Free will?

[Ami]

Does the Bible say that we all have free will or not? Churches vary with their beliefs in predestination and the free will of mankind and as so far the passages in the Bible lean towards the belief in the former, yet other Christians argue that mankind has free will.

I am not interested, at least in this argument, on what beliefs outside the Bible are on free will. Evidence of free will or lack of outside the Bible would make the thread interesting and may be jotted down for later reference.

It's also not a debate about how moral one sees God if he gives free will or doesn't, although I'm betting that's what this thread would start arguing about. At least give it a page or two to decide what the Bible says itself. Please.

[Salt Agent]

An excellent post by EasyRider.
Beto wrote

Without a common definition of "free will" (which is most likely impossible) between Christians and atheists (or non-Christians) the discussion on whether or not the Bible attributes "free will" to Man, will be as pointless as arguing about Yahweh's "love" for Man, for example. Perhaps we should try to agree on a definition that pleases everyone, though I'm fairly sure that can't happen.

The problem is not the inability of atheists and agnostics to understand simple four letter words used all the time in everyday language. Defining words is not a democratic process, where we all just vote on what words mean, like "life" or "sin" or "punishment" or "God" or homosexuality. The real pill for atheists and agnostics is that they excercise free will every day, when they are in Baskin Robbins, or to choose what to wear, or to speed and then slow down when they see an officer, or to freely respond to a post, or as Easy Rider pointed out, to reject God-- but the issue is that free will means that we can even make choices that are wrong, and harmful to us and others and that makes us responsible. Circumstances, external sources, and environment are factors in all our choices, but that in no way precludes or negates free will, nor does the fact that we don't always have unlimited choices.

The fact that one can go to Baskin Robbins and choose from 31 flavors of ice cream and still choose vanilla does not negate free will, nor does the fact that he/she really wants jalapeno, but their choice is limited by external agents and circumstances. Also the fact that we have charges for attempted homicide shows that the person had free will, even though his actions were hindered or thwarted. The main thing is that people want to choose, such as not believe the Bible is true, because they don't like the parts about sin, surrender, or Hell, so the common practice is to deny the terms or cry about the definition when it means that we are accountable.

Easy Rider wrote "A small judgment of God. King Neb recovered in time, though.

Right now, though, you have free will to either receive or reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior for the remission of your sins. Agreed?[/quote]

Spot on Easy Rider.

It is like the scenario of Deconstructing Mary. People raise all these rhetorical questions which are really Red Herrings to avoid the parts that are clear.
How little was the Lamb, really?
Isn't a lamb, by definition a baby sheep, so maybe little is metaphorical.
Did it really follow her everywhere she went?
If it did indeed truly follow her everywhere, then it would be pointless to say that it also followed her to school, one day.
Maybe the lamb was only little compared to Mary.
Maybe Mary was rather large.
Was the fleece truly as white as snow? Most sheep's wool is off-white, or pale yellow.

And on and on, with Free will, creation, the degree and intensity of damage of sin and the fall on man's responsibility, whether the days of creation were literal, whether the flood was global or regional, or alleged contradictions in the Bible.

"By the same token, no matter how much you want to deconstruct and question the Scriptures, you are still left with some unavoidable facts; There was a woman named Mary. She had a son named Jesus. He had many followers who wrote about him and who spread his claim that He was the Son of God. He was referred to as the Lamb of God, and He changed the course of Human History."
Why Mike's Not a Christian by Ben Young, pg 80.

The hardest parts about the Bible for Atheists are not the ones that we can't understand, but the ones that are the most clear.

[Furrowed Brow]

The real pill for atheists and agnostics is that they exercise free will every day,

I think you are implying free will is a pill atheists find hard to swallow. However, not all atheists. I’m happy to admit I have free will. Just not God given.

but the issue is that free will means that we can even make choices that are wrong, and harmful to us and others and that makes us responsible. Circumstances, external sources, and environment are factors in all our choices, but that in no way precludes or negates free will, nor does the fact that we don't always have unlimited choices.

Actually I completely agree with this.

The fact that one can go to Baskin Robbins and choose from 31 flavours of ice cream and still choose vanilla does not negate free will,

Agree again.

Also the fact that we have charges for attempted homicide shows that the person had free will,

It does not follow that because a concept of volition is built into laws that volition and free will exist. That part of your argument is a non sequitur.

The main thing is that people want to choose, such as not believe the Bible is true, because they don't like the parts about sin, surrender, or Hell, so the common practice is to deny the terms or cry about the definition when it means that we are accountable.

Well I don’t think you’ve really got inside the skin of an atheist here at all. On the whole we do not avoid accountability. Very much the opposite. We own our actions completely. We don’t get to blame Satan. So we don’t decry sin, surrender or Hell because we are on the run from accountability. These ideas get rejected from multiple reasons that include incoherence, evidence, and just not being of a mind to accept the God explanation does justice to the universe we found ourselves observing. We tend to be minimalists - keeping out metaphysics lean and our typefaces no larger than 12pt.

And the universe I observe and experience does harbour free will. Though not all atheists will agree with me on this point.

[McCulloch]

The real pill for atheists and agnostics is that they excercise free will every day, when they are in Baskin Robbins, or to choose what to wear, or to speed and then slow down when they see an officer, or to freely respond to a post, or as Easy Rider pointed out, to reject God-- but the issue is that free will means that we can even make choices that are wrong, and harmful to us and others and that makes us responsible.

No one is denying that all of us make choices. The point of contention is whether our choices are free or not. What is it that determined your choice of flavour at Baskin Robbins? We might never exactly know, but can anyone demonstrate that there is anything outside of the material realm that determines our choices. Circumstance, genetics, neuro-chemistry, all outside influences. Experience, memory, thoughts are they anything but neurological processes which follow the yet undiscovered laws of the brain?

The main thing is that people want to choose, such as not believe the Bible is true, because they don't like the parts about sin, surrender, or Hell, so the common practice is to deny the terms or cry about the definition when it means that we are accountable.

If I wanted to believe that the Bible was true could I? Can I just choose to believe? Could you choose to believe that Harry Potter was true?

Scriptures, you are still left with some unavoidable facts; There was a woman named Mary.

This is an unsubstantiated claim made by the writers of the Bible. It might be true, it might not be. It hardly qualifies as an unavoidable fact.

She had a son named Jesus.

Again, the existence of Jesus might be shown to be probable, but not unavoidable.

The hardest parts about the Bible for Atheists are not the ones that we can't understand, but the ones that are the most clear.

Like "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

[byofrcs]

An excellent post by EasyRider.
Beto wrote

Without a common definition of "free will" (which is most likely impossible) between Christians and atheists (or non-Christians) the discussion on whether or not the Bible attributes "free will" to Man, will be as pointless as arguing about Yahweh's "love" for Man, for example. Perhaps we should try to agree on a definition that pleases everyone, though I'm fairly sure that can't happen.

The problem is not the inability of atheists and agnostics to understand simple four letter words used all the time in everyday language. Defining words is not a democratic process, where we all just vote on what words mean, like "life" or "sin" or "punishment" or "God" or homosexuality. The real pill for atheists and agnostics is that they excercise free will every day,

......
The hardest parts about the Bible for Atheists are not the ones that we can't understand, but the ones that are the most clear.

Whilst there are undecidable problems (i.e. undecidable in this case means there is no computable function that correctly determines which programs halt and which ones do not ) then it is impossible for God to determine which programs halt and which do not.

Thus the fact that I can create an environment in which God cannot determine the outcome means that God is unable to be the prime mover in that environment. Thus it is not deterministic. I need only be able to conceive of this to show that determinism on the God-like scale is a flawed concept.

Other salt in the wound is the 'n' body problem. This makes it hard (impossible ?) for God to even predict the path of particles. Unable to predict the paths God would be unable to overcome the perturbations which occur in all systems.

These mean that we have free will (i.e. free from God) as it is not possible for us to either be predetermined by God or from a starting point in time and space to have a pre-set outcome.

I need not answer yet as to why we make a decision just that we are free to make it if it can be made. Remember that the one infinitely variable dimension even if the decision is yes or no, is time.

As another unrelated matter - as an Atheist I have no belief in God nor Allah, nor the Jewish nor Hindi Gods. I don't reject God in the same way that I reject eating Tripe. Tripe exists and I don't like it whereas so far haven't seen anything of these Gods everyone goes on about to even care. Same with Jesus. Dubious idea, unsubstantiated and very unlikely to have done as documented.

[Ami]

A small judgment of God. King Neb recovered in time, though.

But during that time was King Neb able to stop himself from acting like an animal?

[justifyothers]

Does the Bible say that we all have free will or not? Churches vary with their beliefs in predestination and the free will of mankind and as so far the passages in the Bible lean towards the belief in the former, yet other Christians argue that mankind has free will.

I am not interested, at least in this argument, on what beliefs outside the Bible are on free will. Evidence of free will or lack of outside the Bible would make the thread interesting and may be jotted down for later reference.

It's also not a debate about how moral one sees God if he gives free will or doesn't, although I'm betting that's what this thread would start arguing about. At least give it a page or two to decide what the Bible says itself. Please.

"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added to you." Matt 6:33

This implies that the seeking is up to us and we play a part in this choice. If no free will - no seeking.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,..........how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" Luke 13:34

Shows the option of choosing by being willing or not.

" ....he who hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has everlasting life......." John 5:24

Displays the idea that belief (an act done by man) is necessary for life.

[Salt Agent]

Justify Others wrote. "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added to you." Matt 6:33

This implies that the seeking is up to us and we play a part in this choice. If no free will - no seeking.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,..........how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" Luke 13:34

Shows the option of choosing by being willing or not.

" ....he who hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has everlasting life......." John 5:24

Displays the idea that belief (an act done by man) is necessary for life.

Spot on. Some other examples of people who excercised free will and rejected Christ. The Rich Young Ruler is a great example. He came to Christ searching for eternal life, and asked "What must i do to get eternal life?"

1. Christ said that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him.
Then we have one of the most overlooked ignored verses in the Bible by Calvinists. John 12:32,33. And if I be lifted up from the earth, i will draw all men to myself. 33. But he was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which he was to die." This is why Arminians teach Universal Calling, or that the offer available to everyone. Some will refuse because the gift is free, and people can refuse a free gift by free will.

2. The Rich Young Ruler came seeking Christ and eternal life. [Of his free will, responding to Christ's invitation.]
Christ explained that he needed to keep the commandments. He had done this since his youth, [this does not deny original sin, but shows the restraining work of the Holy Spirit in the world, also illustrated in the case of Nebuchadnezzar.] pointed out by Easyrider.

3. Christ knew this, but also knew his heart and thoughts. Then he told him to go and sell all he had and give it to the poor and follow him.
The rich Young ruler excercised his Free will, volition, --The ability to make choices based on pros, cons, benefits, and consequences of that choice. He counted the cost, "and he went away sorrowful, because he had great riches."

As to the idea that those drawn will no/cannot refuse. Irresistible Grace. refuted.
As to the idea that Salvation is only for some, but not for others. -completely unBiblical.

Another example of people using free will and making volitional choices is found in John 6. Rejection by Many Followers.
6:60 "Many of his followers, when they heard this said, This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"
66 As a result of this many of his disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore."


As to Byofrcs notion "Thus the fact that I can create an environment in which God cannot determine the outcome means that God is unable to be the prime mover in that environment. Thus it is not deterministic. I need only be able to conceive of this to show that determinism on the God-like scale is a flawed concept.

Other salt in the wound is the 'n' body problem. This makes it hard (impossible ?) for God to even predict the path of particles. Unable to predict the paths God would be unable to overcome the perturbations which occur in all systems."

First of all your argument is circular and self refuting. You say you don't believe in God and then say that you can create an environment in which He can't predict the outcome. Also, you say that God is unable to predict the path of particles.
God made particles and spoke the world into existence.

The fact that you don't believe the Bible is already been illustrated, but you can't use that as a valid rebuttal on this forum. Maybe you should discuss that theory in the A-room. Atheists and agnostics- which means without knowledge. You can also discuss things there such as why the holocaust didn't exist or why Jesus was not a historical figure. [Or perhaps you would like to give three or four verses that explicitly show how you can create an environment where God can't predict the outcome???] While i respect your right to believe that, you need to back it up with scripture. That's what this thread is about --Scripture dealing with free will.

Take care.

[byofrcs]

......

As to Byofrcs notion "Thus the fact that I can create an environment in which God cannot determine the outcome means that God is unable to be the prime mover in that environment. Thus it is not deterministic. I need only be able to conceive of this to show that determinism on the God-like scale is a flawed concept.

Other salt in the wound is the 'n' body problem. This makes it hard (impossible ?) for God to even predict the path of particles. Unable to predict the paths God would be unable to overcome the perturbations which occur in all systems."

First of all your argument is circular and self refuting. You say you don't believe in God and then say that you can create an environment in which He can't predict the outcome. Also, you say that God is unable to predict the path of particles.
God made particles and spoke the world into existence.

The fact that you don't believe the Bible is already been illustrated, but you can't use that as a valid rebuttal on this forum. Maybe you should discuss that theory in the A-room. Atheists and agnostics- which means without knowledge. You can also discuss things there such as why the holocaust didn't exist or why Jesus was not a historical figure. [Or perhaps you would like to give three or four verses that explicitly show how you can create an environment where God can't predict the outcome???] While i respect your right to believe that, you need to back it up with scripture. That's what this thread is about --Scripture dealing with free will.

Take care.

The OP was happy to here other points of view. I don't make any claims correlating my claims to scripture within my argument.

What I did say is not self refuting. I am hypothesising God but showing that there are environments in which it is proven that God cannot determine the outcome.

Thus free will ( if you are looking at a dichotomy of determinism verses free will - at least I think that's the two options).

Your disingenuous comments regarding Holocaust denial and illogical claims of "self-refuting" don't suddenly undo my argument for free will !. I put the ? question mark around the n-body problem because I have doubts on that issue. I'm not going to 100% claim that physics of particles may not have some deterministic solution but you must admit the undecidable problem idea is compelling.

On the other hand I've never really read the Bible in the original language to get the nuances of the text so I can't really comment too much about the Bible. I never mentioned the Bible in my original post - I only mentioned God, Allah etc and Jesus.

And tripe.

I still hate tripe.

[bernee51]

The OP was happy to here other points of view. I don't make any claims correlating my claims to scripture within my argument.

It would seem that for Salt Agent everything has to refer back to scripture to have any relevance.

What I did say is not self refuting. I am hypothesising God but showing that there are environments in which it is proven that God cannot determine the outcome.

The other issue many christians have trouble understanding is that when an atheist refers to god he/she is not referring to the extant being the theist holds as god but rather the concept of god.

Your disingenuous comments regarding Holocaust denial and illogical claims of "self-refuting" don't suddenly undo my argument for free will !.

Salt Agent has shown a history of relating Holocaust denial to atheism. I believe it is done for pejorative reasons and as such can only be seen as an ad hominem.

The other option of course is he may believe that the Holocaust was perpetrated by atheists and then, naturally, in solidarity, an atheist would deny it.

On the other hand I've never really read the Bible in the original language to get the nuances of the text so I can't really comment too much about the Bible.

Neither I suspect have the vast majority of christians. All they have is translations which are a compilation of what was decided should be in the bible including all the interpolations by well meaning scribes

On the topic of free will, I repeat what I have stated elsewhere. Regardless of what the bible may or may not say on the topic, the freedom to act willfully exists but very few get to exercise that freedom. The only way to act freely is to do so by acting out of mindful awareness. To act out of mindful awareness takes training in observing actions as (if not before) they arise. The vast majority of humanity react to conditions and only observe the action after it has occurred with (usually) no knowledge of the true reason for the nature of the action. The vast majority of our reactions are founded in conditions set in our early childhood, hopefully but not always, modified by reflection as adults

[Salt Agent]

Does the Bible say that we all have free will or not? Churches vary with their beliefs in predestination and the free will of mankind and as so far the passages in the Bible lean towards the belief in the former, yet other Christians argue that mankind has free will.

I am not interested, at least in this argument, on what beliefs outside the Bible are on free will. Evidence of free will or lack of outside the Bible would make the thread interesting and may be jotted down for later reference.

It's also not a debate about how moral one sees God if he gives free will or doesn't, although I'm betting that's what this thread would start arguing about. At least give it a page or two to decide what the Bible says itself. Please.

"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added to you." Matt 6:33

This implies that the seeking is up to us and we play a part in this choice. If no free will - no seeking.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,..........how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" Luke 13:34

Shows the option of choosing by being willing or not.

" ....he who hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has everlasting life......." John 5:24

Displays the idea that belief (an act done by man) is necessary for life.

Excellent point by Justify others. Bernee, as the opening post states, the issue is what the Bible has to say about the issue. That is why Justifyothers and I have actually adressed the topic. You clearly don't believe the Bible, and as the opening post says, the author is not interested in other arguments outside the Bible.
It is very interesting that you demonstrate Free Will by making to post your comments even though not on topic.


Byofrcs wrote. The OP was happy to here other points of view. I don't make any claims correlating my claims to scripture within my argument.

I respect your views and your right to believe anything you want or not, and I try to be civil, and not attack people. This statement by Byofrcs is simply not correct. You clearly state that you don't make any claims correlating your claims to scripture within your argument.

Ami, the author wrote: "I am not interested, at least in this argument, on what beliefs outside the Bible are on free will."


Bernee wrote : It would seem that for Salt Agent everything has to refer back to scripture to have any relevance.

Wrong again, sir. I and Justify others are following the topic. I would not expect that you would cite the Bible if you don't believe in it. There are plenty of other posts on free will. Another example of avoiding the topic, and ad hominem attack. In this subforum of Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, one of the Moderators, Olsteng posted at the beginning of the Subforum that it is understood that one can use the Bible as support, and that answers such as "i don't believe the Bible is true" are not allowed.

I mixed up this subforum, with another forum on the same topic, and made a mistake regarding the guidelines. Then i offered a very sincere and civil apology which Bernee did not even acknowledge.

I know it bothers you, that on this subforum, people of all beliefs and worldviews can engage in civil discussion, including atheists, but you can't just use the old, predictable line... "Well, i think the Bible is just a book of Jewish myths".

In regard to Ami's topic. The concept of Freewill offerings are all through the Old Testament. This also is strong support of Free will. What sense do free will offerings make if there is no Free will.

Perhaps the best proof of all in the New Testament is the Rich Young Ruler, which not only proves free will, but also refutes irresistible Grace. He came seeking Christ, and asked him what he needed to do to be saved. [Showing that the Father had already drawn him.] Jesus replied that he needed to keep the commandments. The rich young ruler said that he had kept them all since his youth.
Then Christ raised the bar, and said that he needed to go and sell all he had and give it to the poor.
The man counted the cost, and the scripture says "He went away sorrowful, because he had great riches." Cognitive choice, Free will, and the ability to refuse Salvation, after counting the cost.

Calvinists have immense problems with this passage, because they can't say that Christ didn't draw him, or he wouldn't have come seeking to be saved. According to them, he also wouldn't have even desired to keep the commandments. But the fact that he went away sorrowful, shows that the Grace is resistible, and that we have Free will. The only possible result is for them to say that he later/ eventually came to know Christ, which is pure speculation.