How can there be free will in heaven?

[timothyu]

Free will does not exist.
Not here, not there,not anywhere.

Then we serve no purpose other than as chess pieces on a board.

 

[RileyG]

subscribing...definitely something I've pondered about!

 

[John Caldwell]

Then we serve no purpose other than as chess pieces on a board.

It is obvious, I think, reading Scripture that we have free will.

Free will, in its basic form, is the ability for people to chose his or her course of action. This is why we have moral responsibility for our actions.

Scripture tells us that while God controls the future and the results of our plans our plans belng to us (e.g., Proverbs 16:9).

But what many who oppose the concept of free will mean is a philosophical idea of libertarian will, or uninfluenced will.

Here we could consider that we have hearts set on the flesh or hearts set on the Spirit.

That said, arguing uninfluenced will (desiring what is not in our nature to desire) is moving the argument from Scripture to philosophy. Can I desire that which I do not desire? No, as if I did then that which I do not desire is precisely what I desire.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is obvious, I think, reading Scripture that we have free will.

Free will, in its basic form, is the ability for people to chose his or her course of action. This is why we have moral responsibility for our actions.

Scripture tells us that while God controls the future and the results of our plans our plans belng to us (e.g., Proverbs 16:9).

But what many who oppose the concept of free will mean is a philosophical idea of libertarian will, or uninfluenced will.

Here we could consider that we have hearts set on the flesh or hearts set on the Spirit.

That said, arguing uninfluenced will (desiring what is not in our nature to desire) is moving the argument from Scripture to philosophy. Can I desire that which I do not desire? No, as if I did then that which I do not desire is precisely what I desire.

People have wills. Few of us would deny that. It is only when you introduce the adjective "free" before will that there is a problem. Free, by definition, means being completely unfettered, as opposed to being enslaved.

No less a person than Paul described the human condition as being enslaved to sin. If, in fact, humans are enslaved to sin, then their wills cannot be free. Jesus Christ brings freedom from enslavement. If one chooses to think that they are free apart from Jesus Christ, then Paul describes such people as being in bondage to a grave deception of Satan.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Then we serve no purpose other than as chess pieces on a board.

We are to live Gods thoughts after Him.
They are perfect for us.

 

[John Caldwell]

People have wills. Few of us would deny that. It is only when you introduce the adjective "free" before will that there is a problem. Free, by definition, means being completely unfettered, as opposed to being enslaved.

No less a person than Paul described the human condition as being enslaved to sin. If, in fact, humans are enslaved to sin, then their wills cannot be free. Jesus Christ brings freedom from enslavement. If one chooses to think that they are free apart from Jesus Christ, then Paul describes such people as being in bondage to a grave deception of Satan.

But that is not how free will is defined.

Free will is the "voluntary choice or decision" or the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".

Free will does not mean an uninfluenced will but rather the freedom of the will to act (to decide).

Even some Calvinists believe in free will. Consider Jonathan Edwards book The Freedom of the Will where he insists the will acts freely, freely decides, to do whatever seems good. Whatever seems good may be predisposition, or even predetermined. But the will itself acts freely.

What you are talking about is where the heart is set. But this is not free will. If the heart is set on the flesh then the will freely chooses that which is of the flesh. If the heart is set on the Spirit then the will freely chooses that which is of the Spirit.

We are born in bondage to sin. This does not mean we do not have free will. It means we freely will to sin because that is where our heart is set.

 

[timothyu]

Free will, in its basic form, is the ability for people to chose his or her course of action. This is why we have moral responsibility for our actions.

Yes but even out fellow creatures make choices, limited as they may be. As far as I know none of them have ever been confronted with running into secret knowledge in the forest forcing a choice. They remain blissfully free of everything except survival instinct which of course we also possess.

 

[timothyu]

Free, by definition, means being completely unfettered, as opposed to being enslaved.

Makes us creative

 

[timothyu]

It means we freely will to sin because that is where our heart is set.

Putting our will ahead of the will of God, putting us (unlike our fellow creatures) out of synch with our surroundings.

 

[timothyu]

Our dual nature is a struggle. We think of ourselves as flesh with a gift of spiritual nature (God's image), but it seems that we started out as spiritual in nature, oblivious to our other side, and the flesh later became known (who told you you were naked) and overtook our original selves. Now, for those who see beyond a single mindedness now oblivious to the spirit, we struggle to cast off the influence of the flesh and return to our true nature. We are not whom we see in the mirror.

So perhaps as is said there is no marriage in the Kingdom, we will lose our notion of flesh once again. Unlike here in earth, then there would be no desire to satisfy it by coveting, theft, adultery etc like we do now. We will feed the spirit rather than the flesh.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But that is not how free will is defined.

Free will is the "voluntary choice or decision" or the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".

Free will does not mean an uninfluenced will but rather the freedom of the will to act (to decide).

Even some Calvinists believe in free will. Consider Jonathan Edwards book The Freedom of the Will where he insists the will acts freely, freely decides, to do whatever seems good. Whatever seems good may be predisposition, or even predetermined. But the will itself acts freely.

What you are talking about is where the heart is set. But this is not free will. If the heart is set on the flesh then the will freely chooses that which is of the flesh. If the heart is set on the Spirit then the will freely chooses that which is of the Spirit.

We are born in bondage to sin. This does not mean we do not have free will. It means we freely will to sin because that is where our heart is set.

This is how free will is defined -

1. The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

By that definition nothing has free will. There are always limitations, necessities, or fate involved in any decision-making process. On the flip side of the definition, it can be argued successfully that everything animate being is able to act on its own discretion.

 

[John Caldwell]

This is how free will is defined -

1. The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

By that definition nothing has free will. There are always limitations, necessities, or fate involved in any decision-making process. On the flip side of the definition, it can be argued successfully that everything animate being is able to act on its own discretion.

I disagree. We do have power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. What we decide is often of our own volition, not a constraint of necessity or fate. I did not join this forum of necessity or fate. We also have the ability to act at our own discretion.

Men rejected the Light of their own volition, not out of the constraints of necessity or fate. They freely chose.

Our will may be defined, but it is free.

 

[timothyu]

not a constraint of necessity or fate

Constraint and fate better describes the modus operandi of the churches for millennias.

 

[John Caldwell]

Constraint and fate better describes the modus operandi of the churches for millennias.

Why do you think so?

 

[timothyu]

Why do you think so?

Because they used oppression to force compliance, determining the fate of the masses, contrary to the ways Jesus taught.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I disagree. We do have power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. What we decide is often of our own volition, not a constraint of necessity or fate. I did not join this forum of necessity or fate. We also have the ability to act at our own discretion.

Men rejected the Light of their own volition, not out of the constraints of necessity or fate. They freely chose.

Our will may be defined, but it is free.

Do you disagree with the definition of free will that I posted? I simply pasted it from a standard online dictionary.

 

[John Caldwell]

Because they used oppression to force compliance, determining the fate of the masses, contrary to the ways Jesus taught.

But that didn't negate free will. Look at the persecutions of the early church.

 

[John Caldwell]

Do you disagree with the definition of free will that I posted? I simply pasted it from a standard online dictionary.

No, I'm fine with the definition you posed. I also posted from a dictionary.

I disagree with your conclusion that men lack the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.

 

[Jamdoc]

Having consequences for choices doesn't mean you don't have free will. Not being able to make the choice regardless of consequences would mean you don't have free will.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Having consequences for choices doesn't mean you don't have free will. Not being able to make the choice regardless of consequences would mean you don't have free will.

Having a will is what I think we agree on. How freely that will can be exercised is open to question. If one's will is, indeed, free, but one is constrained from exercising it entirely, then it is really useless to consider it to be free. It would be like saying that a person who is enslaved for life to another person has the freedom to do anything he desires.