Does God Have Free Will?

[Uber Genius]

You do not have one verse that mentions or teaches free will....imagine that.

Every "If" statement in the bible having to do with God commanding people to do x or y, and they will get a reward,

Else they will be punished NECESSARILY REQUIRES FREE WILL!

my guess is that there's are thousands of these hypothetical conditional statements in scripture.

Are you about to tell us that the concept of the trinity is false because we don't have one verse that mentions or teaches the trinity?

Certainly the two are the same type of argument.

 

[Uber Genius]

"Uber Genius,
Hello UG,



Yes..we all have a will. Scripture speaks of it as self will. We decide things, we make choices every day. none of which says the will is free.

There is an equivocation here...

Free will is being to make choices based on action of your will!

"We decide things," is the first action of free will. Who decided things?

"We did," by your own admission.

"we make choices every day," is the definition of free will. Did God determine our choices? No, we did!

So it seems that a more careful examination of free will is needed.

If we look at the Biblical data we see the following:

1 - Men have their minds darkened and can't freely come to God without God's drawing them.
2 - 1000s of passages with conditional promises by God "if"
"We make choices," in accord with God's will

Now we have your inference- there is no free will.

And my inference - there is free will.

My inference can explain all the data of scripture while it seems that your inference can't explain the second class of data (of which there are thousands of passages)!

Why not affirm the distinction in (1) above and suggest that once drawn by God and having the darkening lifted one has the freedom to choice to follow God or reject God (because we are no longer trapped behind false beliefs about God that have prevented us from choicing him before)?

Certainly this isn't synergism since our works play no role in salvation, and it explains why people can loss salvation only by walking away from trust in God and rejecting his lordship, not by bad works.

That is the Arminian/molinist view.

 

[Neogaia777]

Only the True Highest Father God is the One and only One always having any kind of the truest and purest form of "free will", etc, even apart from the other two in the Triune arrangement, etc, and definitely with all of us, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm confused. As a Calvinist, shouldn't that emboldened sentence read like this:

"We [seem to] decide things [but we really don't], we [seem to] make choices every day [but actually God makes all our choices for us]."

Ok, right now I dare you to curse God to His face immediately. If you really are just a puppet on God's strings, you have no cause for hesitating or refraining. The TRUTH is, deep down, you know that you CAN make this choice (in the sense of genuine libertarian freedom), that you CAN determine that particular outcome. And thus to avoid divine retaliation, you will refrain, thereby tacitly acknowledging that you DO have a real say in your future. Deep down,then, you DON'T believe Calvinism.

Even Calvinists don't believe Calvinism. Why, then, should I believe it?

You don't understand "will".
Even brute animals have will and it is not free of their instincts. So they make choices without a free will. Get it? Having a choice and making it ( or not ) doesn't guarantee or define it as free of fallen instinct. And that's exactly what you get when you don't submit your will to God's. You get the "freedom" to exercise ungodly choices.
What we don't have (according to Calvin) is a say in whether or not we get into heaven (saved).
What we do have according to Calvin is the freedom to earn rewards IN heaven. No one earns his way in. That's the Shake 'N Bake salvation; "Jesus saved me and I helped!"
So the puppet argument just fails miserably.
Better to skip hating Calvinists and just hate God directly.

 

[Rick Otto]

There is an equivocation here...

Free will is being to make choices based on action of your will!

"We decide things," is the first action of free will. Who decided things?

"We did," by your own admission.

"we make choices every day," is the definition of free will. Did God determine our choices? No, we did!

So it seems that a more careful examination of free will is needed.

If we look at the Biblical data we see the following:

1 - Men have their minds darkened and can't freely come to God without God's drawing them.
2 - 1000s of passages with conditional promises by God "if"
"We make choices," in accord with God's will

Now we have your inference- there is no free will.

And my inference - there is free will.

My inference can explain all the data of scripture while it seems that your inference can't explain the second class of data (of which there are thousands of passages)!

Why not affirm the distinction in (1) above and suggest that once drawn by God and having the darkening lifted one has the freedom to choice to follow God or reject God (because we are no longer trapped behind false beliefs about God that have prevented us from choicing him before)?

Certainly this isn't synergism since our works play no role in salvation, and it explains why people can loss salvation only by walking away from trust in God and rejecting his lordship, not by bad works.

That is the Arminian/molinist view.

I believe those warnings are issued to those being drawn but not yet fully convicted.
People can make confessions get baptized, do good works and do it all out of fear.
So it's easy to think some dude was a believer for years simply because we could not see his fear.

Free will is a fact in the practical usage of the term whereby we assign responsibility to individuals, but in the context of soteriology, the meaning is reduced considerably.

 

[JAL]

You don't understand "will".
Even brute animals have will and it is not free of their instincts. So they make choices without a free will. Get it? Having a choice and making it ( or not ) doesn't guarantee or define it as free of fallen instinct. And that's exactly what you get when you don't submit your will to God's. You get the "freedom" to exercise ungodly choices.
What we don't have (according to Calvin) is a say in whether or not we get into heaven (saved).
What we do have according to Calvin is the freedom to earn rewards IN heaven. No one earns his way in. That's the Shake 'N Bake salvation; "Jesus saved me and I helped!"
So the puppet argument just fails miserably.
Better to skip hating Calvinists and just hate God directly.

Your analogy with animals isn't valid. First of all it isn't clear that all orders of animals lack free will. Certainly they can't make moral choices for lack of a conscience, but arguably they CAN choose whether to eat dry food or canned.

Secondly my appeal was to the poster's own conscious experience of making moral choices (something an animal has never experienced). His own mind conveys to him that he consciously can choose whether to curse God (and thus is not a puppet on a string). You're making an unwarranted assumption - you're insinuating that depravity precludes ANY kind of choice, contrary to our own experience. Don't just assume it, argue it....

Thirdly your language seems incoherent, when you write:

"Having a choice and making it ( or not ) doesn't guarantee or define it as free of fallen instinct."

If there's no real libertarian freedom, I object to calling it a choice. How can the absence of choice be called a choice? For example if you give me a drug that so consumes with me murderous intent that I cannot refrain, at what point did I get the opportunity to make a choice? That makes no sense. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too - you'll deny this, but it's not convincing.

You KNOW that you could curse God to HIs face right now. Thus you KNOW (deep down) that you're not ENTIRELY a puppet on His strings. So much for Calvinism.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="JAL, post:Your analogy with animals isn't valid. First of all it isn't clear that all orders of animals lack free will. Certainly they can't make moral choices for lack of a conscience, but arguably they CAN choose whether to eat dry food or canned.

Wait... I think we need to further contextualize... add nuance, if you will.
My analogy is valid because it illustrates no lack of will, but a considerably greater lack of freedom to exercise it.
I contend they DO make moral; decisions because some of those are intrinsic to animal family life and will result in what is basically the same choices an animal of a higher intellectual order, capable of processing powerful & mixed emotions would make: risk one's own life to save family for example.

Secondly my appeal was to the poster's own conscious experience of making moral choices (something an animal has never experienced). His own mind conveys to him that he consciously can choose whether to curse God (and thus is not a puppet on a string). You're making an unwarranted assumption - you're insinuating that depravity precludes ANY kind of choice, contrary to our own experience. Don't just assume it, argue it....

Wonderfully said, brother. You have perfectly demonstrated the categorical distinction I previously made when I said free will is a perfectly valid term, but only outside the theological context of soteriology - how we are given the eternal life we need to get into heaven.
All the non-agape verses about conditional rewards is about rewards in heaven because nobody could ever deserve heaven except Jesus. That's Why He paid the price - only He could. None of us are able until we are saved. Paul says the gospel is foolishness to the unsaved but to the saved it is the power of God, indicating we are 1st saved, then thru that merciful, not merited grace we receive the gift of faith (not choice which we already have, but the ability to make spiritual choices).

So no, I'm not insinuating depravity precludes ANY kind of choice. I'm sayin depravity makes spiritual knowledge, awareness, & thus spiritual choices completely impossible as 1 Cor 2:14 attests: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Depravity does not negate will. It negates the ability to perceive & judge spiritual realities, so the will is not free to engage them.

Thirdly your language seems incoherent, when you write:

"Having a choice and making it ( or not ) doesn't guarantee or define it as free of fallen instinct."

If there's no real libertarian freedom, I object to calling it a choice. How can the absence of choice be called a choice? For example if you give me a drug that so consumes with me murderous intent that I cannot refrain, at what point did I get the opportunity to make a choice? That makes no sense. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too - you'll deny this, but it's not convincing.

My statement is coherent in its assertion that having a will (being able to choose) does not equate with freedom. Again, the incoherence is because of the lack of respect for the categorical distinction of contexts - soteriological or mundane life choices.
Free will is about spiritual choice, not ALL choice. That category of discussion belongs out of soteriology and into shades of predestination from hard to varying degrees of less so.
So to carry free will into soteriology is to revert to the RC anti-Reform position of "co-operative salvation. (Shake & Bake)

You KNOW that you could curse God to HIs face right now. Thus you KNOW (deep down) that you're not ENTIRELY a puppet on His strings. So much for Calvinism.

LOL, that tickles when you go clairvoyant on me. No sir, I could curse Him with my lips but not in my heart. I get angry at Him regularly, we work it out.

I'm sorry to send you back to doing your homework, but you have misunderstood "Calvinism".
Please understand how fast & loosely that term is being thrown around. I'm identified as "Calvinist" simply because I can understand & defend his soteriology. but I part ways with Calvin in important areas like sacramentology and ecclesiology (especially in the area of church discipline ).

Depravity depriving us of freedom of will is about choosing to believe, not what shirt to wear.

 

[JAL]

Wait... I think we need to further contextualize... add nuance, if you will.
My analogy is valid because it illustrates no lack of will, but a considerably greater lack of freedom to exercise it.
I contend they DO make moral; decisions because some of those are intrinsic to animal family life and will result in what is basically the same choices an animal of a higher intellectual order, capable of processing powerful & mixed emotions would make: risk one's own life to save family for example.

Animals do not make moral choices. They lack a clear concept of evil versus righteous.

Wonderfully said, brother. You have perfectly demonstrated the categorical distinction I previously made when I said free will is a perfectly valid term, but only outside the theological context of soteriology - how we are given the eternal life we need to get into heaven.

Again, if you believe in real libertarian freedom, then you're not the sort of Calvinist that I'm addressing. The Calvinists I've seen on this forum claim that God ordained even the Fall - that we are all just puppets on His strings. That's not real freedom. That's not choice. Of any kind.

You go on to talk about whether the sinful nature prevents us from getting saved (what you refer to as the 'soteriological context'). Calvinists always fall back on this strawman issue, whereas I was dealing with the larger issue of freedom, for example can you CHOOSE whether or not to curse God to His face RIGHT NOW? Or are you just a puppet on His strings? I think you know very well the answer to that question - but you seem to be avoiding it because it refutes Calvinism.

So to carry free will into soteriology is to revert to the RC anti-Reform position of "co-operative salvation. (Shake & Bake)

Soteriology is your (strawman) topic. It was never mine.

LOL, that tickles when you go clairvoyant on me. No sir, I could curse Him with my lips but not in my heart. I get angry at Him regularly, we work it out.

Fine. Then you are not a puppet on His strings. So much for Calvinism.

I'm sorry to send you back to doing your homework, but you have misunderstood "Calvinism".
Please understand how fast & loosely that term is being thrown around. I'm identified as "Calvinist" simply because I can understand & defend his soteriology. but I part ways with Calvin in important areas like sacramentology and ecclesiology (especially in the area of church discipline ).

Depravity depriving us of freedom of will is about choosing to believe, not what shirt to wear.

So in your view, God is not First Cause? He did NOT ordain the Fall? Seems to me you are just dancing here.