"Free Will" an oxymoron?

[Rick Otto]

Like "Jumbo Shrimp,"
I mean think about it...
The will is an "organ" of man. Is man free?
Tyndale's execution listed his denial of free will.
How can we consider ourselves Protestant & believe man has a free will?

This post is for everyone, but I would especially appreciate Lamb'slove's answer if she has one.

 

[Lotar]

Like "Jumbo Shrimp,"
I mean think about it...
The will is an "organ" of man. Is man free?
Tyndale's execution listed his denial of free will.
How can we consider ourselves Protestant & believe man has a free will?

This post is for everyone, but I would especially appreciate Lamb'slove's answer if she has one.

This world has sin, pain, suffering, and when people die, a lot go to hell.
So I see it two ways:
1.) Man has no free will, there is only the will of God. Therefore, God's will includes the above mentioned things. So if God wants for these thing to happen, is He truely a loving perfect God? I don't see how He could be.
2.) God gives man free will, and therefore, man can choose to do evil. When man does evil, the above mentioned things happen. God wants our love for Him to be genuin, so He allows these things to happen. Even though we choose to disobey Him and do evil, He still loves us, and wants to save us. To me, this describes a loving perfect God.

So I choose 2
I can easily see how a Protestant can believe in free will. I just can't see how a Calvinist can believe in free will

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I choose 2

Gen 6:5 ........thought of man's heart was only evil continually

Gen 8:21......for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth...................

 

[eldermike]

Free will is a by-product of not knowing the future. If you knew the future you would not be making choices, since you don't know the future, you are.

 

[Rick Otto]

Counter-reformationists have been as busy as I thought!
Martin Luther must be spinnin'! Did you guys know denying free will is one of the charges William Tyndale went to the stake for?!?

Do you guys know who Pelagius was?
Did you know his original-sin-denying "free will" doctrine was considered heresy until the infamous Council Of Trent?
Are you familiar with Canon 9 of that Council?
I hate to break it to you, but you are more Catholic than you might realize.
Louis DeMolina, a Jesuit monk did a bang-up job updating Pelagius into "Media Scientia," his "middle knowlege" compromise on Pelagius' ideas, but they needed someone not-so-obvious to sell this poison...
enter Jacobus Arminius.

Unbelievable.

Ok, here's my whack at it:
How about
Man has a will, but the only choices it can make are those on the menu, and since Adam's transgression, the menu only includes ENMITY w/GOD.
& you have to remember that enmity with God can dress itself up as "Christianity."
Now, since God IS loving & perfect, not neglecting His justice, He extends a "special," but not to those who are going to reflect His justice, rather to an elect remnant that will adequately display His mercy.
In order to display His mercy, He not only placed that remnant in His Son before the foundation of the world, He chose people who were AT ENMITY with Him, to grace with this "manager's special," so that there would be no question that it was HIS will, His work, & His mercy, giving no credit, even in terms of assent, to anyone but Himself.
He did not gently knock on the door of Paul's heart.
He knocked him off his high horse & struck him blind!
How much respect for Paul's "free will" does THAT display?
And if a man's genuiness is measured by the "feedom" of his will, why didn't God allow Pharoah the freedom to express his own will in his own way? Does God so desire genuine love from some that he forces hate into others to draw it out? Rube Goldberg maybe, not God.

I DO know the future, & STILL I make choices.
Revelations reveals much of the future.
History reveals much of the future.
It can't be entirely true to say one doesn't know the future. Could that imply one's by product is not entirely free?

 

[Reformationist]

Good luck Rick. I've tried this discussion here about a hundred times. The best you're going to get, with the exception of a few, is a semi-Pelagian view of the Fall of man. Unless one truly acknowledges the lack of desire, and the control that lack of desire exerts over our choices, one is going to continually espouse some sort of moral neutrality with regard to the motivation of our choices, i.e, everytime I'm faced with a moral decision I'm equally free to choose to either obey or disobey God. All I can say is that I find that anthropocentric view of the Gospel to be unbiblical as well as unglorifying to God.

I wish you luck where I've had only prideful contention.

As you know, most people don't like to look at themselves the way God does. They will regularly say, "Oh sure, I sin, but I'm not thaaaat bad."

It denies the biblical Truth of the Fall of man.

God bless

 

[eldermike]

So you know the future? What happens tomorrow? Tomorrow is in the future, is it not?

 

[Drotar]

You guys should really think about what eldermike is saying.

That free will is only considered objectively if the future is known, where we can see the cause-effect relationships of both potential choices. When we CANNOT see the future, we cannot know what fate is, and therefore, since we do not know the future, with our choices, we cannot help but fulfill it. We cannot prevent that which we do not know. Since we do not know the future, we cannot prevent it.

Our free choices continually are a fulfillment of fate. I could get into Edwards and the motivation of the will, and how a truly free will should have neither inclinations towards good nor evil of itself, but it should suffice to say that eldermike has brought up a VERY good point.

If I knew I was going to get hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd call in sick to work. It's the very fact that we never know what's going to happen next, that ensures that fate will be fulfilled without any violation to our choices. Free will, if you think about it, only exists if we know the caused and uncaused circumstances around the choices. Since we do not know what our choices will bring, we will not be motivated to choose something else. Therefore, though we have free will, the fact that the future remains unknown means that we will certainly act in one way at any given circumstance. TTYL Jesus loves y'all!

 

[Reformationist]

You guys should really think about what eldermike is saying.

That free will is only considered objectively if the future is known, where we can see the cause-effect relationships of both potential choices. When we CANNOT see the future, we cannot know what fate is, and therefore, since we do not know the future, with our choices, we cannot help but fulfill it. We cannot prevent that which we do not know. Since we do not know the future, we cannot prevent it.

Our free choices continually are a fulfillment of fate. I could get into Edwards and the motivation of the will, and how a truly free will should have neither inclinations towards good nor evil of itself, but it should suffice to say that eldermike has brought up a VERY good point.

If I knew I was going to get hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd call in sick to work. It's the very fact that we never know what's going to happen next, that ensures that fate will be fulfilled without any violation to our choices. Free will, if you think about it, only exists if we know the caused and uncaused circumstances around the choices. Since we do not know what our choices will bring, we will not be motivated to choose something else. Therefore, though we have free will, the fact that the future remains unknown means that we will certainly act in one way at any given circumstance. TTYL Jesus loves y'all!

With all due respect to eldermike I think this partially boils down to an issue of semantics as well as theological differences of opinion.

Regardless of our knowledge, or lack thereof, of the future, I would say that our will is free only in the sense that it is free from external coercion. Our wills are never free from self determination, which is the very essence of "freedom." The underlying, but supremely important, substance of this is that our wills are subject to our nature. That is, it is our desires and inclinations which motivate us in one direction or another.

Again, the idea of moral neutrality is absurd. If, whenever faced with temptation of any kind, we are morally neutral to either obey or disobey God we will never move in either direction because neither motivates us more strongly than the other. It's like being pulled by equally strong, or weak, forces.

That, in my opinion, is not an accurate description of either a regenerate person or an unregenerate person. We are either motivated by our desire to please God or by our desire to please our flesh. This, for regenerate people, varies based on His grace, our supplications to Him, our immersion in the things of God, i.e., His Word, fellowshipping with the saints, etc, and our lack of these things and the power we give to our flesh. The more we entertain ungodliness, the more likely we are to be tempted to submit to it and vice versa.

God bless

 

[eldermike]

Dotar, you are wise beyond your years.
Reformationist, Yes it is partially an issue of semantics. And, some of it is our need to fit things neatly into boxes. I have studied myself into several circles always returning to my lack of gifts as the most important factor that keeps me from making but a few absolute statements.
Here is my list of things I know:
God is God
The cross worked
I am saved eternally, not in my future, but now
That's about it.
If I made a list of things I believe are most likely true I would come across as a 5 point Calvinists for sure.

 

[Reformationist]

If I made a list of things I believe are most likely true I would come across as a 5 point Calvinists for sure.

Oh no!!! The horror of it all!!!

 

[Rick Otto]

wid the idea we don't know the future?
I know that God willing, the sun is gonna come up tomorrow.
"Tommorrow there'll be sun" my pupiless friend Annie, sang.
What's clairvoyance got to do with it? And THERE's an issue for your "we can't know the future"postulation. Divination alone trumps that.
If I cut off my leg today, I KNOW I won't be runnin' anywhere tomorrow.
It's EASY to know the future.
Whatever.
The primary confusion lies behind the redefinition of "Freedom". Call it semantics, but that would be euphemising IMHO.

The idea that the human love that God desires isn't genuine unless it's "freely" given is a romanticized view of humanity.
1st of all, God was in perfect communion with Himself in eternity before He decided to create. He doesn't need us in that sense.
And why in the world & heaven would He in any way respect or hold dear, even sacred, any part of a fallen creature spiritually stillborn and at enmity with Himself? Adam sold our "freedom" to Satan.At that point, by freedom, I mean our relationship with God, which included a mutually gratifying obedience on Adam's part.
Another diffuculty with the prescience approach to decision making is that the possibilities begin to inrease geometrically as you begin to consider downstream consequences of your choices, each consequence itself depending upon a constellation of variables including environmental & historical circumstantial influences.
That much calculation, even if all the necessary information is present, is so far beyond human mental capacity, that it would require omniscience to execute.

Drotar, you could call in sick to work, & circumstances could allow that bus to come crashing thru your wall. To say our free choices fulfill fate sounds a little too self contradictory for me to compute, maybe 'cause I consider free choices include freedom from any predetermination by God, which is impossible on the face of it, in the light of:
1.Omniscience
2.Omnipotence.
3.Omnipresence.
The absoluteness of these qualities guaranty objectivity & freedom only to the one who holds them & at the same time render any notion of freedom on any lesser being's part, comparatively diminished in both quality & quantity. To say man's will is free is only relatively true at best, and entirely misleading, at worst.

 

[Reformationist]

To say man's will is free is only relatively true at best, and entirely misleading, at worst.

Amen!

 

[Drotar]

I can't believe this is happening. Just to note, I'm as Calvinistic as y'all, I simply believe in a free will as defined by Sproul and Edwards. A free will is the ability to choose to do whatever we desire.

I also believe in a depraved nature. I believe that with the complete absence of God, there will be a complete and total depravity. I believe that common grace is what may motivate a person to act in a good manner.

And Rick Otto, that's not what I meant. Of course, we'll be able to predict that much from the consequences of our actions. But we cannot predict that actions and plans and goals and such will happen. You see, if we knew a goal was going to fail, we wouldn't make it. It would be our not knowing that that keeps us in that direction. Same if I got hit by a bus. Speaking of which, I almost got hit by a semi last night when I got on the freeway with a standard for the very first time. I was accelerating to about 50 and ready to shift it into fifth, but when I was watching the road, I accidentally shifted it into third, slowing me down to about 35, while a huge semi was trucking it at about seventy and wasn't able to slow down in time. I had to steer onto the gravel side. It was an eye-opening experience.

Anywho, using that example, if I knew that I would have almost gotten crushed by a huge truck on the free way, if I knew an aspect of the future that would be a consequence of me getting on the freeway, but ultimately an uncontrolled factor from my part (which is what makes this different than your illustration about cutting off my leg), then I would alter my decision. Thus, I would then take into account what would happen if I did this, or if I did that. My free will would then be understood and I would consider the cause-effect of both. That's what we mean by free will is a by-product of knowing the future. Our actions will not be altered if we do not know what the uncontrolled, imminent, and irrevocable effects of our actions are.

All those science-fiction movies... what would have happened if Scrooge never saw the ghost? He never would have changed. He never would have chosen to change. In Minority Report, if Tom Cruise never saw that he was going to murder someone, that whole thing wouldn't have happened. EVERYTHING about fate and free will REQUIRES some aspect of seeing into the future. If we do not have clairvoyance, then we will not choose differently than anything would would normally do. That means that, even though the decision and actions that we do are our choices, they will be, and cannot not be unless we are given some sort of revelation or knowledge of the future given one particular course of action. TTYL Jesus loves you!

Side note: I know many of you are not comfortable with me using the phrase "free will", but I hold to Edwards's view of the will and the causes and actions stemming from it. TTYL Jesus loves you again!

 

[Reformationist]

I can't believe this is happening. Just to note, I'm as Calvinistic as y'all, I simply believe in a free will as defined by Sproul and Edwards. A free will is the ability to choose to do whatever we desire.

I know you're a Calvinist bro. And, I completely agree with your (and Edward's) definition of a "free" will.

I also believe in a depraved nature. I believe that with the complete absence of God, there will be a complete and total depravity.

What is a "complete absence of God?" Do you think that is even possible?

Side note: I know many of you are not comfortable with me using the phrase "free will", but I hold to Edwards's view of the will and the causes and actions stemming from it. TTYL Jesus loves you again!

I, for one, am perfectly comfortable with your use of the term because I know you use it in a biblically accurate way.

God bless,
Don

 

[Drotar]

Yes. It is possible, and it does exist.

This is my private belief, but once I explain it, most people agree. Hell is utter depravity. It's not a place of fire and brimstone or an eternal torture chamber. God has no REASON to torture people for eternity.

Hell is the absence of God. Therefore it is, and all it is, is a place where utter depravity is the governing dynamic. Where people, freely, can only choose evil and sin. Satan is also an example of an utterly depraved being. God has the whole world in His hands. I believe that if God were to take His hands off the earth, this place would become, literally, hell.

Just some of my crazy mad scientist/theology thoughts. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Reformationist]

Yes. It is possible, and it does exist.

This is my private belief, but once I explain it, most people agree. Hell is utter depravity. It's not a place of fire and brimstone or an eternal torture chamber. God has no REASON to torture people for eternity.

Hell is the absence of God. Therefore it is, and all it is, is a place where utter depravity is the governing dynamic. Where people, freely, can only choose evil and sin. Satan is also an example of an utterly depraved being. God has the whole world in His hands. I believe that if God were to take His hands off the earth, this place would become, literally, hell.

Just some of my crazy mad scientist/theology thoughts. TTYL Jesus loves you!

Your Mormon roots are showing through.

The sustaining of all things created, to include hell and the devil, is the product of God's grace.

As one great theologian put it, "God is sustaining the devil every second he exists. If the Father wished that the devil were no longer to exist, it wouldn't take any strain on Him to accomplish that task. He would not even have to speak, 'Let there not be a devil.' Rather, all He would need to do is stop speaking, 'Let there be a devil.'"

Our, as well as every other created thing's, very existance is a direct result of God's constant sustaining grace. We don't exist apart from that grace and if God does not extend that grace then we would simply cease to exist.

There is never a place where God cannot exist so I'd have to strongly disagree with you. Omnipresent doesn't mean He is in most places. It means He is fully in all places.

God bless

 

[Drotar]

True. That's one thing I've never been able to let go. That was the worst mistake of my life. Still I know God used it for good, because I don't know where I'd be right now if I had never taken a liking to studying the Scriptures.

Perhaps you're right. But what about hell? Do you think God exists there too? How could He? What do you think about hell? And about heaven while we're at it? TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Reformationist]

True. That's one thing I've never been able to let go. That was the worst mistake of my life.

Don't be so hard on yourself bro. I'm sure you've made many other mistakes. Just kidding. Seriously though, don't you see the inherent value in understanding that God ordained that you would spend a season there to bring you to the Truth? It's a grand and humbling thing to see that every aspect of our lives is geared by God toward bringing us exactly where He has ordained that we should be. How much more thankful are you for His Truth now that you know what it's like to believe a lie? I'd venture to say that it is because of that very experience that you see the value in His grace, in studying His Word, in constantly examining your beliefs to see if they put you into the proper perspective to your Creator, etc.

Still I know God used it for good, because I don't know where I'd be right now if I had never taken a liking to studying the Scriptures.

God is so good that He gives us the grace to desire the Truth of His Word and then gives us a reward for His own grace. He crowns His own gifts. He is truly marvelous.

But what about hell? Do you think God exists there too?

God exists everywhere. I don't think God suffers in hell but I do believe He sovereignly and actively rules over it.

How could He?

How could He not? It's a common, though unfortunate, mainstream view that God cannot be around evil without being tainted by it. He is God. He is glorified in all things, including the righteous condemnation and judgment of the unrighteous.

What do you think about hell?

Are you asking what I think hell is like? I have nothing to relate it to. The closest I could get is to say that hell is worse than anything I could ever imagine, and I can imagine some pretty bad things.

And about heaven while we're at it?

Not sure what you mean. Are you asking what I think Heaven is like? Well, better than anything I can imagine. The concept that I could live my life in constant worship of my Creator, pleasing Him in all my works and being without sin is difficult, but wonderful, to imagine.

Speaking of which, have you heard that song, "I can only imagine" by Mercy Me? If not, I suggest you find a place to download it. It is quite a wonderful song about the gloriousness of God, and to top it off, I heard it on a regular radio station. It's nice when songs about God are played for all the world to hear.

God bless

 

[Rick Otto]

We can't always choose what it is we desire*, but we can manage those desires in a christian way.
*Some are inborn, some are acquired before defenses form.