Why not having free will is better

Fervent said:

What is sin? And who is it's author?

Click to expand...

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Jamdoc said:

So now you come into some dangerous theology, that God created sin.

Click to expand...

No, it's just common sense. If someone is without sin, the don't choose to sin.

martymonster said:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Click to expand...

Is that supposed to answer the second question? If so, congrats on openly worshiping a moral monster whose sole criteria for worthiness is power.

martymonster said:

No, it's just common sense. If someone is without sin, the don't choose to sin.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing perfect creation with innocent creation. Adam was created without sin, otherwise God would be the one who created sin. James is clear the desire itself is not sin, but gives birth to sin.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

martymonster said:

No, it's just common sense. If someone is without sin, the don't choose to sin.

Click to expand...

Sin is choosing against God's will.
Ultimately, free will is the source of Sin.
God has a will, you have your own will, if your will is not aligned with God's, even if God's will is something hard for you to do, and you choose otherwise, you are in sin.
God's will for Jesus was to die on the cross, Jesus was under such tremendous stress by what God willed Him to do that He was sweating blood, and He prayed to the Father to see if there was another way other than dying on the cross. If Jesus had chose His flesh's own will instead of the Father's will, He would have sinned.
That was the goal of Satan's temptation of Jesus, to cause Jesus to sin and therefore be unable to be the Passover lamb of God.
Surely sin was not already built in to Jesus. That is part of why He was born of a virgin. But Jesus was tempted to sin, and chose not to, He chose to be in line with the Father's will.
That is what saves us, His choosing to be in line with the Father's will even when it is something horrific to go through.

Fervent said:

Is that supposed to answer the second question? If so, congrats on openly worshiping a moral monster whose sole criteria for worthiness is power.

Click to expand...

No, if he created an eternal torture chamber to throw sinners into, that would make him a monster. If however, you understand what he is working towards, it make him the complete opposite of a monster.

Fervent said:

You seem to be confusing perfect creation with innocent creation. Adam was created without sin, otherwise God would be the one who created sin. James is clear the desire itself is not sin, but gives birth to sin.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Click to expand...

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Yes, but he yielded to sin
James is right. God doesn't himself tempt anyone.... he has Satan to do that.

martymonster said:

No, if he created an eternal torture chamber to throw sinners into, that would make him a monster. If however, you understand what he is working towards, it make him the complete opposite of a monster.

Click to expand...

I must apologize, I thought harshly of you without knowing the full picture. Though the realities regarding hell and torment are a separate question, it isn't as horrific if as it seems you're implying you believe in universal redemption. Though even then creating beings purely to play out some melodrama in which they are not involved except as spectators is still pretty horrific, just a different sort of horror. In any case, it seems you're at odds claiming that sin was in the world before Adam actually sinned and that Adam was a sinner prior to sinning.

martymonster said:

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Yes, but he yielded to sin
James is right. God doesn't himself tempt anyone.... he has Satan to do that.

Click to expand...

James excludes indirect temptation as well as direct temptation, the temptation comes from within. Paul's law of sin and speaking of flesh is no different, it is our desires that give rise to sin. James elaborates later on how this happens when he says "You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." Notice how he attributes the actions to the individuals and not to some cosmic force, as if they had some sort of control over it and are expected to do differently, namely what he prescribes following?

Fervent said:

I must apologize, I thought harshly of you without knowing the full picture. Though the realities regarding hell and torment are a separate question, it isn't as horrific if as it seems you're implying you believe in universal redemption. Though even then creating beings purely to play out some melodrama in which they are not involved except as spectators is still pretty horrific, just a different sort of horror. In any case, it seems you're at odds claiming that sin was in the world before Adam actually sinned and that Adam was a sinner prior to sinning.

Click to expand...

Thank you, no problem.

It is kind of horrific, but the results will be worth it. As Paul says.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Fervent said:

James excludes indirect temptation as well as direct temptation, the temptation comes from within. Paul's law of sin and speaking of flesh is no different, it is our desires that give rise to sin. James elaborates later on how this happens when he says "You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." Notice how he attributes the actions to the individuals and not to some cosmic force, as if they had some sort of control over it and are expected to do differently, namely what he prescribes following?

Click to expand...

Yes, sin comes from within, which exactly what I was saying. If Adam was without sin, he would not have sinned, or as Christ said... "He who commits sin, is the servant of sin"

martymonster said:

Yes, sin comes from within, which exactly what I was saying. If Adam was without sin, he would not have sinned, or as Christ said... "He who commits sin, is the servant of sin"

Click to expand...

Adam was innocent, and this goes back to my original question of what sin is because while desire can be sinful it is not sin. Being sinful, as people, is being inclined towards evil. Adam didn't have that inclination because evil did not exist, he was completely ignorant and sin had not entered the world. Even the snake questioning God did not bring sin into the world, nor did the woman eating the fruit. It was not until the law God had set for Adam had been broken that sin entered the world, because sin is a breaking of God's law. It is not evil, or malice, or any other sort of thing but they are related. Adam was without sin, because the world was without sin. But the sin also removed Adam's ignorance, making us conscious of our defiance against God multiplying sin. Sin isn't a substance, though, nor is it entirely abstract, but it is an anti-substance that corrupts all it touches. So Adam was perfectly capable of sinning entirely because God gave him a law which he was aware of.

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:

I always thought we had free will and couldn't fathom not having free will. I believed if I didn't have free will then I'm a slave with no power. I however have changed my view on this and welcome not having free will. I view not having free will as being a spectator who has no responsibilities other than watching his life play out. This has really removed all of the burdens I have put on myself by thinking I make all of the decisions. When instead all of the decisions are predetermined. I simply have to watch them play out. Life is so much more enjoyable this way.

Click to expand...

How would you feel about God not providing you with a free will choice if you realized you were hell bound?

Fervent said:

Adam was innocent, and this goes back to my original question of what sin is because while desire can be sinful it is not sin. Being sinful, as people, is being inclined towards evil. Adam didn't have that inclination because evil did not exist, he was completely ignorant and sin had not entered the world. Even the snake questioning God did not bring sin into the world, nor did the woman eating the fruit. It was not until the law God had set for Adam had been broken that sin entered the world, because sin is a breaking of God's law. It is not evil, or malice, or any other sort of thing but they are related. Adam was without sin, because the world was without sin. But the sin also removed Adam's ignorance, making us conscious of our defiance against God multiplying sin. Sin isn't a substance, though, nor is it entirely abstract, but it is an anti-substance that corrupts all it touches. So Adam was perfectly capable of sinning entirely because God gave him a law which he was aware of.

Click to expand...

That's actually a good distinction
Eve was not blamed for her disobedience, it was Adam that was blamed for bringing sin into the world.
Eve was tricked, God blamed Satan for her disobedience.
Adam however, was not tricked. Eve gave him the choice to eat, or not eat. Adam weighed God's command vs his own desire to eat the fruit, and made a conscious, willful decision against God.

My reading of the thread thus far leads me to the following thoughts, which I have the temerity to hope might contribute to the perennial debates here yet again considered.

1) What is meant by human "freedom" of the will? I can't remember the philosophical titles and distinctions (and I'm tired), but suggest one might ask what the human will is claimed to be free from and what it is free--or not--to. If as Jesus and Paul and Peter say, the will of the unregenerate is enslaved to sin, does that mean the will (of the unregenerate or otherwise) is in no sense free, say from external familial or political influence in the choice of sock color for the morning's dressing (even if in some sense determined by brain chemistry or soul inclination)? And if the human will even of the regenerate is never absolutely free from Providence's reign (a position I would argue for), is it also in some relative sense(s) free from Providence, as on a leash of limited length as it were?

2) It seems to me some more explicit discussion of epistemology is needed on this thread. Neurological science and philosophy (my apologies if I have the disciplines off a bit; intellectual integration of areas is required in any case) in majority western secular thought includes material determinism: We are products of complex chemical reactions, brain included. In other words, such material determinists exclude by assumption any human will causation from non-material sources such as from one might label the human "soul" or "spirit." I am not a (secular) material determinist and believe in a human soul though I also believe in material causality, observable chemical causality of brain function included.

Of course where a soul (non-matter and term it what you will) is granted, question of the will's freedom or determinism may be pushed a level up, as it were (ignoring feedback possibilities for now), from fMRI flashes in the brain correlating with subsequent human action (for example) to soul initiation, raising questions of a different way of knowing than "science" commonly considers nowadays. How indeed does one probe the soul apart from empirical observation of the body? I'm suggesting (as others here have at least implied) via divine revelation playing a part here--Scripture or Scripture and tradition.

3) I would prefer to defend (largely elsewhere, though my position is not unique) the position that the divine revelation (I mean the Bible) in overarching harmonized view suggests both (1) divine ordination of all things in creation and history, sin included, though God is presented consistently and forcefully as never the author or approver (as if "approver" were a word) of sin, (2) as well as human responsibility to God and even in some sense(s), relative freedom of the human will (not all those views presented on this thread in my view), though I am hard pressed to reconcile these two apparently contrasting claims (1 and 2) or define exactly wherein divine providence and causalities over creation and history consists or in some cases wherein relative human freedom where it exists consists (we are not free to become a duck and the unregenerate are not masters of their own sin).

My point is that if the divine revelation claims both (which I think it does), mutually contradictory as they may in places seem, I must hold to both. I know in part via divine revelation, also in part via fMRI scans etc. We need to consider how we know things--epistemology.

Granted, anyone not considering the Bible to be divine revelation would draw different conclusions.

P.S. One locus classicus for those considering the Bible to be "God breathed" of the intersection of divine sovereignty and human responsibility may be illustrated via selections from Acts 2 and 4 which I leave to the reader to confirm in broader context:

"... this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." Acts 2:23

"... for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28

God predestines Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate etc. to sin by participating in crucifying Jesus yet He rightly holds them accountable for their sin of crucifying Jesus. That is what the text/divine revelation says (Apostle Peter's theology) even if reconciling the predestination and accountability parts is hard and perhaps more than we are able to make out.

Or consider: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13). Divine causality in human doing of God's will does not obviate human responsibility to do God's will; if anything it encourages voluntary doing.

Jamdoc said:

Well, there are a few sins that are hard to imagine being gone while still maintaining free will
Fornication is the one that springs to mind.
There is no marriage in heaven so sex would be in a state of fornication.
It is hard to imagine men and women, in a state of being, where they have physical bodies, and they love each other, more than they do so on earth, not wanting to express that love physically.
I can only see three possibilities.
1. Our resurrection bodies are like Barbie and Ken dolls, not physically capable
2. Our free will and memories are taken away, so we wouldn't think to do it
3. Because we're all part of the same "marriage", it wouldn't be fornication, but that one's a long shot.

1 and 2 would result in us not feeling like "us" we'd either feel incomplete missing parts of ourselves physically, or we'd be missing free will and be like robots
3 would be .. inconsistent with everything that God has taught us in His word.

Most other sins you're right, because they cause harm and are not done out of love the fact that you wouuld love each other would be enough to keep you from lying to people, stealing, assaulting, insulting, lusting, because you'd see every woman as in the image of God so any feelings for a woman would be love, not lust.
But fornication, and coveting, are difficult to imagine being gone while still having free will.
Coveting I say because there are things that we might like that will be not present in heaven.
Like I've mentioned before, I have taste for savory, rather than sweet, if all I can eat is fruit, and I never get to have meat again.. hard to imagine not wanting a juicy steak instead of a piece of fruit. That'd be coveting and it'd be sin, but it wouldn't be causing hurt to other people.

Click to expand...

Our bodies now die and they respond to the laws of survival. The urge to reproduce is powerful but simply doesn't exist for a body that isn't going to die.

Eloy Craft said:

Our bodies now die and they respond to the laws of survival. The urge to reproduce is powerful but simply doesn't exist for a body that isn't going to die.

Click to expand...

Terrible rationalization.
if it were just that, then people post menopause wouldn't desire, or enjoy sex.
women on birth control wouldn't have sex
women who were sterile, wouldn't have sex
men who were sterile or had a vasectomy, wouldn't have sex
yet it remains something desirable even when it has nothing to do with procreation.
Because there's intimacy, and bonding, and emotions involved (and mind you I'm only talking about within a married couple, when it's something good that God designed)

Why do people in hookup culture/one night stands or involved with prostitution find ultimately no fulfillment in the act?
Because because it's missing what God intended for it to be, and it's not just procreation as prostitutes and one night stands can procreate.
It's missing the love and bonding and actual intimacy.
That's a person's actual desire. Not just for physical pleasure
and not just to procreate.

I think I'll illustrate with another thing as well.
In the eternal state in new bodies that do not die, we will not need to eat right?
Yet Jesus often used eating in describing what heaven will be like, a banquet, the wedding supper of the lamb, Revelation 3:20 is an example too. Eating together, is an act of fellowship, and even if we no longer need nourishment to sustain our bodies, we will enjoy eating and drinking because it is an act that provides pleasure in the taste and smells, and textures and appearance of food and drink, and the company and conversation that naturally accompanies a meal. God made a covenant with Earth after the flood... because He enjoyed the sweet savor of the sacrifice that Noah made (Genesis 8:20-21). Sometimes I do wonder if God really intends to make us all vegans.. cause He sure seemed to enjoy meat Himself..
But that's beside the point.
Survival is not the only reason we enjoy doing certain things and some of those things at least, we'll continue to do in eternity even though they no longer have a survival purpose. Eating and drinking is one example that is prominent.

martymonster said:

I've posted quite a few scriptures, and as usual, they were ignored.

Click to expand...

I could say the same - but my comment was that the OP has posted no Scripture to back their p.o.v.

martymonster said:

If Adam was without sin, he wouldn't have sinned.

Click to expand...

Adam was created by God in his image. God said that his creation was very good, Genesis 1:31.
God spoke with Adam directly, Genesis 2:16-17, and gave him responsibilities, Genesis 2:19-20.

Are you saying that God created Adam a sinner, said that his creation was very good even though it contained sin, and spoke to, and had fellowship with, a sinner?

Adam commanded Adam not to eat from a certain tree - he didn't force him. Adam chose to disobey after Even had eaten some of the fruit and Adam could see that it was good, Genesis 3:6.
Eve didn't force feed this to Adam; he took the fruit and ate.