Does Free Will Exist in the Bible?

[Quantrill]

 

If  the fall was not part of God's plan , then why did He put Satan there in the garden?  And why place the command on the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Did Satan sneak up on God?

 

~

 

Although

 

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. James 1:2-4 (ESV)

 

God Knew

 

knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

 

He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21 (ESV)

 

Man Gets ALL The Credit

 

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)

 

 

Sorry, your reply is full of so many colors and fonts that Im not going to try and figure out which is you and which is not.

 

Quantrill

[ayin jade]

 

 

If  the fall was not part of God's plan , then why did He put Satan there in the garden?  And why place the command on the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Did Satan sneak up on God?

 

~

 

Although

 

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. James 1:2-4 (ESV)

 

God Knew

 

knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

 

He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21 (ESV)

 

Man Gets ALL The Credit

 

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)

 

 

Sorry, your reply is full of so many colors and fonts that Im not going to try and figure out which is you and which is not.

 

Quantrill

 

 

Its always interesting how people respond to the posts FresnoJoe posts. Since most of it is scripture, it is quite interesting how folks react to it.

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is either free will or some form of determinism. So, if you deny that the will is free, then you're left with determinism.

 

If man is unable to do the right thing then it's impossible for man to be guilty of anything. Any deterministic system of the will removes the responsibility from man and places it upon the agent doing the determining.

 

We see this in our legal systems everyday. If a harmful action is outside someone's control, then we call it an accident. For instance if someone drives a car and the tire burst and the car skids into a pedestrian hurting that person, then it's called an accident, because it couldn't have been avoided. If on the other hand the accident could have been avoided, then the driver is culpable.

 

 

If you can't control the things that come your way causing you to make decisions you don't want to, or have to, or want to, then how is it your will is free?  It isn't.  Only God has free will.  We have a will. Again, I am not saying we are not responsible for our actions and decisons.  But our will is not free.

 

Quantrill

 

You're redefining free will to mean maximal autonomy. Such a definition is incorrect.

No standard definition of free will requires that one be able to control every situation.

 

If you wish to continue using a different definition of free will, that's fine, I'll simply replace your word "free will" with "maximal autonomy" and nod in agreement.

But keep in mind that the topic under discussion isn't whether human being have maximal autonomy, but rather whether humans have free will as per the standard philosophical definition of libertarian free will.

 

Determinism vs Free Will

How about a scale, 0-10 with

0= You can't do nothing.

1= You cain't hardly do nothing.

10 = You stand over the Key to Time & dictate omnipotently?

5 = you are impelled by opposing forces to the point that you don't know what to do; so you are stuck forever in a feedback cycle, pecking around the equilibrium.

 

Or you might have an influence scale with the Zeitgeist blowing on you at different intensities.

0 = no Zeitgeist, no persuaders.

10 = completely controlled by the politically correct.

 

 

Hi Enoch,

 

Notice how your summary of free will vs determinism still deals with what one can do, in other words abilities, and not the real issue which is human will?

I'm not sure how to better explain this other than simply stating that no definition of free will involve what actions one is capable of performing.

 

I didn't catch the zeitgeist statement, would you mind clarifying?

 

Isn't exerting will doing summut?

You speak of free will.

I refer to the fact that men are influenced.

The Zeitgeist is the set of beliefs dominant at a given time.

These pressure us to think a certain way.

 

Okay, I'm not sure what your point is though, but influences by definition do not determine, but rather "influence".

 

Free will doesn't mean devoid of influence either. Sometimes influences can be very strong, but influences aren't causes. If a young man is influenced by a desire to have sex to go out and rape somebody, such a person is still held accountable, because even though there may be an influence, he ought to have done otherwise. Ought implies can. One cannot be held accountable for a moral duty that one isn't able to keep. So if a person is caused to do something such that they couldn't have done otherwise, then they are not held accountable. Where there is influence though, this doesn't remove accountability.

 

In terms of whether exerting will is an action. It depends what you mean by exert.

 

I am confident that if you sign a contract with a gun to your head,

then you tell the judge in court that you did not sign it of free will, the judge is not going to tell you that you don't use the term "will" correctly.

 

 

I am also confident that a judge doesn't define free will to mean "the ability to do anything".

 

Well, Luftwaffle, thanks for an interesting conversation.  To pursue this further would necessitate checking the meaning of Biblical terms in Hebrew & Greek, instead of just asserting what they mean.  But I am not inclined to put in the effort right now.  And of course we don't want to argue over words, in the negative sense.  Hey, I love that screen name, Luftwaffle -- great name!

 

 

Thanks enoch, it's always nice to share and exchange ideas. Some discussion do get a little technical and theoretical which do up a lot of one's time. I'm also rather busy so no worries.

God bless

[LuftWaffle]

Luftwaffle

Concerning your post #92:

Well, if you don't know what you mean by 'free will' then why do you oppose what I am saying.   Again, what is there in you use of the term 'free will' that is not involved in just the ' will ' of man.

I didn't say I don't know what free will means. I've defined it didn't I?

To say I don't care about the origin of a word, isn't the same as saying I don't know the meaning.

 

 

 

What does the term 'free' signify?   If it doesn't signify anything, then drop it.,   And just use the term will.  But if you insist on using it, perhaps you should have a knowledge of why you do.  Or do you do what you do becaue everyone else does?

hmmm, this is becoming a rather pointless discussion about linguistics, rather than the issue at hand. I'm using a straightforward term namely free will. If you don't like that term then surely it's not my problem and no onus is on me to explain word origins, in a discussion such as this.

 

 

 

Your definition of 'free will' is nothing but a definition of 'will'.

Then you should have no problem understanding me. Simply substitute the term "free will" with "will" in your mind if you prefer. I'll stick to the standard term for the sake of clarity since others might be reading as well.

 

 

And, you didn't answer the questions.  If the fall was not part of God's plan, why did He put Satan in the garden?   And why place the command on the Tree of knowledge of good and evil?  Did Satan sneek up on God?

I don't believe that God putting satan in the garden shows that God intended for Adam to fall. I don't see any indication in scripture that God intends men to do evil, although I am aware that this is a logical consequence for those who hold to a deterministic view of God's sovereingty. The mere permittance of a temptor and the mere presence of a command does not prove that God desired or intended the fall and I'm afraid scripture doesn't indicate it either.

 

In terms of your question about satan sneeking up on God, this shows that you and those who share the reformed view don't actually believe that God is by nature omniscient.

See, what's clearly implicit in that question, is that you believe that God can only know what is going to happen, if God actively determines everything. Or put simply, God can only know what's going to happen if He makes everything that happens, happen.

 

Thus, God's knowledge of the future isn't an essential attribute of God but is instead merely a consequence of God causing everything. So while you can say God is by nature omnipotent, you can't really say that God is by nature omniscient.

I don't believe that God needs to cause everything in order to know what's going to happen. I believe that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. As such it's a false dichotomy to present only two options namely, God determining everything (including evil) versus God being surprised by the actions of the free agents He created.

[Quantrill]

EnochBethany and Quantrill,

 

It seems both of you define "Free will" in terms of what philosophers call maximal autonomy. Both of you have given examples of where a person is in a situation they don't desire to be in and as such are forced to make a decision they'd rather not make. This you both claim, is proof that mankind has no free will. Am I correct so far?

 

I have a question regarding that: When God faced the choice of sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world, or letting His Son live and losing the rebels whom He loved, is that a situation that God wanted to be in, or was that decision necessitated by our disobedience?

 

Would God have preferred that mankind not sin, so that no sacrifice be needed, or did God prefer that mankind do sin, so that a sacrifice would be necessary?L

 

Luftwaffle

 

I brought back this post to address your question.  You attempt to make God out as having to react to a situation that was beyond His control.  For how could He be in control if as you say, " is that a situation God wanted to be in".  My answer to this is the fall was indeed part of God's plan else it wouldn't have happened.   Nothing gets by God.  And God doesn't react, He acts.   Nothing acts on His will, or influences His will.  His will is free.   As opposed to mans which is not.

 

God preferred that mankind fall into sin and that the sacrifce of Christ would be necessary to bring man into the place where God wants him.   This is why Jesus Christ is " slain from the foundation of the world"  Rev.13:8   Not around 33 A.D.

 

You still haven't answered what 'free' indicates in 'free will' other than nothing.  Why?  Because you know that to indicate 'free' will is to indicate a will that is free.  A will that is not influenced and that acts on its own.   And man doesn't have that.  

 

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

Concerning your post # 103

 

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.   God doesn't look into the future and see whats going to happen and then tries to form a plan around that.   God plans, and things go as He plans.  Your attempt to say I do not see God as omniscient is empty.   You may as well say, if God cannot sin then He isn't omnipotent.   Because your example pits God's nature against Himself. 

 

And, in your example, God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent.   Things must have occured that were not His plan.   Things occured which He must not have known, because He had to react to it. 

 

Quantrill

[LuftWaffle]

 

EnochBethany and Quantrill,

 

It seems both of you define "Free will" in terms of what philosophers call maximal autonomy. Both of you have given examples of where a person is in a situation they don't desire to be in and as such are forced to make a decision they'd rather not make. This you both claim, is proof that mankind has no free will. Am I correct so far?

 

I have a question regarding that: When God faced the choice of sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world, or letting His Son live and losing the rebels whom He loved, is that a situation that God wanted to be in, or was that decision necessitated by our disobedience?

 

Would God have preferred that mankind not sin, so that no sacrifice be needed, or did God prefer that mankind do sin, so that a sacrifice would be necessary?L

 

Luftwaffle

 

I brought back this post to address your question.  You attempt to make God out as having to react to a situation that was beyond His control.  For how could He be in control if as you say, " is that a situation God wanted to be in".  My answer to this is the fall was indeed part of God's plan else it wouldn't have happened.   Nothing gets by God.  And God doesn't react, He acts.   Nothing acts on His will, or influences His will.  His will is free.   As opposed to mans which is not.

I'm afraid you're reading a lot into my question. My question was to ascertain whether or not you believe that God desired the sacrifice of Christ for sin, or if God would have preferred that man not sin at all. To conclude from this question that I have a view that God reacts to situations is simply false. There is simply no way to get that from my question, since my question is a question about your beliefs and not a statement about mine.

 

God preferred that mankind fall into sin and that the sacrifce of Christ would be necessary to bring man into the place where God wants him.   This is why Jesus Christ is " slain from the foundation of the world"  Rev.13:8   Not around 33 A.D.

 I don't actually believe I need to say anything more, because you've just illustrated why I can't be a Calvinist. Scripture seems to be replete with God hating sin, but on your view God causes man to sin, and then condemns man for doing exactly what God intended they do.

 

You still haven't answered what 'free' indicates in 'free will' other than nothing.  Why?  Because you know that to indicate 'free' will is to indicate a will that is free.  A will that is not influenced and that acts on its own.   And man doesn't have that.  

We've been over this already. I'm using a standard philosophical term and I've already dealt with the issue of influence.

[LuftWaffle]

Luftwaffle

 

Concerning your post # 103

 

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.   God doesn't look into the future and see whats going to happen and then tries to form a plan around that.   God plans, and things go as He plans.  Your attempt to say I do not see God as omniscient is empty.   You may as well say, if God cannot sin then He isn't omnipotent.   Because your example pits God's nature against Himself. 

 

And, in your example, God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent.   Things must have occured that were not His plan.   Things occured which He must not have known, because He had to react to it. 

 

Quantrill

I've explained why in your view God isn't by nature omniscient. You mere assurance that He is, isn't sufficient to show otherwise.

Your own statements imply that God can only know that which He directly determines, which reduces omniscience to an effect of omnipotence rather than an essential attribute of God.

 

What you refer to as "my example" is what you've read into a question that I asked about your beliefs, not a conclusion that actually follows from my beliefs.

[other one]

 

 

 

If  the fall was not part of God's plan , then why did He put Satan there in the garden?  And why place the command on the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Did Satan sneak up on God?

 

~

 

Although

 

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. James 1:2-4 (ESV)

 

God Knew

 

knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

 

He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21 (ESV)

 

Man Gets ALL The Credit

 

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)

 

 

Sorry, your reply is full of so many colors and fonts that Im not going to try and figure out which is you and which is not.

 

Quantrill

 

 

Its always interesting how people respond to the posts FresnoJoe posts. Since most of it is scripture, it is quite interesting how folks react to it.

 

 

Or don't      shame is that a lot can be learned from our brother Joe.....   if one takes the time to understand.

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

Concerning your post #106, No , I am not reading into your question.  You asked, 'is that a situation God wanted to be in'.   My answer is God planned for the fall.  What is your answer to 'is that a stiuation God wanted to be in?'   If Im misreading, then tell me if that is a stuation God wanted to be in or not.

 

Whether you say anything more will be seen shortly.  I don't care if your a calvinist or not.   Just because God hates sin doesn't mean God did not plan the fall.  Where do you get that?  And why do you say 'seems to be replete'.  Do you know what your talking about or not?  Do you believe what your talking about?    Doesn't sound like it.

 

Maybe that is your trouble. Your using a philosophical term for the will of man. And we are talking about God and Scripture.    And apparently you don't know what 'free' means to it.

 

Quantrill