Does the Bible actually teach that we have free will?

[CatholicSoxFan]

The point that Barth makes is that predestination and election refer to the church, to a group; not to an individual. “The body of Christ” refers to a group and as a whole, not an individual or the sum of atomized individuals.

Exactly. God predestines the Body, and then people freely choose to join the Body.

 

[ynotzap]

Counter point: Quote your saying:

"If sin is real, God must be at war with Himself. He must be split and torn between good and evil, partly sane and partially insane from the Course in Miracles. This course is a misnomer, it should read “A Course in Fallibility”

If you substitute Man for God, then you have reached the truth that St.Paul meant we he stated "The things I do are the things I don’t want to do, and the things I want to do are the things I do not do, who will save me? Jesus Christ! For in my flesh dwells no good, . He refers to the propensity to follow the dictates of his passions rather than the dictates of his reason, the effects of original sin to be worked out by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ. Sin is acting irrationally, we were made rational, its our nature, but we do not act rationally at times.

You make some very good points in your arguments, but you stumble, or fail to follow through, accidently or with purpose?. I would assume that your questions are asked to sincerely acquire the truth, which is good. I don’t judge your motives, only you (and God know) If you would, it is not required, can you tell us what your motives really are? Is it to prove you are good at debating? Is it because you are really interested in finding the truth? Are you trying to prove something? Is it because you see contradictions in the actions of Catholics? Some members or visitors come into the forums with some bad attitudes, and negative dispositions. To try to debate with a predisposed mind is fruitless, and a real waste of time and efforts, with such a person their mind is closed. So no matter what you say it won’t matter.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Free will is so important that in Genesis the first two lessons of the Bible teach it.

First, God gives Adam and Eve a choice to eat or not eat the forbidden fruit. How could you have a choice if you did not have free will? And why would you be punished if you ate the fruit but were not free not to eat the fruit?

God goes out of his way to make free will clear again in Genesis:

“In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground, while Abel, for his part, brought the fatty portion of the firstlings of his flock. 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 dejected. Then the LORD said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected? **If you act rightly, you will be accepted; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it.” **(Genesis 4: 3-7)

Cain **freely chose **not to overrule his urge to kill Abel.

 

[Counterpoint]

The Bible does not clearly teach predestination understood as fatalistic predetermination of an individual’s eternal destiny.

I stand by my OP in this thread. The Bible clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I stand by my OP in this thread. The Bible clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

So let’s review what the internationally-recognized experts I produced say. And . . . they don’t agree with you. Paul is not speaking about individuals and he does not mean fatalistic predetermination to heaven or hell.

So you can “stand” all you want, but your assertion about what Paul means does not.

 

[Counterpoint]

The theme of election in the NT grows out of the OT theme the election of Israel as the people of God. It rarely refers to individuals (the exception being some kings), not even prophets.

Both Jacob and Esau are individuals.

“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:10-13

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Both Jacob and Esau are individuals.

“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:10-13

Yes, but they represent their descendents in that verse: tektonics.org/tulip/bubba9.php

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Both Jacob and Esau are individuals.

The quote about whom is used by Paul to show the corporate election of Israel over the Edomites! Thank you for supporting my points.

Commenting on the text you cite, Fitzmyer writes: "Paul uses the quotation [Mal 1:2-3] to stress Israel’s role in the salvific plan in contrast to Edom’s. Jacob and Esau are representatives of their ethnic groups . . . . There is no hint here of predestination to ‘grace’ or ‘glory’ of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of the corporate Israel over corporate Edom.” (Fitzmyer, Romans, 563)

How many times in the prophets does “Jacob” mean the people of Israel? (Isaiah 2:5,6; 9:7; 14:1; Jer 30:7; Amos 7:2,5 etc.)

The whole of Rm 9-11 is about the corporate status of groups in God’s plan of salvation: Israel, Gentiles, and the church. You should read the whole thing.

In reality you further supported my points: Paul is not speaking about individuals and he does not mean fatalistic predetermination to heaven or hell.

 

[Counterpoint]

How many times in the prophets does “Jacob” mean the people of Israel? (Isaiah 2:5,6; 9:7; 14:1; Jer 30:7; Amos 7:2,5 etc.)

The whole of Rm 9-11 is about the corporate status of groups in God’s plan of salvation: Israel, Gentiles, and the church. You should read the whole thing.

Will all Gentiles be saved? If not, then your theory falls completely apart.

By the way, the topic of this thread concerns whether or not the Bible actually teaches that we have free will, not predestination.

 

[ynotzap]

I stand by my OP in this thread. The Bible clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

The problems of understanding free will and predestination have a long history. God is Omnipresent, and Omniscient all-present and all knowing. No future, no past.,infinite.
Humans have in their nature Potency and Act, which constitutes change. We exist in time, in constant change, our existence is dynamic, a movemet from a capacity to the fulfillment of that capacity. We think of past in our memories, and we think of future in our imaginations, all we really have is the present which is constantly passing All of creation is affected by change, it is in a constant flux, movement.

When we think of the concept of predestination we mean by the concept that God knew what our actions, or choices were going to be before we were created.and determined the outcome In God there is no before, or after. We apply our human understanding of God’s actions, as we apply it to ourselves. We apply our understanding of predestination, to God’s action, not according to His nature, but according to our understanding, our nature.

God knows what choices we will make, he gives the power of choice, and the object of choice, All creation is good, and God is goodness. By following our minds in what we interpret as our good, we choose it. In our choices we choose a lesser good, or a greater good. God is the source of all goodness. He knows what choice we are going to make. those that choose Him, He will sanctify, and those He will sanctify, He will unite them with Himself. God empowers the will, sustains it, and respects it. It was made so that we could freely choose Him, we were not made to be determined,no free will. We were made to be like God who does what He wills, and when we do what He wills we enjoy real freedom of our wills

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Will all Gentiles be saved? If not, then your theory falls completely apart.

Not at all.

(1) It’s not my argument: it is what recognized biblical scholars teach.

(2) I said Rm 9-11 discusses “the corporate status of groups in God’s plan of salvation.”
His argument, according to biblical scholars, from the beginning of Romans is that both Israel and the Gentiles (one the chosen people and one not) are called to salvation in the new Israel, the Church through faith in Christ. And it is predestined that the Church will enter into eternity with God in Christ. Whether individuals respond to the grace and invitation to believe or not is their free choice.

By the way, the topic of this thread concerns whether or not the Bible actually teaches that we have free will, not predestination.

You’ll note that it was your post (May 19, '14, 7:30 pm.) in this thread citing the passages of Paul that occasioned my responses.

By the way, I gave a complete response to your question in this thread two days ago in my post (May 19, '14, 8:34 pm). I would be glad to discuss it. The OP does pose a fair question for sure.

 

[dmar198]

By the way, the topic of this thread concerns whether or not the Bible actually teaches that we have free will, not predestination.

How do you deal with the passages I quoted and linked to in this post? Aren’t those passages pretty explicit about the existence of free will?

 

[Counterpoint]

How do you deal with the passages I quoted and linked to in this post? Aren’t those passages pretty explicit about the existence of free will?

Yes, and no. The real question here is whether Paul’s concept of “free will” is compatible with determinism or not. (We know from other passages that Paul subscribes to predestination. And since predestination implies determinism, the it logically follows that Paul subscribes to compatiblist free will - free will that is compatible with determinism.)

I define free will as the power to choose A or B under no necessity whatsoever.

Do you believe your concept of “free will” is compatible with determinism? That’s the real question here.

 

[orang]

Does the Bible actually teach that we have free will? If you believe that it does, then please furnishes us with evidence where it does. Also, please define “free will.”

It appears to me that Paul believes we are enslaved, not free.

“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” Romans 7:18-20

A quick one on the go…only if the program is followed. There’s no freedom in being programmed for the money etc because there is no choice but to go for the money if at all possible, no freedom to deliberate, no free will…the right answer , answer’s many questions, that’s the value in the counterpoint.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Yes, and no. The real question here is whether Paul’s concept of “free will” is compatible with determinism or not. (We know from other passages that Paul subscribes to predestination. And since predestination implies determinism, the it logically follows that Paul subscribes to compatiblist free will - free will that is compatible with determinism.)

Do you believe your concept of “free will” is compatible with determinism? That’s the real question here.

No it doesn’t. A molinistic predestination does not imply determinism.

 

[Counterpoint]

No it doesn’t. A molinistic predestination does not imply determinism.

I’m employing Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term, not Molina’s. That being said, Molinistic free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If is not compatible with determinism, then it ultimately reduces to some element of pure chance. And no amount of playing semantical games will change that fact.

 

[ynotzap]

Libertarian free will (since it is incompatible with determinism by definition) must reconcile itself with indeterminism. IOW, given the same situation and circumstances, the only explanation why we could have chosen otherwise must ultimately reduce to pure chance. How can I be held any more responsible for a choice that ultimately reduces to randomness than I can for one that was completely predetermined?

Also, the Bible clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:” Ephesians 1:3-11

The situation and the same circumstances will determine what choice a libertarian free will will make. Their is no such thing as PURE CHANCE WHAT SEEMS TO BE RANDOM IS DUE TO IGNORANCE. If I flipped a coin, and I knew how all the forces would effect the coin, I would be able to tell which way it would land. Its the same with all circumstances in the world. What we regard as random is a myth, a ****-shoot, maybe yes maybe no, maybe it does exist, maybe it doesn,t, running wild, no aim. There is knowledge we don’t have, and can’t explain or understand all the forces that affect a circumstance or situation, but even in libertarian free will, the choice to be made will always appear as the best choice, and there will be a choice, it will be based on what the person desires. God is Pure Intelligence" and when He made the world,He give it and man purpose and design. What man doesn’t understand he calls random God assigns meaning to all things

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I’m employing Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term, not Molina’s.

Layman dictionaries are not the be-all-end-all of philosophical/theological definitions.

That being said, Molinistic free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If is not compatible with determinism, then it ultimately reduces to some element of pure chance. And no amount of playing semantical games will change that fact.

Molinistic free will is self-determinism. The fact that you continually block that possibility from your mind does not change that fact.

 

[Counterpoint]

Layman dictionaries are not the be-all-end-all of philosophical/theological definitions.

If we cannot agree on the meaning of words, then it will not be possible to verbally communicate with each other. That’s why we have dictionaries.

Molinistic free will is self-determinism. The fact that you continually block that possibility from your mind does not change that fact.

Self-determinism is either compatible with determinism or it is not. This is not debatable. (It is not possible to engage in a logical debate with individuals who refuse to abide by the dictates of logic.)

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

If we cannot agree on the meaning of words, then it will not be possible to verbally communicate with each other. That’s why we have dictionaries.

Yes, but there are encyclopedias/dictionaries like the one at newadvent.org that define words like the ones we are using from a philosophical/Catholic perspective, which is the context in which we are arguing. Words are principally defined by their context.

Self-determinism is either compatible with determinism or it is not. This is not debatable. (It is not possible to engage in a logical debate with individuals who refuse to abide by the dictates of logic.)

This is an equivocation fallacy. Determinism in the context of “molinistic free will is not compatible with determinism” means that our actions are determined by causes outside of ourselves. But self-determinism says that our choices are determined, just that they are determined by us. You are confusing two different definitions of determinism here.