role to expose to us our lost condition and lead us to confess (expose instead of cover); if we do so He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. We still would have a will that would delight in sin but we would also have that new nature that, in its right operation, would delight "to do thy will O God". But the battle would be a continuous one as Galations 5 brings out...the spirit against the flesh.

When, does this all happen, is the question? If you say: “God for some unknowable reason goes against His Loving nature to select a few, out of all the same many, to make this happen”, is one alternative, or it could happen when mature adults are brought to their senses by their own created tragedies and of their own free will decide selfishly to surrender to their enemy or go on fighting to the death.

 

[Rick Otto]

It does not matter if you were born a Jew or a Gentile, since that does not determine your eternal salvation, since your free will choices determine your salvation.

It always stuns me a little how people don't seem to realize when they are giving themselves full credit for a salvation God must've only made possible for them to achieve themselves by an act of will.

BUT if you believe man does not have free will then why is God’s love not great enough to save everyone?

This assumes God cannot save everyone instead of dealing with the fact that even tho He could, He chose not to.
It ignores the explicitly stated objective in Rom9:22-23 for why God chose not to save everyone.
What is it about everyone that makes you think God owes them anything?

 

[Rick Otto]

Does death = separation? Does Spiritual death = separation from God?
How is Spiritual death = removal of free will? Where does it say that when you are made spiritually alive you get free will?

I don't assert there ever was free will. "Free" is relative. One needs to SPECIFY "free of WHAT".
We are talking about the specific will to make a spiritual choice & I already told you 1Cor2:14 tells us explicitly that we are unawarw & thus uninterested in anything spiritual until we have a living spirit ourselves.
My point with the Mark 4 reference was to point out we still deal with doubt, even after being saved by grace - saved from spiritual death by being given spiritual life, the only way to have faith (belief).
To those spiritualy born again, (saved)it is the power of God,
Your will is not free to make a spiritual decision because it has no living spirit to direct it,
There is more to a person than will.

No matter how you look at Romans 9 it does not tell us why God chose not give everyone saving faith if they do not have free will.

It tells us why He chose not to save everyone.
That fact alone prohibts freedom of everyone's will. No matter what we will, not all will be saved.

 

[squint]

Does this guy look like he had free will?

Luke 8:
27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
29 (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.


How about Mary M?

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

These types of accounts are written throughout the N.T.

It shows in every case that mankind is not alone in flesh or mind in these cases.

For those who just can not seem to get the picture, that means an entirely different entity that is not the man or the woman is also 'within' the bodies of those people. Those entities also have a mind/will that is their own.

Mankind's will can not be free period in the light of these kinds of facts. It's a ridiculous premise to begin with.

Who made devils? Who gave them access to mankind's mind/body?

Who gave mankind a will that can't read and perceive this simple fact?

I can only shake my head at such ignorant sight.

Are you 'really' sure that you are exempt?

I might suggest not:

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil;

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned,

Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

If you as a believer can't think your way through the above facts I can conclude some matters.

One, you are not thinking clearly.

Two, you are not allowed to be thinking clearly.

Three, God is not letting you think clearly.

Four, there really is nothing you can do about it until God instills truthful reading and thinking into your mind by His Words...

or...

Romans 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.

Everyone reads Romans 9 regarding the two vessels in the lump and every last person the first time they read it always always always thinks that the 'vessel of dishonor' is some other person.

Guess what?

It's not.

The condition is universal to all men. It's Gods choice who hears and who doesn't.

s