Does God have free will?

[Oshulten]

Hi Christians!

Do you think that God has his own free will? He can certainly act out on whatever he wants to do. But why does he want certain things? Is he the one to decide, or is he a helpless victim of his own needs and whims?

 

[DCJazz]

If your intent is to bait and not listen or be open at all, then I have nothing to say.
If your intent is purely from curiosity on what we believe, then I guess I can oblige you.
Not now, though. It's 5 AM. However, I'll subscribe and get back to whatever replies emerge in the morning.

 

[drich0150]

Hi Christians!

Do you think that God has his own free will? He can certainly act out on whatever he wants to do. But why does he want certain things? Is he the one to decide, or is he a helpless victim of his own needs and whims?

How do you define freewill?

 

[salida]

God is sovern and doesn't need anybody.

The Nature of God
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/god.pdf

1 John 4:8- God is Love

 

[callmeMurph]

How do you define freewill?

Yeah, I can't respond before I know this.

 

[Jpark]

Hi Christians!

Do you think that God has his own free will? He can certainly act out on whatever he wants to do.

Of course He has free will. He is the only one who has permanent free will and He is not under predetermination and foreknowledge (God's Omniscience does not apply to His decisions. It is only knowledge of Himself and His thoughts (1 Cor. 2:11)). He can change predetermination (I believe this is implied in Jeremiah 18:7-10, Jonah 3:10, 2 Chronicles 7:13-14, and 2 Kings 20:1-6).

Humans don't have permanent free will. They are given free will at intervals, the duration of which is controlled by God. This (the giving of free will) is typically conditional (before and after sinning, after carrying out a predetermined sin, etc.), but Adam and Eve were given permanent free will after they sinned (I believe this is implied in Gen. 3:17, in which they were spared a direct cursing, and in Gen. 3:21, in which they were apparently forgiven).

Source:

Study of the Scriptures led me to this simple conclusion. It's crude, but it's efficient. I believe the non-elect and the people predetermined by God to go to hell can be saved through God's intervention. This can be conditional and unconditional.

But why does he want certain things? Is he the one to decide, or is he a helpless victim of his own needs and whims?

Yes, He is the one to decide. Salvation is not always conditional. Salvation can also be unconditional (Rom. 9:15), although I believe this is infrequent.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Christians!

Do you think that God has his own free will? He can certainly act out on whatever he wants to do. But why does he want certain things? Is he the one to decide, or is he a helpless victim of his own needs and whims?

You are using a human category, "free will". How can the Sovereign Lord of the universe have free will? As an atheist, you are using the wrong category.

By the sovereignty of God, I mean that God, as creator of all things, whether they are visible or invisible, owns all of these things and he has an absolute right to rule over these "things" (see Matt. 20:15; Rom. 9:20-21). The sovereign God has told us that he exercises this authority in the universe (see Eph. 1:11).

The decrees of God do not originate in necessity or arbitrary free will, but are based in God's wise and holy counsel. So to speak of God having free will is contrary to the revelation of Himself in Scripture. God cannot have arbitrary free will, but all of His decisions are based on his wise and holy counsel.

Theologian, Charles Hodge, wrote:

Although this sovereignty is thus universal and absolute, it is the sovereignty of wisdom, holiness, and love (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 441)

Eph. 1:11 states that God

works everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (NIV).

But we are not talking about free-will that is anything like human free-will.

Oz

 

[Oshulten]

By the sovereignty of God, I mean that God, as creator of all things, whether they are visible or invisible, owns all of these things and he has an absolute right to rule over these "things" (see Matt. 20:15; Rom. 9:20-21). The sovereign God has told us that he exercises this authority in the universe (see Eph. 1:11).

The decrees of God do not originate in necessity or arbitrary free will, but are based in God's wise and holy counsel. So to speak of God having free will is contrary to the revelation of Himself in Scripture. God cannot have arbitrary free will, but all of His decisions are based on his wise and holy counsel.
Oz

Okey, let me try to define freewill. Actions not influenced by other forces. Meaning that freewill can only exist outside of a deterministic universe. So when God take action, does he always do it for specific reasons - like his own emotions, the condition of humanity or for the sake or order? Or are his actions taken arbitrarily, based on nothing but random whims?

Either extreme you approach the situation from, God does not seem to be excepted from these limitations of any kind of will.

 

[Christos Anesti]

God is beyond the catagories of "free will" and "determinism". I would suggest the writtings of St Dionysius the Aeropagate.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Works in English Translation unavailable elsewhere online

CHAPTER III
What are the affirmations and the negations concerning God?

In the Theological Outlines (6) we have set forth the principal affirmative expressions concerning God, and have shown in what sense God's Holy Nature is One, and in what sense Three; what is within It which is called Paternity, what Filiation, and what is signified by the name Spirit; how from the uncreated and indivisible Good, the blessed and perfect Rays of its Goodness proceed, and yet abide immutably one both within their Origin and within themselves and each other, co-eternal with the act by which they spring from it; how the superessential Jesus enters in essential state in which the truths of human nature meet; and other matters made known by the Oracles are expounded in the same place. Again, in the treatise on Divine Names, we have considered the meaning, as concerning God, of the titles of Good, of Being, of Life, of Wisdom, of Power, and of such other names as are applied to it; further, in Symbolical Theology we have considered what are the metaphorical titles drawn from the world of sense and applied to the nature of God; what is meant by the material and intellectual images we form of it, or the functions and instruments of activity attributed to it; what are the places where it dwells and the raiment in which it is adorned; what is meant by God's anger, grief and indignation, or the divine inebriation; what is meant by God's oaths and threats, by Its slumber and waking; and all sacred and symbolical representations. And it will be observed how far more copious and diffused are the last terms than the first, for the theological doctrine and the exposition of the Divine Names are necessarily more brief than the Symbolical Theology.

For the higher we soar in contemplation the more limited become our expressions of that which is purely intelligible; even as now, when plunging into the Darkness that is above the intellect, we pass not merely into brevity of speech, but even into absolute silence of thoughts and of words. Thus, in the former discourse, our contemplations descended from the highest to the lowest, embracing an ever-widening number of conceptions, which increased at each stage of the descent; but in the present discourse we mount upwards from below to that which is the highest, and, according to the degree of transcendence, so our speech is restrained until, the entire ascent being accomplished, we become wholly voiceless, inasmuch as we are absorbed in it that is totally ineffable. But why, you will ask, 'does the affirmative method begin from the highest attributions, and the negative method with the lowest abstractions?' The reason is because, when affirming the subsistence of That which transcends all affirmation, we necessarily start from the attributes most closely related to It and upon which the remaining affirmations depend; but when pursuing the negative method to reach That which is beyond all abstraction, we must begin by applying our negations to things which are most remote from It. For is it not more true to affirm that God is Life and Goodness than that God is air or stone; and must we not deny to God more emphatically the attributes of inebriation and wrath than the applications of human speech and thought?


CHAPTER IV
That it that is the pre-eminent Cause of all things sensibly perceived is not itself any of those things.


We therefore maintain that the universal and transcendent Cause of all things is neither without being nor without life, nor without reason or intelligence; nor is it a body, nor has it form or shape, quality, quantity or weight; nor has it any localized, visible or tangible existence; it is not sensible or perceptible; nor is it subject to any disorder or inordination nor influenced by any earthly passion; neither is it rendered impotent through the effects of material causes and events; it needs no light; it suffers no change, corruption, division, privation or flux; none of these things can either be identified with or attributed unto it.


209-CHAPTER V
That it that is the pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly perceived is not itself any of those things.


Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

- The Mystical Theology

 

[OzSpen]

Okey, let me try to define freewill. Actions not influenced by other forces. Meaning that freewill can only exist outside of a deterministic universe. So when God take action, does he always do it for specific reasons - like his own emotions, the condition of humanity or for the sake or order? Or are his actions taken arbitrarily, based on nothing but random whims?

Either extreme you approach the situation from, God does not seem to be excepted from these limitations of any kind of will.

Free will is defined differently by different people. Logically, there seems to be only three basic views on this topic: (1) Self-caused actions that can be labelled, self-determinism; (2) Acts caused by another person (determinism); and (3) Acts that have no cause whatsoever (indeterminism). Indeterminism violates the law of causality, meaning that every event has a cause. Determinism violates the concept of free will since any moral agent is not causing or is responsible for his or her own actions.

With self-determinism, there are a number of perspectives. However, the common view of self-determinism or free will is that whatever influence there is on the will of a person, that person could choose to do differently, i.e. With free will, a person can choose an opposite course of action.

In that sense, God cannot have free will because there can be nobody or thing that can influence His will to do the opposite action. God's sovereignty determines his actions. Nobody else can influence Him to choose otherwise.

Free will is not the cause of a free act. Free will is the gift that God has given to all human beings - the ability to be a free agent. That is not the case with God. His attribute of sovereignty means that he cannot be influence to make a contrary decision to His sovereign acts.

God is exempt from all human limitations because of the nature of God. Why don't you get a handle on the nature and attributes of God? You can gain that from reading the Scriptures in their entirety. If you want a fast track to get there, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan Publishing House).

You are talking very humanistically ly when you try make God fit into your understanding of free will.

Oz

 

[Oshulten]

I read the text put forth by Christos; I'm sorry to say I didn't quite grasp it.

we are not talking about free-will that is anything like human free-will.

Then what kind of free-will is it?

Why don't you get a handle on the nature and attributes of God? You can gain that from reading the Scriptures in their entirety.

I have read parts of both the Old Testament and the New Testamente. It describes God's actions and speech, and his followers and enemies reaction and relation to him. From the scriptures I understand one can make a range of interpretations about the nature of God. However, I don't want to be caught up in a quote-war here. Could someone please sum up the essentials?

Again, why doesn't our definition of free-will apply to God? Where I stand now, I find it difficult to see any free-will logically possible. We have causality (determinism) and chance (indeterminism), but simply no third option. There's no magic involved. What is free-will to you?

 

[drich0150]

Okey, let me try to define freewill. Actions not influenced by other forces. Meaning that freewill can only exist outside of a deterministic universe. So when God take action, does he always do it for specific reasons - like his own emotions, the condition of humanity or for the sake or order? Or are his actions taken arbitrarily, based on nothing but random whims?

Either extreme you approach the situation from, God does not seem to be excepted from these limitations of any kind of will.

We can only persume that the nature of God dictates His own will. Because Who could bind the will of God other than God Himself? So any action He takes is of His own accord.

 

[drich0150]

Again, why doesn't our definition of free-will apply to God?

If "our" definition of "Free will" will not allow for a logically possible explanation of it then perhaps it is your definition of "freewill" that is in error.

What is free-will to you?

As the bible describes: (and taken from another post on the subject)
Just some definitions first:

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God

Evil, is a malicious intent to commit sin

Not all sin is evil, but all evil is sin

Freewill is the ability to choose your own will over that of God's expressed will. (The bible/God's Law)

In other words Free will is the ability to sin.

So whether we have a destiny or things just kinda all happen random like, or as Forrest Gump's explains: "that it maybe a little bit of both," Biblically based "freewill" is not effected by our life's path and whether it is determined for us or not. Because it is our ability to choose to sin or not sin, that supports the biblical ideal of Free Will. It has nothing to do whether or not we were born or get to choose to be astronauts or truck drivers.

If I answer your original question by the scriptural definition the answer is no. Because God can not sin simply because what He does is in His expressed will.

 

[Oshulten]

We can only persume that the nature of God dictates His own will. Because Who could bind the will of God other than God Himself? So any action He takes is of His own accord.

But when God dictates his own will, what makes him decide what his will should be? As Schopenhauer said; "Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills". Indeed, why doesn't this apply to God? Even if he could "will what he wills", there is always another 'will' behind every other 'willing will'. It becomes an infinite regress. If applied as a solution to this problem, it becomes a vicious infinite regress, which is no answer at all.

 

[drich0150]

But when God dictates his own will, what makes him decide what his will should be? As Schopenhauer said; "Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills". Indeed, why doesn't this apply to God? Even if he could "will what he wills", there is always another 'will' behind every other 'willing will'. It becomes an infinite regress. If applied as a solution to this problem, it becomes a vicious infinite regress, which is no answer at all.

A suitable conundrum for an infinite God... Or do you believe at 19 you have the capacity you fully grasp His infinite nature?

 

[OzSpen]

But when God dictates his own will, what makes him decide what his will should be? As Schopenhauer said; "Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills". Indeed, why doesn't this apply to God? Even if he could "will what he wills", there is always another 'will' behind every other 'willing will'. It becomes an infinite regress. If applied as a solution to this problem, it becomes a vicious infinite regress, which is no answer at all.

God is absolutely just, holy, righteous & truthful. They are attributes that dictate the content of His will!

Oz

 

[DCJazz]

Again, why doesn't our definition of free-will apply to God?

It's a bit impossible to use a finite definition for an infinite being.

 

[Oshulten]

By Ozpen:

God is absolutely just, holy, righteous & truthful. They are attributes that dictate the content of His will!

Now again, there is the problem. Let's say God acts on the tenets justice, holiness and righteousness. Did God decide to favor these values above others? Why did he choose them? Could he have had chosen any other values just as likely? If not, why not?

By DCJazz:

It's a bit impossible to use a finite definition for an infinite being.

In what way is free-will a finite definition of anything? Either we can describe God in our own terminology, or we can't. If we can, and we do, then my question whether or not God possesses free will is perfectly valid and should be treated as such. If not, then we cannot give God attributes like just, holy and righteous. Indeed, we cannot know or describe God at all.

 

[drich0150]

By Ozpen:


Now again, there is the problem. Let's say God acts on the tenets justice, holiness and righteousness. Did God decide to favor these values above others? Why did he choose them? Could he have had chosen any other values just as likely? If not, why not?

By DCJazz:


In what way is free-will a finite definition of anything? Either we can describe God in our own terminology, or we can't. If we can, and we do, then my question whether or not God possesses free will is perfectly valid and should be treated as such. If not, then we cannot give God attributes like just, holy and righteous. Indeed, we cannot know or describe God at all.

Are you here to explore Christianity or are you here to simply argue a very specific position? One that does not allow for independent thought outside the set very specific parameters you have been taught?

I have provided a perspective that answers your apparent dilemma, but evidently not one that answers it in a way you are able to process. Because again it seems as if you favor answers that fit your very specific conundrum, over the response that has you question the bases of the knowledge that has you asking this question to begin with. May I ask you, does this behavior reflect an Exploration of Christianity? Or, does this behavior better fit the definition of a witch hunt? (The relentless pursuit, capture, and prosecution of a specific adversary.)

If your goal is to truly explore Christianity, then perhaps it would be best to adopt God's prospective, and definitions on the subjects you speak. Rather than demanding an account of God that fits your personal understanding of (In this case) Free will. Perhaps God is a little bit bigger than your understanding of Him.

 

[Oshulten]

Are you here to explore Christianity or are you here to simply argue a very specific position? One that does not allow for independent thought outside the set very specific parameters you have been taught?

I have provided a perspective that answers your apparent dilemma, but evidently not one that answers it in a way you are able to process. Because again it seems as if you favor answers that fit your very specific conundrum, over the response that has you question the bases of the knowledge that has you asking this question to begin with. May I ask you, does this behavior reflect an Exploration of Christianity? Or, does this behavior better fit the definition of a witch hunt? (The relentless pursuit, capture, and prosecution of a specific adversary.)

If your goal is to truly explore Christianity, then perhaps it would be best to adopt God's prospective, and definitions on the subjects you speak. Rather than demanding an account of God that fits your personal understanding of (In this case) Free will. Perhaps God is a little bit bigger than your understanding of Him.

Drich0150, please. Your words echo ironically in my ears. I asked you, as christians, a question - regarding the nature of God - in order for me to explore Christianity through real christians. What you believe interests me, but even more so why you believe what you believe.

Indeed, it was a closed question. But a simple yes/no answer does not satisfy me. I then ask you (the people on this forum in general) why you answered the way you did, and this is the reply I get from you, drich. If exploration of Christianity stops at swallowing whatever you answer without further questioning of how/why and so on, then it is you that do not allow yourself thought outside a very specific set of parameters. If you can't provide reasons for you belief, than what do you support your beliefs on? That's all I ask.

You ask me about my behavior. I ask you, have I been rude? Have I insulted you? Have I been judging in any way in this thread? If you prefer a monologue - you talking without listening to response - then why are you even on this forum? If you think that a polite, reasonable dialogue is a 'witch hunt', how can you even function as a human being together with other people with different beliefs than yours? It's funny hearing about persecution from a follower of the hands down largest religion on the planet.

Your and certain other's belittling attitude soils this thread. Let us please adopt a polite tone of voice, where we can talk about things on equal and fair ground. Thank you, and sorry for the understandably, albeit necessary, less-than-pleasant reply.