Some harmful side effects of free will.

[FreeGrace2]

Why command someone to do something if they don't have free will?

Why do the cops arrest you if you don't have free will to obey the law?

Gee, Dave, you're arguing against Calvinism!!

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Why command someone to do something if they don't have free will?

Why do the cops arrest you if you don't have free will to obey the law?

That would be my point also, but that does not make free will a part of the law. The law exists because people have free will, not the other way round.

People not subject to the Law (TORAH) are not without free will.

Free Will is a part of creation, from Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden onwards.

 

[childeye 2]

I believe the term "free will " is causing misunderstandings on this thread because it is being discussed without being qualified. As pertains to the moral/immoral impetus, we can see in scripture there are two ways to qualify a will as as 'free':
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

 

[Cormack]

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
​

Was The Father prepared to accept Cains worship and his offering if he had “done right,”? God rhetorically answers yes, Cain would be no less than Able, if only he decided on righteousness like his brother.

Can God accept the sacrifice of an unregenerate, wickedly sinful murderer? If not than the teasing that he could be accepted was a sham, a mocking reply, since the Father was never willing to restore Cain to a right spiritual condition in the first place. His worship was never going to be acceptable under Calvinism. Why taunt the man with false hope?

Now outside of Calvinism, according to the Bible, Cain, who 1 John 3 described as “belonging to the evil one,” is offered the same kind of opportunity to share pure, acceptable worship as anyone else, that’s an incredible thing. That’s very gracious.

 

[Dave L]

That would be my point also, but that does not make free will a part of the law. The law exists because people have free will, not the other way round.

People not subject to the Law (TORAH) are not without free will.

Free Will is a part of creation, from Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden onwards.

The Law placed wicked Israel under threat of death and provided carnal benefits for obedience. It could not save. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

 

[Dave L]

Please tell why do you think so?

We lost our ability to believe in God through Adam. We sinned in him and cannot be saved unless God saves us.

 

[Dave L]

That is not providing a measuring stick, but we experience (have knowledge) of sin.

Try to keep the law as Jesus taught....see how far you get.

 

[childeye 2]

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
​

Was The Father prepared to accept Cains worship and his offering if he had “done right,”? God rhetorically answers yes, Cain would be no less than Able, if only he decided on righteousness like his brother.

Can God accept the sacrifice of an unregenerate, wickedly sinful murderer? If not than the teasing that he could be accepted was a sham, a mocking reply, since the Father was never willing to restore Cain to a right spiritual condition in the first place. His worship was never going to be acceptable under Calvinism. Why taunt the man with false hope?

Now outside of Calvinism, according to the Bible, Cain, who 1 John 3 described as “belonging to the evil one,” is offered the same kind of opportunity to share pure, acceptable worship as anyone else, that’s an incredible thing. That’s very gracious.

Respectfully, the problem is qualifying the term 'free will'. When we insist the will is free, then do we argue against the narrative that there is such a thing as wisdom which alters one's views and decisions? I note that God says sin is at your door, it desires to have you. Why say this? It seems to me that God is implying sin wants to manipulate Cain. I also note that this is after Cain's offering was not esteemed as well as Abel's. The lack of esteem towards Cain's offering is being taken by Cain as a personal cut down that seems unjust to Cain. The sequence of events indicate that how God esteemed the offerings differently is what initiated the emotional feeling of not being accepted.

To cut to the chase here, Cain's not doing well as pertains to the offering was not a deliberate decision to look bad, but points rather to a failure of understanding that a good offering should demonstrate a sincere thankfulness in acknowledging that whatever was offered came only through God's providence in the first place. This is why I believe Abel did well by giving the firstling and the best of his flock.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Lots of opinions and very little scripture being used to back them up in this thread. So far, no scripture has been offered to show any supposed harmful side effects of free will. That would have to be because there isn't any.

 

[childeye 2]

Lots of opinions and very little scripture being used to back them up in this thread. So far, no scripture has been offered to show any supposed harmful side effects of free will. That would have to be because there isn't any.

Respectfully, I have used scripture to show how the term free will is problematic due to it's ability to cause misunderstandings when unqualified.

 

[Cormack]

Respectfully, the problem is qualifying the term 'free will'.

Sure but that’s true for almost everything these days, from gender to love to freedom, equivocation abounds. Although in this case we’re probably only talking about 1 of 2 options, we’re either discussing the verse under the view compatibilism or libertarianism.

Under compatibilism (i.e. for the thinking Calvinist) God taunts and gives false promises to Cain for being a fallen creature in a fallen world. In essence he mocks a legless man for his inability to kick a football.

Under libertarianism (AKA what humans experience everyday,) God rhetorically chides the fallen creature for not choosing righteousness when the option to side with righteousness and be accepted was available from the start.

I note that God says sin is at your door, it desires to have you. Why say this? It seems to me that God is implying sin wants to manipulate Cain.

And what does God say about sin crouching like an animal, Cain must “rule over it,” but once again, according to Calvinism Cain can’t rule over sinfulness without being irresistibly regenerated and having his nature changed.

“Rule over your sin, you’ll be accepted if you do what’s right.” It’s a hilarious mockery under Calvinism because humanity can do neither of those things.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We lost our ability to believe in God through Adam.

What Scripture says this? This is a common claim by Calvinists, but is not true.

We sinned in him and cannot be saved unless God saves us.

True. And the Bible says clearly who God chooses to save: believers.

1 Cor 1:21 says so, plainly.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The Law placed wicked Israel under threat of death and provided carnal benefits for obedience. It could not save. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

I agree, but Free Will is not part of the Law, which is what the OP stated.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Respectfully, I have used scripture to show how the term free will is problematic due to it's ability to cause misunderstandings when unqualified.

Yes, that's true. But, I'm talking about those who don't believe in free will, as they understand it, not offering any scripture to show how there are any harmful side effects of it (as they understand it). Wouldn't you agree? The person who started this thread, in particular, just constantly states opinions without providing any scripture to back them up.

But, yes, it would be helpful to first define what free will is before talking about it. It's actually pretty funny that Dave L liked your post when he is the one who failed to give a definition for free will in his original post.

 

[Dave L]

I agree, but Free Will is not part of the Law, which is what the OP stated.

It is part of any law. It's why law exists. What good is law without it?

 

[John Mullally]

It is part of any law. It's why law exists. What good is law without it?

Just because there is a loose relationship doesn't make it part of the Law. The Law requires thought, but an existing relationship between law and thought does not mean thought is anathema - because no one is saved by the law. I don't know why I have to state this.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

It is part of any law. It's why law exists. What good is law without it?

Free will is not PART of any law, it is the reason we have laws - to ensure people don't overstep the mark. Free will was there before the law. Nor is its only purpose relating to the law. I make a choice to go to work today... or work from home. Neither is unlawful, but it is my free choice to do one or the other and deal with whatever the consequences of that is.

And your OP concludes that Free Will makes salvation impossible. So basically no Jew could ever be saved (good job Jesus never taught that 'cos he wouldn't have had many followers).

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, that's true. But, I'm talking about those who don't believe in free will, as they understand it, not offering any scripture to show how there are any harmful side effects of it (as they understand it). Wouldn't you agree?

You're right. It's necessary that all involved come to terms before any edifying discourse can occur. I'm pretty sure the poster of the op means to describe the sentiment of always being culpable for one's moral/immoral actions in the form of it being an absolute. However this is a particularly difficult subject to articulate. Sometimes it takes lot's of practice to convey one's thoughts perfectly.

 

[childeye 2]

Sure but that’s true for almost everything these days, from gender to love to freedom, equivocation abounds. Although in this case we’re probably only talking about 1 of 2 options, we’re either discussing the verse under the view compatibilism or libertarianism.

Under compatibilism (i.e. for the thinking Calvinist) God taunts and gives false promises to Cain for being a fallen creature in a fallen world. In essence he mocks a legless man for his inability to kick a football.

Under libertarianism (AKA what humans experience everyday,) God rhetorically chides the fallen creature for not choosing righteousness when the option to side with righteousness and be accepted was available from the start.

Frankly I don't see why Calvinism needs to be mentioned. We all experience life in a unique way and I can't speak for Calvin.

The availability of a choice/option to do what is right from the the start, (before a choice/decision is made) doesn't prove that there exists an equal ability for every person to choose the right option. Since we share the planet with others we can be sure that a moral/immoral decision as to how we treat others is inevitable as a matter of circumstance.

More to the point, when the reason 'why' one option is viewed as more preferable than the other, it comes down to whether the mind reasons upon what is self serving subjectively, or self serving objectively. Wisdom through the knowledge of God points to vanity as the downfall of the creature. This vanity would be described as the product of gradually taking what God has given us for granted in a gradual un-thankfulness.

And what does God say about sin crouching like an animal, Cain must “rule over it,” but once again, according to Calvinism Cain can’t rule over sinfulness without being irresistibly regenerated and having his nature changed.

I'm going to leave Calvin out of it.

In all honesty and not wanting to sound as at odds with you, I personally have experienced a change in my nature through the power of the revelation of God's righteousness. I assume it's the same for everyone. In short the Holy Spirit has provided the necessary wisdom to show me why the Spirit of Christ counts it better to be a servant towards all others, whereas before I would have counted it as being lowly in a worldly view. The reasoning is sound, since we all fare better this way, and I don't see how or why it would make sense to resist it. Can I assume it's the same for you?

 

[chad kincham]

First, free will is a part of Law. And law cannot save. Free will only leaves people without excuse for breaking laws that cannot save. But this is not true of grace. Grace is unconditional kindness. So when we preach free will salvation, we turn grace into law and the gospel into works. Since Paul stresses the law cannot save, it leaves people with false hope of salvation.

It also focuses a person’s faith in their faith to save them. Instead of on Christ who is the author and finisher of true faith.

It also corrupts God’s image. It turns him into a bully who threatens to torture people forever if they don’t “say uncle”, or do whatever their church tells them to do. And it also turns those who sell their souls for heavenly pleasures into people less than honorable.

If Grace, also known as unmerited favor, is the means of salvation, then God receives full glory for saving us. Otherwise, we rob him of his glory and apply it to ourselves thinking our obedience (goodness) saves us.

Free will only makes salvation impossible. Salvation is by faith but free will says you can lose your salvation. Thinking you can lose your salvation makes having faith that God saved you impossible.

First of all, there’s nothing in scripture that links freewill with the law.

Paul in fact calls the law given on Mount Sinai bondage/slavery in Galatians 4:21-31, and Peter said it’s a yoke of bondage in Acts 15:10, thus there’s no freewill there.

Secondly Jesus Himself said some believe for a while, then fall away in Luke 8; and Paul wrote that he has to subjugate his flesh and control it, lest after preaching salvation to others, he end up a reprobate.

Baruch HaShem Adonai.