If there is not free will, then God is evil

[d0c markus]

Think about it. If we do not have free will then God is morally responsible for our actions. thus rendering him guilty of evil. But if we do have free will then God is absolved from our actions because it was our choice.. Does that make sense?

I am curious to hear what people have to say.

 

[Received]

Well, there are two sorts of freedom that we ascribe to: one of religion, the other of metaphsyics. The latter sort is the center of attention here, and I would certainly agree that God as a first cause is responsible for the actions of the following effects if indeed they do not have the capacity to work contrary to the intentions of the first. This is the philosophy of Jonathon Edwards, who argued that there cannot be a desire contrary to the individual will without Him already placing it there to begin with...which ultimately means that God desired conflict with Himself through the person of Satan, whcih is absurd. Furthermore, is not a God who can work all things in accordance with His will one who is superior to one who coerces?

However, the form of freedom popularly ascribed to here is theological -- it is the idea that we cannot initate our own salvation (Pelagianism); that we are slaves to sin, though groups would disagree as to whether those who are not yet born of faith sin perpetually, or not. I myself do not believe they do. The moral law of God inherent to every individual is the paradigm by which the unregenerate follow, until they are given the divine agapas that makes them capable of disposing of the condemnation of the written law, for love is the end of the law. Moreover, I find that Paul speaks of the unredeemed capable of not sinning when he speaks on this very fact:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." -- Romans 2:14-16 (NASB)

This seems to reveal that the will to sin is not continual for the natural man.

But yes, I agree with your original statement.

 

[love&forgiveness]

God is not evil wether He gives us free will or not ,but it's only without God that we do evil.
nothing associated with God is evil He is all good.
He created man without evil.
evil comes from mans mind which doesn't obey and live to please God.
if we have our minds constantly on serving God and are never distracted we can do no evil.
we do have two choices serve God or serve sin.
without freewill we may have been as adam before the serpent ,in perfection only knowing Gods word and having no reason to disobey.
the serpent offered them another way against Gods word.
they then also had two choices.
there's no evil from God ,we are the creators of evil ,God created us not evil.
we don't decide what is good or evil they are two opposites ,it's GOoD or dEVIL.
that's what we do decide between.
God bless.
paul

 

[Reformationist]

Think about it. If we do not have free will then God is morally responsible for our actions. thus rendering him guilty of evil. But if we do have free will then God is absolved from our actions because it was our choice.. Does that make sense?

I am curious to hear what people have to say.

You're misunderstanding the argument against man having free will. No one is saying that man does not make his own decisions. He does. However, to say that one's will is "free" is to imply some sort of moral neutrality that is not present in our makeup. To be "free," in a moralistic sense, is to be in a position where you are equally as able to make a godly choice as an ungodly choice. Man has NEVER been in this position. Not even Adam and Eve were morally capable of bearing bad fruit in their originally created state. When God created Adam and Eve He created them with a predominant desire to obey Him. This desire was forefront in all of the decisions that they made. After the Fall man lost the desire to obey God and their predominant desire was to please their flesh. This created an enmity between man and God.

Once again, for clarification, man has always had a choice. The problem is that his choice is determined by what he most desires. Unregenerate man, due to the Fall, never desires to please God so he never chooses to obey God. God does not keep fallen man from obeying Him. He does not need to. Fallen man naturally desires to rebell against God. In God's monergistic work of regeneration God recreates in man a desire to obey.

So, while man most definitely has a will and makes decisions, his will is never free. He is either a slave to his sinfulness or a slave to his new nature, the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Well, there are two sorts of freedom that we ascribe to: one of religion, the other of metaphsyics. The latter sort is the center of attention here, and I would certainly agree that God as a first cause is responsible for the actions of the following effects if indeed they do not have the capacity to work contrary to the intentions of the first. This is the philosophy of Jonathon Edwards, who argued that there cannot be a desire contrary to the individual will without Him already placing it there to begin with...which ultimately means that God desired conflict with Himself through the person of Satan, whcih is absurd. Furthermore, is not a God who can work all things in accordance with His will one who is superior to one who coerces?

However, the form of freedom popularly ascribed to here is theological -- it is the idea that we cannot initate our own salvation (Pelagianism); that we are slaves to sin, though groups would disagree as to whether those who are not yet born of faith sin perpetually, or not. I myself do not believe they do. The moral law of God inherent to every individual is the paradigm by which the unregenerate follow, until they are given the divine agapas that makes them capable of disposing of the condemnation of the written law, for love is the end of the law. Moreover, I find that Paul speaks of the unredeemed capable of not sinning when he speaks on this very fact:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." -- Romans 2:14-16 (NASB)

This seems to reveal that the will to sin is not continual for the natural man.

But yes, I agree with your original statement.

I do not think that "doing the works of the Law" indicate anything beyond the moral code that God impresses upon His creation as a whole. The issue that Edwards addresses isn't whether unregenerate man can do the works of the Law but rather whether unregenerate man does the works of the Law out of a spirit of love for the Lord. Of this there can be no doubt, at least not if one submits to what God's Word tells us of unregenerate man's natural proclivity to submit only to self. In fact, God's Word is clear that the carnal mind is at enmity with God and is unable to submit to the Law of God (Rom 8:7).

God bless

 

[Received]

Agreed; however, I find that the fundamental understanding of sin is that of a power; this seems to be the assertion of Paul in the latter half of Romans 7. In this sense, this nature is not our fault. A sin becomes of us when we agree with it -- that is, the power. It may be said that evil is not a concentrated power from the divine image, but a deception actualized.

We spoke of this in our ninety-six page replies a good many months back, Ray, though I think now would be a good time to focus our attention, before the Southern Baptist in us both takes over, and we chase more rabbits than scripture references