Free Will is Taught in the Bible...

renniks said:

Compatabalism does not compute. It's silly to pretend you believe in free will when you believe everything is God's will.

Click to expand...

Unproven assertion. Logic demands that first cause (assuming there is such a thing) produces, directly or indirectly, all subsequent effects. If God is First Cause, then all our decisions are subsequent, and caused. 'Free' need not mean uncaused. "If the Son of Man shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

Mark Quayle said:

If God is First Cause, then all our decisions are subsequent, and caused.

Click to expand...

circular argument. By definition God "causes" free will to exist supernaturally.

ad hoc arguments of the form "free will cannot exist if God caused it to exist" are illogical.

In fact any argument that says "something cannot exist if God caused it to exist" is illogical in general.

The definition of free will is not "an ability that God does not will to exist and cause to exist"

A very important feature of arguments for Calvinism can be seen in the following post
6 minutes ago #60

there we see that "bible texts are ignored" to make the case against free will. It "appears" at first glance that this is a "necessary feature" for the argument against free will.

If it is true - that this is a key feature of the argument for Calvinism then the objective would switch from solving the problem posed by the texts themselves - to finding a way for the texts to not appear.

BobRyan said:

Both positive and negative examples showing free will







1. The "audience" there is the entire Christian world in all of time from Isiah to 2 Cor 5 to Rev 3

2. We already proved that "free will" does not mean "unlimited power". (if you free will zap yourself into heaven, if you have free will be immune to disease...)

3. John said "These things I write to that you sin not.." 1 John 2:1 - and who then said to John "prove it by claiming to live a sinless life"?? Is the Bible still the Word of God even if John committed one single sin or never claimed to be sinless? Many of us say "yes, the Bible is the Word of God" - but you have free will you can choose as you wish.



1. I "read" the texts...
2. I notice who the author is
3. I notice who their readers are and see that they are in both OT and NT.

"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Is 5:4 "What MORE was there to do than that which I have already done - WHY THEN when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?"

2 Cor 5 "WE BEG YOU on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God"

Matt 23 "How often I WANTED to spare your children... but YOU would not"

Rev 3 "I STAND at the door and KNOCK, if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in"



The texts themselves show it.

This is the easy part -- it is not rocket science.

Click to expand...

You say, "This is the easy part -- it is not rocket science." —Yet you get it wrong. You think these verses can be taken at face value, alone apart from context, eisegetically, and according to your definitions and bias, and you are still right? But when show other verses, you must explain them away!

AGAIN! —Calvinism does not reject Choice, nor Will.

BobRyan said:

circular argument. By definition God "causes" free will to exist supernaturally.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is circular to say that God causes free will to exist supernaturally; also, if 'free will' means independence from God yet was caused by God, it is self-contradictory.

BobRyan said:

ad hoc arguments of the form "free will cannot exist if God caused it to exist" are illogical.

Click to expand...

Who says that?

BobRyan said:

In fact any argument that says "something cannot exist if God caused it to exist" is illogical in general.

Click to expand...

Again, who says that?

BobRyan said:

The definition of free will is not "an ability that God does not will to exist and cause to exist"

Click to expand...

Nor does it mean, "an ability that God does will and cause to exist" nor does it mean, "an ability that naturally comes to moral agents apart from God's causation".

Mark Quayle said:

Yes, it is circular to say that God causes free will to exist supernaturally

Click to expand...

No it isn't. The Bible says God is the Creator of all things. So it is always logically consistent for anyone who admits to the Bible texts showing free will - to argue that God supernaturally caused it to exist.

This is irrefutable.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
If God is First Cause, then all our decisions are subsequent, and caused.

Click to expand...

Our "ability" to decide , ability to choose is caused.. but the choice is ours.

a not-so-subtle distinction

A Calvinist can always choose to not believe in free will - but those who believe in free will and accept the Bible teaching on it would be logically inconsistent to argue "free will exists because God is not the author of it". Such a position would make no sense.

So you have to make an objectively logical argument as "step 1"

BobRyan said:

"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
Is 5:4 "What MORE was there to do than that which I have already done - WHY THEN when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?"
2 Cor 5 "WE BEG YOU on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God"
Matt 23 "How often I WANTED to spare your children... but YOU would not"
Rev 3 "I STAND at the door and KNOCK, if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in"
.

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

. You think these verses can be taken at face value,

Click to expand...

Your argument "is with the text" so far.

I prefer accepting what they say rather than the hand-waiving dismissive approach to them.

If I were a Calvinist - this detail would be "a wakeup call" -- at least I would like to think so in my case.

But I would also point out that it appears that the mere post of the texts is sufficient cause to give rise to strong objection by those who find those texts "inconvenient" in regard to their own bias.

Since you claim they have some "other meaning" than what they apparently mean -- why not try to show it?

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Yes, it is circular to say that God causes free will to exist supernaturally

BobRyan said:

No it isn't. The Bible says God is the Creator of all things. So it is always logically consistent for anyone who admits to the Bible texts showing free will - to argue that God supernaturally caused it to exist.

This is irrefutable.

Click to expand...

Would it help if I had said, "It is redundant to say that God causes free will to exist supernaturally."? If God does something it is supernatural, no?

But to say freewill even exists —i.e. uncaused choice— is an illogical statement. Of course it is logical, if one presupposes freewill does exist, for them to say God causes it, and yes, if God causes it, he does so supernaturally, just as he causes all things. What's to refute?

But he doesn't cause self-contradictory things like a rock too big for him to pick up, or like a second uncaused first cause.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
If God is First Cause, then all our decisions are subsequent, and caused.

BobRyan said:

Our "ability" to decide , ability to choose is caused.. but the choice is ours.

a not-so-subtle distinction

Click to expand...

Who said otherwise? Of course it is our choice! And CAUSED.

BobRyan said:

A Calvinist can always choose to not believe in free will - but those who believe in free will and accept the Bible teaching on it would be logically inconsistent to argue "free will exists because God is not the author of it". Such a position would make no sense.

Click to expand...

What is this Bible teaching on free will? I keep hearing there is some, but all I ever am shown is that people choose, must choose, should choose, their choices are effective and cause things, etc etc. Never have I been shown that that their choice is uncaused. If you get the time, read, Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. Again: God uses our choices (among many other things) to accomplish his plans.

Obviously it would make no sense, for those who assume freewill, to say it exists because God is not the author of it. What do you think I was saying? It would make no sense for anyone to say that.

BobRyan said:

So you have to make an objectively logical argument as "step 1"

Click to expand...

So you have to make an objectively logical argument as "step 1" right back atcha! You have not made an objectively logical argument that freewill (i.e. uncaused choice) exists.

BobRyan said:

Your argument "is with the text" so far.

I prefer accepting what they say rather than the hand-waiving dismissive approach to them.

If I were a Calvinist - this detail would be "a wakeup call" -- at least I would like to think so in my case.

But I would also point out that it appears that the mere post of the texts is sufficient cause to give rise to strong objection by those who find those texts "inconvenient" in regard to their own bias.

Since you claim they have some "other meaning" than what they apparently mean -- why not try to show it?

Click to expand...

BobRyan said: ↑
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
Is 5:4 "What MORE was there to do than that which I have already done - WHY THEN when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?"
2 Cor 5 "WE BEG YOU on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God"
Matt 23 "How often I WANTED to spare your children... but YOU would not"
Rev 3 "I STAND at the door and KNOCK, if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in"

John 1: "11 He came unto his own and his own received him not." Apparently, to you there is some obvious implication there supporting uncaused choice. I don't see it.

Isaiah 5: "4 What MORE was there to do than that which I have already done - WHY THEN when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?" Apparently, to you there is some obvious implication there supporting uncaused choice. I don't see it.

Matthew 23: "37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Apparently, to you there is some obvious implication there supporting uncaused choice. I don't see it.

Rev 3 "20 Here I am, I stand at the door and call out. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and sup with him, and he with me." Apparently, to you there is some obvious implication there supporting uncaused choice. I don't see it.

BobRyan said:

Both positive and negative examples showing free will







1. The "audience" there is the entire Christian world in all of time from Isiah to 2 Cor 5 to Rev 3

2. We already proved that "free will" does not mean "unlimited power". (if you free will zap yourself into heaven, if you have free will be immune to disease...)

3. John said "These things I write to that you sin not.." 1 John 2:1 - and who then said to John "prove it by claiming to live a sinless life"?? Is the Bible still the Word of God even if John committed one single sin or never claimed to be sinless? Many of us say "yes, the Bible is the Word of God" - but you have free will you can choose as you wish.



1. I "read" the texts...
2. I notice who the author is
3. I notice who their readers are and see that they are in both OT and NT.

"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Is 5:4 "What MORE was there to do than that which I have already done - WHY THEN when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?"

2 Cor 5 "WE BEG YOU on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God"

Matt 23 "How often I WANTED to spare your children... but YOU would not"

Rev 3 "I STAND at the door and KNOCK, if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in"



The texts themselves show it.

This is the easy part -- it is not rocket science.

Click to expand...

What you cannot grasp is we are free to sin before God saves us. But not free to discern spiritual truth and act on it. Law is for sinners. The saved do not need to be threatened with death as the law keepers were.

BobRyan said:

New Covenant - "writes the Law of God on heart and mind" Jer 31:31-34. The New Covenant IS the Gospel Covenant.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
1 John 5:3 "this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
Eph 6:2 the commandments have "honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2
Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"



If you were 4 or 5 point Calvinist it would be logically consistent for you to say that I am following God's sovereign will when I expose the flaws Calvinism and point to the Bible statements that affirm the free will God has sovereignly chosen for mankind.

For example - of your own free will - you ignored every text above that does not favor Calvinism. That is fine... you have free will... you can choose as you wish.

Click to expand...

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (KJV 1900)

This includes every choice you make leading up to your final outcome, good or bad.

Dave L said:

What you cannot grasp is we are free to sin before God saves us. But not free to discern spiritual truth and act on it. Law is for sinners. The saved do not need to be threatened with death as the law keepers were.

Click to expand...

Please explain how Adam and Eve then got the command not to eat in their innocence...or were they already guilty?

TedT said:

Please explain how Adam and Eve then got the command not to eat in their innocence...or were they already guilty?

Click to expand...

The law was needed for them to break it.

Dave L said:

The law was needed for them to break it.

Click to expand...

Your answer contradicts 1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers etc... to achieve HIS purpose of opening our eyes to our need for a saviour, not to direct the path of the innocent: Romans 3:20... rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

TedT said:

Your answer contradicts 1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers etc... to achieve HIS purpose of opening our eyes to our need for a saviour, not to direct the path of the innocent: Romans 3:20... rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Click to expand...

This is true, but the law written in the heart condemns everyone. How? Because you know how you want to be treated but you don't treat others with that same concern.

TedT said:

Please explain how Adam and Eve then got the command not to eat in their innocence...or were they already guilty?

Click to expand...

Is your argument really about Adam and Eve? Seems you are moving the goalposts.

But even in their innocence, not under slavery to sin (as are the rest of us before regeneration), they still chose to disobey. Thus they became the "not righteous" like the rest of us for whom the law was written. Notice they became conscious of their sin only after having become sinners.

Dave L said:

This is true, but the law written in the heart condemns everyone. How? Because you know how you want to be treated but you don't treat others with that same concern.

Click to expand...

So you refuse to try to answer the question about Adam and Eve?

Mark Quayle said:

Is your argument really about Adam and Eve? Seems you are moving the goalposts.

But even in their innocence, not under slavery to sin (as are the rest of us before regeneration), they still chose to disobey. Thus they became the "not righteous" like the rest of us for whom the law was written. Notice they became conscious of their sin only after having become sinners.

Click to expand...

My question was not about them and their choice...it was about why GOD gave them a command when they were supposedly innocent when the law is only given to lawbreakers to convict them of their sin and their need for a saviour.

Will you take a stab at an answer?

TedT said:

My question was not about them and their choice...it was about why GOD gave them a command when they were supposedly innocent when the law is only given to lawbreakers to convict them of their sin and their need for a saviour.

Will you take a stab at an answer?

Click to expand...

I did. But maybe you missed it.

"But even in their innocence, not under slavery to sin (as are the rest of us before regeneration), they still chose to disobey. Thus they became the "not righteous" (edit: "lawbreakers") like the rest of us for whom the law was written. Notice they became conscious of their sin only after having become sinners."

I believe 2 Cor 4:3-4 accounts for why many do not obtain eternal life. Many do not understand the love of God and His Gospel. His Gospel is able to lead them to the new birth via the promise of Acts 2:38. If Calvinist Total Depravity is true, there would be no need for Paul to mention Satan's efforts to veil the Gospel from anyone - because Satan's efforts don't change anything.