Free Will is Taught in the Bible...

[Humble_Disciple]

The concept of free will is taught throughout the Bible, in plain language.

James Strong’s Concordance indicates that the English word “freewill” occurs 17 times in the King James Version of the OT.1 Of these occurrences, the original Hebrew ned-aw-baw’ is used 15x; ned-ab’ (Aramaic), 2x. Strong advises that ned-aw-baw’ (which comes from naw-dab’) is defined thus: “…prop. (abstr.) spontaneity, or (adj.) spontaneous; also (concr.) a sponta- neous or (by infer., in plur.) abundant gift.”2 When we count the number of times that ned-aw-baw’ occurs in the OT, we find that it appears 35x. Strong advises that the KJV translates it as “freewill offering (15x), offerings (9x), free offering (2x), freely (2x), willing offering (1x), voluntary offering (1x), plentiful (1x), voluntarily (1x), voluntary (1x), willing (1x), willingly (1x).”3 Strong points out that “This offering is always given willingly, bountifully, liberally, or as a prince would offer.
1. The Bible 18

The Hebrew word [verb] נדב naw-dab’ is a primitive root that means – to impel; hence, to volunteer (as a soldier), to present spontaneously…primarily translated as an adverb “willingly” which indicates free motivation or voluntary decision. It is used 17 times in 15 verses throughout OT Scripture [also 3 times in 3 verses using the same root in Aramaic – Ezra 7:13, 15, 16]. (Most of definitions for this paper are adapted from Strong’s Concordance lexical definitions.)

Here are all the verses that translate this word, נדב naw-dab’, with the translation of it underlined. The ESV translation for each verse was chosen to accommodate Calvinist readers, so they won’t have to keep running back to their favorite translation, which is deterministically flavored.

Exod 25:2 ESV “… From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me.

Exod 35:21 ESV And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him….

Exod 35:29 ESV All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD.

Judg 5:2 ESV …that the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly, bless the LORD!

Ezr 7:13 ESV – 13 I make a decree that anyone of the people of Israel or their priests or Levites in my kingdom, who freely offers to go to Jerusalem, may go with you.

—-[The verbal form in this last verse is a participle, on the Hithpael stem, which is reflexive in meaning, thus the word “themselves” should be added. This Hithpael verbal stem is used 17 times in the same reflexive way – Jg 5:2, 9; 1Ch 29:5, 6, 9(2x), 14, 17(2x); 2Ch 17:16; Ezr 1:6, 2:68, 3:5, 7:13, 15, 16; Neh 11:2]. The reflexive action only helps to emphasize the non-compulsory action of the person’s will in the decision made in each context—-

The noun נדבה ned-aw-baw’ is used 26 times in 25 verses, mostly in connection with a voluntary – “freewill” – offering to God. With all these verses one cannot help but ask “How can you have a freewill offering without a freewill?” Calvinists reject its normal meaning, but the Bible literally uses the word 26 times. Even the Calvinist translators of the KJV and ESV freely chose “freewill” as a suitable translation. Their translation choice is telling of what they believed this original word meant.
Freewill as Taught in Scripture

Free will to obey or disobey, love or hate, submit or rebel, is not only biblical but essential to man's relationship to God. He calls us to love, obey, serve, and worship Him and to do so by choice: "Choose you this day whom ye will serve" (Jos:24:15). God would not be glorified in any obedience, worship, or love that did not come willingly from the heart.

Jesus said, "The first and great commandment [is] thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (Mt 22:37,38). The fact that love comes from the heart, soul, and mind proves that it must be an act of free will. Love must be willingly given and received-or it isn't love. Our Lord said the second command was to love our neighbors as ourselves and "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Mt 22:40). Thus, without the capacity to love God and fellow humans we cannot obey the Bible.

Your pastor says that free will is "not a biblical term"? But that concept appears 17 times in the Bible! The same meaning is expressed in other words. "Free offerings" is found twice (Ex 36:3; Am 4:5), as is "a voluntary offering" (Lv 7:16). All are to be brought "voluntarily unto the Lord" (Ezk 46:12).

The first offering in Leviticus (a pattern for all) was to be brought by the worshiper "of his own voluntary will" (Lv 1:3,4). The many "freewill" offerings were to be given by the individual "willingly with his heart" (Ex 25:2). Those who gave materials for building the tabernacle were to bring them with "a willing heart" (Ex 35:5).

Christ declared: "If any man will [i.e., wills to] do his [God's] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (Jn:7:17). The Bible ends with an offer it repeats or implies many times. "And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" (Rv 22:17). Scripture could not be clearer on this point. Free will is biblical and essential.
Question: In a recent sermon, our pastor said, "Free will is not a biblical term." Is that true?

Sola scriptura.

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God’s grace is irresistible. Molinists and Arminians are not Pelagian.

While Calvinists insist that God’s enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God’s enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

Before Augustine, the early church fathers taught free will:

In the words of Calvinist apologist Cornelius Van Til, "Sin did not take away from man any of the natural powers that God had given him."
The Defense of the Faith

This would include our natural ability to choose between accepting or rejecting God's free offer of salvation in the Gospel.

If we were created in the image and likeness of God, that includes free will if God is a free being.

 

[Neogaia777]

The concept of free will is taught throughout the Bible, in plain language.

Free will is taught from God the Spirit's and God the Son's perspective, yes...?

And/or also from our perspective, and/or all the perspectives of man also, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Free will is influenced by no one and has no limits. We as a fallen world are influenced by our sinful nature and desires, because that is who we are, sinners.

Humanity never had a free will, not even before the fall of Adam and Eve. God commanded them not to eat from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and told them there would be consequences if they disobey. Adam and Eve could not chose that there would be no consequences when they rebelled. Furthermore, if they had a free will, they wouldn't have been influenced by satan and sinned, but since they listened to satan, they were influenced by him (yes they had a will to accept or reject satan). God is not influenced by anything, nor you cannot command Him to do anything, thus only God truly has a free will.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Before Augustine, the early church fathers taught free will:

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Free will is taught from God the Spirit's and God the Son's perspective, yes...?

And/or also from our perspective, and/or all the perspectives of man also, etc...

God Bless!

Somebody else gets it besides me!

 

[Mark Quayle]

With all these verses one cannot help but ask “How can you have a freewill offering without a freewill?” Calvinists reject its normal meaning, but the Bible literally uses the word 26 times. Even the Calvinist translators of the KJV and ESV freely chose “freewill” as a suitable translation. Their translation choice is telling of what they believed this original word meant.
Freewill as Taught in Scripture

What they believed (and still believe) this word originally meant is what is meant in Scripture —not that anyone has a limited amount of absolute spontaneity (uncaused), but that one's choice is not by obligation to law or social expectations (nowadays 'political correctness', whether Christian or not).

 

[Dave L]

Free will is influenced by no one and has no limits. We as a fallen world are influenced by our sinful nature and desires, because that is who we are, sinners.

Humanity never had a free will, not even before the fall of Adam and Eve. God commanded them not to eat from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and told them there would be consequences if they disobey. Adam and Eve could not chose that there would be no consequences when they rebelled. Furthermore, if they had a free will, they wouldn't have been influenced by satan and sinned, but since they listened to satan, they were influenced by him (yes they had a will to accept or reject satan). God is not influenced by anything, nor you cannot command Him to do anything, thus only God truly has a free will.

James says you cannot control your tongue. Where do you find "free will" in this?

 

[RDKirk]

Free will is influenced by no one and has no limits. We as a fallen world are influenced by our sinful nature and desires, because that is who we are, sinners.

Humanity never had a free will, not even before the fall of Adam and Eve. God commanded them not to eat from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and told them there would be consequences if they disobey. Adam and Eve could not chose that there would be no consequences when they rebelled. Furthermore, if they had a free will, they wouldn't have been influenced by satan and sinned, but since they listened to satan, they were influenced by him (yes they had a will to accept or reject satan). God is not influenced by anything, nor you cannot command Him to do anything, thus only God truly has a free will.

I agree. Free will is the liberty to act according to one's desire without coercion or consequences imposed by any other moral agent. If another moral agent has the power over you to impose a consequence for your actions, then you do not have free will to act as you desire.

Scripture explicitly denies free will:

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.-- Romans 8

What we do have--solely by the grace of God--is the limited ability to make a choice between two masters:

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. -- Romans 6

But nobody is "free." Nowhere in scripture does it suggest that we are ever anything other than servants, either to evil or to righteousness. We all serve a master...we just get a single choice of which master to serve, which is not "free will" by any reasonable definition.

 

[childeye 2]

The concept of free will is taught throughout the Bible, in plain language.







Sola scriptura.

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God’s grace is irresistible. Molinists and Arminians are not Pelagian.

While Calvinists insist that God’s enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God’s enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

Before Augustine, the early church fathers taught free will:

The term free will in the scriptures is an adjective not a noun. It describes a decision that is voluntary and therefore not forced, or as in a freewill offering it probably means free to decide what to offer such as Cain and Abel's offerings. The term freewill the noun does not appear in scripture.

 

[tdidymas]

The concept of free will is taught throughout the Bible, in plain language.


Sola scriptura.

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God’s grace is irresistible. Molinists and Arminians are not Pelagian.

While Calvinists insist that God’s enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God’s enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

The problem with this argument is the confusion about how the term is used. In scripture, the term means a will that is not under compulsion of another person or by law. There is nothing in scripture that clearly states or even implies that man has a free will in relation to God. So the question is, how strongly a person is (or not) influenced by God.

Prov. 16:9 says "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." This begs lots of questions about how sovereign God is over man. Is salvation from God or is it from man? Is it determined by God or determined by man?

The problem with arguing this essential question by philosophical reasoning and speculation is that the scripture only speaks of one determining factor for the salvation of man, and that is that the elect are predestinated. So then, we see the command to obey God in regard to the gospel of Christ, and those who obey are predestinated, and those who don't obey aren't (or their election is not revealed at that particular time).

Another problem is the confusion between what appears "free will" in the natural realm and what appears "free will" in the spiritual realm. If Paul makes that distinction in 1 Cor. 2:14-16, then his definition of grace in Eph. 2:5 makes God the one who determines the salvation of individuals, and then individuals then make choices concerning the gospel either favorably in response to God's powerful influence, or unfavorably in response to lack of God's powerful influence.

Further, the whole debate is likely about the desire to control the destiny, or desire to judge who is elect and who isn't. But since no one knows who is elect unless they produce the fruit thereof, no one can judge who is elect, unless the fruit thereof is seen.

I once had lots of trouble obeying God, because I thought I was in control of my destiny. It was after realizing that only God was in control, that my submission to God was sealed. Dan. 5:23d "But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways."

Incidentally, I was "sola scriptura" long before I ever was "Reformed" or "Calvinist."

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Luther, Calvin, and all of the Reformers taught the same brand of Augustinianism. Read Luther's Bondage of the Will if you don't think so.

Before Augustine, the early church fathers taught free will:

 

[RDKirk]

Another problem is the confusion between what appears "free will" in the natural realm and what appears "free will" in the spiritual realm. If Paul makes that distinction in 1 Cor. 2:14-16, then his definition of grace in Eph. 2:5 makes God the one who determines the salvation of individuals, and then individuals then make choices concerning the gospel either favorably in response to God's powerful influence, or unfavorably in response to lack of God's powerful influence.

I think 1 Cor. 2:14-16 ties in to

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. -- John 6:44

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” -- John 6:65

The first rule of hermeneutics, expressed by Joseph to the Pharaoh in Genesis 41, is that if God says something twice, it's a fact

Further, the whole debate is likely about the desire to control the destiny, or desire to judge who is elect and who isn't. But since no one knows who is elect unless they produce the fruit thereof, no one can judge who is elect, unless the fruit thereof is seen.

Even if fruit is seen, it's not conclusive of that person's destiny. Even if fruit is not seen, it's not conclusive of that person's destiny. Because election is a matter of destiny, we simply can't judge whether a person is of the elect while he is still on the path to that destiny.

 

[renniks]

Free will is everywhere in the Bible. Without it, why would evangelizing matter?
If we have no Free Will, all the commandments are pointless.
We will just do what we are programmed to do anyway.

 

[RDKirk]

Free will is everywhere in the Bible. Without it, why would evangelizing matter?
If we have no Free Will, all the commandments are pointless.
We will just do what we are programmed to do anyway.

Not the case. There is significant benefit in this life to being a member of the Body of Christ.

Again, "free will" is the absence of coercion or consequences imposed by another moral agent. It's not the absence of choice.

Early Church fathers, in answer to pagan philosophers who charged Christianity with being a deterministic religion (and that charge came from scriptural teachings such as I've already quoted), described that men do have choice within God's sovereign will, but what the Church fathers described was still not the "free will" as had already been defined by pagan philosophy.

That's one of the things that Christian apologists must keep in mind when debating the "free will" subject with pagan philosophers. What they call "free will" is not what we call "free will." What we call "free will" is "choice with consequences."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even in the first few minutes, this guy's definition of 'free will' seems to be, 'what the gnostics didn't teach' —i.e. mere choice. Calvinism has no problem with choice —in fact, it insists on choice, and the will of the individual— in all its reasoning on, and claims concerning, the subject.

 

[childeye 2]

I think it's obvious that we choose between right and wrong as a matter of circumstance. But I believe the vanity that comes with judgment is a product or consequence of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Even in the first few minutes, this guy's definition of 'free will' seems to be, 'what the gnostics didn't teach' —i.e. mere choice. Calvinism has no problem with choice —in fact, it insists on choice, and the will of the individual— in all its reasoning on, and claims concerning, the subject.

Calvinism, based on Augustine, teaches that, because of Adam's sin, humans do not have the free will to repent and receive God's free offer of salvation unless God unconditionally elects them unto faith.

That's not a free choice if your fallen human nature prevents you from making it, which is why the fathers before Augustine insisted on free will, against the Gnostics, in order to uphold responsibility of those who fell into hell.

Augustine, on the other hand, was a former Manichean, and its fatalism shows in his theology.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Free will is influenced by no one and has no limits.

Free will is the liberty to act according to one's desire without coercion or consequences imposed by any other moral agent. If another moral agent has the power over you to impose a consequence for your actions, then you do not have free will to act as you desire.

Again, "free will" is the absence of coercion or consequences imposed by another moral agent. It's not the absence of choice.

These are overly restrictive definitions of free will. When we make decisions there are always factors that influence our decision - advertising is a good example. Sometimes those factors are much stronger, such as the threat of death, as many Christian martyrs experienced, as well as some Old Testament figures. Yet we see that even in the face of overwhelming pressure or coercion, Man sometimes goes against the pressure and makes a choice and suffers the consequences. The fact that some people can oppose these forces shows that free will still exists, even then.

If free will truly didn't exist, we would be more like marionettes whose strings are being pulled by someone else and who have not conscious awareness that any decisions are even being made.

With a true understanding of what free will is, it is easier to see that Man does have free will.

 

[tdidymas]

I think 1 Cor. 2:14-16 ties in to

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. -- John 6:44

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” -- John 6:65

The first rule of hermeneutics, expressed by Joseph to the Pharaoh in Genesis 41, is that if God says something twice, it's a fact

agree.

Even if fruit is seen, it's not conclusive of that person's destiny. Even if fruit is not seen, it's not conclusive of that person's destiny. Because election is a matter of destiny, we simply can't judge whether a person is of the elect while he is still on the path to that destiny.

When a Christian is exhibiting love for others, obedience to God's commands, and openness to what scripture says, we have no other way to be assured that they are born again, so we treat them accordingly. If a person does those kinds of things, but in pretense, and shows it by later becoming apostate, it is grievous, because it just shows how strong pretense is. But since Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them," it tells me that we can embrace each other and assume we have fellowship, and call them saints, and have no suspicions toward them (as long as they exhibit the fruit of the Spirit). Perhaps this is what 1 John 5:14-16 is about?

 

[childeye 2]

Free will is everywhere in the Bible. Without it, why would evangelizing matter?
If we have no Free Will, all the commandments are pointless.
We will just do what we are programmed to do anyway.

If by freewill you mean choose for one's self, then the term 'will' would suffice. Is discovering what is True (particularly the need for faith) a process of programming?