"Free Will Is A Fiction"

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

This is what Martin Luther said to Erasmus in his work The Bondage of the Will. This famous book was written in response to Erasmus' The Freedom of the Will. Some might be surprised, however, by the nature of their debate.

When Reformers like Luther denied the doctrine of free will, they were not denying that man needs to choose Christ in order to be saved. For the Reformers, the will was very important in salvation. Rather, the question that they concerned themselves with was this:

Does fallen man have the freedom to live a virtuous life? It was really not a question of ontological ability, but moral ability.

Erasmus and other semi-pelagians argued that fallen man maintains some spark of goodness and is able, all on his own, to recognize God, choose God, repent of his sin, and live a virtuous life. Luther, following Augustine, rather believed that man was entirely fallen and was morally unable to recognize God or to repent of his sin. In order for man to be saved, he needed for God to miraculously save him by reaching into his heart, regenerating him, and renewing his will. Only then could man freely choose God - his will being liberated by God.

Free will is a fiction not because of God's election or predestination. Free will is a fiction because fallen, sinful man hates God and is unable to freely choose him unless God changes his heart.

I agree with David Cabrera and I guess Erasmus in regard to us having a "spark of goodness" as opposed to unable to recognize God. Just so you know I read the OP, I copied it.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they didn't lose "any spark of goodness" in them and God still cared about them, as evidenced by the fact that He covered them. When Eve had her kids, she credited God and God still spoke to Cain. After Cain killed Abel, Eve credited God again for giving her Seth. Hardly suggesting that she lost "any spark of goodness" in her.

If none could be reborn before Jesus Christ paid the price, how did Enoch, Noah, Abraham, or Moses come to turn to God--if there wasn't even "any spark of goodness" in them that could recognize God when God came to them, as you (and apparently Luther) suggest in your OP?

 

[misput]

This is what Martin Luther said to Erasmus in his work The Bondage of the Will. This famous book was written in response to Erasmus' The Freedom of the Will. Some might be surprised, however, by the nature of their debate.

When Reformers like Luther denied the doctrine of free will, they were not denying that man needs to choose Christ in order to be saved. For the Reformers, the will was very important in salvation. Rather, the question that they concerned themselves with was this:

Does fallen man have the freedom to live a virtuous life? It was really not a question of ontological ability, but moral ability.

Erasmus and other semi-pelagians argued that fallen man maintains some spark of goodness and is able, all on his own, to recognize God, choose God, repent of his sin, and live a virtuous life. Luther, following Augustine, rather believed that man was entirely fallen and was morally unable to recognize God or to repent of his sin. In order for man to be saved, he needed for God to miraculously save him by reaching into his heart, regenerating him, and renewing his will. Only then could man freely choose God - his will being liberated by God.

Free will is a fiction not because of God's election or predestination. Free will is a fiction because fallen, sinful man hates God and is unable to freely choose him unless God changes his heart.

The mistake here is to believe man is born totally bad or totally good. He is born with a fleshly nature and a spiritual nature. God has provided every man with the ability to overcome the fleshly nature and that ability comes through grace and faith which is also provided through God.

 

[Far Side Of the Moon]

Yes. And this is exactly what Luther meant in saying that free will is a fiction.

This is odd to me...how do we have free will to sin but not to choose God?

If we can't choose God were only choosing sin bc it's all we know. I don't get how that's free will.

I understand that once God liberates us from sin we can choose him or sin. I feel only then do we have free will...but that's just me.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Free will is one of mans biggest questions since the beginning of time. Religion aside, every man has wondered of his own fate, does he really have control of his own destiny?
From my standpoint I believe that free will is a matter of perception. From a humans perspective, I am writing whatever I feel like I need to say to other humans. But from HIS perspective he knows your heart and know what you are going to say before you say it. So free will,in Our finite minds, exists but in an infinite mind with infinite knowledge how can free will exist?

Foreknowledge, which can be termed as "infinite knowledge", in my opinion has no bearing on our free will. We can see it in our own finite lives examples of knowing something in advance will result in a certain outcome. In simplistic terms, its like taking a step, it will result in a forward or backward motion. We do it freely and we know the outcome ahead of time, motion. So if God already knows the outcome of our actions, it does not mean that He interfered with our will to decided to take that step it just means that He knows the outcome just like we do.

 

[Tree of Life]

That brings us to the question of free will and salvation, since we freely chose sin, doesn't that mean we have a choice with regards to salvation? I have an answer for that by the way, just curious how you would respond.

When God regenerates a person he enlightens their minds and renews their wills and enables them to recognize and freely choose him.

But apart from God's regeneration, fallen man has no ability to freely choose God.

 

[Tree of Life]

The mistake here is to believe man is born totally bad or totally good. He is born with a fleshly nature and a spiritual nature. God has provided every man with the ability to overcome the fleshly nature and that ability comes through grace and faith which is also provided through God.

Pelagianism.

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree with David Cabrera and I guess Erasmus in regard to us having a "spark of goodness" as opposed to unable to recognize God. Just so you know I read the OP, I copied it.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they didn't lose "any spark of goodness" in them and God still cared about them, as evidenced by the fact that He covered them. When Eve had her kids, she credited God and God still spoke to Cain. After Cain killed Abel, Eve credited God again for giving her Seth. Hardly suggesting that she lost "any spark of goodness" in her.

If none could be reborn before Jesus Christ paid the price, how did Enoch, Noah, Abraham, or Moses come to turn to God--if there wasn't even "any spark of goodness" in them that could recognize God when God came to them, as you (and apparently Luther) suggest in your OP?

The confusion here stems from the assumption that no one could be reborn before Jesus Christ. Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God and he expected Nicodemus to know this. He said: "Are you the teacher of Israel and you do not understand these things?" In other words, this wasn't new teaching.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Pelagianism.

What condition are the aborted babies in? Curious your perspective.
Thanks

 

[mark kennedy]

When God regenerates a person he enlightens their minds and renews their wills and enables them to recognize and freely choose him.

But apart from God's regeneration, fallen man has no ability to freely choose God.

That's roughly what I think, we all have the light, but not all receive it. Unless God gives you the understanding I can tell you in no uncertain terms and you won't get it. Jesus told the Apostles I'm going to Jerusalem, going to be rejected, crucified and rise on the third day, they just wanted to argue. Then when it happened and the women came running in to tell them the Lord was risen, to them it was as idle tales. When you believe in things you don't understand it's superstition according to Stevie Wonder . Understanding the gospel is a miracle, I've always believed that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

What condition are the aborted babies in? Curious your perspective.
Thanks

Unless God regenerates them howsoever and whensoever he pleases, they are dead in sin just like everyone else.

 

[misput]

Pelagianism.

Discernmentism

 

[Tree of Life]

Discernmentism

Are you familiar with the tenants of Pelagianism? Do you affirm them or deny them?

 

[misput]

Are you familiar with the tenants of Pelagianism? Do you affirm them or deny them?

I like to think I am familiar with the tenants of the Spirit, not man.

 

[DZoolander]

This is what Martin Luther said to Erasmus in his work The Bondage of the Will. This famous book was written in response to Erasmus' The Freedom of the Will. Some might be surprised, however, by the nature of their debate.

When Reformers like Luther denied the doctrine of free will, they were not denying that man needs to choose Christ in order to be saved. For the Reformers, the will was very important in salvation. Rather, the question that they concerned themselves with was this:

Does fallen man have the freedom to live a virtuous life? It was really not a question of ontological ability, but moral ability.

Erasmus and other semi-pelagians argued that fallen man maintains some spark of goodness and is able, all on his own, to recognize God, choose God, repent of his sin, and live a virtuous life. Luther, following Augustine, rather believed that man was entirely fallen and was morally unable to recognize God or to repent of his sin. In order for man to be saved, he needed for God to miraculously save him by reaching into his heart, regenerating him, and renewing his will. Only then could man freely choose God - his will being liberated by God.

Free will is a fiction not because of God's election or predestination. Free will is a fiction because fallen, sinful man hates God and is unable to freely choose him unless God changes his heart.

I’m not going to go really deep into this - but imho the concept of free will (where you can in fact do this or that) is incompatible with the idea of an omniscient God (where He knows with certainty what you will choose before you choose it)

You can have one, or the other, but you cannot logically have both.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Unless God regenerates them howsoever and whensoever he pleases, they are dead in sin just like everyone else.

So your saying some aborted children are regenerated and saved, and some are not. Ah, this a good reminder why I am not of this ilk.
Blessings

 

[Tree of Life]

I like to think I am familiar with the tenants of the Spirit, not man.

Do you believe that Pelagianism is a tenant of the Spirit or of man?

 

[Tree of Life]

So your saying some aborted children are regenerated and saved, and some are not. Ah, this a good reminder why I am not of this ilk.
Blessings

We don't know how many unborn or aborted children are chosen by God for salvation.

If you claim to know, on what do you base your certainty?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

We don't know how many unborn or aborted children are chosen by God for salvation.

I do know how many aborted children are with the Lord...All of them. I would encourage you to seek some other reconciliation for the human condition. And I do hope you come to a different conclusion once you know how much God loves everyone.
Blessings

1 Timothy 2
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The confusion here stems from the assumption that no one could be reborn before Jesus Christ. Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God and he expected Nicodemus to know this. He said: "Are you the teacher of Israel and you do not understand these things?" In other words, this wasn't new teaching.

If you really believe that, you are deceived. How do you explain this statement:

"But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:39)

So, if the Spirit was not given yet, according to Scripture, how could anyone be born of the Spirit (like Jesus spoke of) before Jesus was glorified? The pharisees believed in resurrection of the dead; but if you think that they had any clue about being born of the Spirit, you are sadly mistaken. So, it is no surprise that Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus was saying in John 3: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again." (John 3:5-7)

Jesus often said things as if He was surprised by their ignorant response. For instance: "And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? And how will you understand all the parables?" (Mark 4:13) He spoke that to His chosen disciples who were to understand what He spoke about whom He said: "To you it has been given to understand, but to them it has not been given...." (Matt 13:11, Luke 8:10, Mar 4:11)

 

[misput]

Do you believe that Pelagianism is a tenant of the Spirit or of man?

Sorry, I do not know the tenants of Pelagianism, maybe you could explain?