Free Will

[POI]

Varying viewpoints and positions exist, when discussing the topic of free will. Recently, The Tanager and I had a brief discussion regarding this topic. Rather than going over the 'whole' of what the term "free will" (may or may not encompass), I instead wanted to hyper-focus on one particular aspect.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines free will as: "Free will is the capacity for agents to make choices uncoerced by external forces, allowing them to be the authors of their own actions and hold moral responsibility."

The same source views coercion as: "Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act against their will through the use of threats, intimidation, physical force, or psychological pressure. It is used to compel compliance, such as obtaining a confession, forcing a contract signature, or controlling behavior, often involving threats of harm or misuse of authority."

For debate: Does the Bible present any level of coercion? Is this why so many folks apply Pascal's wager, in that they are in the Jesus-camp (just-in-case)? Does the Bible god violate free will, in this aspect, in any capacity?

When parsing this scenario out, let's apply a modern example. A group of Christian missionaries travel abroad to a remote area where many/most/all may not have heard of a Jesus. The Christian missionaries present and preach the words of Jesus to these uninformed folks. "Project conversion" is not going as well as hoped. One of the Christian missionaries, in a last-ditch effort of conversion, decides to quote Mark 16, and tells them -- "the ones who believe in Jesus will be saved, and the ones that do not believe will instead be condemned."

The Bible also speaks about negative outcomes for disbelief in other areas of the Bible too. We can cross those paths as needed.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #44]

I have shared my views of hell and election vs. free will and talked about the same passages for my views that you have. I also won’t just repeat myself on some of the points you’ve made that I’ve responded to. The new bits that I feel wouldn’t be me just repeating myself verbatim:

I’ve asked you to provide what the other options from the 2 there should have been. Not some vague “there must be more,” but actually lay possible options out. Can you do that?

As to your example of having to be altered to not mourn any friends or family, you are just assuming that is the case. Why can’t those people mourn for that, have those tears wiped away (as the Bible claims), and then change their perspective, having accepted that was their choice?

The Biblical picture is that people aren’t sent to hell against their will, but because their will is to be left alone by God.

Saying our decision making process is flawed does not mean all decisions come in a flawed way. It should point us to our limitations and cause us to reach out for something less limited to guide us.

I was not using “experience the fullness of God’s presence” in the way you offered. I agree those moments of God’s experience exist; I’m talking about the distinction like we see in 1 Cor 13:12, where Paul had those experiences but still says “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #44]

I have shared my views of hell and election vs. free will and talked about the same passages for my views that you have. I also won’t just repeat myself on some of the points you’ve made that I’ve responded to. The new bits that I feel wouldn’t be me just repeating myself verbatim:

It's clear you do not want to back up your views with any Biblical evidence, which is ultimately what I'm asking you for. Don't bother then, I guess. As I stated prior, any way you slice it, free will is broken, as I already outlined in my prior response.

I’ve asked you to provide what the other options from the 2 there should have been. Not some vague “there must be more,” but actually lay possible options out. Can you do that?

It's not my job to do your job for you. All we know is that the Bible god offers (2) extremes alone, which is (Jesus or fire), period. Doesn't really leave much of a "free" choice.... On the contrary, as I told William, it's more-so compulsory, or in your specific case, coercive, as you think such beliefs are actually a choice. However, none of these scenarios consist of free will regardless.

As to your example of having to be altered to not mourn any friends or family, you are just assuming that is the case.

It's more than an assumption. Here on earth, we possess "free will", and unless the human is apathetic/psychotic/flat/sociopathic/other, we all mourn the loss of our closest and dearest to us. To not experience this emotion in Heaven would require some portion of you to be 'switched off.' Which in turn requires god to mess with the actual free wlll you say we have here on earth.

Why can’t those people mourn for that, have those tears wiped away (as the Bible claims), and then change their perspective, having accepted that was their choice?

All of this would have to be done prior to entrance into Heaven, as Heaven is a perfect and blissful place. And not only that, it just further proves my point, in that god has to mess with you, in some capacity, which means you become a new you. Which is yet another example of you no longer being you. And since you are no longer you, just send all.

The Biblical picture is that people aren’t sent to hell against their will, but because their will is to be left alone by God.

Allow me to steelman this assertion.... According to the Bible, here are the option(s) available:

a) follow/obey him
b) or instead jump into "the lake of fire"

Please explain to me how this proposition essentially possesses any (real) difference(s), as compared to a proposition made by a mafia boss?

Saying our decision making process is flawed does not mean all decisions come in a flawed way. It should point us to our limitations and cause us to reach out for something less limited to guide us.

According to the Bible, the decision, regarding a person's eternal destiny (heaven or hell), is finalized at the moment of death. Hebrews 9:27 emphasizes this,... At the end of the day, the only decision which must be on point, even though humans are completely flawed and often miss the mark, is this one. And we get no 'do-overs' either. Once we are dead, that's it. So basically, humans are acknowledged as perpetual sinners, which includes possessing wrong beliefs, making wrong choices, committing wrong actions, etc, but for some strange reason, this decision, initiated by the verified flawed humans, must be on point? Makes no sense? However, since we know god has imposed his will upon humans before, why not just impose it here too, since he knows what is best for us anyhow, and is also going to alter us anyways, so there is no sin in Heaven regardless. You see Tanager, god knows what is best for us, doesn't he? Allowing us to retain our free will, to the point of doom, is not what a loving parent would do for their own children. Parents intervene and try to knock some sense into them. And when/if they can, impose their will upon them to safeguard them from disaster, like jumping into a fire.

I was not using “experience the fullness of God’s presence” in the way you offered. I agree those moments of God’s experience exist; I’m talking about the distinction like we see in 1 Cor 13:12, where Paul had those experiences but still says “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

But the judgement is made at the point of death. Seeing him in Heaven is too late, as you are already judged at this point.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #46]

POI, you say choosing God is "compulsory" - but compulsory for whom?

For the human as the only alternative choice is hell.

So, there are two possible environments one can choose. Thus there are two alternatives to chose from.

If there was only one - then we could say it was compulsory...

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #50]

Predictions aka "prophecies" are not merely forecasts of independent human action; they are often presented as declarations of what God Himself will bring about (e.g., "I will harden his heart," "I will send a famine," "I will raise up a shepherd"). If God's hardening were simply a prediction of Pharaoh's autonomous choice, the phrasing "I will harden" would be misleading at best and deceptive at worst — which is why Jewish and Christian commentators alike have historically treated it as divine action, not passive foresight.

Also to note

Scripture consistently presents God working to soften, open, and turn human hearts toward Himself, not just harden them.

God makes hearts soft: Job testifies that "God makes my heart soft" (Job 23:16), a phrase early commentators understood as God penetrating the heart with fear of judgment and divine grace.

God opens hearts: The Lord opened Lydia's heart "to respond to Paul's message" (Acts 16:14). Deuteronomy 29:4 acknowledges that understanding, sight, and hearing are gifts God grants - "to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand."

God turns hearts: Proverbs 21:1 states plainly that "the king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he wishes." Ezra celebrates that God "turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them" to support the temple work (Ezra 6:22).

God creates new hearts: The prophet Ezekiel records God's promise: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). This is divine action, not merely human effort.

God turns hearts back: Elijah prayed, "Answer me, O LORD, that this people may know that you have turned their hearts back again" (1 Kings 18:37). Malachi prophesies that God "will turn the hearts of fathers to their children" (Malachi 4:6).

This reveals a pattern: God works both to harden (in judgment) and to soften/open/turn (in mercy). Both are divine actions, not merely human choices. This directly supports my argument against libertarian free will's claim that choices are uncaused by prior divine determination - Scripture presents God as actively shaping hearts in both directions.

And if one can assert that God helped in the process of softening their heart, why would such a one argue it cannot be done in the opposite manner?

Of course, if one asserts that God had no involvement in their heart opening to Him, THEN I suppose such could argue the same re Gods involvement in hardening the Pharaohs heart...

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #46]

POI, you say choosing God is "compulsory" - but compulsory for whom?

For the human as the only alternative choice is hell.

So, there are two possible environments one can choose. Thus there are two alternatives to chose from.

If there was only one - then we could say it was compulsory...

You are just arguing for argument's sake here. Allow me to add a third choice to drive home my point. (Please pick one of the three).

1. choose me
2. choose the lake of fire, leading to annihilation/destruction
3. choose eternal conscious torment

As I have been asking The Tanager, how is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

Regardless, at the end of the day, is it really 'free will' regardless?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #46]

POI, you say choosing God is "compulsory" - but compulsory for whom?

For the human as the only alternative choice is hell.

So, there are two possible environments one can choose. Thus there are two alternatives to chose from.

If there was only one - then we could say it was compulsory...

You are just arguing for argument's sake here. Allow me to add a third choice to drive home my point. (Please pick one of the three).

1. choose me
2. choose the lake of fire, leading to annihilation/destruction
3. choose eternal conscious torment

As I have been asking The Tanager, how is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

So we could add 100 things to the list of choices...but the only thing compulsory is choosing one

What is compulsory is that a choice must be made, not which choice is selected.

A proposition is not a compulsory

Regardless, at the end of the day, is it really 'free will' regardless?

It depends on the definition and whether the definition is true/accurate

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #46]

POI, you say choosing God is "compulsory" - but compulsory for whom?

For the human as the only alternative choice is hell.

So, there are two possible environments one can choose. Thus there are two alternatives to chose from.

If there was only one - then we could say it was compulsory...

You are just arguing for argument's sake here. Allow me to add a third choice to drive home my point. (Please pick one of the three).

1. choose me
2. choose the lake of fire, leading to annihilation/destruction
3. choose eternal conscious torment

As I have been asking The Tanager, how is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

So we could add 100 things to the list of choices...but the only thing compulsory is choosing one

What is compulsory is that a choice must be made, not which choice is selected.

A proposition is not a compulsory

Regardless, at the end of the day, is it really 'free will' regardless?

It depends on the definition and whether the definition is true/accurate

This isn't a rhetorical question. (Second request):

How is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #57]

This isn't a rhetorical question. How is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

Are you asserting that no distinction exists? If so, question is rhetorical.

"How is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?"

Equating the God to a mob boss is false equivalence.

Do I need to provide a list which shows why, or can you work that out for yourself?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #58]

Again, you are arguing just for the sake in arguing. Please re-address the question and answer the way it is actually asked. (Third request):

How is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #59]

I've answered: false equivalence. A mob boss threatens arbitrary violence to force compliance; God states the unavoidable consequence of rejecting existence itself. If you can't see the distinction, no list will help. The question is rhetorical IF you've already decided no distinction exists.

However, IF you have decided THEN you need to show why you made the decision, so that false equivalence can be ruled out and your question is then shown NOT to be rhetorical.