The absolute necessity free will

[TedT]

IF we have no free will we are not guilty of the evil choices we make yet scripture asserts we are guilty over and over and over...

IF we have no free will then GOD created us to do evil and is the source of our evil yet HE claims to be loving and holy...

thus my evidence for the necessity of our free will is self evident in GOD's revelation that HE is loving and holy yet evil exists...

If Jesus was not saying anything important about our slavery to sin, then He was just rambling on...a hypothesis I reject. Many argue against the metaphor instead of the truth it points too... A slave may indeed go against his master and a person who is enslaved by sin may indeed love someone but their slavery to sin is that sin permeates their being and every decision they make (just like the runaway is still a slave and even when running away is forced by his slavery to do runaway things) and they cannot cure themselves.

I like the idea of evil having an addictive quality, a term more appropriate to our times and understanding. An addict can do something selfless but he is still an addict and going to jail if he ends before the judge. And the addiction to the rebellious and adversarial stance of evil cannot be cured by the addict himself because his addiction forces him to always view reality in a way that supports him in his addiction, not against it....we can fight earthly addictions but not the addiction to evil.

But along with such considerations, we have our genetics forcing us into all manner of decisions, our family and cultural values that we accrued in our earliest years that force us without our even understanding how, in all our decisions.

In a 1930 article, Albert Einstein wrote,
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him (one who is convinced of the universal law of causation) for the single reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”

...a secular humanist perspective on the rejection of our free will in Secular Perspectives: Free Will and Determinism

A free will choice must be fully and perfectly free of all coercions whether external or internal like our genetics and ingrained biology and values. ONLY a spirit created in a spirit world, no biology, no genetics and no family / cultural baggage but created ingeniously innocent, can have a free will.

Peace, Ted

 

[Halbhh]

I like and agree with that last thought: that through spirit we may have our free will (be not at all like a robot or a puppet, but truly free)

(And...(!) it may even be that both spirit and nature allow or contribute to free will, it appears, from the point of view of physics experiments trying to test whether nature is really as it seems in the seemingly non-deterministic Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (the wave function evolves deterministically, but itself is only describing probability, and the real rub is whether there are fix deterministic laws, "local realism" as Einstein thought or wanted there to be) -- the 'bell test experiments', where it looks increasingly to some that nature itself isn't even deterministic, though this isn't yet a 100% certainty)

As I see it, as soon as there is real freedom, both good and evil instantly become possible. Love becomes possible.

Good is to love others, and try to do well to them, or:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

Evil is to intentionally try to do wrong, to intentionally go against Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

So, they both become possible/come into being instantly as soon as there are free intelligent beings with agency.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Traditional Theology to General Theology as it does not belong in Traditional Theology.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[TedT]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Traditional Theology to General Theology as it does not belong in Traditional Theology.

MOD HAT OFF​

Thank you - I still find this site to be confusing with pages flipping around all the time but I will get used to the distinctions I think. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Therefore this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom to your own people. So I now proclaim 'freedom' for you, declares the LORD--'freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth." (Jeremiah 34:17)

What kind of freedom is supposed to be proclaimed anyway?

(to determine what is a "free" will)

 

[BBAS 64]

IF we have no free will we are not guilty of the evil choices we make yet scripture asserts we are guilty over and over and over...

IF we have no free will then GOD created us to do evil and is the source of our evil yet HE claims to be loving and holy...

thus my evidence for the necessity of our free will is self evident in GOD's revelation that HE is loving and holy yet evil exists...

If Jesus was not saying anything important about our slavery to sin, then He was just rambling on...a hypothesis I reject. Many argue against the metaphor instead of the truth it points too... A slave may indeed go against his master and a person who is enslaved by sin may indeed love someone but their slavery to sin is that sin permeates their being and every decision they make (just like the runaway is still a slave and even when running away is forced by his slavery to do runaway things) and they cannot cure themselves.

I like the idea of evil having an addictive quality, a term more appropriate to our times and understanding. An addict can do something selfless but he is still an addict and going to jail if he ends before the judge. And the addiction to the rebellious and adversarial stance of evil cannot be cured by the addict himself because his addiction forces him to always view reality in a way that supports him in his addiction, not against it....we can fight earthly addictions but not the addiction to evil.

But along with such considerations, we have our genetics forcing us into all manner of decisions, our family and cultural values that we accrued in our earliest years that force us without our even understanding how, in all our decisions.

In a 1930 article, Albert Einstein wrote,
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him (one who is convinced of the universal law of causation) for the single reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”

...a secular humanist perspective on the rejection of our free will in Secular Perspectives: Free Will and Determinism

A free will choice must be fully and perfectly free of all coercions whether external or internal like our genetics and ingrained biology and values. ONLY a spirit created in a spirit world, no biology, no genetics and no family / cultural baggage but created ingeniously innocent, can have a free will.

Peace, Ted

Good Day, Ted

Depends how you use the term free will.

Seeing the will is effected by things and forces that are external to it and cannot control than the will is not free in the absolute sense.

Men love darkness and hate light they will choice the darkness they love over the light that they hate and they do so freely.

You may find Edward's work on the subject useful.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BobRyan]

In a 1930 article, Albert Einstein wrote,
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him (one who is convinced of the universal law of causation) for the single reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”

Einstein perfectly states the atheist evolutionist view for no free will. I reject atheism so I reject his view.

But with Adam - mankind of its own free will chose to side with Satan in rebellion against God -- and so like Satan - morally bent toward sin and rebellion.

Question: How then is God just in condemning the Eph 2:1-5 "slaves" to sin?

Answer: John 12:32 says God supernaturally "draws ALL" mankind to himself with drawing that "enables" choice to accept the gospel or not. (on a good day even Calvinists will admit this enabling aspect of the supernatural drawing of God based on John 6).

And there you have "choice" - God supernaturally convicts "the world of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 - and also "draws all" mankind to Himself. There we have choice "enabled" not because man has it inherently after choosing rebellion - but because God supernaturally provides for it specifically regarding accepting or rejecting the gospel.

 

[fhansen]

IF we have no free will we are not guilty of the evil choices we make yet scripture asserts we are guilty over and over and over...

IF we have no free will then GOD created us to do evil and is the source of our evil yet HE claims to be loving and holy...

thus my evidence for the necessity of our free will is self evident in GOD's revelation that HE is loving and holy yet evil exists...

If Jesus was not saying anything important about our slavery to sin, then He was just rambling on...a hypothesis I reject. Many argue against the metaphor instead of the truth it points too... A slave may indeed go against his master and a person who is enslaved by sin may indeed love someone but their slavery to sin is that sin permeates their being and every decision they make (just like the runaway is still a slave and even when running away is forced by his slavery to do runaway things) and they cannot cure themselves.

I like the idea of evil having an addictive quality, a term more appropriate to our times and understanding. An addict can do something selfless but he is still an addict and going to jail if he ends before the judge. And the addiction to the rebellious and adversarial stance of evil cannot be cured by the addict himself because his addiction forces him to always view reality in a way that supports him in his addiction, not against it....we can fight earthly addictions but not the addiction to evil.

But along with such considerations, we have our genetics forcing us into all manner of decisions, our family and cultural values that we accrued in our earliest years that force us without our even understanding how, in all our decisions.

In a 1930 article, Albert Einstein wrote,
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him (one who is convinced of the universal law of causation) for the single reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”

...a secular humanist perspective on the rejection of our free will in Secular Perspectives: Free Will and Determinism

A free will choice must be fully and perfectly free of all coercions whether external or internal like our genetics and ingrained biology and values. ONLY a spirit created in a spirit world, no biology, no genetics and no family / cultural baggage but created ingeniously innocent, can have a free will.

Peace, Ted

Yes, there wouldn't really be any necessity for God's revelation, for His interacting with and teaching and molding and revealing Himself to man down through the centuries since Eden, if He wasn't all about patiently seeking to draw man into willful right choices, even if those right choices begin relatively weakly, as baby steps.

 

[TedT]

"Therefore this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom to your own people. So I now proclaim 'freedom' for you, declares the LORD--'freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth." (Jeremiah 34:17)

What kind of freedom is supposed to be proclaimed anyway?

(to determine what is a "free" will)

In broad terms freedom from having to live with the demonic tares any longer. Some specifics of "coming out from among them" 2 Corinthians 6:17, would include Freedom from the enslavement of evil
Romans 6:20, freedom to choose to serve humbly in love and not to choose to indulge in the flesh any longer Galatians 5:13.

Genesis 15:16 - But in the fourth generation they (the Israelites) shall come hither (to the Promised Land) again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Now, the thing that I'd like you to note is that Israel's return to the Promised Land had to be postponed, reminiscent of the postponement of the judgement mentioned by Jesus in the parable of the tares, Matt 13:28-29. My first question is why did it have to be postponed? Was it because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full enough for their judgement? Okay, then my second question is "who wasn't it full enough for?"

It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the totally defiling nature of just one sin, that the Amorites were full enough in GOD's sight already. So then, just who still looked on their iniquity as not being full yet, that is, as not being bad enough to warrant this judgement that had to take place before Israel's return?

According to pre-conception existence theology, there was a four generation postponement of GOD's judgement because the Amorites were not yet bad enough in the eyes of the Israelites for the Israelites to be willing to judge them according to the judgement decreed by GOD.

Therefore, the Israelites had to stay enslaved in Egypt or wandering in the wilderness until they became willing to judge them, that is, until the Israelites became holy (obedient) enough to see them all judged: men, women and children. (See Joshua 6:21; 8:26,27; 10:40)

Now, this judgement against the Amorites is typical of the judgement that has to take place before we can inherit the antitypical “Promised Land”, ie, before GOD's people can enter into the truest millennium.

According to pre-conception existence theology, this antitypical judgement has also been postponed, once again because the elect do not yet look on the iniquity of HIS enemies as being bad enough to warrant HIS eternal judgement and wrath on them. They would rather stay bound to them and apart from GOD than to stand for the judgement.

Therefore, we too have had to remain in Egypt or wandering in the wilderness if we've been converted, that is, outside of the “Promised Land”, still waiting until we become holy enough to have all of GOD's enemies (men, women and children, even the ones that look like little wee babies!) killed, that is, judged and forever exiled to the outer darkness.

Peace, Ted

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Was it because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full enough for their judgement? Okay, then my second question is "who wasn't it full enough for?"

I couldn't see the answer to my question in that post, but this question piqued my interest.

When a sin becomes full, it's like when the bowls of wrath become full, and when the desire conceived in James becomes sin, and when fully mature becomes death.

The sin not being full yet means the judgment brought about by sin being punishment in and of itself was not ready yet.

 

[TedT]

The sin not being full yet means the judgment brought about by sin being punishment in and of itself was not ready yet.

I must disagree - the judgement is ready as both Matt 13:27-28 and Jn 3:18 "18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.…" imply. It is the sins of the good seed, the sinful elect, that make them liable to be pulled up with the tares in the judgement forcing the postponement of the judgment, not the lack of the preparation of the judgment.

The reference to the Amorites is when GOD used actual historical events to reinforce HIS commands with all HIS people thru all the ages.

 

[TedT]

Depends how you use the term free will.

All FREE means is uncoerced: a free will therefore is an uncoerced decision making ability or event.

IF GOD set it up so HIS new creation had no coercion or constraints upon their choices, forcing them to choose anything, they had free will.

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:

1. Free will can't be coerced:

Nothing in their created nature could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all genetics...

Nothing in their experience could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all, cultural or familial experience...

Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could FORCE them to choose good or evil, love or hate.

In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.
Ref. definition of ingenuous: has: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

2. Consequences must be known but not proved:

The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail. No one is judged evil due to any mistaken choice based upon ignorance.

But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.

If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right. Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice according to GOD's instruction. Only then are they able to follow their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality as described by GOD, deciding for themselves the reality they most hoped to enjoy.


Peace, Ted

 

[TedT]

Yes, there wouldn't really be any necessity for God's revelation, for His interacting with and teaching and molding and revealing Himself to man down through the centuries since Eden, if He wasn't all about patiently seeking to draw man into willful right choices, even if those right choices begin relatively weakly, as baby steps.

As sinners we are enslaved by, addicted to, sin. We cannot save ourselves from that addiction so we cannot be said to have a free will. We have faith that our salvation is a gift from HIM through faith, not by our own wilful works.

 

[TedT]

Answer: John 12:32 says God supernaturally "draws ALL" mankind to himself with drawing that "enables" choice to accept the gospel or not. (on a good day even Calvinists will admit this enabling aspect of the supernatural drawing of God based on John 6).

And there you have "choice" - God supernaturally convicts "the world of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 - and also "draws all" mankind to Himself.

Yes the Calvinists that deny the absolute necessity of our free will claiming everything in iota is only by the sovereign will of GOD have missed the boat. But I have some difficulty with the more Arminian pov that hell is filled with those who could have been saved if they would only have listened and accepted HIS offer.

We know from 2 Peter 3:9 Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. that HE would do everything HE can to fulfill HIS desire that no one perish but all come to repentance. If all it took was for HIM to not lock the gates to hell but leave them able to be opened then as anyone decided they had had enough of hell they could repent, HE could let them out and HIS desire slowly fulfilled.

Unless you believe in universal salvation and a limited time in hell, there is no sense to saying that our choice puts us in hell because HE does not have to keep us there once we have learned to hate that place and want to return to HIM yet there are many indications that the banishment to the outer darkness is eternal due to that little thing called the unforgivable sin, that is, a sin which made it impossible for HIM to let them out probably because it made them unable to ever repent for all eternity.

In fact, if HE desires hell to be empty so badly, why send anyone there in the first palce? Why not just keep waiting for their repentance? Why quit waiting at all? Love is patient and love is kind so how can HIS patience end on the judgement day when those who could repent are given time no longer to repent and are either banished to hell or annihilated. Does HE quit loving them that HE has no more patience to wait for them to repent? These questions for the basis of my dissatisfaction with Arminius' answer to Calvin. I contend that the only ones ever banished to the outer darkness are those who have sinned the unforgivable sin WHO CAN'T BE SAVED BY THE LOVE OF GOD!

This does not even deal with the enslaving addiction of sin which would disallow any free will repentance in the first place, sigh.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I must disagree - the judgement is ready as both Matt 13:27-28 and Jn 3:18 "18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.…" imply. It is the sins of the good seed, the sinful elect, that make them liable to be pulled up with the tares in the judgement forcing the postponement of the judgment, not the lack of the preparation of the judgment.

The reference to the Amorites is when GOD used actual historical events to reinforce HIS commands with all HIS people thru all the ages.

Anachronism.

 

[fhansen]

As sinners we are enslaved by, addicted to, sin. We cannot save ourselves from that addiction so we cannot be said to have a free will. We have faith that our salvation is a gift from HIM through faith, not by our own wilful works.

Our will, to begin with, is involved simply in a most basic way, of saying "yes" to God and His grace that can overcome our sin, rather than "no". Adam originally said no, no to His need for God, no to relationship with God, no to acknowledging the infinite difference between Creator and created, no to God as his God. That decision, that separated man from God and His authority and opened the door to all sin that followed must be reversed within us first of all so that relationship with God may be established-or reestablished- and He may do a work in us, of placing His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. We cannot be moved to say "yes" without Him, but He never completely overrides our ability to say "no". He wants our wills involved, for our highest good.