- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,686
- 7,908
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
After perusing these two posts I note that in post #48, you describe three meanings of free will most of them described as limited in some respect. You also provide a dictionary definition of free will and a definition of will.
Will
(Verb)
- To wish, desire, want, to will, or to choose.
Let me first comment on the term will: The term free will is actually a noun so I do not understand why you provided a verb. Here is the noun version:
will2
noun
Now let's agree that we all have our own wills capable of reasoning in some capacity and deciding a course of action. So what is a free will? I noticed that you provided the oxford dictionary definition but it is missing a vital component. Here is the oxford definition in it's entirety:
- 1The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
I would like to point out that according to this definition, obedience to God would not be a choice made of a free will because it is a choice of necessity lest we die. This effectively nullifies obedience to God as optional and discretionary. This would also mean that God's commandments are imperatives and not suggestions. Since God's Word is the Light and Life of every person, then mankind shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Now let's look at the three free wills you describe:
#1. Man's Limited Slave to Sin Type Free Will.
#2. Man's Limited Redemptive Type Free Will.
#3. God's Limited to Doing Only Good Type Free Will.
The first thing I notice, is that you are using the term free with arbitrary and even contradictory denotations. You could have just used the term "will" by it's self and accomplished the same intent.
The first will is actually what scripture calls the will of the flesh. This will lives according to the desires of the sinful flesh. This is the carnal mind which also reasons according to a vain imagination and it is by nature in enmity with God.
The second will is the spiritual will and it is what is being quickened through the Spirit of Christ. This is the Rhema that was in mankind since Adam and which was diminished or fallen due to distrust in God's Character. It is a will that is being converted to a new man with a renewal of the mind through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who eliminates the carnal reasoning by exposing the deceptions of carnal vanity as only imaginary and void of goodness.
Finally, there is God's will that can do no wrong, wherein lies wisdom and Eternal life.
In each will, the term free adds nothing significant or efficacious to the meanings.
You definitely conflate choice/option and choice/decision when you say this:
With all due respect, I hope you will understand my intent when I say that any reasoning that is based upon false information ends in a contradiction. By this we know what is true and not true.
Notice that the thing we are choosing between in a dichotomy of good and evil is what is right and wrong, true or false, life or death, sin or God. You are therefore claiming that we "cannot have any desire or to choose differently" without sin as an option. Essentially you're intimating that we cannot have a free will without sin, as if a lie is something to consider as viable. And yet you contradict that by saying that God's will is free even though He cannot go against His own perfect will and change His perfect desire, nor believe a lie.
I feel you also contradict yourself when you say the redemptive free will is a higher level of free even because it is not a slave to sin. Since that would indicate the more we are incapable of choosing sin the more free the will becomes, then why would sin be necessary for a free will?
Respectfully, it seems to me that you regard any choice whatsoever between good and evil as freely made simply because there was an option.
I was quoting you.
Eve sinned because she was beguiled by the tempting of the serpent, and Adam sinned by listening and following the beguiled woman. All three did not heed God. Hence the serpent contrived some propaganda, Eve was gullible and Adam probably lacked confidence in his own judgment.
First off, the entire episode would not have happened without the serpent. He received the greatest punishment. As for Adam and Eve, I tend to believe they had to learn just how good they had it by losing it, just like the prodigal son.
I think it would be irresponsible to not learn from their mistake by seeing that they were deceived into trying to fix what was not broken, and more importantly that God is trustworthy. It would also be hypocritical and self condemning to show no grace nor understanding considering that I too have sinned.
Well you know acting responsibly actually comes from caring about how our choices effect others. Hence we must love one another by walking in His Spirit. Well I think if we are truly sorry for what wrongs we do, then we will seek to atone. Jesus said that one act of Love covers a multitude of sins, and those forgiven much do Love much. I do not think blaming is productive. Jesus paid for our sins to fulfill the requirement of the law and yet he did not deserve punishment. We must all seek to have the mind of Christ.
The problem I see in your theology that does not in any way align with the Scriptures is that you are seeking to shift the blame to others as to why people sin. Even when you sin as a believer, you are not taking responsibility for it and you falsely assume Jesus is covering your sin (When He actually is not). For in order to God to cover future rebellion or sin done against Him, the Lord would have to agree with sin. But that is not possible because God is holy, just, and good. Ask yourself. Are there other responsibilities in your life that you are ignoring? Please do not answer this question. The answer is for yourself. There is a family member I know who always blamed everyone else for his problems instead of looking at himself and owning up that he is responsible. For usually I see the kind of belief you are proposing befitting for people who do not want to own up to their own problems. Maybe this is not the case for you, but you do appear to falsely think Jesus pays for future sin (When no such Scripture verse even remotely teaches such a thing). This is attempting to shift away responsibility and not to own up to anything.
In any event, I say these things not to wound you, but I say these things out of love so as to help you to see what the truth of God's Word says.
Upvote
0