Does Man Have Free Will?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I know, I said I wouldn't bother people. Forgive me, please.

Guys, you may not have noticed, but this is the Religious Section, not the Philosophical Section. The question of free will therefore should be approached from the religious standpoint. If one wishes to discuss the philosophical implications of the thought, why not start a thread on the Philosophy Section?

Free will as it applies to Religion is thus: Does God hold the fate of man, or can man choose his own fate? Will a man's choices be in the end what saves or dooms him? I suggest reading Ezekiel chapter 18 and chapter 33, and the last chapter of Revelation. These scriptures clearly point out that a man's choice will be his salvation or doom.

God Bless.

Pen.

Not everyone's religion is Christianity.

[Pendragon]

Not everyone's religion is Christianity.

Point taken. Dr. Ralph is correct. I cannot help but notice this post:

yes MAN has afree well
according to many religions " isalm, christianity, and the jews" , Man has got the absolute free well, and freedom to choose

Perhaps someone from another Religion would like to present his or her scriptural reference?

[weepingforloman]

I do not believe in free will, it seems to me that a person must be all knowing in order to act absolutely. If a person does wrong regularly from not knowing of God or his consequences, the only thing he can be held absolutely in contempt of is being foolish. The Lord said 'they are like us now' when Adam and Eve sinned. I'm guessing from Job that 'us' means God and Satan, but this still doesn't justify the idea of human will. If your a goat or a sheep you can't help but be one or the other. You are what you are.

God said "they are like us now" in that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (God uses the royal "we" to refer to Himself all through the creation narrative, though it can also be used as proof of the Trinity), not to mean that humanity was like God and Satan. If you believe what you say about foolishness/ignorance being the only cause for disapproval, read Romans. God has written His law on our hearts, that even those who never hear the Gospel are without excuse.

I know, I said I wouldn't bother people. Forgive me, please.

Guys, you may not have noticed, but this is the Religious Section, not the Philosophical Section. The question of free will therefore should be approached from the religious standpoint. If one wishes to discuss the philosophical implications of the thought, why not start a thread on the Philosophy Section?

Free will as it applies to Religion is thus: Does God hold the fate of man, or can man choose his own fate? Will a man's choices be in the end what saves or dooms him? I suggest reading Ezekiel chapter 18 and chapter 33, and the last chapter of Revelation. These scriptures clearly point out that a man's choice will be his salvation or doom.

God Bless.

Pen.

I would counter by referring to the countless instances of God "hardening" a man's heart, as well as numerous references to the opposite effect... Even Paul's conversion. I would specifically point to Exodus, with the hardening of Pharaoh.

[Pendragon]

I would counter by referring to the countless instances of God "hardening" a man's heart, as well as numerous references to the opposite effect... Even Paul's conversion. I would specifically point to Exodus, with the hardening of Pharaoh.

True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Paul's conversion is an example of a man being given a choice. He asked what he was supposed to do. He could have refused, and added Aninias to his list of people to arrest. He chose to go God's way.

This is a closed book with me. I believe in man's free will. That said, if another does not, who am I to judge and say that they are wrong? If we both are sincere in our service to God, we do God a disservice by allowing that point to be our dividing line. United we stand, but a house divided against itself will surely fall.

God Bless.

Pen.

[weepingforloman]

True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Paul's conversion is an example of a man being given a choice. He asked what he was supposed to do. He could have refused, and added Aninias to his list of people to arrest. He chose to go God's way.

This is a closed book with me. I believe in man's free will. That said, if another does not, who am I to judge and say that they are wrong? If we both are sincere in our service to God, we do God a disservice by allowing that point to be our dividing line. United we stand, but a house divided against itself will surely fall.

God Bless.

Pen.

Right you are. No reason to fight. However, for the sake of the pure intellectual argument, I would like to make one last comment. True, on the surface Pharaoh was offered the choice of allowing Israel to go free. However, as I understand it (just clarifying my point--don't want to get into a bigger mess, here), internally his heart was continually hardened, in order that God might accomplish His will in punishing Egypt. Last post, I promise.

[Redzeppelin]

True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Some theologians argue that the action of God's conviction on the human heart will either soften it or harden it - that the statement "God hardened Pharoh's heart" does not necessarily mean that the "hardening" was consciously done by God's action, but that the condition of Pharoh's heart caused it to "harden" in response to the conviction of God upon it. Since God knows us intimately, it may be assumed that God was certain that Pharoh would choose thusly, but there was a chance (however small) that Pharoh might have chosen otherwise.

[weepingforloman]

Some theologians argue that the action of God's conviction on the human heart will either soften it or harden it - that the statement "God hardened Pharoh's heart" does not necessarily mean that the "hardening" was consciously done by God's action, but that the condition of Pharoh's heart caused it to "harden" in response to the conviction of God upon it. Since God knows us intimately, it may be assumed that God was certain that Pharoh would choose thusly, but there was a chance (however small) that Pharoh might have chosen otherwise.

Okay, but how about "He gave them over to unnatural passions"?

[atiguhya padma]

We are condensed experience. Our 'choices' are influenced by personal history and present environment. In order to continue operating in the world, we are fooled by the brain into thinking that we have freewill. It makes sense out of our conditioned responses.

It seems to me that true free choice, if there is such a thing, would have to be spontaneous and random, free from premeditation and bias. It would have to break the linear nature of the cause and effect process that rules the Universe. There is no freewill. For an intellectually demanding argument against freewill read Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons. For a more relaxing and leisurely argument, read John Gray's Straw Dogs.

[Redzeppelin]

Okay, but how about "He gave them over to unnatural passions"?

He allowed them to pursue that which would hurt them in a variety of ways. I don't get what you're implying with this example in terms of free will.

If you're suggesting that the verb "gave" indicates active action by God I disagree.

[weepingforloman]

I think that "gave" is a verb, is it not? Verbs imply action, and give is a relatively active verb. I would also refer you to the episode in which God confuses (I believe that is the term used, though I may be wrong) the Egyptians, and causes them to give over their wealth to the Israelites before they left. Plus, the term hardening is used so repetitiously that it seems to indicate God's direct action. Additionally the term "elect" and "those He chose" would imply that God does in fact elect His people, and if He does that, why should He not have the power to force action or deny the will of people being exercised?

[Redzeppelin]

I think that "gave" is a verb, is it not? Verbs imply action, and give is a relatively active verb. I would also refer you to the episode in which God confuses (I believe that is the term used, though I may be wrong) the Egyptians, and causes them to give over their wealth to the Israelites before they left. Plus, the term hardening is used so repetitiously that it seems to indicate God's direct action. Additionally the term "elect" and "those He chose" would imply that God does in fact elect His people, and if He does that, why should He not have the power to force action or deny the will of people being exercised?

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary lists 53 definitions for the word "give" - so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. I'm trying to make a linguistic point here about what the word "gave" implies in terms of God's action. "Give over" is defined as such: "to put into the care of; transfer." So, I would reply that God's "giving over" of those listed in Romans to their "unnatural passions" was less God doing something in the way of choosing what these people would serve and more of allowing them to be put into the care of the Devil due to their choices (cf. Paul's recommendation in I Corinthians about the man living in sexual immorality). Such behavior is passive action - He withdraws His care and allows them to be "given" completely to their passions without mitigating conviction from the Holy Spirit. I can't say for certain that that is what it means, but the point I'm making about "give" is that it doesn't imply necessarily here that God did anything that impeded the free choice of these individuals.

The frequency of the usage of "hardens" does not change what it means; C.S. Lewis said that Christ generally recieved one of three responses here on earth: 1) you worshipped him; 2) you were terrified of him; 3) you hated him. I believe that that's true, and I don't wonder if the conviction of the Holy Spirit on the human heart doesn't create the same responses in humans. The sun alternately hardens and softens different materials here on earth - perhaps the contents of our hearts create a similar interaction with the warmth of the Holy Spirit is applied.

[weepingforloman]

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary lists 53 definitions for the word "give" - so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. I'm trying to make a linguistic point here about what the word "gave" implies in terms of God's action. "Give over" is defined as such: "to put into the care of; transfer." So, I would reply that God's "giving over" of those listed in Romans to their "unnatural passions" was less God doing something in the way of choosing what these people would serve and more of allowing them to be put into the care of the Devil due to their choices (cf. Paul's recommendation in I Corinthians about the man living in sexual immorality). Such behavior is passive action - He withdraws His care and allows them to be "given" completely to their passions without mitigating conviction from the Holy Spirit. I can't say for certain that that is what it means, but the point I'm making about "give" is that it doesn't imply necessarily here that God did anything that impeded the free choice of these individuals.

The frequency of the usage of "hardens" does not change what it means; C.S. Lewis said that Christ generally recieved one of three responses here on earth: 1) you worshipped him; 2) you were terrified of him; 3) you hated him. I believe that that's true, and I don't wonder if the conviction of the Holy Spirit on the human heart doesn't create the same responses in humans. The sun alternately hardens and softens different materials here on earth - perhaps the contents of our hearts create a similar interaction with the warmth of the Holy Spirit is applied.

A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.

B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.

Grace and Peace.

[Redzeppelin]

A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.

The "restraint" is not active - He stops them from nothing - but He may be convicting them and dropping consequences into their lives to try and steer them away from the cliff they're heading pell-mell towards - but I do not believe He actively impedes our free will.

B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.

Grace and Peace.

Knowing how we will react to a certain situation does not mean He made us choose as we did. We still freely chose, and there is always the chance that we could choose otherwise.

[weepingforloman]

The "restraint" is not active - He stops them from nothing - but He may be convicting them and dropping consequences into their lives to try and steer them away from the cliff they're heading pell-mell towards - but I do not believe He actively impedes our free will.



Knowing how we will react to a certain situation does not mean He made us choose as we did. We still freely chose, and there is always the chance that we could choose otherwise.

Ah, now we reach the fundamental break. Calvinism for me, and I think you would feel comfortable describing yourself as Wesleyan or Arminian? I believe that man's will is always (in the present life, of course) disposed toward evil, and cannot overcome it. I believe that only God's active restraint prevents totality of sin. However, I do not argue that we freely choose to do evil, only that God at times chooses to restrain us. Calvin says we sin "of necessity, but not under compulsion." We will sin, this is inevitable. But God does not compel us to do so.

[kilted exile]

A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.

B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.

Grace and Peace.

See, this is where Calvin & you are on a slippery slope. If God restrains people sometimes, why not all the time - especially in the case of bad things happening to good people.