Isn't Free Will Arbitrary?

[BobRyan]

That's what lot of people think. When reaching their decision, almost all of them take no account of the verses that speak to predestination. But that wasn't my point, really. It was that we come to the issue thinking that we have Free Will...because we want to think of ourselves, i.e. humans, as being free agents, and the idea that everything is in God's hands is somewhat deflating to our sense of self-importance.

But you are ignoring the initial statement - since it is in God's Word - we did not simply "make it up because we prefer to think that way" -- rather it is already there. It would be like saying that "we made up the Lake of Fire because we prefer that solution" without taking into consideration that it is in Rev 21.

 

[Albion]

They keep looking for "What made them choose that" as if the DNA/enivronment caused person A to choose well and person B to choose poorly. That is back to the "programming" model where something other than your free will "makes you" or "causes you" to choose as you did. It is negated by two siblings in the same home choosing differently - "Cain vs Able".

So no one HAD, in fact, mentioned "pre-programming." To interpret what the believers in Election mean or think by altering their concept like that virtually admits of having a weak argument for Free Will IMO.

And, BTW, your Cain and Abel example is not of Free Will vs Predestination. It's only about the ability of man to choose sin. That's not the kind of ability that the term "Free Will" refers to.

 

[Albion]

But you are ignoring the initial statement - since it is in God's Word - we did not simply "make it up because we prefer to think that way" -- rather it is already there.

It's not "already there" any more than the Immaculate Conception is already there. In other words, a misreading of Scripture or a misunderstanding of what's there does not equal it being already there.

And yes, I do think we come to the question already proud of ourselves as thinking beings, so we wrongly look for a justification for "Free Will" and do not take account of the Bible's teachings about Predestination. At least that is the tendency and accounts for the arguments so many people make on behalf of Free Will.

 

[grasping the after wind]

How can one sin without being rebellious? Rebellion against God is my definition of sin.

True. The other reason for it is that it isolates God from the guilt of sin.

If you make a robot that kills your neighbor's dog as programmed - we do not "blame the robot".

I would . Because the robot did it. But free will or no free will in the matter of salvation does not absolve one from ones decisions as we do not have even the excuse of the programmed robot that we cannot act at all on our own. Is God a Micro Manager? We choose to sin or to refrain from sin or to scratch our head or to walk to the store but we do not choose to be saved. We are saved. We do not choose to be sinners. We are sinners. When it comes to the details of what sins we engage in God does not say "Well today i will have you lie five times and commit adultery and use my name in vain but I will make you resist stealing." . No, we decide when and where we will do those things or refrain from doing them. Our individual conscious actions are within our control to a certain extent, but both being saved and being a sinner is completely beyond our control. There is nothing we can do to sanctify ourselves and justify us to God and there is nothing we can do to make ourselves inherently benevolent creatures rather than inherently self centered.

 

[BobRyan]

True. The other reason for it is that it isolates God from the guilt of sin.

If you make a robot that kills your neighbor's dog as programmed - we do not "blame the robot".

I would . Because the robot did it.

A lot of people feel that about guns.

You seem to feel that way about unmanned drones from your statement.

I prefer to blame the one "behind them" who "had the choice" and manipulates the whole arrangement. Apparently the court system agrees with me.

No guns or drones "go to jail".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

the reason for free will is just that. God loves us so much he gives us free will
Respons-ability is our freedom in this life. choose ye this day whom you will serve.
crucify the flesh with the lust thereof, dont be a servant to sin. allow Christ Jesus to be your salvation.

True. The other reason for it is that it isolates God from the guilt of sin.

If you make a robot that kills your neighbor's dog as programmed - we do not "blame the robot".
.

But free will or no free will in the matter of salvation does not absolve one from ones decisions as we do not have even the excuse of the programmed robot that we cannot act at all on our own.

Then by "no free will" you allow some unsaved people to not be criminals - to choose to obey the law and other unsaved people to be the criminals?

And you call that "no free will"???

 

[grasping the after wind]

Then by "no free will" you allow some unsaved people to not be criminals - to choose to obey the law and other unsaved people to be the criminals?

And you call that "no free will"???

I try not to use the term free will at all because people do not see the difference between being free to make decisions regarding what one does and being free to decide what God must do. We do not have the capacity( some call this free will) to save ourselves. We do not have the capacity to be inherently benevolent( some say a good person). We do have the capacity to act ( some call that free will and an argument between this group and the previous some with the other definition is pointless if they think they are both talking about the same thing.).

All unsaved persons might be not criminals and all saved might be criminals or some of one and some of the other . Criminality and salvation are not opposites. If one is saved, one is forgiven for falling short of the glory of God .One does not earn salvation by obeying the law. One is saved . One ought not do things or refrain from doing things to attempt to save oneself or to force God to do so because that won't actually work. Anyone that refrains from sinning with the idea that they are building up good person points and if they get enough of those God has to accept their application for salvation is fooling themself. God is not Santa Claus with a list of sins he checks in order to to see if you are bad or good by what the final talley might be and if you have more good check marks than bad you get saved. Salvation is a gift for any sinner that sincerely asks for it . Just as salvation is an act of Love by God Obedience is an act of love by us. It is not supposed to be an act of selfishness. If we try to earn salvation then our acts are really selfish ones where we obey God in order to get something for ourself.

 

[FireDragon76]

You should look up the Lutheran doctrine of election, they are intermediate between this Arminian and Calvinist question: God is responsible for our salvation, but man is responsible for damnation. Basically, Lutheranism doesn't think the doctrine of election is a primary issue, it focuses instead on the sacraments and having faith in God's promises through them.

I don't think its right to describe Lutherans as strict monergists like double-predestination Calvinists, there is certainly human cooperation with God once we are justified, and the grace of justification can be resisted by the human will. It just can't, paradoxically enough, be acquired through our efforts (more like our non-effort?).

The problem I have with Calvinism is that it often elevates election to a primary issue, when I see in Scriptures the primary issue of a loving God trying to save humanity from its self-imposed rebellion. A Lutheran can honestly preach "God loves you and Christ died for you", some Calvinists are so wedded to their theology, they cannot do that.

 

[jinc1019]

Was Lucifer "pre-programmed by God to sin"? Was Adam? - Eve? ... Cain? if so then why did not Able sin? was he "preprogrammed" by DNA, by environment? by ?? -- if we are all only doing whatever we are "programmed to do" then it is either DNA or genetic, or epigenome or environment...

Maybe the problem is that the God who can created sentient life from scratch knows how to make free will beings - and we who can only create computers from scratch - don't.

You can't put a large square peg in a small round hole.

in Christ,

Bob

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your reply. My point is not that we're all "pre-programmed," but that no matter what decisions we make, it must be based on something.

Answer this question for me: Why does one person choose faith and another reject God, assuming they have both heard the true Gospel?

 

[jinc1019]

I try not to use the term free will at all because people do not see the difference between being free to make decisions regarding what one does and being free to decide what God must do. We do not have the capacity( some call this free will) to save ourselves. We do not have the capacity to be inherently benevolent( some say a good person). We do have the capacity to act ( some call that free will and an argument between this group and the previous some with the other definition is pointless if they think they are both talking about the same thing.).

All unsaved persons might be not criminals and all saved might be criminals or some of one and some of the other . Criminality and salvation are not opposites. If one is saved, one is forgiven for falling short of the glory of God .One does not earn salvation by obeying the law. One is saved . One ought not do things or refrain from doing things to attempt to save oneself or to force God to do so because that won't actually work. Anyone that refrains from sinning with the idea that they are building up good person points and if they get enough of those God has to accept their application for salvation is fooling themself. God is not Santa Claus with a list of sins he checks in order to to see if you are bad or good by what the final talley might be and if you have more good check marks than bad you get saved. Salvation is a gift for any sinner that sincerely asks for it . Just as salvation is an act of Love by God Obedience is an act of love by us. It is not supposed to be an act of selfishness. If we try to earn salvation then our acts are really selfish ones where we obey God in order to get something for ourself.

Sure, I agree with most of this. But it's not addressing the point, really. The issue is: why does one person "sincerely ask" for faith while another does not? If we're all truly free and responsible for that choice, then it's arbitrary choice and there is no reason why one chooses faith and another doesn't.

 

[jinc1019]

You should look up the Lutheran doctrine of election, they are intermediate between this Arminian and Calvinist question: God is responsible for our salvation, but man is responsible for damnation. Basically, Lutheranism doesn't think the doctrine of election is a primary issue, it focuses instead on the sacraments and having faith in God's promises through them.

I don't think its right to describe Lutherans as strict monergists like double-predestination Calvinists, there is certainly human cooperation with God once we are justified, and the grace of justification can be resisted by the human will. It just can't, paradoxically enough, be acquired through our efforts (more like our non-effort?).

The problem I have with Calvinism is that it often elevates election to a primary issue, when I see in Scriptures the primary issue of a loving God trying to save humanity from its self-imposed rebellion. A Lutheran can honestly preach "God loves you and Christ died for you", some Calvinists are so wedded to their theology, they cannot do that.

I have a great admiration for Lutheranism, so I don't have much of a disagreement with your comments here. You're right that this is what Lutherans generally do. The problem though that I see with Lutheranism is actually (believe it or not) that its insistence that God does all the saving and man doesn't even make a choice really contradicts what basically all of the earliest church fathers held until Augustine and others in that same era. I have a hard time believing Christians had it wrong for 350 years until Augustine came along.

 

[jinc1019]

True. The other reason for it is that it isolates God from the guilt of sin.

If you make a robot that kills your neighbor's dog as programmed - we do not "blame the robot".

No one is talking about "robots." I acknowledge all people have to make decisions. The point is that we make decisions based on a predestinated plan, and in that sense, we don't really have free will as its often described.

 

[FireDragon76]

Reconciling divine sovereignty and the human will is indeed tricky. Obviously, we are not robots, we have consciousness and a sense of freedom in our will.

You will find some Lutherans- the less rigid confessionalists, are willing to talk about free will. The emphasis is still on what God does for us in Christ, and our union with him by faith.

In my experience of Eastern Orthodoxy, they theoretically believe in freedom of the will, but like Lutherans, they often preach about the objectivity of what Christ did for us- Christ saved us 2000 years ago, in his baptism, in his passion, in his resurrection. But they do expect a human response from that. And realistically, I think good Lutheran pastors do as well.

Election is a very tricky subject, I would say the early church considered it a mystery, but there was a strong emphasis on human freedom over against the fatalism of the pagans.

If there is no plan, how do the prophetic gifts work, attested to in scriptures and saints through the ages?

 

[jinc1019]

Reconciling divine sovereignty and the human will is indeed tricky. Obviously, we are not robots, we have consciousness and a sense of freedom in our will.

You will find some Lutherans- the less rigid confessionalists, are willing to talk about free will. The emphasis is still on what God does for us in Christ, and our union with him by faith.

In my experience of Eastern Orthodoxy, they theoretically believe in freedom of the will, but like Lutherans, they often preach about the objectivity of what Christ did for us- Christ saved us 2000 years ago, in his baptism, in his passion, in his resurrection. But they do expect a human response from that. And realistically, I think good Lutheran pastors do as well.

Election is a very tricky subject, I would say the early church considered it a mystery, but there was a strong emphasis on human freedom over against the fatalism of the pagans.

If there is no plan, how do the prophetic gifts work, attested to in scriptures and saints through the ages?

I agree with basically everything you say here.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sure, I agree with most of this. But it's not addressing the point, really. The issue is: why does one person "sincerely ask" for faith while another does not? If we're all truly free and responsible for that choice, then it's arbitrary choice and there is no reason why one chooses faith and another doesn't.

Being an arbitrary choice would not mean that a person has no reason for choosing. Arbitrary is not the same as random. I do not know whether we are totally free and responsible for that particular choice but if we are, my guess would be that those that do not request salvation are 1) those that believe they can earn it and do not need to ask for something they can get on their own or are too proud to ask for something they think they ought to be able to acquire by their own efforts. 2) those that believe if they cannot earn it themselves then it isn't worth having. 3) Those that think there is no salvation. 4) Those that are convinced they would be a better god than God is. 5) Those that think God wouldn't help them unless they were somehow a better person than they are. Maybe there are more reasons but I can't think of any at the moment.

 

[jinc1019]

Being an arbitrary choice would not mean that a person has no reason for choosing. Arbitrary is not the same as random. I do not know whether we are totally free and responsible for that particular choice but if we are, my guess would be that those that do not request salvation are 1) those that believe they can earn it and do not need to ask for something they can get on their own or are too proud to ask for something they think they ought to be able to acquire by their own efforts. 2) those that believe if they cannot earn it themselves then it isn't worth having. 3) Those that think there is no salvation. 4) Those that are convinced they would be a better god than God is. 5) Those that think God wouldn't help them unless they were somehow a better person than they are. Maybe there are more reasons but I can't think of any at the moment.

Arbitrary, by definition, means there's no reason for choosing. But I think you're still not getting my point. All those "reasons" people would choose to reject God have to come from somewhere. Perhaps they are genetically predisposed to think that way or grew up with parents who always put down Christianity, or whatever. Anyway you look at it, something caused that person to believe one thing or another, and that cause is evidence of God's predestination and inclusion in the choice.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your reply. My point is not that we're all "pre-programmed," but that no matter what decisions we make, it must be based on something.

Answer this question for me: Why does one person choose faith and another reject God, assuming they have both heard the true Gospel?

It makes more sense to them - to live forever. While the other person is too married to the love of this world.

But "what MADE them choose that way"?? is it their DNA, environment? - all that sort of thing is "programming"

 

[BobRyan]

Being an arbitrary choice would not mean that a person has no reason for choosing. .

Indeed and each person could give a "different reason".

 

[BobRyan]

You should look up the Lutheran doctrine of election, they are intermediate between this Arminian and Calvinist question: God is responsible for our salvation, but man is responsible for damnation. .

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other.

"The penny is responsible for holding still on the floor.... I am responsible for the ones that I choose to pick up".

looks the same as predestination, Calvinism you name it.

 

[jinc1019]

It makes more sense to them - to live forever. While the other person is too married to the love of this world.

But "what MADE them choose that way"?? is it their DNA, environment? - all that sort of thing is "programming"

Ok, so are you saying DNA, environment, etc. have nothing to do with it? Why then are some people "married to the world" and others crave the things of God?