DO We Have Free Will?

[bling]

[
Bling, you believe God made the universe and everything in it and yet say that God could not make a 'perfect' man. Don't get fooled by your grammar teacher who taught you that good, very good, and perfect were ascending degrees of profficiency. When God declared something 'Good' or 'Very Good' it doesn't mean that they came short of perfection. What attribute did Adam possess that relegated him as less then perfect having come fresh from the hand of God Himself? I'd like to know.

It is not because of God’s use of grammar that Adam is not perfect. Christ was and is perfect, but Christ was not made.

The only attribute Adam and Eve lacked at their making was the attribute that would make them like God himself since God is Love, but not man’s type of love, Godly type Love.

God is Love, but how do we define this Love and measure this Love?

This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?

Can we measure the “love” one being has for another being by the amount the first being is willing to unselfishly sacrifice for the other being?


Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measure of pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all but is totally for the sake of others)?

So if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would he be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gift He could give to man?

The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?

Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)
Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement?

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill this Mission?

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.

I would not say God is "innocent" in the sense of "not knowing"...in the way a little child is innocent. But Adam and Eve, I believe, were innocent in just that way. There was nothing "in them" that predetermined their choosing the one or the other...but the moment they disobeyed they not only had more 'knowledge', but something changed within them...innocence was gone, sin had entered, and that which they did following that event was tainted by thier 'spoiled' nature. It's for this very reason that Paul tells us that the moment we believe we become a "new creation", with a "new nature", a spiritual nature, Christ's nature because, until we do, we are clothed with Adam's nature. If nothing changed with Adam's (and our) fall, there would be no need for a new, changed nature. That's why Christ is called "the Last Adam".

This is an assumptions on your part “There was nothing "in them" that predetermined their choosing the one or the other”. The problem is the choice is not just made one time, but would have to be made for an eternity of time over and over, and with just one bad choice they fail. They had: free will, satan is around, the tree is not protected, the tree has good looking fruit, the tree had the desirable quality of additional knowledge, lots of free time on their hands (nothing they had to do) and the tree is centrally located. They were also told “not to do something” which can generate desire to try it. Did Adam and Eve have a little “pride”: they have done nothing wrong, they were superior to all the other animals, they were given a lot of wonderful privileges, they were the first humans, they spoke with the creator of everything, and God was their Father. (Does pride come before a fall?) The big think is; they were not (could not be) created with Godly type Love and to obey you must first have this Love, but to obtain this Love Adam and Eve would have to first accept God’s Love as a free gift of charity which takes humility and at the time not doing anything wrong there was no need to be humble (they were deserving of what they got from their creator that did have a responsibility to them.

This is also an assumption: “If nothing changed with Adam's (and our) fall, there would be no need for a new, changed nature.” Adam and Eve at creation did not have Godly type Love so they could not obey. Adam and Eve like all of us had/have an objective that Adam and Eve did not fulfill while in the Garden situation (this objective is why we were all created in the first place).

"We will create man in our image"...a flawed one??? They were like Christ in the sense that God, the Triune God, made man in His image. Your problem is that you believe that man in the garden was only a "first installment" towards a greater and more blessed happening; therefore man who was put there was flawed, necessarily so, so that his 'sin' could open the amazing grace of God in bringing him to a fuller apprehension of Himself, or something like that. With a belief like that you would have to think that the relationship between Adam and God, Abraham and God, Moses and God, and so on down to our time, would fall short of "our relationship" for none of them "knew Christ". That isn't so! What God did was Yea and Amen. God created man, prepared the earth for him, gave him dominion over it, and communed with him in it. That was God's plan. The fact that a subtle enemy came in and spoiled all that, doesn't mean it wasn't the original plan. Adam and Eve and all who came from them would have enjoyed God 'everlastingly' had sin not come in and spoiled that. But God is Greater...He will not be defeated and so He moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. And His omnisicience does not negate the foregoing. Just because God knew in advance that "plan A" would fail does not necessarily mean He would thus go automatically to "Plan B"...or that Plan A was programmed to fail because Plan B existed...the first plan was necessary for a variety of reasons, man's "responsibility" not being the least of them.

The “image of God” is the same image we are all made in even today, so are we flawed? We have what it takes to become like God Himself in that we can obtain and have Godly type Love.

You say: “That was God's plan.” But it does not take a genius to realize under the Adam and Eve scenario Adam and Eve would eventually sin, so God not think this through? Do you think God did not know about satan and where satan was?

Tell me would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God (the Garden) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God is dependent on your accepting God’s charity (where everyone after the Garden was or is)?

Your plan “A” did not work nor would it work, but it did help Adam and Eve and all the rest of us to understand a great deal about a lot of stuff especially why this tragic world situation is the best to help us fulfill our earthly objective.

 

[elman]

I believe that God is capable of changing man's nature, from one dead to sin to one alive to Christ, and one of the passages we aids me in this belief is taken from the one book of the bible which I know you believe to be true:

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

So, my original question again: Do you believe that God can intervene and make a real, tangible difference to man's will (which I know you believe is OK in the first place) and cause him to walk in His statutes and obey His rules? A simple yes or no will do.

Yes, but I do not believe God will lie nor does God have to lie to do that.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Yes, but I do not believe God will lie nor does God have to lie to do that.

OK, lets put lying to one side.

You've just agreed that God can change, heal or exchange a man's heart of stone (you choose) and cause him to walk in Godly ways in obedience.

Does it say that any man asked for this to happen in Ezekiel? Or does it read like an autonomous decision of God's?

 

[Rick Otto]

Free will is a euphemism for self will. We do God's will, or we do our own.

 

[gmm4j]

OK, lets put lying to one side.

You've just agreed that God can change, heal or exchange a man's heart of stone (you choose) and cause him to walk in Godly ways in obedience.

Does it say that any man asked for this to happen in Ezekiel? Or does it read like an autonomous decision of God's?

Galatians 3:2
I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law,or by believing what you heard?…

 

[crimsonleaf]

Galatians 3:2
I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law,or by believing what you heard?…

Two things: Firstly, I specifically want an answer from Elman; secondly, my question is linked to the text I've quoted. If you think that your text contradicts my text then explain why, then tell me which of the two is in error and should be removed from the bible.

 

[JackSparrow]

Two things: Firstly, I specifically want an answer from Elman; secondly, my question is linked to the text I've quoted. If you think that your text contradicts my text then explain why, then tell me which of the two is in error and should be removed from the bible.

Crimson you exasperate me ( and I am sure others ).

Galatians 3:2 -
I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law,or by believing what you heard?…

If I understand you ( please correct me ) you are saying Gmm4j is claiming one of the two hi lights is wrong. When has anyone said anything should be removed ? Never. Baffled.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Crimson you exasperate me ( and I am sure others ).

Galatians 3:2 -
I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law,or by believing what you heard?…

If I understand you ( please correct me ) you are saying Gmm4j is claiming one of the two hi lights is wrong. When has anyone said anything should be removed ? Never. Baffled.

Well, it's the sort of thing that happens when one poster makes a post in response to another poster and a third poster provides a biblical quote with no explanation. I don't object to anyone stepping in on the conversation, because it's a forum and that's how they work - but I'm tired of people who pit scripture against scripture without even a comment.

I'm arguing that God makes active moves to change a man's heart, in turn CAUSING him to walk in God's ways. That's the Monergist position.

Our friend gmm4j has posted a verse which at first glance suggests synergism. I presume he has posted it as a riposte to my quote and is therefore posing the question of which is right, or perhaps thinks that his is right and mine is wrong - I dunno. But if the verses genuinely contradict each other then one of them is wrong. My own view is that they're both right, but to be honest, if we're just going to throw verses at each other I'll go and do something more constructive.

I'm sorry you're baffled. You should try to keep up.

 

[elman]

OK, lets put lying to one side.

You've just agreed that God can change, heal or exchange a man's heart of stone (you choose) and cause him to walk in Godly ways in obedience.

Does it say that any man asked for this to happen in Ezekiel? Or does it read like an autonomous decision of God's?

I agreed that if a man will turn from wickedness to righteousness, God will recreate Him spiritually alive and encourage and assist Him in His loving walk. I do not agree God causes us to repent. I see zero autonomous action by God in Ezekiel 18 where we die spiritually because of our own sin or we live spiritually because we have repented and God has restored us.

 

[elman]

Free will is a euphemism for self will. We do God's will, or we do our own.

Not correct. God has given us the ability to chose to obey the command to love and when we elect to do that we are acting according to God's will and exercising our own free will at the same time.

 

[squint]

Not correct. God has given us the ability to chose to obey the command to love and when we elect to do that we are acting according to God's will and exercising our own free will at the same time.

If Paul's freewill saved him how did he wind up in this position after salvation?

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I agreed that if a man will turn from wickedness to righteousness, God will recreate Him spiritually alive and encourage and assist Him in His loving walk. I do not agree God causes us to repent. I see zero autonomous action by God in Ezekiel 18 where we die spiritually because of our own sin or we live spiritually because we have repented and God has restored us.

Woah... Don't go running back to Ezek 18.

Ezekiel 36 is all about how wicked the Jews were and how God changed things DESPITE them, not because of them. You know it and I know it. There's nothing about "I'll do this if...." it's completely unilateral on God's part. HE DID NOT DO IT BECAUSE THEY REPENTED. What's more He did it for His own sake:

(Eze 36:22) "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.

Elman, does this honestly look like God granting a repentant Israel His good grace. Or is it that God's had enough and is going to change them for His name's sake.

Be honest, and stay away from chapter 18 until you've dealt with this one.

 

[elman]

If Paul's freewill saved him how did he wind up in this position after salvation?

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Did God knock you down and blind you and talk to you? That never happened to me.

 

[elman]

Woah... Don't go running back to Ezek 18.

Ezekiel 36 is all about how wicked the Jews were and how God changed things DESPITE them, not because of them. You know it and I know it. There's nothing about "I'll do this if...." it's completely unilateral on God's part. HE DID NOT DO IT BECAUSE THEY REPENTED. What's more He did it for His own sake:

(Eze 36:22) "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.

Elman, does this honestly look like God granting a repentant Israel His good grace. Or is it that God's had enough and is going to change them for His name's sake.

Be honest, and stay away from chapter 18 until you've dealt with this one.

Chapter 18 is about individuals turning to righteousness and if they do they will live and not die. Nations do not live and not die. I am not interested in Eze 36:22. If you are, fine, but it does not change Ezekiel 18 from saying the individual that sins, he shall die. There is no way of interpreting Ezekiel 18 to say that the individual has nothing to do with turning from righteousness to wickedness. God does not make us be wicked. If He did, He would be wicked. God is good, therefore God does not make us wicked.

 

[squint]

Did God knock you down and blind you and talk to you? That never happened to me.

I don't adhere to freewill. Obviously Paul had an advantage over nearly everyone who has ever been saved.

Yet look where he landed!

s

 

[elman]

If Paul's freewill saved him how did he wind up in this position after salvation?

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

I did not say our free will saves us so your question is moot. Our freewill can result in our not receiving eternal life since we use our free will to be wicked and the wicked do not receive eternal life.

 

[elman]

I don't adhere to freewill. Obviously Paul had an advantage over nearly everyone who has ever been saved.

Yet look where he landed!

s

I do adhere to free will as in God giving us the ability to obey the command of Jesus to love our neighbor. What is your point about Paul?

 

[squint]

I do adhere to free will as in God giving us the ability to obey the command of Jesus to love our neighbor. What is your point about Paul?

IF Paul had freewill and ended up the chief of sinners what good did it do him?

Obviously his supposed freewill choices landed him as the chief sinner post salvation.

s

 

[squint]

I did not say our free will saves us so your question is moot. Our freewill can result in our not receiving eternal life since we use our free will to be wicked and the wicked do not receive eternal life.

If Paul was as he stated "sinners of whom I am chief" post salvation that would have placed him at the very bottom of the do gooder list.

 

[elman]

IF Paul had freewill and ended up the chief of sinners what good did it do him?

Obviously his supposed freewill choices landed him as the chief sinner post salvation.

s

I don't think Paul was saying he was the chief of sinners after his experience on the Damascus road. I think Paul was referring to his being chief of sinners when he was hunting down Christians and killing them. Yes Paul's free choices make him able to be wicked and so does it work for us. Our free will does not do us any good if we use it to be wicked and lose all hope of receiving the gift of eternal life.