# Yet another free will question...



## Der Pilger (Nov 3, 2010)

A small group I'm in had a discussion about free will last night. The big problem with such discussions, as I've found, is that people tend to jump right in without first defining what "free will" is. In what sense is the will "free"? I did some searching in PB for threads that would answer this question, and while I found some helpful results, I am still wondering about it. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. My understanding of free will has been for some time as follows:

The will is both free and bound. It is *externally* free in that there are no external constraints placed upon the will to do anything. Nobody ties us down and keeps us from going to church, neither does anyone hold a gun to our heads to make us sin.

On the other hand, the will is *internally* bound because the sinful nature makes it go in one direction--away from God. Our desires cannot rise above our sinful nature apart from grace. We cannot arbitrarily desire one day to change our desires and start seeking God unless God first regenerates us. This very inability to change our desires indicates the will is in bondage to sin.

Hopefully I articulated it well. Does that make sense?


----------



## Christopher88 (Nov 3, 2010)

That is how I view it. 

Man is free by the choices he or she can make; example I can choose to eat the grape or choose to eat the apple. Where as mans will is bound by I can not choose God or His ways if I'm not reborn by the spirit. 

I use to think free will and predestination were a contradiction of scripture but really they both play right into one another.


----------



## Andres (Nov 3, 2010)

Man is free to choose whatever he wants, however, due to the fall, man will never want to choose God unless the Spirit regenerates him.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 3, 2010)

Andres said:


> Man is free to choose whatever he wants, however, due to the fall, man will never want to choose God unless the Spirit regenerates him.


 
I agree, and that's pretty much what one person said at our group last night. That answer, however, kind of begs the question: *Why* will man never want to choose God apart from regeneration? I don't see any other answer than that his will is in bondage to sin. He *will not* choose God because he *can not*.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 3, 2010)

Drawing on Edwards, I usually introduce the Reformed understanding by saying that we (in our natural state) have free will to do whatever we want to do, to believe whatever we want to believe, etc. There is no _natural_ inability; there is, however, a _moral_ inability. That is, apart from grace, we will never *want* to believe in Christ because our "wants" are morally corrupt.


----------



## Don Kistler (Nov 3, 2010)

You always choose what seems good to you. But, because men "love the darkness," what is evil will always seem good to them. Once God, if He is so pleased to do, changes their hearts and natures, that which is pleasing to God seems good to them, and they are now able to choose that.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 3, 2010)

And there is often confusion of freedom with ability. I am free to touch my nose to the cieling while standing on the floor, but with 8' cielings in my house, I am not able to do so.


----------



## Tripel (Nov 4, 2010)

Brad said:


> And there is often confusion of freedom with ability. I am free to touch my nose to the cieling while standing on the floor, but with 8' cielings in my house, I am not able to do so.


 
Brad nailed it. We are free, but we are limited in our ability. The unregenerate man is dead, so despite all of his freedom, he is unable to seek God. He must be made alive.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 4, 2010)

Check out Luther's Bondage Of The Will for free here:

The Bondage of the Will - Google Books

Blessings!


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 4, 2010)

I always define 'free will' as the ability to choose freely that which we desire the most. This has already been explained in the previous threads, this is just my shorthand to capture all the terms. Apart from a 'quickening', from conversion, from a vital connection with Christ through the Spirit, we will NEVER DESIRE God.


----------



## Christopher88 (Nov 4, 2010)

Mr. Vigneault,
Do you think a regenerate Christian can desire Christ more than sin? In other words as Christians are we still bound in sinful desires on this side of the Kingdom?


----------



## Philip (Nov 4, 2010)

> I don't see any other answer than that his will is in bondage to sin. He will not choose God because he can not.



I would say that it works the other way round. Edwards talks about the will's decisions being rooted in the affections. Thus, because our affections are sinful, we will never choose God, and therefore cannot unless God Himself changes them.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 8, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > I don't see any other answer than that his will is in bondage to sin. He will not choose God because he can not.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that it works the other way round. Edwards talks about the will's decisions being rooted in the affections. Thus, because our affections are sinful, we will never choose God, and therefore cannot unless God Himself changes them.


 
I agree, and our inability to choose God indicates a severe limit on the will, in which case the will is not free. I'm using the word "free" in the sense of being unfettered by sin. Taken in that sense, the only ones who have free will are Christians, since the tie to our flesh has been severed. We still desire sin, but now we also desire righteousness.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------




Brad said:


> And there is often confusion of freedom with ability. I am free to touch my nose to the cieling while standing on the floor, but with 8' cielings in my house, I am not able to do so.


 
That was basically my distinction in the OP. There is nothing externally keeping you from touching your nose to the ceiling: There are no physical obstructions of any kind. Rather it's your own limitations/inability that keep you from doing so.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 8, 2010)

Our wills, and souls generally, haven't been _metaphysically_ damaged by the fall but _morally_ damaged.

This means that we are responsible for our sin. The fact that fallen man can't do good, is also that he won't do good, because the problem is a moral one in his will. The "can't" is a "won't" and the "won't" is a "can't".

If e.g. - hypothetically - the reason the unregenerate person can't believe was because of some disability in his body or removal of some aspect of his essential humanity in his soul by the Fall, then God would be unjust to hold him to account for that.

But with sin and the Fall, the moral - or rather immoral - chill is in the will.

E.g. Would a judge e.g. judging a person accused of murder, take as a reasonable defence, "I did murder her, but my defence is that I am a dirty, rotten scoundrel and I'm so wicked that I couldn't but murder her." ? 

Of course not. Because each of us are responsible for our own wills, if nothing else.

Regarding free will at the, in a sense, deeper level, _metaphysically_ though, atheism, and unbelief in the absolutely sovereign God of the Bible paradoxically but logically leads to a denial of any free will in Man at all

(a) Because to the extent that there is not an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, Man's will is at the whim of chance and fate.

(b) If Man is in a closed Universe with fixed laws and no God, his every action is the product of the laws of nature and nurture.

This is what the more consistent expressions of atheism, like Marxism, held to.

(c) In the atheist world Man does not have a true soul - or at least a soul that is not a product of and dependent on the body. How can he be free and responsible in any meaningful sense?

It is the Calvinist doctrine of God's total sovereignty that preserves the doctrine of Man's _metaphysical_ freedom, even although it is somewhat of a mystery - a great mystery - how God does it. We have a God Who can do it.

And He is also necessary that His people become _morally_ free at regeneration.


----------



## Soonerborn (Nov 8, 2010)

A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 8, 2010)

Soonerborn said:


> A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.


However, the prisoner *wants* to get out (presumably); the unregenerate man has no similar desire to escape from his sin. Again, it is more about the desires of the unregenerate - which stem from the moral depravity - as being what keeps him from "choosing" God. Choosing God, in fact, is the very thing most odious to him apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Philip (Nov 8, 2010)

> I'm using the word "free" in the sense of being unfettered by sin.



That is not the ordinary sense of the word "free." The "fetters" of sin are metaphorical not actual. What it means is that I desire sin and its pleasures. It does not mean that I could not choose to not sin, did I so desire.



> A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.



That illustration pertains only to physical limitations. Sin does not have us bound in the sense that a prisoner is bound, but in the sense that an insane man is bound. It's not that we are constrained and wish to be free---we are like Winston Smith at the end of _1984_: we _love_ "Big Brother." We are free to do as we please---and we want to sin.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 8, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > I'm using the word "free" in the sense of being unfettered by sin.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the ordinary sense of the word "free." The "fetters" of sin are metaphorical not actual. What it means is that I desire sin and its pleasures.



I'd also add that you desire *only *sin and its pleasures before regeneration. That limitation of desire must be itself a form of bondage. If the desire were free, it would not be so limited but could rather swing toward God or away from Him.



> It does not mean that I could not choose to not sin, did I so desire.



And your desires are governed by your nature. Prior to regeneration, our will is bent in one direction--away from God. It is unable to reverse that course on its own; hence it is in bondage.



> > A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.
> 
> 
> 
> That illustration pertains only to physical limitations. Sin does not have us bound in the sense that a prisoner is bound, but in the sense that an insane man is bound. It's not that we are constrained and wish to be free---we are like Winston Smith at the end of _1984_: we _love_ "Big Brother." We are free to do as we please---and we want to sin.



I think you're missing the point of the analogy. The man in the "prison" represents the will in bondage to sin; the prison represents sin itself. The man (the will) is free to make choices, but it can make only sinful choices because it is confined to the boundaries of that "prison" of sin. It cannot make choices "outside" those confines.


----------



## Philip (Nov 9, 2010)

> That limitation of desire must be itself a form of bondage. If the desire were free, it would not be so limited but could rather swing toward God or away from Him.



Again, this isn't bondage in any ordinary sense.



> It is unable to reverse that course on its own; hence it is in bondage.



I am also unable to fly on my own---does this make me in bondage?



> It cannot make choices "outside" those confines.



My point is that the prison analogy is misleading to the person who the analogy is supposed to convince. The analogy connotes that the prisoner has no real options outside the prison. But he does. Sinners are given the opportunity to choose God all the time and they reject it---it's a live option, but they reject it because they don't want God. The Winston Smith analogy works better because it shows that their bondage to sin is not about their natural abilities (which the prison analogy connotes) but about the heart.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 9, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > That limitation of desire must be itself a form of bondage. If the desire were free, it would not be so limited but could rather swing toward God or away from Him.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this isn't bondage in any ordinary sense.



I don't see why. The will (desire) is governed by the nature, which is sinful. Therefore, it's in bondage to sin. Are you trying to say that the will is not in bondage to sin?



> > It is unable to reverse that course on its own; hence it is in bondage.
> 
> 
> 
> I am also unable to fly on my own---does this make me in bondage?



Yes, it does. You are bound to your non-flying nature. In the same manner, the will is bound to the sinful nature before regeneration.



> > It cannot make choices "outside" those confines.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the prison analogy is misleading to the person who the analogy is supposed to convince. The analogy connotes that the prisoner has no real options outside the prison. But he does. Sinners are given the opportunity to choose God all the time and they reject it---it's a live option, but they reject it because they don't want God. The Winston Smith analogy works better because it shows that their bondage to sin is not about their natural abilities (which the prison analogy connotes) but about the heart.



What you say here makes sense. The opportunity you speak of is related to the external freedom I mentioned in my OP: Sinful man is offered a choice, and nothing outside of him keeps him from responding favorably to that offer. It is his own sinful nature that keeps him from responding favorably. Simply saying, "Man is free to do what he wants but he will always want to reject God," while completely true, begs the question: Why will the natural man always reject God? The adverb "always" indicates bondage, as far as I see it. He always desires rebellion because that is all his nature allows him to do. That is bondage. If not, then the will is truly free in the libertarian sense and we can throw the doctrine of total depravity out the window. But I'm not ready to do that.


----------



## devonturnbaugh (Nov 9, 2010)

Der Pilger said:


> Our desires cannot rise above our sinful nature apart from grace.



It would be more accurate and helpful I think not to differentiate here between our desires and our sin nature, because they are one in the same. I do not want to pick hairs here, however in a discussion of this magnitude it is always more helpful to be as clear and specific as possible.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 9, 2010)

devonturnbaugh said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > Our desires cannot rise above our sinful nature apart from grace.
> ...



Okay, let me put it this way, then: Our nature cannot rise above itself.


----------



## Philip (Nov 9, 2010)

Jeremy, here's my concern about the "bondage" language:

To most people, "bondage" is the state of imprisonment where we want to choose God but are unable to do so. That's the connotation that most people associate with the phrase "bondage of the will." That's the common usage of the word "bondage."



> He always desires rebellion because that is all his nature allows him to do. That is bondage.



Not in the ordinary sense. If that's what you call bondage, then freedom is a meaningless concept. I reject libertarian freedom because it's nonsense. It's playing dice with our choices.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Nov 20, 2010)

Philip,

If that is indeed the common usage of the word bondage, I would say that connotation is simply mistaken. I would have no problem saying are wills are in bondage to sin. Now, I would say we have freedom of action, or freedom to act as we desire, but our desires themselves (or our wills) are not free, they are captive to sin. I think the Bible is very clear that we are slaves to sin (John 8:34, Romans 6:20-22), which would thus make us in bondage to sin.

As others have pointed out, sin is a place that not only are we unable to get out, but we have no desire to. Even though when you think of a person who is in bondage, you assume that person wants to get out of bondage, I think it is still the biblical picture we are given. Only ignorance or stupidity causes one to not want to be released from the chains of death (as your analogy of the insane imprisoned supposes), yet for those who recognize sin and desire to mortify sin, no help will be given them unless they first are regenerated and given faith and repentance. There are those who have looked upon the means of mortifying sin as the fountain; things such as praying, fasting, and meditating...they turn their meat into medicine and thus must expect no great operation. They are always mortifying yet never able to come to any sound mortification because it is their master, they are in bondage to it. A _slave_ to sin.


----------



## Philip (Nov 20, 2010)

> As others have pointed out, sin is a place that not only are we unable to get out, but we have no desire to.



You see, I would say that our inability rests precisely in our desire for sin. Only regeneration can give us freedom from our desire to sin.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> Only ignorance or stupidity causes one to not want to be released from the chains of death



You make my point precisely---this is what sin does.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> yet for those who recognize sin and desire to mortify sin,



You speak here of works-righteousness, which is not true recognition of sin, neither would I count self-pity. Both of these are simply wallowing in sin. Only through regeneration would one ever see a way out or have a desire to take it. This is simply pride masquerading as virtue.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> If that is indeed the common usage of the word bondage, I would say that connotation is simply mistaken. I would have no problem saying are wills are in bondage to sin.



I would say that our desires are in bondage to sin. Our will is that which chooses---and it does so based on the desires. The connotation is not mistaken---it is a fact of our language. If you wish to communicate what you mean, you must use language as ordinarily used.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Nov 20, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> > yet for those who recognize sin and desire to mortify sin,
> ...


 
When I speak of someone recognizing their sin and a desire to mortify it, I only speak of it in the same sense that John Owen does in his book the Mortification of Sin. There are people who carry the guilt of sin (perhaps because of the consequences or for the plain fact that they recognize it as sin and their conscience bears them witness, I don't think it matters for our purposes here), yet they do not realize the extent of their depravity. Thus, "attempting rigid mortification, they fell upon the natural man instead of the corrupt old man; upon the body wherein we live, instead of the body of death" (John Owen, Mortification of Sin, p.42). If indeed the unregenerate can feel guilt over sin, I think perhaps there is a deeper root of sin then our desires.

I would say the connotation is mistaken like people are mistaken about what it means to be a Christian. It doesn't require us to change our definition, only to carefully explain any word that could be misunderstood. Besides, you say our desires are in bondage, meaning we only desire sin and can do no other. However, we also only choose sin, whether in thought, word, motive, or deed. This would also make our wills in bondage to sin if you were to be consistent it seems.

I would say that not only do our desires need to be changed, but our very nature which extends beyond our desires but includes our choices and actions; each of those need to be fundamentally changed when the Holy Spirit regenerates us. I think our sinful nature is ultimate rather than our desires and it encapsulates each of these. So when we put on the new man as a Christian, it is not only our desires that are changed but we shed our sinful nature, which made our soul dead in sins and trespasses, and God makes us alive. Any time a Christian sins, it is not because of our sinful nature as if we have two natures, it is called the "flesh" by Paul. If we simply choose evil because we always desire evil, then we should always choose right if we desire right as a Christian. Yet if this were the case, Paul would not lament as he does in Romans 7:18-25 over his struggle with sin. Thus, I think it is because we are not fully glorified that we continue to sin, not ultimately because our desires haven't been fully changed.


----------



## Philip (Nov 20, 2010)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> If indeed the unregenerate can feel guilt over sin, I think perhaps there is a deeper root of sin then our desires.



Attempts at mortification through one's own effort would be pride.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> However, we also only choose sin, whether in thought, word, motive, or deed.



Your will only chooses what the desires dictate.

I maintain that you have never done anything that you did not want to do.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> not ultimately because our desires haven't been fully changed.



Then why do we sin? If I choose to steal, I do it for reasons, desires, and motives---even as a Christian, it's not an arbitrary choice that I can say "oh that was just my sin nature." I am a responsible rational actor. The two natures are two competing sets of desires---one heaven-focused and the other self/this-world-focused. What you do shows who you love.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Nov 20, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Attempts at mortification through one's own effort would be pride.



Granted that attempts at mortifying sin through one's own effort is pride, but that only goes to show it is our sin nature that makes it pride and sinful ultimately and not our desires. A child neither desires evil or good, but because of the sinful nature within him, he continually follows after sin. 



P. F. Pugh said:


> Your will only chooses what the desires dictate.





P. F. Pugh said:


> I maintain that you have never done anything that you did not want to do.





P. F. Pugh said:


> Then why do we sin? If I choose to steal, I do it for reasons, desires, and motives---even as a Christian, it's not an arbitrary choice that I can say "oh that was just my sin nature." I am a responsible rational actor. The two natures are two competing sets of desires---one heaven-focused and the other self/this-world-focused. What you do shows who you love.



I would ask you where do our desires come from? We do not disagree that a person acts according to their desires nor that a person is responsible for their actions. However, the unregenerate desire sin because of their sinful nature that puts them at enmity with God from birth. When the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, they have the desire to please God and follow Him as Paul expresses in Romans 7:15. 

He desired to do good but because of his flesh, he did what he did not want to do even the thing he hated. He was not putting the blame on his flesh, just as he did not call the law sin, though it gave us knowledge of what is sin. Paul knew his responsibility for sin, but undeniably it truly was a body of death, unable to perform that which he desired to do and continuing in that which he hated.


----------



## Philip (Nov 20, 2010)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> but that only goes to show it is our sin nature that makes it pride and sinful ultimately and not our desires.



Pride is a motive like any other. It's a higher-order ground motive, but no less of a desire.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> When the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, they have the desire to please God and follow Him as Paul expresses in Romans 7:15.



Indeed---they also have sinful desires, hence the sin.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> Paul knew his responsibility for sin, but undeniably it truly was a body of death, unable to perform that which he desired to do and continuing in that which he hated.



It's a battle between two competing sets of desires, one of which will ultimately win (yes we will persevere in faith), but we cannot say "Well I really didn't want to sin" because that begs the question, "Why did you sin, then?"


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Nov 20, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Pride is a motive like any other. It's a higher-order ground motive, but no less of a desire.



Pride carries desire with it. The desire for respect, power, fame, etc...could all be a desire because of pride. You are getting at what I am trying to say, I believe, by calling it a "higher-order ground motive". To follow this example, the desire of fame, power, or respect may come from the root of pride which is inherent in our flesh. We do not desire pride, we are simply prideful. Everyday a person continues to remain unrepentant, they are making themselves to be above God's commands thus setting themselves above God, thus inherent pride. Thus they must be made new and _not_ simply have their desires changed. For instance, the desire for respect is not inherently sinful, thus no need for it to be changed.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Indeed---they also have sinful desires, hence the sin.



Yet, even for a sin we struggle with that we recognize and desire to overcome, we continually fail. If we do not desire that, how then does it occur?
It is true that desires are the immediate cause of sin but not the ultimate. What gives us the desire to sin? People can only sin when God withholds his restraining grace in a moment and He does that for His own purpose, glory, and for their sanctification (for Christians). This is not to say God is unjust or somehow at fault, we are still at fault. To be honest, I don't fully understand it, but from what I can understand, this is what the Bible teaches on this subject.



P. F. Pugh said:


> It's a battle between two competing sets of desires, one of which will ultimately win (yes we will persevere in faith), but we cannot say "Well I really didn't want to sin" because that begs the question, "Why did you sin, then?"



At this moment, I truly have the desire to not sin. Yet, is it possible for me to have absolutely no pride while typing this? I wish it were but because I am still flesh, I have not yet reached the end of sanctification. This in no way takes the blame off of me. I think it is a fact none the less though.

BTW, all this was to say that our wills are captive to sin. Our desires come from our nature which is sinful, making not only our desires but wills captive to sin, or in bondage. Perhaps we are discussing semantics as we seem to disagree on very little, none the less thought provoking though.


----------



## Philip (Nov 20, 2010)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> BTW, all this was to say that our wills are captive to sin. Our desires come from our nature which is sinful, making not only our desires but wills captive to sin, or in bondage. Perhaps we are discussing semantics as we seem to disagree on very little, none the less thought provoking though.



Maybe this should clear it up: I see it as this order ground motives--->desires--->will--->action. I speak of the will as free here because for the non-believer his will is naturally able to choose to follow God---it's a real option (ie: he could choose it if he wanted---nothing stopping him). However, because of corrupt desires stemming from corrupt ground motives, he will not and _therefore_ cannot. You cannot do what you will not do. Our will is free in all the ordinary senses---that is, to fulfill its function of choosing.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Nov 20, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Maybe this should clear it up: I see it as this order ground motives--->desires--->will--->action. I speak of the will as free here because for the non-believer his will is naturally able to choose to follow God---it's a real option (ie: he could choose it if he wanted---nothing stopping him). However, because of corrupt desires stemming from corrupt ground motives, he will not and _therefore_ cannot. You cannot do what you will not do. Our will is free in all the ordinary senses---that is, to fulfill its function of choosing.


 
Yup that's helpful, thanks for making me think through that one


----------



## NB3K (Nov 21, 2010)

I absolutely abhor this heresy of "free will" Get Calvin's Institute's Book 2 Chapter 4 & 5 would pave the right path.

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

God only gives the ammount of liberty that His creation needs to accomplish His purpose. Man is governed totally by the God of the Bible.


----------



## Philip (Nov 21, 2010)

NB3K said:


> I absolutely abhor this heresy of "free will" Get Calvin's Institute's Book 2 Chapter 4 & 5 would pave the right path.
> 
> God only gives the ammount of liberty that His creation needs to accomplish His purpose. Man is governed totally by the God of the Bible.


 
And this contradicts freedom of the will exactly how?

The fact is that when Calvin is talking about "freedom" he is talking about something quite different than what we are speaking of. Freedom here, would be moral freedom: the ability to, from our own strength of moral rectitude, not sin or to do good. This does not, however, negate the fact that we do choose and that our will is free, at any moment, to choose the good if we so desired (and of course without regeneration, we never will because our fundamental ground motives are totally corrupt). There is no fundamental disagreement between Calvin and Edwards on this point.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 21, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Maybe this should clear it up: I see it as this order ground motives--->desires--->will--->action. I speak of the will as free here because for the non-believer his will is naturally able to choose to follow God---it's a real option (ie: he could choose it if he wanted---nothing stopping him). However, because of corrupt desires stemming from corrupt ground motives, he will not and _therefore_ cannot. You cannot do what you will not do. Our will is free in all the ordinary senses---that is, to fulfill its function of choosing.


 
So, then, in what sense is the will not free? Or are you saying that the will is not in bondage to sin?


----------



## Philip (Nov 21, 2010)

Der Pilger said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this should clear it up: I see it as this order ground motives--->desires--->will--->action. I speak of the will as free here because for the non-believer his will is naturally able to choose to follow God---it's a real option (ie: he could choose it if he wanted---nothing stopping him). However, because of corrupt desires stemming from corrupt ground motives, he will not and _therefore_ cannot. You cannot do what you will not do. Our will is free in all the ordinary senses---that is, to fulfill its function of choosing.
> ...


 
Bondage to sin is deeper than the will. The will is bound to the desires, which are bound to ground motives. The will, though, is completely free to perform the function for which it was created---the function of choosing.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 21, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...


 
But if the will is bound to desires, as you say, and those desires are corrupt by sin, then it must follow that the will is also in bondage to sin.


----------



## Philip (Nov 21, 2010)

Der Pilger said:


> But if the will is bound to desires, as you say, and those desires are corrupt by sin, then it must follow that the will is also in bondage to sin.



Technically yes. However, do you call a thing in bondage if it does what it was designed to do?


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 21, 2010)

Is there a correct definition of "free will"? Some people say that it means to have the ability to act according to one's desires whereas others say it means to choose otherwise all other things being equal. Other people think it means to have the ability to choose either good or evil. Anselm taught that it means being able to preserve the rectitude of will for its own sake. 

If we say that people have free will, then we should use the definition that would not contradict the Biblical teaching that man is either a slave of sin or righteousness and that the unregenerate do not have the ability within themselves to come to Christ.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 22, 2010)

In the passages that I mentioned from Calvin, Calvin argues that our freedom are only free to the liberty of God's providence and purpose for His creation.


----------



## Philip (Nov 22, 2010)

NB3K said:


> In the passages that I mentioned from Calvin, Calvin argues that our freedom are only free to the liberty of God's providence and purpose for His creation.


 
In an ultimate sense, yes. In an immediate sense, we do make real decisions and have real live options.



cih1355 said:


> Is there a correct definition of "free will"?



I'm actually working on a study tracing the definition found in Anselm, Luther, and Edwards.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 22, 2010)

Free will was not what was argued for by many of the good, ancient writers on the subject, but rather free agency. There is a vast difference. When they spoke of having an ability to choose, they referred to the cause of this, their being a free, moral agent. When they spoke of the restriction of what they choose being limited by indwelling sin, or by whatever affection is leading at the moment, they do not refer to their will being free, but rather a follower or a slave to their affections. 

Blessings!


----------



## NB3K (Nov 22, 2010)

> I'm actually working on a study tracing the definition found in Anselm, Luther, and Edwards.


 
I think the Bible disputes this opinion of freewill.


----------



## Philip (Nov 22, 2010)

NB3K said:


> > I'm actually working on a study tracing the definition found in Anselm, Luther, and Edwards.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Bible disputes this opinion of freewill.


 
Where? All three of these gentlemen were firm believers in the sovereignty of God.



moral necessity said:


> they do not refer to their will being free, but rather a follower or a slave to their affections.



This is where we get a bit of historical confusion. Following the affections, for a person before about 1650, was not binding or limiting at all---it was _rational_. Freedom is defined then as ability to do good. Anselm actually makes this argument, taking it as a given that since God has free will (and man does too) that free will does not necessarily entail the ability to do evil. It was actually Anselm who first defined free will in terms of natural ability---a tradition carried on by Luther and Edwards.

The heresy that began to appear in the late Middle Ages that has confused the issue is that of moral ability---that is, the ability to, at a given moment, choose apart from one's nature. Edwards addresses this and exposes it for the nonsense that it is, but nonetheless, it's the implicit view of free will that most Arminians have subscribed to.


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 22, 2010)

> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a correct definition of "free will"?
> ...



Since you are working on that study, what did Anselm mean when he said that free will is the power to preserve rectitude of will for its own sake? This definition is found in his work, _On Free Will. _


----------



## Philip (Nov 22, 2010)

cih1355 said:


> > cih1355 said:
> >
> >
> > > Is there a correct definition of "free will"?
> ...


 
I think he's speaking in terms of natural ability, since he also clearly holds to a compatibilist view of the will itself. The best way that I can describe Anselm's view is that he views the human condition as such that in our natural state, we possess the freedom to do right and choose God, but due to our sinfulness we are morally unable to exercise it.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 29, 2010)

Let's listen to the master theologian of the First Protestant Reformation,
That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice [Calvin's Institutes 2.4.7]


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2010)

NB3K said:


> Let's listen to the master theologian of the First Protestant Reformation,
> That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice [Calvin's Institutes 2.4.7]


 
Are you responsible for your choices or are you not? Are you responsible before God for what you desire or are you not? If you are not free in your choices, then the answer to both of these questions is that you are not responsible.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 29, 2010)

That is a question that I have not the answer for. My reasoning for that is:
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. 

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 

Job 12:24 He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth and makes them wander in a pathless waste. 
Job 12:25 They grope in the dark without light, and he makes them stagger like a drunken man. 

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-

These are some of the many passages of Scripture for why I do not believe in "free will". 

Than in Romans 7 Paul says a great bit about his own evil nature.

Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 

And than Job say's

Job 2:10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. 

So while I do not believe in a free will, I cannot answer that question that you asked. Because I do not know.

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

I can say this though, if God does not produce the works of faith, than all I can do is sin. My thoughts always run towards the flesh. Without His Spirit I am destitude to destruction. I deserve death, but Paul says what if God desired to show His wrath and make known His power and endured with great patience vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. In that Romans 9 passage, who does Paul give the credit to for what we have in the world?

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------

By the way, I am not excusing anyone, or even myself, for sin, nor am I placing the blame on God. But nothing can take place out side of God's Providence.


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2010)

NB3K said:


> So while I do not believe in a free will, I cannot answer that question that you asked. Because I do not know.



I would say that our choices are free exactly because they are rational and conditioned by our desires. Freedom is just the ability to do what you want. 



NB3K said:


> Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.



What Paul is describing here is a battle between competing desires. We have a new regenerate will, yet because the old man is still there, we often fail to act in accordance with our new self and instead revert to acting by sight and not by faith.

What God does in regeneration is to change our heart, upon which the will acts. You must go deeper than the will to find our bondage. Just because all things are predetermined does not mean that we are not free. Otherwise, we really could blame God for our sinful choices.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 29, 2010)

No I don't believe we could ever blame God for our evilness, but I believe God will be glorified on the day of judgment for all the evil that took place in His creation.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

Here is a deeper question on this discussion, was Pharoah free in his actions during the exodus? God told moses that He would harden Pharoah's heart that they will not let His people go.

Then there is Job.
Job 2:3 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason." 

They key phrase in Job that someone pointed out to me was this " although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason" So God doesn't even give Satan any credit for all the evil that happened to Job.


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2010)

NB3K said:


> No I don't believe we could ever blame God for our evilness, but I believe God will be glorified on the day of judgment for all the evil that took place in His creation.



Amen.



NB3K said:


> Here is a deeper question on this discussion, was Pharoah free in his actions during the exodus? God told moses that He would harden Pharoah's heart that they will not let His people go.



Indeed he was. God gave him over to sin by taking away the ordinary restraints of common grace (Romans 1).



NB3K said:


> They key phrase in Job that someone pointed out to me was this " although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason" So God doesn't even give Satan any credit for all the evil that happened to Job.



This is natural not moral evil.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 29, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> This is natural not moral evil.


 
In Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 45:7 i think it is, the Lord states that He creats light & darkness, good & evil, Calvin states the evil that here is spoken of is the evil of punishment and not the evil of guilt.

Now here is my thought on that verse.

God is so glourius and great that anything that is compared to him rots and is depraved because God is only good. God has asked his people whom will you compare me to?


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2010)

NB3K said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > This is natural not moral evil.
> ...



Again, natural evil---God is free of blame.



> Now here is my thought on that verse.
> 
> God is so glourius and great that anything that is compared to him rots and is depraved because God is only good. God has asked his people whom will you compare me to?


 
Read Genesis 1. The things that God makes are good.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 29, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> If you are not free in your choices, then the answer to both of these questions is that you are not responsible.


 
This is where the hangup is, in my opinion. Investigate Luther's thoughts on this, as well as Melanchthon's Loci Communes.

Blessings!


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > If you are not free in your choices, then the answer to both of these questions is that you are not responsible.
> ...


 
I did. Luther does not deny that our choices are free and responsible.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 29, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...


 
Are you saying that our wills are not bent and governed by God to choose one thing or another?


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Are you saying that our wills are not bent and governed by God to choose one thing or another?


 
Our wills are perfectly free to do that for which they were designed. Yes, God ordains our choices, but we are no less free and responsible agents. Reformed theology has historically held to a compatibilist view of freedom (ie: the human freedom of the will necessary for moral agency is compatible with the fact that our choices are predetermined).


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 30, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that our wills are not bent and governed by God to choose one thing or another?
> ...


 
Okay, but in what sense is that a freedom of will? The will chooses out of necessity, not out of freedom. And so, our wills are not primary causes, but secondary causes, that are first pushed by the prime mover to fall into a decision. And so, man is responsible, not because he could have chosen otherwise, but because his affections are bent and inclined the way that they are. And so, the man is led to cry out, as is Romans 9, "why have you made me like this?" When our theology leads us to ask this question, I think we're on the right track. And so, the proper response by God is not, "well you could have chosen otherwise", but rather, "who are you to question how I molded your lump of clay?"

Anyway, I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, if I so did. I'm glad the Lord's prompting you to pursue this historical study. I just have a hard time using the word "freedom" to describe such a thing.

Blessings and warm fellowship!


----------



## Philip (Nov 30, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Okay, but in what sense is that a freedom of will? The will chooses out of necessity, not out of freedom.



The will is free to do exactly that which it was intended to do.



> And so, man is responsible, not because he could have chosen otherwise



But I could have chosen otherwise. There are possible worlds in which I did choose otherwise. There's nothing contradictory about an existence where, for example, I did not eat an omelet for breakfast this morning. I could have been otherwise disposed---no one was compelling me to eat an omelet. What's not free about that? Just because God chose to actualize a world in which I ate an omelet does not mean that my choice to eat it was constrained.

Freedom of the will, again, just means the ability to do what you want (Romans 7, as I have shown, is precisely about the complexity that this brings for regenerate persons).



> And so, the man is led to cry out, as is Romans 9, "why have you made me like this?" When our theology leads us to ask this question, I think we're on the right track.



But there's the rub: I don't think we should be asking this question---that's the point. I will give glory to God when I do good, I thank Him for the strength and grace to live day to day. I cannot, however, assign to Him the blame or responsibility for my sinful actions. I and I alone am responsible for those, which is why I cry out for mercy that God would change my heart.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 30, 2010)

Everyone has freedom of choice to act according to their nature. Whereas an unregenerate person will always choose to rebel against God and his righteous laws (according to his sin-nature), a regenerate person in made a new creation whereby they will, solely by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, choose to become a follower of Christ, and more and more put to death the remnants of the old sin nature .


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 30, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > > And so, the man is led to cry out, as is Romans 9, "why have you made me like this?" When our theology leads us to ask this question, I think we're on the right track.
> ...


----------



## Philip (Nov 30, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> We praise him for being good, and yet that is the only option at his disposal.



No it isn't---He is constrained by His nature, not His natural abilities. Is God not free to do as He pleases? Doesn't He have options? Could He have chosen to make the world other than it is if He had so pleased?



moral necessity said:


> And so, if blame cannot be attributed to those who do not have the option to choose good



But we all do. The unregenerate man always has the option to choose good---he just ignores it.



moral necessity said:


> The guy points out that the words "free will" have no place with the compatiblistic view. See what you think.



He's quibbling over words. The very definition of compatibilism is the view that humans are free moral agents and yet their choices are determined. Again, freedom of will is just the ability to do what you want.

Your will is determined by you---your character, the person you are, determines your choices through the instrument of the will.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 1, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> [He's quibbling over words. The very definition of compatibilism is the view that humans are free moral agents and yet their choices are determined. Again, freedom of will is just the ability to do what you want.
> 
> Your will is determined by you---your character, the person you are, determines your choices through the instrument of the will.


 
I agree with a free moral agency, just not a free will. There is a difference. I guess we just don't click on this one, brother. Luther refers to the will as a horse being ridden and controlled by his rider, namely God. This is from Bondage of the Will. I'll assume you don't agree with this either.

Blessings!


----------



## NB3K (Dec 5, 2010)

OK this is where I stand on Evil Sin and Satan, and all that is in the world.

First I am not brave enough to ascribe my evil thoughts,deeds, and being to the Holy. Just, & Righteous, One True God of the Bible. But I am stupid to think that Evil and Sin just happened by chance and that Adam could of by his own strength in his unfallen state continued in his original state. Paul states in Romans 9 what if GOd desired to show His wrath and make known his power, and we know from the Pharoah account that God has desired to make known His power through the administration of His wrath.

Secondly, God is the Creator. As His creation we are subjected to the good pleasure and purpose of His will. Proverbs 19:21 states very clearly that many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. Then we have King Nebuchadnezzar declaring in Daniel 4:35 "all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"". Also Job describes the authority God has over how He can treat even those who are called by His name are treated Job 2:10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. Also take careful note to the end of that verse, " In all this Job did not sin with his lips."

If God desired before the foundations of the world to show an elect group of people the immense power He has in creating human being for the sole purpose of destroying them to help eleivate the praise of His glory for having mercy on a group of humans which are just as evil as the ones God purposed to destroy. Than God is perfectedly Righteous and Just.

This is why it is so crucal to have the knowledge of God as the Creator. SO by default, because God is the Creator. God can and Scripture proves that he does whatever He pleases from heaven and on earth. WHo can stay God's hand??? Who can charge GOd with injust? NONE! It's because we are the clay he formed and continues to form to His desired purpose. And that desired purpose is to glorify Himself in ALL THINGS good & evil. Here is another question for us to ponder on, how does the evil creature dictate to the Holy, Righteous, and Just God what is Good & what is Evil?

My conclusion is we do not know enough to say either or about evil. But we can say since we know that God is Sovereign in all things, that if God did not want what we percieve to be evil in this world then it would not be here. This is why we all the more should shudder in fear of the Lord because His ways are not like our [Man's] ways.

If anything can be charged it would be this:

God is unjust for allowing His creation to continue in their evil ways and not punishing us at the gate. BUt we would never charge injustice upon GOd in a manner that brings the human race under absolute condamnation. Most people think of GOd as the Redeemer and this is why they think it would be unjust for GOd to do anything but save man.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2010)

NB3K said:


> God is unjust for allowing His creation to continue in their evil ways and not punishing us at the gate.



God does this. God is not unjust. Ergo, God is not unjust in withholding punishment for a time.



moral necessity said:


> I guess we just don't click on this one, brother. Luther refers to the will as a horse being ridden and controlled by his rider, namely God.



But unless we can be said to have some sort of control over our actions (even if we as persons are conditioned), we cannot be said to be responsible moral agents. In ordinary speech, "free will" and "free agency" are the same, even if the breakdown that Luther gives says differently. Most people, when they hear "free will" hear "freedom of the human person."



NB3K said:


> First I am not brave enough to ascribe my evil thoughts,deeds, and being to the Holy. Just, & Righteous, One True God of the Bible. But I am stupid to think that Evil and Sin just happened by chance and that Adam could of by his own strength in his unfallen state continued in his original state. Paul states in Romans 9 what if GOd desired to show His wrath and make known his power, and we know from the Pharoah account that God has desired to make known His power through the administration of His wrath.



But the question is how Pharaoh is deserving of God's wrath. In what way is Pharaoh responsible for his evil deeds? I agree that God brought it about that Pharaoh would fall, but it was Pharaoh who would not let the people go. We cannot limit ourselves in a kind of knee-jerk way to saying "our actions are predestined and therefore not free" because that simply leads us to the conclusion that we are not responsible for them. Instead, we must affirm a) that our actions are free and responsible b) that nonetheless God is able to and has decreed them.


----------



## NB3K (Dec 5, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> But the question is how Pharaoh is deserving of God's wrath. In what way is Pharaoh responsible for his evil deeds? I agree that God brought it about that Pharaoh would fall, but it was Pharaoh who would not let the people go. We cannot limit ourselves in a kind of knee-jerk way to saying "our actions are predestined and therefore not free" because that simply leads us to the conclusion that we are not responsible for them. Instead, we must affirm a) that our actions are free and responsible b) that nonetheless God is able to and has decreed them.


 
Exo 4:11 Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? 
Exo 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Here again we do not see that anything is attributed to Pharoah, but God's will & God's purpose. This is also the apostle Paul's thinking when he qouted Exodus in ROman's 9
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 

I am completely in line with Paul's theology in God being the cause of all things.

Here is a youtube qoute from a fellow servant in the case against free will,

MrNickKane 
13 hours ago When an external source controls all the options, it's time to acknowledge, you aren't free. I wonder how anyone can admit they are DEAD in trespasses and sin or in bondage and admit that Christ came to save them from their sin and then cry out that while they are in bondage, dead and in need of saving, they were free the whole time. The more I think about it. The weirder it gets. If you were truly "free" you wouldn't have needed a Savior. Now, THAT, makes sense. 
MrNickKane 
13 hours ago One more thing, I will believe in "free-will" when someone can show me by Scripture, that a man can inherit the kingdom of God apart from Jesus Christ through the exercise of their free-will. At this point the devout defender will have to admit...that man does not have that choice. When an external source gives you the choice to do or die. Or in this case, accept or be destroyed. It becomes delusional to think that you have a "free-will" option

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## NB3K (Dec 5, 2010)

BY the way the analogy of the human will be as a horse and its rider is from Augustine, and not Luther. Read Calvin's Institutes I think it is Book 2 Chapter 4???


----------



## NB3K (Dec 5, 2010)

Tripel said:


> Brad nailed it. We are free, but we are limited in our ability. The unregenerate man is dead, so despite all of his freedom, he is unable to seek God. He must be made alive.



So what about all the affirmations in the Bible that says we are not free? Do you think if God can impute Christ's righteousness on His sheep who are called by His name, then also can he impute guilt as a natural process of His Divine Power. Because while men commit vile and wretched acts, it is only because they are bound by the path that the Almight has directed them.

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. 
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

Lam 3:1 I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of his wrath; 
Lam 3:2 he has driven and brought me into darkness without any light; 
Lam 3:3 surely against me he turns his hand again and again the whole day long. 
Lam 3:4 He has made my flesh and my skin waste away; he has broken my bones; 
Lam 3:5 he has besieged and enveloped me with bitterness and tribulation; 
Lam 3:6 he has made me dwell in darkness like the dead of long ago. 
Lam 3:7 He has walled me about so that I cannot escape; he has made my chains heavy; 
Lam 3:8 though I call and cry for help, he shuts out my prayer; 
Lam 3:9 he has blocked my ways with blocks of stones; he has made my paths crooked. 
Lam 3:10 He is a bear lying in wait for me, a lion in hiding; 
Lam 3:11 he turned aside my steps and tore me to pieces; he has made me desolate; 
Lam 3:12 he bent his bow and set me as a target for his arrow. 
Lam 3:13 He drove into my kidneys the arrows of his quiver; 
Lam 3:14 I have become the laughingstock of all peoples, the object of their taunts all day long. 
Lam 3:15 He has filled me with bitterness; he has sated me with wormwood. 

And Job 12

Job 12:1 Then Job answered and said: 
Job 12:2 "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you. 
Job 12:3 But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you. Who does not know such things as these? 
Job 12:4 I am a laughingstock to my friends; I, who called to God and he answered me, a just and blameless man, am a laughingstock. 
Job 12:5 In the thought of one who is at ease there is contempt for misfortune; it is ready for those whose feet slip. 
Job 12:6 The tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand. 
Job 12:7 "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; 
Job 12:8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. 
Job 12:9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 
Job 12:10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. 
Job 12:11 Does not the ear test words as the palate tastes food? 
Job 12:12 Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days. 
Job 12:13 "With God are wisdom and might; he has counsel and understanding. 
Job 12:14 If he tears down, none can rebuild; if he shuts a man in, none can open. 
Job 12:15 If he withholds the waters, they dry up; if he sends them out, they overwhelm the land. 
Job 12:16 With him are strength and sound wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are his. 
Job 12:17 He leads counselors away stripped, and judges he makes fools. 
Job 12:18 He looses the bonds of kings and binds a waistcloth on their hips. 
Job 12:19 He leads priests away stripped and overthrows the mighty. 
Job 12:20 He deprives of speech those who are trusted and takes away the discernment of the elders. 
Job 12:21 He pours contempt on princes and loosens the belt of the strong. 
Job 12:22 He uncovers the deeps out of darkness and brings deep darkness to light. 
Job 12:23 He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away. 
Job 12:24 He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth and makes them wander in a pathless waste. 
Job 12:25 They grope in the dark without light, and he makes them stagger like a drunken man. 
Lam 3:16 He has made my teeth grind on gravel, and made me cower in ashes; 


I want to be with you guys on this but there is just too much clearly plain language in these passages of Scripture to think that way.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2010)

Jason, you are missing the force of my argument.



> Here again we do not see that anything is attributed to Pharoah, but God's will & God's purpose.



So then can Pharaoh say to God on the day of judgment, "I bear no responsibility for my action since you were the one who hardened my heart and made me keep the Israelites enslaved. I sinned because it glorified you and I had no will in the matter."? Absolutely not, for Pharaoh sinned of his own volition, hardened by the absence of God's restraining hand.



NB3K said:


> I am completely in line with Paul's theology in God being the cause of all things.



Does God cause moral evil? Does God cause us to sin?



NB3K said:


> One more thing, I will believe in "free-will" when someone can show me by Scripture, that a man can inherit the kingdom of God apart from Jesus Christ through the exercise of their free-will.



I believe that we choose to believe in Christ of our own free will because the Holy Spirit regenerates our ground motives and affections so that we will choose to follow Him of our own free will.



NB3K said:


> The weirder it gets. If you were truly "free" you wouldn't have needed a Savior. Now, THAT, makes sense.



You need a savior because you had a debt that you couldn't pay back. What imputation does is to place that burden upon Christ and to place the credit for Christ's righteousness upon you. This in no way contradicts the fact that a) you did make a decision to follow Christ ("choose this day") b) you were not coerced into making that choice. No one was holding a gun to your head, you were simply presented with the Gospel, found yourself believing it, and decided to follow through and act upon that belief.

This in no way negates the fact that it was the Holy Spirit working in you to produce affections that would lead you to choose to follow Christ.

If I might be permitted a quote from my own work on Anselm's view:



> Anselm distinguishes between three senses of the term as normally used: the instrument of willing, the affection of the instrument, and the use of the instrument. G. Stanley Kane rephrases these senses as “the faculty, or capacity, or power of willing, the disposition or inclination to will, and the act, or the exercise, of the power to will.” Therefore, the will, in a technical sense, is an instrument of decision, a faculty which decides to act upon a particular affection, or set of affections (desires or inclinations, ground motives). Other uses of the term in ordinary speech refer to the functioning of this faculty or influences upon it. Thus, for Anselm, when I say “I will do this” I am simply saying that I have used my faculty of will to decide upon a course of action. Or, if I claim to be “willing” to do something I am claiming that I am predisposed to use my will to choose that course of action, should someone ask me.
> 
> So what do we mean by “freedom” in reference to the will? Anselm first considers the idea, recurrent through much of church history, that freedom of the will is “The power to sin or not to sin.” However, he rejects this, saying “if this were its definition, neither God nor the angels, who are unable to sin, would have free will, which is impious to say.” As noted above, Anselm is clearly operating on the assumption that freedom is something possessed both by God and man, and thus if a definition includes anything that one or the other is incapable of, then it must be rejected. Instead, Anselm offers the idea that “A will that cannot fall from rectitude into sin is more free than one that can desert it.” Later, he goes on to define freedom further as, “the capacity for preserving rectitude of the will.” In other words, freedom of the will is the _natural_ ability to do right. While man, because of the fall, is unable to exercise this freedom, he still possesses it in a basic sense.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 5, 2010)

Our will is never free. It's either corrupted by sin or being spurred onto holiness. All the while even when we are regenerated you still have sin tugging at us as well. So we have so many things that influence our decisions, that our will is never free. We find freedom when we are saved, yes, but the freedom to follow after Christ, and not complete freedom (until glorification)


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2010)

Zach Rohman said:


> Our will is never free. It's either corrupted by sin or being spurred onto holiness. All the while even when we are regenerated you still have sin tugging at us as well. So we have so many things that influence our decisions, that our will is never free. We find freedom when we are saved, yes, but the freedom to follow after Christ, and not complete freedom (until glorification)


 
You're touching on two different subjects here: the first is metaphysical freedom, or freedom to do as you please within your natural limits (which, of course, you have), but the other is moral freedom---freedom from sin and freedom unto righteousness. This the Christian has imperfectly and the unregenerate not at all.


----------



## NB3K (Dec 5, 2010)

The choices we make are the result of either God hardening or having mercy on us. The evil we do is only there because of Sin. If God leaves us alone in our sin, then he hardens us. We may do all kinds of wickedness and God is not responsible for those certain acts that we commit, but He is the cause. IF He leads us down crooked and desolite paths than we follow accordingly. God is no way obligated to leads us by His grace. He can bring us in to exisitance and keep us in darkness for the day of judgment if He so pleases, and He can regenerate us and lead us on the path of righteousness too.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

I am going to stay with Calvin on this one. He & Pink are the teachers that I have been learning from on this matter of God's Sovereignty in ALL things.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2010)

NB3K said:


> God is not responsible for those certain acts that we commit, but He is the cause.



Explain exactly how God can cause something without taking credit for it.

This is my question, Jason: are you a free and responsible agent or are you not? I take God's sovereignty here as a given, but the question remains.



NB3K said:


> I am going to stay with Calvin on this one. He & Pink are the teachers that I have been learning from on this matter of God's Sovereignty in ALL things.



I don't disagree there---I just happen to think (with Calvin, Edwards, etc) that humans are free and responsible moral agents. We make real choices and are responsible before God for those choices. Again, this in no way negates God's sovereignty, but unless we wrestle with how it can be that humans have freedom of will and yet God is still sovereign over that will, we cannot understand the real complexity that surrounds this issue.

Here is a question, Jason: in what way does God have freedom of will?


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 5, 2010)

Things always influence our choices. So in the sense the worlds talks, we never have "free will". That's all I was stating. 

This is something I've always struggled with as well. I can't go further then talking about the freedom of salvation on this topic.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2010)

Zach Rohman said:


> Things always influence our choices. So in the sense the worlds talks, we never have "free will". That's all I was stating.



In the sense of ordinary speech we do---you are held accountable by law even if someone influenced you to commit a murder (of course that person would still be accountable). To use examples from literature, Othello and Macbeth were free in their acts of murder even though they were spurred on by Iago and Lady Macbeth. They are still rational agents who are not being coerced---these are, therefore, free and responsible acts under law.


----------



## NB3K (Dec 6, 2010)

While I cannot answer all the questions as how God works all the kinks in how GOd works all things after the counsel of His will, I know Job proclaimed that everything that happened to him was all from God, and the Bible says he did not sin when he said that. I am going to be just like Job. Who among the inhabitants of the world can resist God? Even if God allows something to happen it must be in His will. God says he covers Himself in darkness, and if He does not shine forth light then His creation stays in darkness, and there will be nothing but Evil. In this manner God creats Evil, because He holds back the light of His grace. If God gives people over to Satan, than those people are doomed. God is so great that anything that is compared to Him is utter evil. If God is to show His glory and majesty to us, as vessel's of mercy, than there must be evil. How can there be a judgment seat without evil? How can their be mercy given to Elect Sheep, unless there is evil to show mercy? How can God be merciful & gracious and unless there is evil? It is apart of His design to show the riches of His glourious grace.

---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

I am evil. I am responsible for my actions, but at the same time I am only walking according to the path that God has directed me. Whatever I want to do I can only do it if it is according to tthe purpose of the Lord.

God is so powerful and great that our minds cannot comprehend His works. As Calvin has rightly said, "The human mind is retarded to the things of God."


----------



## Philip (Dec 6, 2010)

NB3K said:


> I am evil. I am responsible for my actions, but at the same time I am only walking according to the path that God has directed me. Whatever I want to do I can only do it if it is according to tthe purpose of the Lord.



What, then, shall you sin more that grace may abound? You seem to be arguing not for Divine sovereignty, but Divine fatalism. Has God foreordained all? Yes. Do we still act freely and responsibly before Him? Yes. 



NB3K said:


> God is so great that anything that is compared to Him is utter evil.



Ah, so why did God call His creation good? Can't you see that you are defaming the name of God? I agree that evil glorifies God in some ultimate sense that I cannot fathom, else He would not have permitted it, but to say that the created order is evil plainly contradicts the Scriptures. For God is not evil and evil is no part of His nature, therefore nothing that He creates is evil, though it may fall. Evil is not a mere absence, but a twisting and perversion---a cruel parody of goodness.

The trouble, Jason, is that you are seeing only one half of the picture.


----------



## NB3K (Dec 6, 2010)

Would you say that God looks down upon His creation and still deems it to be good? Because Jesus says to the rich young ruler that none is Good but God.

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

So then God only has the authority over me THAT I GIVE HIM???? WOW! I am not free! I am either a slave to sin and satan or a slave to Christ and Righteousness!

---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

Were the people that crucified Christ acting as free moral agents or were they be directed by the Almighty Omnipotent God during the most heinus sin that could have ever taken place. Or were they acting according to their nature? In what way were they free? What about the cannintes were they free? Or were they created to be destroyed by the hand of God?


----------



## Philip (Dec 6, 2010)

NB3K said:


> Would you say that God looks down upon His creation and still deems it to be good?



No, because it has fallen from that state of goodness in which it was created.



NB3K said:


> Were the people that crucified Christ acting as free moral agents or were they be directed by the Almighty Omnipotent God during the most heinus sin that could have ever taken place. Or were they acting according to their nature?



Yes.



NB3K said:


> In what way were they free?



In the ordinary sense.



NB3K said:


> What about the cannintes were they free? Or were they created to be destroyed by the hand of God?



Yes.

The trouble, Jason, is that you assume that the two are mutually exclusive.


----------

