DO We Have Free Will?

[Bro in Christ]

Yes, you are right. There can be opinions, but no disputes or disrespect.

Catholic theology supports the concept that man has free will within the contingencies of our given circumstances. This can be tested by our own personal experience.

In Catholic theology, man is free to say "yes" or "no" to God. Sometimes this answer can be so implicit that we may not even realize when we said "yes" to God.

If free will did not exist, it would all but make our lives meaningless. Salvation would have no more meaning than winning a lottery,because we would not be in any way connected to what was happening in our lives.

We believe, however, that life and salvation have meaning and are connected with a relationship to Jesus Christ as a free decision.

We also have the free will not to be disputatious towards others. Amen.

example though scripture of man's free will and God's soverignity

2 chronicles 18:18-34... please read

 

[steve_bakr]

example though scripture of man's free will and God's soverignity

2 chronicles 18:18-34... please read

God has the power to do whatever he wills, but in general man has free will, don't you think?

 

[squint]

And I say that we have the free will to say "no" to evil and "yes" to God.

Let us, then, respectfully disagree.

Let us respectfully agree that the tempter does not tempt people in mind?

Will have to pass, but nice try whoever you are...

 

[AllanV]

Glad to see someone connect our current state to what happened in the garden...man's will was only "free" before sin entered. A couple of points on what has been said earlier.
end quote --------------

Eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means it is now part of the deeper subconscious and requires that man fulfill both inadvertently or even purposely in an experimental and experiential way. Observe how mankind behaves now. People often say good would not be comprehended except there is evil. And most things are only learned from mistakes because the out come is not known. But God does know the outcome. God's request is to know Him.

And here's another point. Only the redeemed has the ability to "choose"...the point being that the unregenerate does not possess the new nature in order to do so...but the redeemed has two natures and can yield to the one or the other...this is one reason why Paul, in Heb 5, desires all (believers) to come to maturity in spiritual things, that we might "by reason of use (habit or perfection) have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil". That ability, lost in Adam, is restored in Christ.

When a person comes to maturity - the fullness of Christ - this represents a radical transformation. This cannot be comprehended in the natural mind. The way into this Holy and Perfect state unfolds in a process involving some days of dedication. The Holy Spirit leads into a deeper and deeper experience until the demonic realm is exposed and seen for what it is. Once expelled in the name of Jesus Christ the mind is free and if the heart and spirit is made contrite and deeply broken a new perfect nature, that of Jesus becomes apparent. The new nature is many more times gentle than can be imagined or held within a natural person. This gentle nature gives access to the indwelling of God powerfully.

This is a truly exquisite Holy place and presents as nothing sinister but this experience carries with it all the attributes as described in scriptures.

The person in this perfect state is only received by those who are soft in their heart and those that are hard despise it and act with violence against it.

 

[Bro in Christ]

God has the power to do whatever he wills, but in general man has free will, don't you think?

man has free will ... BUT WHO CONTROLS CIRCUMSTANCES.. GOD

 

[crimsonleaf]

You made a futile attempt to equate internal temptation to possession, which is of course totally absurd.

if you think that my use of the word "control" equates to my saying "possesion" then I suggest any absurd thoughts are coming from your direction.

I might suggest that temptation by an entity that is not man is quite a secure New Testament fact.

Let's ignore it or spin it some other way shall we?

I haven't said it isn't. Are you having another of your imaginary internal conversations?

Man doesn't make choices for other entities. Where do you get the idea that we control intentions of Satan or devils? They do what they do regardless of what you think OR your again likewise futile attempts to BLAME the believer only.

zzzzzzz

s

Now we've reached a point where I have no idea what you're talking about. Where have I said that man controls the intentions of Satan or devils?

As for blaming believers, I will lay the blame for sin at the foot of believers and non-believers alike. I'm afraid that there are secure wards worldwide full of people who claim "the Devil made me do it".

Satan tempts - man responds with either resistance or submission. Adam submitted, and it was Adam's fault and his alone when he did. Thankfully, for believers there is Christ's forgiveness, and I'm not sure why you don't understand that no one is saying that believers burn in hell for their sin. Unless I missed that particular post.

 

[Rick Otto]

God has the power to do whatever he wills, but in general man has free will, don't you think?

Not in any ultimate sense. That 'freedom' is so limited by man's own weakness & ignorance that it is laughable to think of him as free in any but a severely limited sense.
I do think God is able to free man's will to a larger degree by giving Him spiritual life, a gift He never repents of, & which enables man to know & desire spiritual things like God Himself, something no man can will to do until God has already given him spiritual life.
Belief is not a choice, it is a condition one can mentaly accept or reject, but exists regardless of our choosing.

The idea that God values our autonomy is kind of silly, except that it helps us take credit for our own salvation.

 

[Rick Otto]

man has free will ... BUT WHO CONTROLS CIRCUMSTANCES.. GOD

Another example of how the will isn't realy free except within the limits God makes for it.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

Catholic theology would say that, due to original sin, we have a tendency to sin, a vulnerability to sin, but we have not lost ALL capacity towards good.

How about, "There is NONE that doeth good, no not one"?

There are non-Christian people who do good deeds all the time.

The question is: For whom do they do them? If they are non-Christian then, like Paul before conversion, they are doing them for some other purpose and scripture says that "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin".

Also, we receive from God a certain capacity to be oriented towards the call of God. This is called, in theology, the "supernatural existential," aka, grace.

I agree. All men have a God-given spirit which we might call God-consciousness. With it comes also a God-given sense of right and wrong...that's why we don't need a law to tell us that it is 'wrong' to command someone to vacate a seat so that I might sit. By and large the world (I speak of the unregenerate here) has that internal morality from God that allows it to function 'normally' even though they acknowledge Him not. But those who practice it are not seeking to please God...which means they must have another in view...in most cases (if not all when it boils down) it is self. Sin again.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

Eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means it is now part of the deeper subconscious and requires that man fulfill both inadvertently or even purposely in an experimental and experiential way. Observe how mankind behaves now. People often say good would not be comprehended except there is evil. And most things are only learned from mistakes because the out come is not known. But God does know the outcome. God's request is to know Him.

Not sure what you mean by the above when you say "that man fulfil both"...do you mean that man is now required to fulfil 'both good and evil' and this is a God directive??



When a person comes to maturity - the fullness of Christ - this represents a radical transformation. This cannot be comprehended in the natural mind. The way into this Holy and Perfect state unfolds in a process involving some days of dedication. The Holy Spirit leads into a deeper and deeper experience until the demonic realm is exposed and seen for what it is. Once expelled in the name of Jesus Christ the mind is free and if the heart and spirit is made contrite and deeply broken a new perfect nature, that of Jesus becomes apparent. The new nature is many more times gentle than can be imagined or held within a natural person. This gentle nature gives access to the indwelling of God powerfully.

This is a truly exquisite Holy place and presents as nothing sinister but this experience carries with it all the attributes as described in scriptures.

The person in this perfect state is only received by those who are soft in their heart and those that are hard despise it and act with violence against it.

I agree with the "radical transformation" part but I do not comprehend it as being obtained ceremonially. Like the natural man who matures from child to adult, the spiritual man too must (or should, at least) mature from babes with milk to full-grown adults desiring meat. It's not a complicated or clandestine process. It's available to every believer but not all "desire the sincere milk of the word that they may grow thereby".

 

[squint]

if you think that my use of the word "control" equates to my saying "possesion" then I suggest any absurd thoughts are coming from your direction.

Either spin is spin regardless.

The fact put in play had nothing to do with 'control' or 'possession.'

I haven't said it isn't. Are you having another of your imaginary internal conversations?

Great. You acknowledge then the simple observation that mankind is not alone in mind?

and you understand that as such 'freewill' is a logical fallacy because there are TWO or more functioning entities therein?

Now we've reached a point where I have no idea what you're talking about. Where have I said that man controls the intentions of Satan or devils?

Your intention was to 'blame man' only for his thoughts. The point made was that not every thought is of the man to 'control' or to 'blame man for' when obviously there is another party in action therein.

As for blaming believers, I will lay the blame for sin at the foot of believers and non-believers alike.

Well of course you will. Never will you blame the tempter for sin thoughts. The workings of Satan by nature compel people to blame the other people and ignore the cause completely.

The believer can be blamed all the day long and the tempter will still not cease tempting within the mind.

I'm afraid that there are secure wards worldwide full of people who claim "the Devil made me do it".

Nice try. What is it you don't get about 'the devil doing it' rather than 'the devil made ME do it?' Do you even see the difference?

Flip Wilson statements won't cut it.

Satan tempts -

No kidding? Have you managed to figure out yet that it is internal thereby placing that working and worker where?

man responds with either resistance or submission.

What makes you think you can isolate only the man in that equation? Obviously it is the MASTER and the PAWN. There are factually TWO parties engaged.

Adam submitted,

Why do you see just Adam? That kind of sight is merely blinded to the other party.

and it was Adam's fault and his alone when he did.

If it was just Adam you might have a point, but that was not the case.

Nice try though.

Thankfully, for believers there is Christ's forgiveness, and I'm not sure why you don't understand that no one is saying that believers burn in hell for their sin. Unless I missed that particular post.

You think the tempter within any of our minds is forgiven?

Fat chance.

s

 

[steve_bakr]

Let us respectfully agree that the tempter does not tempt people in mind?

Will have to pass, but nice try whoever you are...

You either misread my post or mis-wrote yours. Please re-read it.

It is not whether we are tempted in our mind, but whether God has given our will the ability to choose which thoughts to disregard. The Catholic view is that he has.

 

[squint]

You either misread my post or mis-wrote yours. Please re-read it.

It is not whether we are tempted in our mind, but whether God has given our will the ability to choose which thoughts to disregard. The Catholic view is that he has.

Steve, the fact is we are tempted in MIND by an entity or entities that are not us as believers.

That makes freewill a logical fallacy.

The RCC is blind to a simple fact and is so for the sole intentions of ignoring one party and blaming the other.

So much for infallible eyesight in the face of obvious and open conflicts.

But hey, remember, when we go to receive the HOST the tempter therein in mind is eating to his damnation!

s

 

[steve_bakr]

Steve, the fact is we are tempted in MIND by an entity or entities that are not us as believers.

That makes freewill a logical fallacy.

The RCC is blind to a simple fact and is so for the sole intentions of ignoring one party and blaming the other.

So much for infallible eyesight in the face of obvious and open conflicts.

But hey, remember, when we go to receive the HOST the tempter therein in mind is eating to his damnation!

s

The fact that we are tempted in mind, though, doesn't necessarily mean that spirits are in our minds. Spirits are not governed by the same spacio-temporal physics that we are. The Tempter can put a suggestive thought in our mind without taking up residence there. The notion of spirits residing in our minds is akin to possession.

 

[squint]

The fact that we are tempted in mind,

OK. Now that you appear to see that there is in fact another entity 'in mind' how is it that you can not see that there are TWO functioning wills therein?

And we have not yet added the Will of God who is also functioning therein, in the WILL of the believer.

So, we technically have at this point 3 [or more] functioning wills in ONE person.

Do you even remotely see the difficulties of claiming it is just the will of the man functioning freely?

That is, in essence, an absurd logical fallacy.

The balance of your post was 'well, what happens from there.'

The points above didn't change. It's impossible to see the will of man as just the will of man because that factually, scripturally is not the case.

And just to clarify [again] as some of you just don't get it, temptation by the tempter does not equate to 'control' or 'possession.'

s

 

[crimsonleaf]

Either spin is spin regardless.

The fact put in play had nothing to do with 'control' or 'possession.'

We'll see later on...

Great. You acknowledge then the simple observation that mankind is not alone in mind?

and you understand that as such 'freewill' is a logical fallacy because there are TWO or more functioning entities therein?

Whoops, there we go. But you're right - although the human psyche has been invaded and shares the mind with a third party he has not been possessed. Oh, wait...

Your intention was to 'blame man' only for his thoughts. The point made was that not every thought is of the man to 'control' or to 'blame man for' when obviously there is another party in action therein.

Well of course you will. Never will you blame the tempter for sin thoughts. The workings of Satan by nature compel people to blame the other people and ignore the cause completely.

The believer can be blamed all the day long and the tempter will still not cease tempting within the mind.

Well, I couldn't have said the enboldened part better myself. You won't accept blame for your own sin so you blame a third party - Satan.

Nice try. What is it you don't get about 'the devil doing it' rather than 'the devil made ME do it?' Do you even see the difference?

Flip Wilson statements won't cut it.

If the Devil is doing it then he either has control or possession. At least when the certified say he made them do it they acknowledge their own part in sin. Who's Flip Wilson?

No kidding? Have you managed to figure out yet that it is internal thereby placing that working and worker where?

Don't understand the sentence.

What makes you think you can isolate only the man in that equation? Obviously it is the MASTER and the PAWN. There are factually TWO parties engaged.

Hmmmm... MASTER and the PAWN, but no control. Nope, can't get my head around that one. Are you sure you've grasped your own argument?

Why do you see just Adam? That kind of sight is merely blinded to the other party.

Because Satan only provided the temptation. An ice cream can do the same on a hot day. Man allowed himself to sin - you can't shift the blame.

If it was just Adam you might have a point, but that was not the case.

Nice try though.


You think the tempter within any of our minds is forgiven?

Fat chance.

s

You take care now, and stay away from sharp objects.

 

[squint]

We'll see later on...
Whoops, there we go. But you're right - although the human psyche has been invaded and shares the mind with a third party he has not been possessed. Oh, wait... Well, I couldn't have said the enboldened part better myself. You won't accept blame for your own sin so you blame a third party - Satan.

What is your deal on 'blaming temptation of the TEMPTER' on man?

Is there supposed to be some kind of logic in that attempt?

The fact as it pertains to freewill is that it is a logical fallacy when the fact of internal temptation of the tempter is seen as a fact, where it is, IN MAN.

Now, as to your 'results from there' we also know that Paul was the CHIEF OF SINNERS post salvation.

Would you like to tackle blaming Paul?

If the Devil is doing it

There is no 'if.' The fact is that temptation itself is SIN and the thought of sin IS SIN. And sin is of THE DEVIL.

Now we may not like the math, but it ain't gonna change.

then he either has control or possession.

There is no 'then' either other than some sensationalist drivel trying to turn a temptation thought into possession and control.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

At least when the certified say he made them do it they acknowledge their own part in sin. Who's Flip Wilson?

A friend of mine.

I know it's probably going to stick in the craw of anyone who manages to get the factual picture on this matter. It's meant to.

Not every thought running through anyones head IS JUST THEIR OWN.

Chew on that for awhile and get back to me.

s

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

I have not seen anyone comment on the possible distinctions between the Lord directing our steps, and free will. There would seem to be some relationship here ...

Hi Seeking. Here's my thought. The work of reconciliation (God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself) is a two-fold work. Two-fold because we are "twice-dead"...by nature and by practice. By nature because we inherited our "sin" nature from Adam; by practice because we are also sinners ourselves. "All have sinned and come short".

Now let's suppose only the first exists...we are only dead by nature...that it is only the inherited "sin" nature we had to worry about [which is the case for the unborn, the infant, and the infantile in mind...they are only once-dead]. The result of 'sin' is death...so to take away the sting of 'death' Christ died in man's place. "He put away 'sin' by the sacrifice of Himself". He became the propitiation or mercy seat for all mankind. His death was a 'substitute' for ours. This required the 'death' of Christ only. The door is wide open and if it were only the 'sin' question all would be well...for He died for all.

But there's the question of our practice...our individual sins. "Your 'sins' have separated between you and your God". But 'death' itself is not the remedy for 'sins', for God says, "When I see the 'blood' I will pass over you"...for "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". Sins are blotted out by the blood and thus the second work is not propitiation, but salvation...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And this requires the 'blood' of Christ. And this blood has been shed...that work is finished too!!

Then what's the problem? It must be received by faith. And the marred nature I received via Adam means I am unable to do anything but sin...which means I haven't the ability to come willingly through the open door. I need the blood but cannot of myself attain to it. I don't have that "free" will, to take it or leave it...I can only leave it. And leave it I would if it were not for what you termed "the Lord directing our steps". Chist has opened the way...His work is done...the Comforter "whom I will send [and did] is now working to 'draw all' to Christ. Circumstances, prayers of others, spoken and written words of beseeching, guilty consciences, 'the heavens', etc., are all tools by which the Spirit seeks to reveal unto us our lost condition and to draw us 'kicking and screeming" unto Christ for salvation. It is often through tears that we come. All is off God...no credit to us who come...but we must take sides with God against ourselves...not my will but Thine be done...or we will "come short of the glory of God". That's what 'faith' is. Without God's intervening in every stage of my salvation I would never have come...I don't have the "free will" to do so. God does not hold me responsible to pay for my 'sins', that I cannot do, but I have the responsibility to accept the Payment already made.

Sorry to take so long...but I just cannot seem to put the idea of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility any simplier. Understanding the two-fold work of propitiation, that all may come, and salvation, for those who do, is foundational to all. I trust this helps.

 

[crimsonleaf]

What is your deal on 'blaming temptation of the TEMPTER' on man?

Is there supposed to be some kind of logic in that attempt?

The fact as it pertains to freewill is that it is a logical fallacy when the fact of internal temptation of the tempter is seen as a fact, where it is, IN MAN.

Now, as to your 'results from there' we also know that Paul was the CHIEF OF SINNERS post salvation.

Would you like to tackle blaming Paul?

There is no 'if.' The fact is that temptation itself is SIN and the thought of sin IS SIN. And sin is of THE DEVIL.

Now we may not like the math, but it ain't gonna change.

There is no 'then' either other than some sensationalist drivel trying to turn a temptation thought into possession and control.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

A friend of mine.

I know it's probably going to stick in the craw of anyone who manages to get the factual picture on this matter. It's meant to.

Not every thought running through anyones head IS JUST THEIR OWN.

Chew on that for awhile and get back to me.

s

Nothing to chew on my friend, it's just empty rhetoric. And would I tackle blaming Paul for his sin? In a heartbeat, just as he would blame himself. The tempter tempts, the sinner sins.

(zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)????

 

[squint]

Nothing to chew on my friend, it's just empty rhetoric.

And we certainly don't want to have any of our false equations examined either do we?

Fact is you want to blame man for temptations of the tempter.

And would I tackle blaming Paul for his sin? In a heartbeat, just as he would blame himself. The tempter tempts, the sinner sins.

Well, I might say Paul had a much better view of the tempter than you do.

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.

Let's see you blame Paul.

I might rather enjoy that show.

s