Freewill For Mankind-An Excuse For God

[squint]

I don't start too many threads. This one may be shortlived.

Somewhere along the trail a theological premise was formulated called 'freewill' for mankind.

Freewill may imho, be observed as a convenient excuse for believers to exonerate God from evil actions that transpire. An unbeliever for example will say "Why" does God allow evil? "Why" doesn't God do something about evil?

And the freewill believer can simply waive his hand and say 'freewill.' This (in their minds) exonerates God from ANY involvement with His creation WHATSOEVER.

God is NOT involved. God doesn't want to BE involved. God does not want to be IMPLICATED in these events whatsoever. Therefore HE DOES NOTHING. He simply sits on the sidelines and waits.

Oh, yeah, He did send His Son but of course this had nothing to do with intervention or change. It was just an action that appeals to our freewill, like holding out a leftover note, if by your freewill you believe the validity of that leftover note, then your freewill is excused and God won't have to fry you alive forever, in some cases of doctrine no matter what you do.

The full sum of Gods Involvment with mankind is then limited to that single event of the cross. A 'one time' chance for you to activate God in your behalf. Of course God still sits on the sidelines. Still has no involvment in your 'freewill' other than what 'you' and 'you alone' decide to do, and of course God STILL has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY evil NOR is He able to do anything about it other than the past event of KILLING HIS SON and getting Him outta here, leaving His Words for a leftover note of appeal for you to 'do something' to make God effective for YOU. Otherwise He's still on the sidelines, still waiting, just watching, having made His One Time appeal.

And the freewiller believes this is a very valid excuse for an entity who is NOT INVOLVED and for whom there is NO PROOF of either His existence or involvment.

It explains why there really is NOTHING but His leftover note, and it's influences on our wills which remain totally free regardless of the leftover note.

And when the entire exercise is done, God will THEN come to judge all these events, and if you, by your own freewill, exercised a certain amount of formulas, incantations, actions, etc etc etc God will reward you with eternal life, but if not, if you failed to act on his leftover note, THEN God will be forced to burn you alive forever in fire, theoretically because He LOVES you soooo much.

And if this whole story sounds even remotely similar to FACTS then it should also sound a little fishy, suspect and foul.

enjoy!

squint

 

[andy4848]

Very good, I believe that if God were to not allow evil in the world then he would have to kill us all because we are all inherently evil.

 

[squint]

Very good, I believe that if God were to not allow evil in the world then he would have to kill us all because we are all inherently evil.

IF there is a God, (which most of us here are supposed to 'believe') and IF evil exists, even a freewill adherent must agree to the fact that GOD ALLOWS evil. There is no way to deny this fact.

IF God allows evil we may even concede to the fact that God is in agreement with the continuation of evil at least by allowance.

If we are really honest about it, we may even see that God fully intends evil to be in existence because He has not stopped evil, He allows it to REPLICATE and even to MULTIPLY all by (at a minimum,) 'His allowance.'

Freewill positions in general do not involve God with evil. 'Allowance' imho is involvement, even if it is indirect.

Allowance is similar to watching a crime transpire and doing nothing about it but maybe uttering a weak... 'stop it' but not having the perpetrators of evil actually 'hear' the word.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Emmy]

Dear squint. Freewill for Mankind is NOT an excuse for God, He does not need excuses. Freewill for Mankind is is importent to learn, to make wrong and unloving decisions and learn from the consequences. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, as a consequence for their disobedience. They, and all who came after, have to learn from mistakes, and downright disregard to God`s loving advice to us, which we are told in God`s 10 Commandments. Jesus gave us 2, and they contain all 10 Commandments, which God gave us. We are on Earth to learn to become as God wants us to be, loving, adopted sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, and loving brothers and sisters, as we love ourselves. That is God`s Plan for us, and Jesus showed us the way, in fact, Jesus is the Way. Hell and damnation is for Satan and his followers. God is LOVE, and He is a righteous Judge. Only God can see our hearts, and He knows all we think and wish. Our original home is with God, and " whosoever will, may come." Jesus told us what to do: Repent, exchange our selfish and loveless character, into loving God first, and loving/treating all others, as we love ourselves and like to be treated. I say this humbly and with love, squint. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[squint]

Dear squint. Freewill for Mankind is NOT an excuse for God, He does not need excuses.

I agree that God does not need excuses. Freewill does excuse God from being implicated in the evils that transpire in mankind. I don't see the 'justification' of that presentation on a multi-fold basis.

Freewill for Mankind is is importent to learn, to make wrong and unloving decisions and learn from the consequences.

And again, I would certainly agree that we learn from negative experiences. This again does not and should not exclude Gods involvement imho.

Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, as a consequence for their disobedience.

Again, I don't find that judgement so readily available. I believe both God and the devil were intimately involved in everything that transpired in the Garden as well. To eliminate the other parties and only blame and accuse Adam and Eve seems rather ignorant imho.

They, and all who came after, have to learn from mistakes, and downright disregard to God`s loving advice to us, which we are told in God`s 10 Commandments. Jesus gave us 2, and they contain all 10 Commandments, which God gave us.

I agree that the Law is valid and effective. To what extent and to whom we will probably vary on. I also believe that whether we believe this or not won't change the fact that the Law is valid and effective.

We are on Earth to learn to become as God wants us to be, loving, adopted sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, and loving brothers and sisters, as we love ourselves. That is God`s Plan for us, and Jesus showed us the way, in fact, Jesus is the Way. Hell and damnation is for Satan and his followers.

If this is what you believe and you do not believe that God burns people alive in fire forever, THEN you are my sister in Christ inDEED and I salute God for showing you that!

God is LOVE, and He is a righteous Judge. Only God can see our hearts, and He knows all we think and wish. Our original home is with God, and " whosoever will, may come." Jesus told us what to do: Repent, exchange our selfish and loveless character, into loving God first, and loving/treating all others, as we love ourselves and like to be treated. I say this humbly and with love, squint. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

Unfortunately the freewill position seeks to eradicate God from people's lives, making them alone and solely responsible. As a believer I do not believe what that position says whatsoever. Freewill justifies self and uses that basis to condemn our fellow mankind for the SAME THINGS. A typical hypocritcal double standard.

enjoy!

squint

 

[&Abel]

[9] Then those who have now abused my ways shall be amazed, and those who have rejected them with contempt shall dwell in torments.
[10] For as many as did not acknowledge me in their lifetime, although they received my benefits,
[11] and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom, and did not understand but despised it while an opportunity of repentance was still open to them,
[12] these must in torment acknowledge it after death.
[13] Therefore, do not continue to be curious as to how the ungodly will be punished; but inquire how the righteous will be saved, those to whom the age belongs and for whose sake the age was made."

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/2esdr.htm

 

[squint]

[9] Then those who have now abused my ways shall be amazed, and those who have rejected them with contempt shall dwell in torments.
[10] For as many as did not acknowledge me in their lifetime, although they received my benefits,
[11] and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom, and did not understand but despised it while an opportunity of repentance was still open to them,
[12] these must in torment acknowledge it after death.
[13] Therefore, do not continue to be curious as to how the ungodly will be punished; but inquire how the righteous will be saved, those to whom the age belongs and for whose sake the age was made."

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/2esdr.htm

Abel, I know for no uncertain fact that when scripture speaks, it speaks to TWO parties and it does so in diametrically OPPOSED fashions. If this fact is not rendered into your reading of same, a false measure will be the result and it will inevitably be falsely detrimental to your fellow mankind and in ignorance of the OTHER PARTY.

Here are a couple of examples of this fact:

Romans 9:
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

So I'd ask yuo here Abel, do you SEE the TWO VESSELS in the SAME LUMP called 'ME?'

Paul does it again here:

2 Timothy 2:
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

This in part is why freewill is not only untrue, it is NOT possible because there are in fact TWO DIFFERENT VESSELS at work in ONE LUMP of a persons BODY. Two vessels in ONE HOUSE.

Jesus showed us this simple fact on nearly every page of the N.T. where He spoke to the ONLY OTHER ENTITY that there is...with mankind...the OTHER VESSELS. This fact couldn't be any clearer.

Now, if you read your quote again, keep in mind that what is being said can very well be spoken to BOTH parties to entirely different outcomes and guess what? IT DOES!

enjoy!

squint

 

[ezek33]

All I can muster after reading some of squints comments is WOW...unbelievable.

 

[Annolennar]

It would seem that free will enters the equation right at the beginning. There are two significant aspects of the Genesis account that point significantly to mankind having free will.

First, "and it was so". This phrase follows most of the acts of creation in Genesis 1. Here, we benefit from looking at the Hebrew rather than just the translation; while the English would seem to imply that things popped into being as described, the Hebrew actually means something more like fixed or set - and so we have Genesis telling us that everything from the land and sea to the sun, moon, and stars to the animals of the land that are fixed in their ways.

Interestingly, mankind does not have this phrase applied to them - it would seem that our paths are not set, or that our ways are not fixed. In other words, free will. (Ironically, the birds and fish also share this quality in Genesis. Personally, though, I think this is allegorical, not literal.)

Second, there is the usual spiel about humans being in the "image" of God. For those who don't believe that God has a physical body (most of us here), this usually means the capacity for free will.

 

[Epiphoskei]

First, "and it was so". This phrase follows most of the acts of creation in Genesis 1. Here, we benefit from looking at the Hebrew rather than just the translation; while the English would seem to imply that things popped into being as described, the Hebrew actually means something more like fixed or set - and so we have Genesis telling us that everything from the land and sea to the sun, moon, and stars to the animals of the land that are fixed in their ways.

Interestingly, mankind does not have this phrase applied to them - it would seem that our paths are not set, or that our ways are not fixed. In other words, free will. (Ironically, the birds and fish also share this quality in Genesis. Personally, though, I think this is allegorical, not literal.)

Hebrew or English aside, the context demands that "and it was so" be the counterpart to "let there be." If "let there be light" means God created light, "and it was so" means that light was created, nothing more.

Second, there is the usual spiel about humans being in the "image" of God. For those who don't believe that God has a physical body (most of us here), this usually means the capacity for free will.

My objection here is that we do not even give God the kind of "free will" that we want to give man. Man, according to libertarian free will advocates, has to be able to determine his own will to be anything and everything. Anything can be willed. However, we say of God that he cannot sin. That's pretty much an unquestionable dogma in every church, and at the very least, off the top of my head, the scripture says God cannot lie. So how is it when we say that we are created in the image of God we still reject limitations (although I think it is really no limitation to say that the will is a function of a being's nature, but for libertarian free will proponents, it would be a limitation) which we do not find it inappropriate to place upon God? Has God made us more free than he is?

 

[squint]

All I can muster after reading some of squints comments is WOW...unbelievable.

Which means what is always the question?

If a man doesn't see the other vessel in himself that man will never be purged from what he denies he has and cannot see. And that man will be led far away as possible from loving his neighbors as himself. Yes, even to the most OPPOSITE end of the spectrum, which is where most in christiandom have landed.

Surprise me!

 

[Annolennar]

Hebrew or English aside, the context demands that "and it was so" be the counterpart to "let there be." If "let there be light" means God created light, "and it was so" means that light was created, nothing more.

I would contend that one cannot put the language barrier aside, since the Hebrew has something quite different to say than the typical English translation.

In fact, that was largely my point. The English pretty much excludes any possibility of interpreting it any other way, but in my view, we must take the English with a grain of salt and look at it in light of the Hebrew, not the other way around.

My objection here is that we do not even give God the kind of "free will" that we want to give man. Man, according to libertarian free will advocates, has to be able to determine his own will to be anything and everything. Anything can be willed. However, we say of God that he cannot sin. That's pretty much an unquestionable dogma in every church, and at the very least, off the top of my head, the scripture says God cannot lie. So how is it when we say that we are created in the image of God we still reject limitations (although I think it is really no limitation to say that the will is a function of a being's nature, but for libertarian free will proponents, it would be a limitation) which we do not find it inappropriate to place upon God? Has God made us more free than he is?

If God were not omnipotent, I would agree. but when dealing with an omnipotent being, the lines between what God "can do" and what God "wills" are very blurred. Certainly God does not lack the power to lie or do something "bad", but rather because what He wills is, and because His will is perfect, He does not desire to do anything "bad" - and yet that does not invalidate the fact that it is still His will.

Very similar is the "If God knows what we are going to do before we do it, then do we truly have free will?" issue. The fact that God knows what we will choose doesn't mean that is was never our choice in the first place.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I would contend that one cannot put the language barrier aside, since the Hebrew has something quite different to say than the typical English translation.

In fact, that was largely my point. The English pretty much excludes any possibility of interpreting it any other way, but in my view, we must take the English with a grain of salt and look at it in light of the Hebrew, not the other way around.

The context still militates for the typical reading. It's asking too much of the text to make it into something more, when it's so simple to read it as God commanded it to be created and it was created.

If God were not omnipotent, I would agree. but when dealing with an omnipotent being, the lines between what God "can do" and what God "wills" are very blurred. Certainly God does not lack the power to lie or do something "bad", but rather because what He wills is, and because His will is perfect, He does not desire to do anything "bad" - and yet that does not invalidate the fact that it is still His will.

Very similar is the "If God knows what we are going to do before we do it, then do we truly have free will?" issue. The fact that God knows what we will choose doesn't mean that is was never our choice in the first place.

But you see, the notion that the will is free when it does actions consistant with the perfection or lack of perfection of the one who wills is the definition of compatibalistic free will, which still means that the will is dependant upon the nature of the created thing, which is dependant upon the one who created it so. This is not the kind of libertarian free will which is used to "excuse" God from responsibility for evil in the world.

 

[Annolennar]

The context still militates for the typical reading. It's asking too much of the text to make it into something more, when it's so simple to read it as God commanded it to be created and it was created.

Coming from a non-literalist point of view, the Genesis account rarely has a single, obvious layer of meaning when the language is clear - I should think that when the language is not only unclear, but outright indicates an underlying meaning, we should stand up and take note.

But you see, the notion that the will is free when it does actions consistant with the perfection or lack of perfection of the one who wills is the definition of compatibalistic free will, which still means that the will is dependant upon the nature of the created thing, which is dependant upon the one who created it so. This is not the kind of libertarian free will which is used to "excuse" God from responsibility for evil in the world.

The existence of free will doesn't necessitate the absence of limitations, whether those limitations be imposed by power or simply nature. It only necessitates the capacity for meaningful choice.

So, as it relates to the OP, I don't think free will can be evaluated on the basis of whether it is more or less advantageous, or whether it is absolute or limited free will; but rather if it is more loving, in and of itself, to gift a creation with free will.

 

[Emmy]

Dear squint. So many words, so many different, and sometimes quite hard to understand statements, and I cannot help thinking that the Scribes and Pharisees of old, did the same, when Jesus showed deep disapprovement. Jesus told us: " Unless you believe like children, you will not enter God`s Kingdom." What is hard to understand in: " Love God with all your hearts, all your souls, and all your minds." ALSO Love your neighbour, each other, others, as you love yourselves." That is straightforward, it is easy to understand, yet hard to follow. We have years to become better and better in learning to love, selflessly and truly, we have Jesus to help and guide us, and we have a loving God, who will forgive us our failures, If we pray sincerely: " Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive others." Jesus told us to become perfect as God is perfect, God is perfect Love and Forgiveness. We might not reach perfection, but God can see HOW truly we tried. I say this humbly, squint, and with love. Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[The Exodus]

Greetings squint.

Oh, yeah, He did send His Son but of course this had nothing to do with intervention or change. It was just an action that appeals to our freewill, like holding out a leftover note, if by your freewill you believe the validity of that leftover note, then your freewill is excused and God won't have to fry you alive forever, in some cases of doctrine no matter what you do.

The full sum of Gods Involvment with mankind is then limited to that single event of the cross. A 'one time' chance for you to activate God in your behalf.

I think the cross provided us - that is, fallen mankind - with justification in the sight of God. The way you describe it above makes Christ's death seem whimsical and unnecessary, but it seems to me it would not have happened unless it were, indeed, necessary. Therefore it is a justification (atonement, propitiation, etc) for us.

This doesn't mean everyone who is saved by the Cross must know the name of Jesus (although you can quote "there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved). Rather I think it means that all those going to heaven are saved *through* or *by* Christ's sacrifice.

Of course God still sits on the sidelines. Still has no involvment in your 'freewill' other than what 'you' and 'you alone' decide to do

Scripture I think confirms that God must reveal his light to an individual. It is man's choice to freely accept or reject that light, but it is God that initiates the contact.

and of course God STILL has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY evil NOR is He able to do anything about it

I think God could easily erradicate the entire universe of evil - and one day will, for sure. But he chooses not to, for his own purposes. The question of evil is very old, and can only be answered sufficiently by a Christian faith that the Lord God will do what is right and knows what is best.

And when the entire exercise is done, God will THEN come to judge all these events, and if you, by your own freewill, exercised a certain amount of formulas, incantations, actions, etc etc etc God will reward you with eternal life, but if not, if you failed to act on his leftover note, THEN God will be forced to burn you alive forever in fire, theoretically because He LOVES you soooo much.

God saves all those who would be saved. All those who desire to come to him shall. That is my stance. He does not save those who reject him - how can he?

 

[squint]

Greetings squint.
I think the cross provided us - that is, fallen mankind - with justification in the sight of God. The way you describe it above makes Christ's death seem whimsical and unnecessary, but it seems to me it would not have happened unless it were, indeed, necessary.

The line I draw with the freewill position asks WAS THE CROSS effective for all? I believe God in Christ IS Perfect in behalf of all mankind i.e. totally effective. Neither freewill or predestination goes here without limitations.

Therefore it is a justification (atonement, propitiation, etc) for us.

This doesn't mean everyone who is saved by the Cross must know the name of Jesus (although you can quote "there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved). Rather I think it means that all those going to heaven are saved *through* or *by* Christ's sacrifice.

I agree. I also believe that all mankind are going to be with our Lord in Heaven.

Scripture I think confirms that God must reveal his light to an individual. It is man's choice to freely accept or reject that light, but it is God that initiates the contact.

And I don't believe the 'rejection' theory. Paul could not have denied being blinded by the light on the road to Damascus because it was a Rock Solid Fact. Denial of a fact is irrelevant if it's a fact. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who made an observation of some sort that if a madman wrote on the walls of his cell that the sun does not exist it would not make the sun go away or change the fact that it was there.

Rejection of God solely by the will of mankind is not a valid argument.

I think God could easily erradicate the entire universe of evil - and one day will, for sure.

Agreed and agreed! This is a part of our hope.

But he chooses not to, for his own purposes.

Again, agreed. Isaiah 45:7 says He even creates and uses evil. Freewillers don't like to hear this, but it's a fact. Not much different than a farmer who uses crap as fertilizer.

The question of evil is very old, and can only be answered sufficiently by a Christian faith that the Lord God will do what is right and knows what is best.

Again, agreed. See how easy that is? heh heh.

God saves all those who would be saved. All those who desire to come to him shall. That is my stance. He does not save those who reject him - how can he?

I posed this question to you in our last thread. Romans 11:26-32 shows that God even saves enemies of the Gospel post death. If that is TRUE then He saves all mankind. And of course mankind does not consist of only mankind. There are two entirely different vessels in each person. One God loves and will show mercy to. The other He tolerates and uses. In this way each of us are crafted and are used by Him for His Purposes for us all.

Paul shows us the other party who is with mankind but is NOT mankind. It is the 'spirit of stupor' that God put upon Israel and it is NOT them. That is the other vessel.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Chesterton]

The existence of free will doesn't necessitate the absence of limitations, whether those limitations be imposed by power or simply nature. It only necessitates the capacity for meaningful choice.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Exactly. And it just occurred to me that the term “free will” is a redundancy. If a will is not free, it's not a will. To possess a will means to be able to say "I will".[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]My computer performs actions, but only what I tell it or let it, within a limited range. So it acts, but has no will. And the corollaries - my computer cannot love me, nor can I love it, nor can it exist for my glory (if I had any).[/FONT]

 

[Epiphoskei]

Coming from a non-literalist point of view, the Genesis account rarely has a single, obvious layer of meaning when the language is clear - I should think that when the language is not only unclear, but outright indicates an underlying meaning, we should stand up and take note.

Which is one of the reasons I can't accept the non-literalist approaches to many parts of scripture. Everyone's looking for some deep and esoteric "real meaning," ignoring what the text says. God said "let there be light" and there was light. Really simple.

The existence of free will doesn't necessitate the absence of limitations, whether those limitations be imposed by power or simply nature. It only necessitates the capacity for meaningful choice.

The problem, however, is that such a kind of free will that exists within the limitations of one's nature cannot be used to explain evil by making it man's fault. The limitation of nature excludes a holy creation of God from being able to do evil any more than God is able to do evil. Without a fully libertarian (limitless) free will, the problem of evil cannot be solved through free will.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Exactly. And it just occurred to me that the term “free will” is a redundancy. If a will is not free, it's not a will. To possess a will means to be able to say "I will".[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]My computer performs actions, but only what I tell it or let it, within a limited range. So it acts, but has no will. And the corollaries - my computer cannot love me, nor can I love it, nor can it exist for my glory (if I had any).[/FONT]

The computer/robot analogy has never sat well with me. To say that because computers are limited to their nature and cannot exceed what they were created to be, and because computers are not humans, humans are not limited to their nature, is a serious non sequitur. The distinction between persons and machines does not mean that persons and machines cannot share the restrictions of all finite beings.

 

[Chesterton]

The limitation of nature excludes a holy creation of God from being able to do evil any more than God is able to do evil.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Do you hold that creation, or man, is a “holy” creation of God? Where did you learn that? It's not in scripture.[/FONT]

The computer/robot analogy has never sat well with me. To say that because computers are limited to their nature and cannot exceed what they were created to be, and because computers are not humans, humans are not limited to their nature, is a serious non sequitur. The distinction between persons and machines does not mean that persons and machines cannot share the restrictions of all finite beings.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I agree the analogy is imperfect, but in a different way. A machine is more free than a man according to Calvinism. A hard drive can (decide to?) crash; can simply stop working; a man cannot. A man can commit suicide, but will nonetheless “work” or “operate” forever in hell. So computers are limited to the nature of electronics, which are created by God, and man is limited directly to the nature of God. Therefore, being once removed, machines are actually one step freer than men. Make sense? No? Then neither does a rigid predestination.[/FONT]