The nature of free will

[37818]

• The nature of free will

As a brother,

In regards to Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[DaveXR650]

@37818. I can tell you that that verse is taken exactly as written by Calvinists, and Church of Christ (Not United), Wesleyans, and I believe, Free Will Baptists. The only ones who seem to stumble over it and try to redefine it are the modern free grace Baptists or "believism" types of Baptists. They tend to believe that a believer cannot be addressed here, or that sin might result in premature physical death but never that you might be lost.

Most of the controversy over free will refers more to whether or not we have naturally sufficient free will on our own, to come to Christ just with hearing the gospel, not needing any convicting or convincing grace first. As far as I know, most free will Baptists and classical Arminians believe that along with the Calvinists. The difference being that Calvinists believe that the grace before salvation is regenerative or at least of an irresistible or effectual nature and is given in that way only to the elect. Arminians believe this grace is necessary too, but is more convicting and enlightening and can and often is resisted and is given in some measure to everyone. At least that's what I know. Anyone is welcome to correct me on this if they wish.

 

[37818]

@DaveXR650,
People are selfwilled. So many think their wells are now actually free.

 

[DaveXR650]

People are selfwilled. So many think their wells are now actually free.

Yes. A lot of needless argument goes on that would be tempered if we just agreed that the real problem is our wills. Outside of taking a theological position, it may well be that we should be able to hear the gospel and respond and in truth, we should be able to just decide to turn around, turn to God and stop sinning. But any halfway honest person knows their own track record on that and can observe the rest of mankind too. And the verdict is that we in reality don't do that, and we don't do that because we don't want to do that according to our own free will.

 

[37818]

@DaveXR650,
The principals argued in Romans 6:16 were true before mankind had a sin nature.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes. A lot of needless argument goes on that would be tempered if we just agreed that the real problem is our wills. Outside of taking a theological position, it may well be that we should be able to hear the gospel and respond and in truth, we should be able to just decide to turn around, turn to God and stop sinning. But any halfway honest person knows their own track record on that and can observe the rest of mankind too. And the verdict is that we in reality don't do that, and we don't do that because we don't want to do that according to our own free will.

Dave I agree with what you said here " it may well be that we should be able to hear the gospel and respond and in truth, we should be able to just decide to turn around, turn to God". Which we can do as we see clearly in scripture. Eph 1:13, Rom 10-9, Eph 2:8. Through our God given free will we can do all those things.

It is when you then add "and stop sinning" that you move beyond what is biblical. We find in scripture that we can and do continue to sin after we are saved and that is why we are to confess those sins. We freely sin and we can freely confess those sins. We do not loose the free will we have in coming to Christ.

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar, and His word is not in us.

So I do agree that the problem is our wills. The question we must answer is are they free or are they determined.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is when you then add "and stop sinning" that you move beyond what is biblical.

Those verses in 1John point out our inevitable tendency to sin. They show the remedy for when that happens in the case of a believer. Nowhere, do any of those verses even hint that such sin is not truly our fault. Now, I'm not saying that there is not something of a type of willful sin or sin against light or presumptuous sin, which certainly is even more serious - but whenever we sin, is it not due to some choice we make? Or, are you moving to an acceptance of what the Calvinists call total depravity (which, even if you were, would not change the truth of what I am saying).

So yes, that is the question:

The question we must answer is are they free or are they determined.

In my view, the question is not is it free or determined. I concede it's free, but with something drastically wrong with it which left to itself seems very unlikely to ever repent or believe the gospel without at least as much help as Arminius thought, and probably in truth closer to how Edwards viewed it. If the will wasn't "free" at least in some real sense then we could not be blamed. So I concede that but believe that indeed, our free will, left to ourselves, is the very problem.

 

[Silverhair]

Those verses in 1John point out our inevitable tendency to sin. They show the remedy for when that happens in the case of a believer. Nowhere, do any of those verses even hint that such sin is not truly our fault. Now, I'm not saying that there is not something of a type of willful sin or sin against light or presumptuous sin, which certainly is even more serious - but whenever we sin, is it not due to some choice we make? Or, are you moving to an acceptance of what the Calvinists call total depravity (which, even if you were, would not change the truth of what I am saying).

So yes, that is the question:

In my view, the question is not is it free or determined. I concede it's free, but with something drastically wrong with it which left to itself seems very unlikely to ever repent or believe the gospel without at least as much help as Arminius thought, and probably in truth closer to how Edwards viewed it. If the will wasn't "free" at least in some real sense then we could not be blamed. So I concede that but believe that indeed, our free will, left to ourselves, is the very problem.

So we both agree that even those that are saved can and will sin.

The Calvinist total depravity view is just a man made attempt to answer as to why some will reject the gospel message.

I have not read either Arminius or Edwards but I have read God's word and have found that God has provided many ways by which we can come to know Him. So in the end the responsibility falls to man.

Freewill is not the problem, it is the gift. The problem is how some people use it.

 

[DaveXR650]

So we both agree that even those that are saved can and will sin.

Yes, I would think.

The Calvinist total depravity view is just a man made attempt to answer as to why some will reject the gospel message.

It tries to show that man lacks the ability to truly fix his situation before God in a way that will accomplish salvation if unaided by divine work and power. Arminians as well as Calvinists believe this but do differ in how the divine aid works and the way it is spread around. But you have to remember, Calvinism believes this inability is moral and thus the reason some reject the gospel is that they don't want to come to Christ or give up sin and so on. Calvinism only goes further in that it does not allow this free will to have another side to it that has an equal or autonomous tendency to decide to repent and believe the gospel. Calvinists have a realistic assessment of our free will as it really is and thus do not believe it is a gift in a fallen condition but the main problem. They have a low opinion of the free will of all of us in other words. Arminians pretty much do the same I think but they view God's grace as being more of a gentle or persuasive drawing or conviction and feel that with that man can come to Christ. And, they believe enough of this is given to all men so that everyone has sufficient grace to come and repent and believe. I'm not sure that they aren't correct in that to be honest. I certainly don't ridicule it.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

@37818. I can tell you that that verse is taken exactly as written by Calvinists, and Church of Christ (Not United), Wesleyans, and I believe, Free Will Baptists. The only ones who seem to stumble over it and try to redefine it are the modern free grace Baptists or "believism" types of Baptists. They tend to believe that a believer cannot be addressed here, or that sin might result in premature physical death but never that you might be lost.

Most of the controversy over free will refers more to whether or not we have naturally sufficient free will on our own, to come to Christ just with hearing the gospel, not needing any convicting or convincing grace first. As far as I know, most free will Baptists and classical Arminians believe that along with the Calvinists. The difference being that Calvinists believe that the grace before salvation is regenerative or at least of an irresistible or effectual nature and is given in that way only to the elect. Arminians believe this grace is necessary too, but is more convicting and enlightening and can and often is resisted and is given in some measure to everyone. At least that's what I know. Anyone is welcome to correct me on this if they wish.

The "Irresistable Grace" spoken of by Calvinists is often referred to as the "Effectual Calling" and is synonymous with regeneration. Outside of this, not only is all grace "resistable," but all grace is, in fact resisted and spurned by those who remain in their sin!

Arminians believe that prevenient grace enables one to choose whether or not to give consent to the "efficacious" grace that is able to save their soul.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "Irresistable Grace" spoken of by Calvinists is often referred to as the "Effectual Calling" and is synonymous with regeneration. Outside of this, not only is all grace "resistable," but all grace is, in fact resisted and spurned by those who remain in their sin!

Arminians believe that prevenient grace enables one to choose whether or not to give consent to the "efficacious" grace that is able to save their soul.

I'd agree except I don't think it is always actual regeneration that precedes faith. The WCF is vague on that and it seems that some Calvinists balk at saying outright regeneration is meant as the work of the Spirit prior to faith. Some refer to this as enlightening or enabling one to see the need and value of coming to Christ in a way that is definitely more than persuasive. Frankly, I think this is a weak point in Calvinist theology.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, I would think.

It tries to show that man lacks the ability to truly fix his situation before God in a way that will accomplish salvation if unaided by divine work and power. Arminians as well as Calvinists believe this but do differ in how the divine aid works and the way it is spread around. But you have to remember, Calvinism believes this inability is moral and thus the reason some reject the gospel is that they don't want to come to Christ or give up sin and so on. Calvinism only goes further in that it does not allow this free will to have another side to it that has an equal or autonomous tendency to decide to repent and believe the gospel. Calvinists have a realistic assessment of our free will as it really is and thus do not believe it is a gift in a fallen condition but the main problem. They have a low opinion of the free will of all of us in other words. Arminians pretty much do the same I think but they view God's grace as being more of a gentle or persuasive drawing or conviction and feel that with that man can come to Christ. And, they believe enough of this is given to all men so that everyone has sufficient grace to come and repent and believe. I'm not sure that they aren't correct in that to be honest. I certainly don't ridicule it.

In agree that the reason some reject the gospel is that they don't want to come to Christ or give up sin. That is why I have said that free will is at the same time both the best and the worst gift that God could have given to mankind.

Satan uses various means to draw man to him through sin. God uses various means to draw man to Him through faith in Christ Jesus.
Just as we freely choose to sin we can freely choose to trust in Christ Jesus.

 

[DaveXR650]

In agree that the reason some reject the gospel is that they don't want to come to Christ or give up sin. That is why I have said that free will is at the same time both the best and the worst gift that God could have given to mankind.

Satan uses various means to draw man to him through sin. God uses various means to draw man to Him through faith in Christ Jesus.
Just as we freely choose to sin we can freely choose to trust in Christ Jesus.

Putting theology aside for a moment, I agree that Satan and God are using various means each way and there does have to be at least enough ability (even natural ability) that we have as men, universally, to at least make us truly guilty before God should we refuse to come to Him.

I do also believe in a true depravity of us as humans such that our natural "tendencies" are not equal and our bent towards evil is real. And thus I believe that for those of us who have been saved we can be pretty sure it was because of supernatural intervention that was truly the decisive factor. I guess that is why I am inclined to the Calvinist position on this. I hope that explains it without resorting too much to theological terms.