Free will

HP: I have heard about straw men arguments, but never ‘puny god’ ones. It is one thing to make such rash statements and completely another to defend such remarks with logic and reason. Now I know that Jim likes to just throw out ideas and at times shy’s away from discussions, but I believe the time has come for him, or others of like feather, to ‘in the name of fairness and Christian charity' to defend such remarks or strike them from the record as rash and uncalled for.

He has clearly suggested that one that believes in the free will of man believes a myth, and that have chosen a ‘puny god’ over the Almighty God of Heaven and Earth.

To start off this topic I would like to hear Jim and or others explain to us why in fact they would deny such an obvious fact as free will and what is it about believing in a free will that would merit such remarks.

 

HP: There is yet another option available. A Sovereign God granted to man a free will and made a provision through the atoning work of a Savior that makes possible the salvation of all men, or provides everything needed for the salvation of all men, but God, in accordance to Ro 9:18 has mercy on whom He so desires. “ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

When we understand that God is under no obligation to save any one, for He gave to everyman that comes to the age of moral accountability and enters that state, the abilities requisite of obedience, we also can see that if He chooses to allow some to receive the good news yet others do not, it is totally within His sovereign purview to do so. God’s only obligation towards man was to grant man the power of contrary choice if He was going to punish or praise man for their moral intents. Having done that, God is totally just in granting the actual opportunity of salvation to those He chooses to receive it.

God for purposes known only to Him, has chosen the means of salvation to be spread by the coupling of efforts with believers. It is our solemn obligation to be the messengers of God’s grace to a lost and dying world, without with such cooperation by man, some have never had the opportunity and some most likely never will. We are commanded to go to the lost world and give to man the message of hope God has provided through the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.

 

HP: You present nothing short of necessitated fatalism. If it is God making all the choices, it is preposterous to speak of freedom. Freedom can only exist where for any given antecedent there is more than one possible consequent. If God has made the choices and we cannot avoid carrying them out, no freedom of the will can be predicated of man. It becomes all of God and nothing of man.

Freedom of the will and election are not two separate issues if I follow you, but rather election eliminates free will all together. There can only be election under the scenario you paint for no freedom can or does exist.

 

HP: Thanks for joining this discussion. No need to rewrite any texts, for it is us, not the writers of any texts that are in discussion. I am interested in your views and the views of those on those list. I am not interested in critiquing other men, other than to how it may or may not apply to the views represented here.

No one that I have ever known or read believe in absolute random abandon. To have an exercise a free will, i.e. to be created in such a way as to be seen as the first cause of your intents and subsequent actions, in no way implies there is not parameters to ones freedoms. When we are addressing the issue of freedom of the will, we are focusing primarily upon the formation of intents judged by God as blameworthy or praiseworthy. We are dealing in the area of morals, and the ability of contrary choice in respect to the freedom granted to us by God as moral agents making possible the formation of intents ether in agreement to benevolence or selfishness which rightfully gender personal responsibility and blame or praise by God and our fellow sentient beings.

It matters not how you draw your circles, if there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent in regards to a given relationship, no freedom is possible and necessity is the only possible outcome. Freedom of any kind and under any relationship can only be predicated of an intent or action if two or more possible consequents are possible for any single antecedent. If your circles preclude or eliminate two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent, your circles depict nothing short of deterministic fatalism, and that alone. In such a case your circles would have nothing whatsoever to do in depicting freedom of the will in any measure whatsoever.

Now explain to us whether or not God’s permissive will allows for true freedom, or if in fact it is mere necessitated fate. Is man the cause of his moral intents or the mere puppet of God, allowing for man to only 'do as one wills,' i.e. only chosing within the necessitated boundaries of ends already established and writen in stone from eternity past which in reality denies the ability of contrary choice and the possibility of two or more possible consequents being possible for any given antecedent.

 

HP: You present nothing short of necessitated fatalism. If it is God making the choices, it is preposterous to speak of freedom in regards to the will of man. Freedom can only exist where for any given antecedent there is more than one possible consequent. If God has made the choices and we cannot avoid carrying them out, no freedom of the will can be predicated of man.

Freedom of the will and election are not two separate issues if I follow you, but rather election, according to what I see you making of it, precludes and eliminates free will all together. There can ‘only’ be election under the scenario you paint, for no true freedom can or does exist.

Freedom, if it exists, must lie God allowing for man, yea creating man with the distict ability, to be the cause of his moral intents apart from coercion or force. Man can only do as he wills. Some speak of freedom as the ability to 'do as one wills.' This is no freedom whatsoever. The doing is tied to the willing by necessity, not freedom. Again, amn can ONLY do as one wills.

True freedom lies in the ability God grants to man that allows for contrary choice, being able to pick between two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent.

 

HP: I like the usage of the sound logic you employ here, as I believe it has great merit. I will listen closely to the response of the others posting on this most important question you raise.

Just the same, the problem surrounds the nature of predestination, not the mere fact of us being predestined. I believe Scripture is clear that indeed we are predestined to be conformed to His image, but that does not imply that our wills are not free to exercise contrary choice, it just shows that from God’s perspective, which is Omniscience, that He foreknows the choices that will be made, NOT that He forced or determined, in the sense of necessitating, them to come to pass. (referring to moral choices in which God blames or praises man for their intents)

 

HP: If you desire to convince one of your positions, you are going to have to do something besides throwing stones and beating on the pulpit. Set forth evidence from Scripture reason or experience that establishes your points to the demise of those I or others have established.

Establish that the simple notion of having a will to determine it's intents, i.e. being the cause of ones intents, is establishing 'righteousness of his own' merit. I will be listening carefully.

 

HP: Notice the clarity of these verses, in that nothing is mentioned about being made free from sin ‘positionally’, but rather they speak directly to the formation of intents in so much that we are become ‘servants’ of righteousness, and have our ‘fruits’, i.e., our intents of the heart as shown by our actions, unto holiness.

;

Notice carefully that in this verse again it speaks not to any positional righteousness, but rather directly to the intents of the heart as evidenced by righteous and godly actions, while we walk in this PRESENT world.

Numerous are the passages that depict a holy walk as being the reasonable results to expect of one claiming to be a Christian.

 

HP: Who is addressing this sense of freedom? The issue of free will we are trying to address is not concerned directly with whether or not a certain action is in compliance with certain laws, or whether or not it violates the rights of others. Free will speaks directly to the intents of the heart, and whether or not man is the cause of those intents. Is man the author of the moral intents of his heart and subsequent actions, or is man and the intents of his heart the mere product of coercion? Are we creators of our intents, or are we mere puppets of necessitated force? Has man, that has reached the age of accountability, been granted abilities by God of contrary choice in the area of morals, the ability to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, or are we simply the product of necessitated fate?

What is it that makes punishments or rewards just for moral intents? Are punishments and rewards proof of moral accountability? Is it just to punish or praise one that could not have done anything other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances? These are some of the questions we need to address.