Is Free Will Biblical?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What is the definition of FREE WILL?

If we can have a definition of the term - we can then begin to discuss whether this concept is biblical or not.

We make the choice about whether or not to follow God’s will.

Mark 16
15 And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. 16 Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.

 

[Frontline]

That is not a response, it is robotic. Why aren’t all the Jews saved? Was God’s grace insufficient? Clearly, Jesus wanted to gather them up.

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

This is not a matter of the “free” will of man - but rather this is an issue concerning the Will of God.

The Reformed Faith affirms that there are TWO aspects to God’s will - 1) Preceptive Will 2) Decreetive Will.

This means that in a sense - God wills the salvation of all men - for He has commanded all men to repent and believe on Christ. This is what we call His “revealed will” - or His “will of command” - some theologians have called it His “permissive will”, for even though He commands it, He does nothing to secure the accomplishment of what He commands - He rather “permits” men to choose whether they will heed the command or not.

PLEASE NOTE - though men have the ability to sin, they never have the right to sin.

But God does all things with a definite purpose and absolute foreknowledge - working all things according to the counsel of His own [sovereign] will. God’s will of Decee, or His “perfect will” - or His “efficient will” always comes to pass. When God wills in this way, like He willed for Christ to be crucified - it must come to pass - even if it comes to pass through the rebellion of wicked men who are violating the “revealed will” of God (thou shalt not kill). God takes all things into account - for He is omniscient.

For more on this truth - follow this link:

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

Now - The Reformed Faith affirms that Jesus willed the salvation of the children of Jerusalem in the first sense - in that He would if they would, but we deny that He willed their salvation in the second sense of the word - for if He willed their salvation in His eternal decree, then He would have seen to it that they would be brought to repentance and faith in Him.

So - your passage is not a passage that demonstrates free will - (a will that is free to come to Christ) - but rather a will that “will not come” to Christ (John 5:40). This in and of itself cannot prove this ability of will that you claim. It only proves that they were unwilling. The Reformed Faith affirms that all men are naturally unwilling - and naturally resist the gospel call, and will do so until and unless God moves in power to quicken and cause the dead sinner to repent and believe.

Let me ask you a good question:

Why do you commit sin?

 

[Frontline]

We make the choice about whether or not to follow God’s will.

Would you say that every man has equal ability to choose good as he does to choose bad? Would you say that this is a good definition of a will that is free?

 

[cfrancis]

Let me ask you a good question:

Why do you commit sin?

Fascinating: I was going to ask you the same question…

 

[cfrancis]

Would you say that every man has equal ability to choose good as he does to choose bad?

Theoretically, you could say this is so. But each man is uniquely created in God’s image - there are no two alike.
Further, each man lives his own life in a unique context.
So, in reality, each man has both unique obstacles and benefits that prevent and help him choose evil and good.
St Paul tells us in Rom 2:
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
Each of us has God’s moral law written on our hearts; He is that for which all men, throughout all time, have sought, do seek and will seek.
(Please, do not make the leap that I or the Church are saying all men will be saved.)

 

[Frontline]

Fascinating: I was going to ask you the same question…

Well I sin because I choose to sin.

Now let’s ask the next question:

Why do I choose to sin?

I choose to sin because I am a sinner by nature.

This is called the doctrine of necessity.

This means that a bad tree - by necessity - produces bad fruit.

I am free to choose whether I will speak or act - but when I choose to speak or act - I must then reach down into the wells of a sinful heart and draw what my heart naturally produces. Therefore the quality of my words and my actions are determined by the quality of my nature.

I am speaking of one who is unregenerate. Once a person is regenerate - they receive a new principle of nature - though their old nature is not fully and finally eradicated, and will not be so until glory. They war against eachother - and they are contrary to one another. This moves the discussion off base - and goes into other spectrums of theology like sanctification. But this thread is about free will.

So here is my proposition:

Our wills are not free from our own natures. We cannot choose against the strongest inclination or desire at the given moment. We always choose *in accordance with *the strongest inclination we have at the given moment for our choices are determined by our strongest desire, and our strongest desire is determined by the condition of our nature.

So our will is not the head, but the tail. It is not the master but the servant. The will does not determine what will be chosen, but is the factulty that *carries out *the choice that the mind chooses. The mind always chooses in accordance with the strongest desire of the person. This is the Reformed and Biblical position.

 

[Frontline]

Theoretically, you could say this is so.

So to be free in the purest sense of the word is to have the ability to choose to do good or choose to do evil? Is this the way in which the Bible describes the highest freedom?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So to be free in the purest sense of the word is to have the ability to choose to do good or choose to do evil? QUOTE]

That is one description that I agree with it. I’m not sure about the purity of free will.

We either have the ability to choose or we don’t.

 

[Frontline]

That is one description that I agree with it. I’m not sure about the purity of free will.

We either have the ability to choose or we don’t.

So if we have a free will then we must be able to choose to sin and choose to do good?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So if we have a free will then we must be able to choose to sin and choose to do good?

True.

Although we can’t be truly righteous without God’s grace.

In a given circumstance we are capable of choosing good, which is why atheists and non Christians can often choose to do good.

 

[Frontline]

True.

So - (one more question for clarification) -

Is your definition of FREE WILL -

**"having the ability to choose other than what you ultimately choose."

This is the common definition that most people have when it comes to free will. They say that they do things one way simply because they choose to - but that in no way was their choice determined beyond resistance, so that in any case - a man has the ability to choose other than, what he ends up choosing.

I am speaking morally here - not of physical force or coercion by a third party.

Is this your definition of Free Will?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So - (one more question for clarification) -

Is your definition of FREE WILL -

**“having the ability to choose *other than ***what you ultimately choose.”

This is the common definition that most people have when it comes to free will. They say that they do things one way simply because they choose to - but that in no way was their choice determined beyond resistance, so that in any case - a man has the ability to choose other than, what he ends up choosing.

Is this your definition of Free Will?

The ability to choose more than one path. Clearly, if you can only choose one path then you don’t truly have free will.

That is not to say that God is unaware of the choices we will make.

From his perspective, all our choices have already been made, so our destiny is determined.

 

[Frontline]

The ability to choose more than one path. Clearly, if you can only choose one path then you don’t truly have free will.

Ok - now I understand.

This is exactly what I thought you meant when you used the term “free will.” This is the whole concept that I believe is a myth.

You would also probably claim that a choice is not a true choice unless there is the ability to choose otherwise - (I am assuming you believe this - because this is consistent).

This - I am certain is a myth. This is not the biblical definition of the concept of freedom - but a philisophical invention of men.

In your definition of free will is ‘having the ability to choose to do other than you choose to do’ - then God has no free will!

This also means that the perfected and glorified saints in heaven have lost their free will - (if your definition of freedom is true.)

When we follow your position to its logical conclusion - it proves too much for you - and turns God and the glorified saints into what you would consider - robots.

This should give you great pause, and cause you to reconsider your position. If you do not understand the issue of freedom from a biblical perspective - then I suggest that you withdraw from the discussion until you do some more study - so as not to misrepresent the Scriptures - on account of ignorance of the word.

I say this in love - not to shame you.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Ok - now I understand.

This is exactly what I thought you meant when you used the term “free will.” This is the whole concept that I believe is a myth.

You would also probably claim that a choice is not a true choice unless there is the ability to choose otherwise - (I am assuming you believe this - because this is consistent).

This - I am certain is a myth. This is not the biblical definition of the concept of freedom - but a philisophical invention of men.

In your definition of free will is ‘having the ability to choose to do other than you choose to do’ - then God has no free will!

This also means that the perfected and glorified saints in heaven have lost their free will - (if your definition of freedom is true.)

When we follow your position to its logical conclusion - it proves too much for you - and turns God and the glorified saints into what you would consider - robots.

This should give you great pause, and cause you to reconsider your position. If you do not understand the issue of freedom from a biblical perspective - then I suggest that you withdraw from the discussion until you do some more study - so as not to misrepresent the Scriptures - on account of ignorance of the word.

I say this in love - not to shame you.

You have some holes in your theory.

If I voluntarily submit my will to God’s grace, am I exercising my free will?

 

[Frontline]

If you really had a “free” will, that was not determined by your strongest desire at the given moment – you would find yourself in a restaurant ordering food that you hated, and hanging our with people that you dislike!

The fact is - All our choices are determined by our strongest desire at any given moment.

And with a corrupted and sinful heart and mind – how do you imagine that an unregenerate man will ever be able to produce a genuine desire for godly things?

Furthermore, and this is obvious -** inability usually does not diminish culpability in a moral decision.** (This is the false accusation against determinism by the free willers)

If a human were asked to fly and they could not due to their physical limitations, we could not justly blame them for their inability, but if someone were to borrow $100 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Vegas, his inability to repay would not alleviate his responsibility. Therefore, what we ought to do morally does not always imply that we can, **and yet we remain culpable. **

God commands that we perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Our inability to do so morally does not take away our moral guilt because our inability is moral and intentional. We wanted to disobey and our desire was rebellion. In fact, Paul clearly shows that the intent of the divine legislation is to reveal sin, not to show that we have the moral ability to keep it (Rom. 3:20).

In other words, it reveals that we are impotent to obey the law, stripping away all hope from ourselves, so we can only fall upon God’s mercy. We inherited Adam’s guilt and continuously choose to live in rebellion. Adam has federally represented all of us, and we agree with his choice every time we sin, **so our inability to repay the debt to God does not alleviate us of responsibility. **

Furthermore - and this is what Free WIllers fail to take into consideration:

Libertarian freedom would Make God Himself Not Responsible for His Choices.

God always makes choices according to His holy nature. In other words, God’s choices and actions are determined by His holy nature - and therefore He cannot choose to do unholy things. If Libertarians are correct in that there is no merit in doing good when you cannot do bad - then they are saying that God deserves no praise for the good that He does.

All members of the Trinity have acted in sinless perfection.

God cannot even desire an unholy act, nor can He lie, for He would no longer be God if He did. In fact His choices are so wrapped up in His nature and essence that He could not do otherwise!

Are Free Willers saying then that God is not free?

To be consistent, this would have to be your position: That because God cannot lie, then He cannot truly tell the truth!

In their position, this would mean that God is not truly free.

But God is the freest being in the universe! However, God’s freedom is the real freedom defined by the Bible – **a freedom from sin, NOT - a freedom to do otherwise. **

God is free in the compatibilist sense in that He always acts according to His nature, never against it. (compatibalism teaches that our actions are fully compatible with out natures strongest desire).

God does not have ‘freedom’ to do what is contrary to His nature, so He is not free in the libertarian sense (in fact no one is). (Libertarianism teaches that true freedom means that one’s choices are not always compatible with the nature’s strongest desire).

In a similar way, we all strive toward and look forward to the day when we will no longer be bound by sin. Our resurrection bodies will be free from all sin and death.

This means there will be no libertarian freedom on the new earth because we will be compelled to choose good because that is what we will want by nature. God will rid the earth of all sin, and glorify our bodies into sinless bodies. This however - will be no limitation - but true liberation.

Libertarians often call anyone’s life where we cannot chose otherwise either robotic or one where we cannot be held responsible for our choices. If this were true, then this would have to apply that to God and our future glory as well.

Is God a robot because He cannot choose to be unholy?

Is God not to be praised for His goodness - since He is morally unable to be otherwise?

You see - these are the issues that you guys are overlooking.

I hope that somebody reading this will [by the grace of God] begin to see that this Libertarian Free Will concept is a pure myth. And as for you Aquinas - you ought to know better. You are pretty intelligent guy from what I can see, and yet you persist in defending the undefendable.

Will you not be persuaded?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If you really had a “free” will, that was not determined by your strongest desire at the given moment – you would find yourself in a restaurant ordering food that you hated, and hanging our with people that you dislike!

The fact is - All our choices are determined by our strongest desire at any given moment.

And with a corrupted and sinful heart and mind – how do you imagine that an unregenerate man will ever be able to produce a genuine desire for godly things?

Furthermore, and this is obvious -** inability usually does not diminish culpability in a moral decision.** (This is the false accusation against determinism by the free willers)

If a human were asked to fly and they could not due to their physical limitations, we could not justly blame them for their inability, but if someone were to borrow $100 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Vegas, his inability to repay would not alleviate his responsibility. Therefore, what we ought to do morally does not always imply that we can, **and yet we remain culpable. **

God commands that we perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Our inability to do so morally does not take away our moral guilt because our inability is moral and intentional. We wanted to disobey and our desire was rebellion. In fact, Paul clearly shows that the intent of the divine legislation is to reveal sin, not to show that we have the moral ability to keep it (Rom. 3:20).

In other words, it reveals that we are impotent to obey the law, stripping away all hope from ourselves, so we can only fall upon God’s mercy. We inherited Adam’s guilt and continuously choose to live in rebellion. Adam has federally represented all of us, and we agree with his choice every time we sin, **so our inability to repay the debt to God does not alleviate us of responsibility. **

Furthermore - and this is what Free WIllers fail to take into consideration:

Libertarian freedom would Make God Himself Not Responsible for His Choices.

God always makes choices according to His holy nature. In other words, God’s choices and actions are determined by His holy nature - and therefore He cannot choose to do unholy things. If Libertarians are correct in that there is no merit in doing good when you cannot do bad - then they are saying that God deserves no praise for the good that He does.

All members of the Trinity have acted in sinless perfection.

God cannot even desire an unholy act, nor can He lie, for He would no longer be God if He did. In fact His choices are so wrapped up in His nature and essence that He could not do otherwise!

Are Free Willers saying then that God is not free?

To be consistent, this would have to be your position: That because God cannot lie, then He cannot truly tell the truth!

In their position, this would mean that God is not truly free.

But God is the freest being in the universe! However, God’s freedom is the real freedom defined by the Bible – **a freedom from sin, NOT - a freedom to do otherwise. **

God is free in the compatibilist sense in that He always acts according to His nature, never against it. (compatibalism teaches that our actions are fully compatible with out natures strongest desire).

God does not have ‘freedom’ to do what is contrary to His nature, so He is not free in the libertarian sense (in fact no one is). (Libertarianism teaches that true freedom means that one’s choices are not always compatible with the nature’s strongest desire).

In a similar way, we all strive toward and look forward to the day when we will no longer be bound by sin. Our resurrection bodies will be free from all sin and death.

This means there will be no libertarian freedom on the new earth because we will be compelled to choose good because that is what we will want by nature. God will rid the earth of all sin, and glorify our bodies into sinless bodies. This however - will be no limitation - but true liberation.

Libertarians often call anyone’s life where we cannot chose otherwise either robotic or one where we cannot be held responsible for our choices. If this were true, then this would have to apply that to God and our future glory as well.

Is God a robot because He cannot choose to be unholy?

Is God not to be praised for His goodness - since He is morally unable to be otherwise?

You see - these are the issues that you guys are overlooking.

I hope that somebody reading this will [by the grace of God] begin to see that this Libertarian Free Will concept is a pure myth. And as for you Aquinas - you ought to know better. You are pretty intelligent guy from what I can see, and yet you persist in defending the undefendable.

Will you not be persuaded?

I’m not really interested in your filibuster.

Let’s dialogue.

I asked:

If I voluntarily submit my will to God’s grace, am I exercising my free will?

 

[Frontline]

You have some holes in your theory.

If I voluntarily submit my will to God’s grace, am I exercising my free will?

You are excercising your will - but the will is not free to choose apart from your strongest desire at the given moment.

So if you choose to submit to God, then that is because it was the strongest desire you had at that moment (all things considered). Now the question is this: Where did that desire come from? Did it come from your will? I think not. The desire dictates to the will - and not the other way around.

Where do your desires come from?

Can a person choose to have a certain set of desires over another set of desires? Of course not! Because in order to do that - he would have to already have a set of desire with which to choose the set of desires he most desires! Do you see the problem with elevating the will to such a high place?

The will is not the leader but is the servant to the desires - and our desires are a product of our nature. Morally speaking - unregenerate men have wills that are in bondage to sin - because they have overwhelming desires for sin - because they are sinners by nature - who naturally produce sinful desires. Their will is in bondage then - and is not free.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You are excercising your will - but the will is not free to choose apart from your strongest desire at the given moment.

.

I think all humans, Christian and otherwise, are able to recognize that our strongest desire at any given moment may not be the best long term choice.

We have the ability to study hard rather than skip school, to delay gratification, etc.

We also have the ability to pray with sincerity, ‘your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’.

Why do you think Jesus told us to pray this particular line in the Lord’s Prayer?

 

[Frontline]

I’m not really interested in your filibuster.

How convenient!

Your position just got definitively crushed - and all of a sudden - you lose your interest! No worries - this is the usual response to such a devastating blow!

With all due respect though, why would you not be interested in disproving me, and vindicating your position? Is that not why you started this thread? Therefore - I find it odd that you would bypass such a strong post as mine - in the interest of ‘dialog’.

Unless your definition of dialog is - “we must speak one sentance at a time” - then I am afraid that no one is dialoging on this entire forum! Come on man - get real - and show some passion!

I will await your response.

**** Again - you did not answer my question about the origin of a man’s desires - another attempt to by-pass devistating arguments that demolish your position of libertarianism. I still await an answer to both my posts.

 

[cfrancis]

Ok - now I understand.

This is exactly what I thought you meant when you used the term “free will.” This is the whole concept that I believe is a myth.

You would also probably claim that a choice is not a true choice unless there is the ability to choose otherwise - (I am assuming you believe this - because this is consistent).

This - I am certain is a myth. This is not the biblical definition of the concept of freedom - but a philisophical invention of men.

In your definition of free will is ‘having the ability to choose to do other than you choose to do’ - then God has no free will!

This also means that the perfected and glorified saints in heaven have lost their free will - (if your definition of freedom is true.)

When we follow your position to its logical conclusion - it proves too much for you - and turns God and the glorified saints into what you would consider - robots.

This should give you great pause, and cause you to reconsider your position. If you do not understand the issue of freedom from a biblical perspective - then I suggest that you withdraw from the discussion until you do some more study - so as not to misrepresent the Scriptures - on account of ignorance of the word.

I say this in love - not to shame you.

If freedom and free will were the same thing, your argument might make sense.