James Disproves Free Will

[Dave L]

Okay, so now I've repeated it twice.

Do you have ANY intention whatsoever of actually debating the issue of free will or are you just here to throw out one liners and unsupported personal opinion?

I don't care which, just tell me so I can whether to ignore you from now on or not.

How many times did I reply?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay, so now I've repeated it twice.

Do you have ANY intention whatsoever of actually debating the issue of free will or are you just here to throw out one liners and unsupported personal opinion?

I don't care which, just tell me so I can whether to ignore you from now on or not.

Go to his profile and pull up the MANY posts where he has made himself very plain. I can only imagine his reason for the one-liners is because nobody seems to be reading his whole longer posts. I have the same frustration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So far there have been 19 pages of posts on this thread. Is it hard to follow his reasoning? He shows that God has decided, and nobody can show their personal "free will" can undo it. God is, after all, God.

It is hard to pick one man out and respond to only him in debate form. If you wish, begin a thread for that purpose and maybe he will respond to you.

 

[JacksBratt]

What if these people that continuously reject Him were built that way from the foundations of the Creation? Vessels prepared for destruction as it were...

I think we are all here experiencing our choices that lead us to where we already are - so that we have no reason to ask, "why am I in Heaven/hell?" That's why some people believe we are in a simulation, or a black hole, non-existent, etc. They see the "entanglement" between "real life" and afterlife, but don't quite know how to perceive it except in their crude academic language (e.g. physics, math, comp sci).

What if...


OK... so.. when we leave this earth... Is anyone going to be able to say to Christ "well, you made me that way, I had no chance"? I doubt it. All will be judged as to whether they believed in Christ and accepted Him .........or...........rejected Him.... Their choice for their eternity.

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you deny the verse I quoted? And yes, it means that in context, too.

But again, what do you mean by "free will"? Real choice? Good. I agree. Our choices are real, with real results and consequences, even eternal results.

But if by free will, you mean that God is not in control, whether by influence or manipulation of circumstances or whatever else he chooses to do, of what happens in his creation, then no, we have no free will.

If you take free will to mean that God must be hands off, then no, there is no free will.

The ....heart is as a watercourse in the hand of God. He directs it wherever he chooses.

Look at it this way....

You are out of town and tape the football game.
Then next day you watch the game with a friend, who has already seen it.

Your friend knows what each player is going to do, when the touchdown is going to happen and when an interception will take place..
The players, in the game, were making rapid fire choices as they play.
Your friend knows whats going to happen. You do not..

Does your friend control what the players are doing because he knows and you don't?

 

[Kaon]

What if...


OK... so.. when we leave this earth... Is anyone going to be able to say to Christ "well, you made me that way, I had no chance"? I doubt it. All will be judged as to whether they believed in Christ and accepted Him .........or...........rejected Him.... Their choice for their eternity.

I agree. I am saying on this plane of existence (with the luxury of time) we can see everything we did that got us to where we are right now - Heaven or hell. Everything that will happen has already happened (nonlinearity of time), so life is for our benefit: it is the Most High God's way of showing us why we justly belong where we already are.

 

[chilehed]

Is that right? I made it up, huh?

Yes, it is and you did. You certainly didn't get it out of the Bible. If I'm wrong, then quote the passage: book, chapter and verse.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[section9+1]

Again, there is logically no such thing as chance. Even the best philosophers and scientists agree, it is all cause-and-effect. "Chance", as one of them says, is just a placeholder for "I don't know".

Logically, chance is a self-defeating proposition. Chance cannot cause, nor determine, anything.

The best scientists and philosophers saying such are a big reason why I know they are wrong. They are the very people we are not to look to for answers. I'm not saying everything is a dice toss. I'm saying we all have free will and we are accountable for that will because it is free and not manipulated by unseen hands. Of course God has a plan for his creation that he will see carried out. But your placement in that plan is up to you.

 

[1213]

human free will needs to be saved before it can choose righteousness.

Please tell why do you think so?

 

[Cis.jd]

Show me a single command that contains within it your ability to obey it.

Hmm. I have the ability to obey not to muder.

 

[fwGod]

“For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.” James 3:7–12 (KJV 1900)

Your use of those sentences are misleading. Specifically ignoring the one sentence in there that proves free will.

The taming of the tongue is intended to occur.. else sinners who get saved continue to curse and swear like before.

Is bitter water and sweet water supposed to come out of the same fountain?.. James next said "brethren this ought not be."

That proves that Christians are to tame their tongues. James said that in taming the tongue a believer can also control their whole body.

What James was saying is that unsaved men cannot or have difficulty in determining what words they will use. They might be able to curb and sanitize their talking while at a wedding or funeral or the like.. but when the event is over they return to their swearing.

The point that James was making that animals can be tamed by unsaved man, but those men can't or won't train their tongues to always speak good or godly, pure and righteous things.

However, we Christians can with God's help curb our words by our desire to please Him, relying upon the power of God to achieve it.

Conclusion, the proof of free will is in the words (in context), "brethren, an unruly tongue ought not be."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Look at it this way....

You are out of town and tape the football game.
Then next day you watch the game with a friend, who has already seen it.

Your friend knows what each player is going to do, when the touchdown is going to happen and when an interception will take place..
The players, in the game, were making rapid fire choices as they play.
Your friend knows whats going to happen. You do not..

Does your friend control what the players are doing because he knows and you don't?

Let's say your friend built the players and the game and arranged all circumstances into which each player grew up and lived to the moment of the game. Let's say your friend CAUSED each player to have the nature they did and the circumstances that motivate them, and gave them helps and hindrances according to his plan for the game. Your friend is also timeless, which implies he knows what is going to happen because he caused what is going to happen. Yes, he controls them.

Yet, because they all behave according to their nature and influences, does that make their choices any less real?

Note: as Dave L has indicated, even God behaves according to his nature, and yes, he reacts to even our temporal influences --does that mean we change him? Does that mean he is not sovereign? Does that mean we change his plans for his creation?

Notice the reference to Moses, God's chosen one, who stood in the gap between God and his rebellious chosen people, so that he would not destroy them as they so richly deserved. Was that entirely Moses' doing, unplanned and unmotivated by God?

 

[Cis.jd]

I thought I explained a bit about how much he deserves our worship, and how much the believer can't help but worship. Who said there is no will attached or required to it? Our will is incompetent, is all I was saying, if I remember right what you are referring to without going back and figuring out which post is which. I thought I was clear that no, it is NOT just "so I don't burn in hell". I wish all creation could see it, because he deserves at least that. People acknowledging the truth concerning him is satisfaction and delight to me.

You have not explained that. What you did was just give a blog long post about your feelings towards him. That is not telling me at all as to why I should want to worship him other than for my own security because your feelings doesn't prove there is anything positive to get from him.

For ex: Allah and Islam. Every Muslim who converted to Christianity has expressed that one of the difference between Jesus and Allah is that Allah is a god of submission while Jesus is a God of relationships. Now for those who are still Muslim, they normally give the same form of emotional reasoning that you did as to why he deserves worship but to everybody else it is all a worship rooted in fear (or submission).

If you control or eliminate a persons will then there can't be an actual relationship, and this is why your explanation is highly contradictory to everything you've been arguing about and the amount of defending you have done towards the TC's reasoning. Relationships take a decision by both parties, and any relationship that exist because one person is forced is not a good relationship at all. In fact, that person sounds like one of those battered spouses who still believes in their partners regardless of the abuse.

 

[Concord1968]

And, after 19 pages, everything all comes back around to the concept of meticulous providence.....

 

[Sam91]

davel,

1. You are missing the point.
First, I never said we could tame the tongue all the time.
I said we can overcome and tame the tongue with the power of God.
However, we can choose freely not to rely on God and not be able to tame our tongue in different situations.

2. By nature the tongue cannot be tamed.
By nature sinners don’t tame the tongue but they can tame it at times by the power of a freewill choice.
Murders are not good in holding up the value of a life. But it doesn’t mean they can’t do anything good.

3. Since we can have self control which is a fruit of the Spirit and we can overcome by the power of God the tongue can be tamed when we make a freewill choice to trust and obey God.
God is not going to force you to choose to trust him or not, otherwise it is not true love, for his program with free will agents has to be able to choose freely for we are not robots, but creative beings who God gavels brains to be able to understand intelligence information and the power of free will choice. Jerry Kelso
Jerry Kelso

Can someone have 'self-control' if they don't acknowledge the existence of free will? Part of the fruit of the Spirit is the ability to overcome. That doesn't always work out properly or 1 John wouldn't talk about forgiveness if one does sin. God is perfect and it is not His failure when we stumble.

I do not know why Christ would speak of rewards in Revelation to those who overcome if they did not have to submit and choose to obey. I do not understand how people would be punished if rejecting God was not a choice that they made.

Maybe the phrase self-control needs to be redefined to make it fit Calvinism because that's what I see happening.

@Dave L where the Bible says 'Rest assured God will not be mocked...you reap what you sow' (Galatians 6.. badly recalled.) How can one deny that we are in control of our choices here? If we had no will of our own we could not sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you control or eliminate a persons will then there can't be an actual relationship, and this is why your explanation is highly contradictory to everything you've been arguing about and the amount of defending you have done towards the TC's reasoning. Relationships take a decision by both parties, and any relationship that exist because one person is forced is not a good relationship at all. In fact, that person sounds like one of those battered spouses who still believes in their partners regardless of the abuse.

That is just the thing --he does not control our will, as you seem to think of "control". He holds no gun to our head or by fear pulls our strings. (A note: even then it can be said that we still choose, even if automatically, were he to behave that way, but he doesn't.) He does not force us. He most certainly does allow us to make real choices. To unfailingly cause, and to force, are not the same thing.

You first say, "If you control ... a person's will then there can't be an actual relationship." Then you say that if one person is forced it is not a good relationship (implying at least that it is an actual relationship.)

 

[Cis.jd]

That is just the thing --he does not control our will, as you seem to think of "control". He holds no gun to our head or by fear pulls our strings. (A note: even then it can be said that we still choose, even if automatically, were he to behave that way, but he doesn't.) He does not force us. He most certainly does allow us to make real choices. To unfailingly cause, and to force, are not the same thing.

Right. He doesn't force us, because we have free will. If we didn't – if we could not come to him on a decision out of love then he is just the same man made god as Allah, Zeus, and all those that had requirements on appeasing. You've seemed to confuse the concept of nature and design. Just because we have sins in our nature doesn't mean our freewill is not as completely true as popularly believed in christianity, we are just designed to have certain limits so that we can learn and build ourselves personally.

You first say, "If you control ... a person's will then there can't be an actual relationship." Then you say that if one person is forced it is not a good relationship (implying at least that it is an actual relationship.)

I don't understand why you are trying to make it look conflicting. The context of the point behind was the same and obvious nevertheless. even with out the verb "good" in the first sentence, just by the context alone you should be able to tell I am referring to the term "relationships" in a positive aspect, while on the 2nd post i'm being more specific for the sake of going straight forward with point. Seriously?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The best scientists and philosophers saying such are a big reason why I know they are wrong. They are the very people we are not to look to for answers. I'm not saying everything is a dice toss. I'm saying we all have free will and we are accountable for that will because it is free and not manipulated by unseen hands. Of course God has a plan for his creation that he will see carried out. But your placement in that plan is up to you.

That is how you see it, but that is not what Scripture says. Yet even apart from Scripture, logic bears out that free will (that is, apart from God's work) means either one person is inherently better or more capable of doing a good choice than others, or that all are equal, but chance (since nothing else) chose which will choose good.

I do agree that our decision does determine our placement in that plan, as is obvious, and have not said otherwise, but our decision is precisely according to plan.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hmm. I have the ability to obey not to muder.

That's not what he asked you. He asked you to demonstrate that (in your example) the command to not murder contains within it the ability to obey it.

 

[Cis.jd]

That's not what he asked you. He asked you to demonstrate that (in your example) the command to not murder contains within it the ability to obey it.

I don't understand how my previous answer still doesn't match the question. Yesm i and everyone else (except for maybe mentally sick people) have the ability to obey (or disobey) murder. This post of yours is odd, you just rephrased someone else's post..and it's oddly phrased as well.