Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[bling]

You constantly seem to group the fallen and the redeemed together in a lump of humanity, without distinction. When you do mention a distinction, it seems to be the ability or will to do something right is stronger in the saved.

Regeneration is not Forcing his Love. Where do you get that notion? If he originally made us all to love him the way you describe, as our default manner of thought, would you then call it forced, or would you call it forced if he changed some of those who loved him into sinners? He has the absolute right to do whatever he pleases with his creatures. WE ARE NOT SOVEREIGN.

You asked: “If he originally made us all to love him the way you describe, as our default manner of thought, would you then call it forced?” I would call that type of love; an instinctive love, like a knee jerk reaction, which is really a robotic type love programmed into the person. A robotic type love is not anything like Godly type Love which is the result of an autonomous free will choice to accept God’s Love as charity, and not choosing a likely alternative like: “the perceived pleasures of sin for a season”. Godly type Love is not logical or just emotional, but it is a choice to Love. God Loves us in spite of what we did, or will do, by choice.

We are “sovereign” over the one choice to accept or reject God’s charity, but once we continue to refuse to the point of never accepting God’s charity we lose our free will and take on a lesser objective if we continue to live.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You asked: “If he originally made us all to love him the way you describe, as our default manner of thought, would you then call it forced?” I would call that type of love; an instinctive love, like a knee jerk reaction, which is really a robotic type love programmed into the person. A robotic type love is not anything like Godly type Love which is the result of an autonomous free will choice to accept God’s Love as charity, and not choosing a likely alternative like: “the perceived pleasures of sin for a season”. Godly type Love is not logical or just emotional, but it is a choice to Love. God Loves us in spite of what we did, or will do, by choice.

We are “sovereign” over the one choice to accept or reject God’s charity, but once we continue to refuse to the point of never accepting God’s charity we lose our free will and take on a lesser objective if we continue to live.

how can mans will be free when Scripture states the opposite that its in bondage to sin, a slave to sin, dead in trespasses and sins, loves sin , hates God and unbelievers are serving the god of this world and that he is their master not God ?

 

[bling]

how can mans will be free when Scripture states the opposite that its in bondage to sin, a slave to sin, dead in trespasses and sins, loves sin , hates God and unbelievers are serving the god of this world and that he is their master not God ?

Man is not “free” for the most part. 99.9% of sinful man’s actions and decisions can be the result of environment and his genes. I am really only talking about have the ability to make mentally just one autonomous free will choice. You really need to read all my posts on this thread.

I am not talking about the unbelieving sinner making some righteous, noble, honorable, holy, or worthy choice. The choice he/she is making is to be macho, hang in there, continue pursuing the perceived pleasures of sin, perhaps even being willing to pay the piper or at least willing to take the punishment he/she fully deserves, but he/she can wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy, but just willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from his/her hated enemy. He/she is not “joining“ their hated enemy, just hoping for undeserved mercy.

 

[GenemZ]

Not only does it make debate a lot less frustrating, but if terms can be defined before the argument begins, I've noticed, the debate doesn't usually continue as long.

Free Will, as usually addressed in old Reformed circles, had to do with the bondage of the will of the unregenerate --not what usually gets fought over nowadays: the ability of persons to make undirected spontaneous decisions.

A mistake of the Reformers of the Calvinist movement made, was that they did in fact see the helpless state of the unregenerate person. They were 100% correct that the unbeliever (in regards to accepting God) has within himself no free will to believe. For the flesh is a natural antagonist to the Spirit.

Here is what they tripped over in their religious zeal.

GRACE! God's drawing grace takes the sin nature of the unbeliever when being drawn by God... thus allowing the SOUL (not the flesh) of that person to think clearly without interference. Free as long as God is administering the sovereign power of Grace.

In drawing all men God over rides the depravity of man, so that while the depravity is suspended, that soul will be made to be free to decide while under that grace, to either accept, or reject, the drawing of God.

The proponents of hyper Calvinism learned of the total depravity of the flesh and went off half-cocked in a religious zeal. They closed their minds and proceeded to develop dogma that was in its own way, equally corrupt to the corrupt dogma of the church they had broken away from.

grace and peace..........

 

[Mark Quayle]

GRACE! God's drawing grace takes the sin nature of the unbeliever when being drawn by God... thus allowing the SOUL (not the flesh) of that person to think clearly without interference. Free as long as God is administering the sovereign power of Grace.

In drawing all men God over rides the depravity of man, so that while the depravity is suspended, that soul will be made to be free to decide while under that grace, to either accept, or reject, the drawing of God.

Got some Scripture describing this progression?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can you give me the reference in scripture to this and/or science?

Science (logic):
Law of causality: "All effects are caused". "Every change in nature is produced by some cause". Extrapolation back from all effects, then, necessarily implies a first cause. Only one can be a first cause, because if there were more, they would be subject to principles or causes from outside themselves, such as the principle of co-creators. Likewise, if there is more than one, neither of them is absolute sovereign nor almighty.

Scripture:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4
The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps. Proverbs 16:9

 

[Mark Quayle]

Give me the Bible any day of the week over what religious men say.

Of course. But you claim "We do not see this kind of God described anywhere in Scripture". I am telling you it is replete with descriptions of just this kind of God. I mentioned some men who go over and over Scriptures, (including those proposed as denying this kind of God), to show exactly this kind of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For one, Calvinism really does not have a lot of verses defending it. Two, there are so many free will statements in the Bible in regards to choosing GOD it pretty much demolishes Calvinism.

Wrong and wrong. "Free will statements" in Scripture, if I know what you are referring to, are about man choosing. Calvinism does not claim man does not choose. The Bible is replete with statements, passages, and God's point of view concerning exactly what Calvinism describes. The Gospel is the work of God --not of man. If you can show me how "not of works" in Eph 2 means the grace, and not the faith, I'd like to hear it, but even then, "that not of yourselves" kind of ruins the idea of man's will being the hinge upon which eternity swings.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The definition posted is described as an adjective not a noun. There do exist free will choices or voluntary choices. For example some offerings to God are left up to the individuals discretion. Just thought I'd mention that so as to avoid any misunderstandings as well as snares of the enemy.

The "free will" offering is, as you said, voluntary or un-required ---it certainly does not claim to be uncaused. It has no reference to our discussion concerning free will, except by the fact it is the only passage in scripture where the actual term "free will" is used (unlike for example, "predestination").

 

[GenemZ]

Got some Scripture describing this progression?

Several....

First phase is simply God consciousness... Men are free to reject, and some do. And, are without excuse when they do! For God's enabling grace made them to know God is real. They choose to enter into denial and delusion to fight off and suppress what they were made to know. What they will not tolerate in their willful arrogance.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor
were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and
birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Roman 1:18-23
​

Then for those who accepted phase one. Most of us are in that category. They are moved along to the next.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all
men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should
live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age." Ttus 2:11-12
​

Not all men accept this phase. Some may die at a young age, or from suicide... Because God's grace makes men hurt for their wrongdoing, as He works to get them to become more civilized.

For the Greek word translated "teaching" that appears in this passage is not the normal classroom teacher-student kind of teaching. Its the kind of teaching that gives us knots on our head and burned fingers by learning to not touch what is wrong. Its grace teaching us the hard way to avoid immorality by becoming hurt and learning to avoid what we used to pursue. Its why even unbelievers can become moral as they get older. This way they learn to say "no" to unrighteousness.

Those are two stages of grace of God's drawing men closer, hopefully finally to faith in Christ.

The stage of grace that leads us into faith in Christ is God ministering in our minds and even with dreams that are containing ideas and things to consider that allows us to decide in the privacy of our own souls what we approve, or disapprove of, as shown to us by God before we got saved.

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can
come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will
raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets:
‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the
Father and learned from him comes to me." Jn 6:43-45
​

In retrospect, I later realized that I had quite a few supernatural impressions and feelings of a special presence while having certain thoughts enter my mind prior to coming to Christ. I sensed something supernatural was going on, but had no idea where it was coming from. I was being taught by God things that revealed aspects about His nature. I just knew I liked it and approved in an amused/intrigued sort of way. Without knowing it, I was approving of God's nature..

grace and peace.......

 

[childeye 2]

The "free will" offering is, as you said, voluntary or un-required ---it certainly does not claim to be uncaused. It has no reference to our discussion concerning free will, except by the fact it is the only passage in scripture where the actual term "free will" is used (unlike for example, "predestination").

Actually as I understand it, the offering is required. It's what the person chooses to offer that is voluntary.

There are people that will use that term in scripture to say there is a free will according to scripture. I just thought you should pre-empt such a possible argument by pointing out that it's an adjective in scripture beforehand.

I can tell you've thought this stuff out extensively and you articulate your thoughts well. However if you respond in some way that accepts the premise that the free will in scripture is somehow a noun, a good debater would be able to turn that into a contradiction according to your own words.

Yes predestination, a controversial subject. I'm not learned in Calvinism, but I know it's not logical to claim it's unfair for God to save only some, but perfectly fair to not save everyone.

 

[GenemZ]

The "free will" offering is, as you said, voluntary or un-required ---it certainly does not claim to be uncaused. It has no reference to our discussion concerning free will, except by the fact it is the only passage in scripture where the actual term "free will" is used (unlike for example, "predestination").

Predestination has nothing to do with God making people get saved. Its what God has determined to do with those He knows are going to believe. For example, God could have predestined for your soul to be alive on earth during the Exodus. If God did not chose you in Christ before the foundation of the earth? He could have sovereignly chosen before the foundations of the earth for you to be born during the days of Moses in the wilderness.

God knows throughout all history all who will believe. In knowing this, God alone determined for all who will believe, when and where they are to live on earth. To be chosen"in Christ refers to the unique benefits and type of blessings that are uniquely given to those God has determined will be the Bride of Christ. That is what we have been predestined for.

 

[bling]

Science (logic):
Law of causality: "All effects are caused". "Every change in nature is produced by some cause". Extrapolation back from all effects, then, necessarily implies a first cause. Only one can be a first cause, because if there were more, they would be subject to principles or causes from outside themselves, such as the principle of co-creators. Likewise, if there is more than one, neither of them is absolute sovereign nor almighty.

Scripture:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4
The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps. Proverbs 16:9

Science talks about "nature" and does not address the supernatural, which is beyond science. We know God is the first cause of nature, but science cannot say that, neither can science show anything about a miraculous ability given to humans by God to be a first cause of one decision.

Again, this is very circular reasoning. You are trying to “proof” humans do not have any God given autonomous free will ability to be a first cause for something, by assuming humans do not have that ability t be a first cause. That is the question we are trying to answer, so you cannot assume the answer.

Have just the autonomous free will to make one simple choice does mean: that being is the first cause for that one choice, so why is it impossible for God to allow this freedom?

Sovereignty over everything does not prevent God from allowing some humans to have sovereignty over one decision in their life, it is a very miraculous gift. This “gift” very much fits God and His creation.

How does giving some humans the one power to accept or reject His charity so they can obtain a Love like His Love take anything away from God if that is truly what God wants to do? Does it make God look weak like the father in the prodigal son story, allowing His son to choose or do we see an unbelievable huge Love which is God’s greatest glory.

If every little thing from the beginning was programmed by God to happen the way it happened then there is no reason for this ugly, disastrous world. It really just all does not make any logical sense. While if this messed up world and all the history we have, is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective it makes perfect sense and I can thank God for it.

Good scripture, but what I have said before 99.9% of our choices and actions are the result of environment and genes. We are not talking about how our "actions/steps" are taken, but what mentally we think (plan to do).

 

[GenemZ]

The real question that is never asked...

Why has God decreed that all men will be born with a nature that makes him an enemy of God by default? Adam was not created that way. Nor, were the angels created that way.

 

[renniks]

What's more, it seems to me that both Calvinists and Arminians generally agree with the idea of the will being in "bondage": No one comes to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws him.

It is the details of exactly how a person is drawn to Christ that differ. But of course, we need careful definition of terms and agreement on them to continue a useful discussion about the subject.

Depends what you mean by " draw". Armininans don't see this drawing as something that we can't resist.

 

[renniks]

You make it sound like it has to be one or the other. What was always going to happen was, according to the law of causality, going to happen.

Why? Is this law higher than God? Why not acknowledge that perhaps we live in a non deterministic universe? Everyone lives as if open theism is reality.

 

[GenemZ]

Guys? If God's grace by the Spirit does neutralize our sin natures, so we can walk pleasing to God as saved people?

What is it so impossible to realize that everyone gets a chance? For, the same Spirit takes each person, and at chosen times, neutralizes that person's sin nature as to 'enable' that person to make a choice from his own soul without the tyrannical sin nature influencing his choice.

That does no more guarantee that the person receiving this grace will choose for God. For look at the angels? The ones that rebelled and rejected God did so from their unfallen state.

This is where we need to better understand that sin and evil are not one and the same. Evil is what rejects God from an unhampered state of mind. People do not go to the Lake of Fire for sin. Evil is the cause. Jesus could not die for evil.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong and wrong. "Free will statements" in Scripture, if I know what you are referring to, are about man choosing.

Right, while God is one step ahead of man in that He has chosen us before we have chosen Him, man still is responsible for choosing God, and it is not God who forces them to choose by some kind of pre-faith regeneration or Calvinistic Election.

If God forces salvation upon certain people, then why doesn't He do that for all people? What purpose would there be for a Judgment even? Why would God condemn people if He was the One who put them there? He could have prevented them in going to a Judgment if salvation ultimately rested in his hands. To put it to you another way, it would sort of like this: One day a robot inventor created a robot whereby it gets a virus and or it goes haywire by an accident whereby it now wants to only murder as a part of it's programming. The inventor could have corrected this problem easily (from a remote destination), but he simply chooses not to fix the robot. Then one day, when the robot kills a person the inventor puts that robot on trial for killing. That would not make any sense for the inventor to do that because the robot is only doing what it is programmed to do (and the inventor could have stopped it). But if the robot was given free will choice as a part of it's programming and it could have equally chosen to do good instead of murdering, then that would be a different story.

Calvinism does not claim man does not choose.

I was not born again yesterday and I have debated with Calvinists for about 10 years now. There are different levels of Calvinism. Some say that man has free will to make regular choices, but man does not have the capacity to choose God of their own free will.

The Bible is replete with statements, passages, and God's point of view concerning exactly what Calvinism describes.

All five points of Calvinism are unbiblical. At one time, I did believed in Total Depravity, and I later discovered that this was also unbiblical, as well. Calvinism is an attempt to attack the good character of the true God.

The Gospel is the work of God --not of man. If you can show me how "not of works" in Eph 2 means the grace, and not the faith, I'd like to hear it, but even then, "that not of yourselves" kind of ruins the idea of man's will being the hinge upon which eternity swings.

I am aware of the theology of Calvinism. Calvinists think that Arminians making a choice to choose God of their own free will or to exercise faith is a work. So they believe that God has to zap or regenerate them in order for them to believe or have faith. But nothing could be further from the truth. For Scripture says God is angry at the wicked every day. Now, why would God get angry at the wicked when He could just zap them to be saved against their will? It makes no sense. Is not God allowing His sovereign will to take place when men sin?

Anyways, Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about Initial Salvation or Foundational Salvation. It is saying we are not saved by Works ALONE Salvationism without God's grace. But that does not mean Sanctification is not also included in the salvation process after we are saved by God's grace. Just read 2 Thessalonians 2:13, John 5:24, and James 2:24.

 

[mlepfitjw]

@Mark Quayle, asking to defining free will shortens debate.

Creation of Adam, and Eve. All the animals named, tamed, all the fruit you could you desire, and land to travel that was there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle, asking to defining free will shortens debate.

Creation of Adam, and Eve. All the animals named, tamed, all the fruit you could you desire, and land to travel that was there.

Am I to assume you are here attempting to define Free Will? If so, I'm not sure how you have done so.