Free will as defined by the Bible

[Will Bum]

What does the Bible have to say about the free will of mankind? Obviously man cannot have total free will, nor can we be total robots...

Free will as defined by webster means to be able to make a choice based upon neither devine intervention or prior cause. The "prior cause" clause throws a twist in there, since as we grow older and have more experience, we base our choices upon those "prior causes."

Thoughts? Mud slingings? FUN!!! ;)

[Solly]

Intereseting thoughts Will; of course, Webster's definition is as much a philosophical statement as anything else though.
Re the title of the thread, the Bible does not "define" free will; and Christians disagree on what sort of free will is presupposed by it, so that using modern theological thought on the matter you either have completely causal free will (as in some varieties of determinism), or contra-causal free will (again, determinism lite, and some varieties of libertarianism). Then there are those who would say that prior causes are neither necessary nor sufficient, since if we can choose contrary to causes, then they don't matter (extreme libertarianism.

The first says 1) prior causes are necessary and sufficient to explain our choices, and 2) there is no "could have done differently" in those circumstances; the second says 1) there are necessary but not sufficient prior causes, sufficiency residing in the agent themself, and therefore 2) we could have done differently than we did. The third propounds complete volitional autonomy from causes, and we can do as we "want".

[themuzicman]

Maybe the best description of the conflict of free will that goes on internal to every man is Paul's writing in Romans 7:

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Paul clearly identifies himself with the renewed heart in him, yet recognizes that the sin (or sin nature) still within him is raging a battle for his will.

Now, if there was no free will, how could this battle rage?

Michael

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=266550#post266550)
Will Bum:

What does the Bible have to say about the free will of mankind? Obviously man cannot have total free will, nor can we be total robots...

Free will as defined by webster means to be able to make a choice based upon neither devine intervention or prior cause. The "prior cause" clause throws a twist in there, since as we grow older and have more experience, we base our choices upon those "prior causes."

Thoughts? Mud slingings? FUN!!! ;)

I think it would be important to consider that when you turn to Websters concerning theological terms, that right around 1900 they adopted virtually all definitions from the "Christian Science" school. Thus, they no longer have historic theological definitions and meanings.

If you look at Websters 1828 on "freewill" you get this:

FREEWILL', n.

1. The power of directing our own actions without restraint by necessity or fate.

2. Voluntariness; spontaneousness.

[TedO]

Don't you be dissin my authority man, you gotta read the r00lz like a good boy, cos I don't want no jawing going on in here, y'dig.:whack:

[themuzicman]

Now you two just haul outta my forum before I get re-e-e-eal mad. Y'hear. Go talk some place else!!

[TedO]

I hate 101...oops I did it again.

[Solly]

let you off this time Ted, but I'll be watching you

[JardinPrayer]

My contribution is to submit a small sidebar. I've got a sub-forum here at TWeb connected with my online ministry. I recently wrote a piece about free will and created a (hopefully) non-debate, discussion thread to accompany it. You can view it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=260700#post260700).

[TedO]

:egad: :innocent:

[Leroy]

Today @ 12:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=266550#post266550)
Will Bum:

What does the Bible have to say about the free will of mankind? Obviously man cannot have total free will, nor can we be total robots...




Will Bum,

the Bible says that we all have "free will" but a more appropriate question would be when did we use our "free will" and it ended in our spiritual death, the end of our will. The Bible says the we are dead in our transgressions, I think that means spiritual death, the first time we used our "free will" for anything but the will of the Father we died, and that is the length and breadth of our "free will"

[geebob]

What does the Bible have to say about the free will of mankind?

It doesn't really define "free will". The term shows up only once I believe somewhere in the law and it is in regards to the "free will offering." There is also freedom in Christ, but I don't know quite how to fit it in with what I am thinking of in terms of free will. But that does not devalue free will nor does it mean that free will theists don't have an understanding and have an important place in their view for the scriptural notion of the freedom that comes from Christ.

I don't always expect scripture to have all of our theological concepts spelled out crystal clear. But that does not mean that the concepts are not found in scripture. There is something that many philosophers and theologians and even laymen have noticed and they call it free will. So a more pertinent question may be "can we find this notion in scripture" and "what does scripture tell us about it.

I'll start out with two definitions which I as a free will theist insist upon. First there's the long precise one, then I'll give a simple one just for clarity.

If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.

(Taken from Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings by Peterson et al. pg. 267)

To put it simply, freedom means the power to do otherwise. It's the unmitigated power to do otherwise. It might be the case that God has to give us this power or make it possible, but once that is the case, then it is absolutely true that we may choose one thing and we may choose something else. This version of free will is specifically called libertarian free will and it is incompatible with determinism and it is arguably incompatible with exhaustive definite foreknowledge (which is something that we do argue about here at this forum).

We sort of see this in the free will offering as a free will offering is something that you do not have to give.

Now detaching ourselves from the explicit usage of the term "free will," we can still find other stronger cases of libertarian free will. Two examples are from Deuteronomy 30:11-16 and I Corinthians 10:13. I tend to think that I Corinthians 10:13 is the strongest indicator of libertarian free will.

13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

So if a Christian sins, then it had to be the case that he could have avoided sin. If this wasn't the case, then God was not faithful to make a way out, for a way out that can't be taken is not really a way out. So if before you sin, your sin was a part of a future that was exhaustively ordained and determined by God, then there was no way for you to keep from sinning because there is no way to do other than what God has ordained.


Obviously man cannot have total free will,

Well libertarians don't have to commit themselves to the notion that we are free all the time or that we have freedom to do absolutely anything that can be concieved, but given the definition of freedom above, I don't see the problem in saying that we do indeed have that freedom totally. either you can choose amongst any of several options in your life or you can't. We can thus we totally have freedom.


The "prior cause" clause throws a twist in there, since as we grow older and have more experience, we base our choices upon those "prior causes."

our experience doesn't necessarily negate our freedom. Just because we choose on the basis of our experience doesn't mean that we do so necessarily. Experiences and reason may shift the chance that we will choose one way or another, but so long as it doesn't shift those chances towards certainty, they do not negate free will.

[bar Jonah]

Ezekiel 18:26-27
"But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

"Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not fair.' Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
The Lord says ... if you do X, He will do one thing. If you do Y, then He will do another. The choice is ours.

If... if... IF... It has no meaning if we have no free will.

[geebob]

It could still have meaning. But it may not have relevence.

[mrpluvid]

What does the Bible have to say about the free will of mankind? Obviously man cannot have total free will, nor can we be total robots...


the bible may explicitly state that man does have free will, but implicit is that there is a sort of higher level will being the will of god, which encompasses all. (one could call this fate, or whatnot) In this way free will is contradictory with this will of god.

the stronger argument on free will is that humans are mechanisms, built out of atoms, and hence have to follow a deterministic formal system, making them devoid of free will.
it is clear that we "feel" like we have free will, but this could very well be an illusion generated by the fact that we are able to have meta-thoughts, ie thoughts ABOUT thoughts.

it is a foolish assertion to say that man can "obviously" not have free will, nor be robots, since humans can be made with the same basic fabric as can robots, and hence could be considered as (highly evolved) machines, equiped with a system generating an illusion of free will.

another possibility is that god created it all without knowing too well what he was doing and gave humans free will (supposedely like his own) so that they would stand up against him eventually.
i believe the robot-hypothesis makes more sense ^-^

[bar Jonah]

mrpluvid:
the stronger argument on free will is that humans are mechanisms, built out of atoms, and hence have to follow a deterministic formal system, making them devoid of free will.
it is clear that we "feel" like we have free will, but this could very well be an illusion generated by the fact that we are able to have meta-thoughts, ie thoughts ABOUT thoughts.

it is a foolish assertion to say that man can "obviously" not have free will, nor be robots, since humans can be made with the same basic fabric as can robots, and hence could be considered as (highly evolved) machines, equiped with a system generating an illusion of free will.
Utter nihilism. Nothing we do matters, because it's only an illusion that we're responsible for what we do. With this argument, I can rationalize anything I wish. Hitler was only doing what he was "programmed" to do, no choice at all.

The only rational belief system under this umbrella is idealistic (philosophical) Satanism.

World full of Ted Bundy's, here we come.

Ba-a-a-ad moderator

[mickiel]

It is not a God given reality. It is mans declairation of independance from God. The human spiritual mind that clings to belief in free will, clings to selfishness and misunderstanding. This is free will; having no limitations in your thinking. The ability to decide for yourselves. Having no bounds or rules, no physical or moral restraints. One must be exempt from subjection to the will of others. It is having pure mental self control. Yours is the opition, yours is the discretion, yours is the command. Their is no one on this earth that has this, NOR IN HEAVEN. The human will of self is so strong and deluted, it thinks itself a god. We think we have Godly priviledges. This is the mentality of satan the evil one. He seeks to gather humans to himself, to believe his hidden theology.

He has managed to surpress whole religons into his patholoy, his way of thinking. These religons are teaching his philosophy, trying to pass it off as Gods. Instead of using the bible verses, which many cannot see, i choose rather to use websters dictionary, perhaps they can see physical education as a means to the truth.

[rhutchin]

11-01-2003 @ 06:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=267862#post267862)
RightIdea:

Ezekiel 18:26-27


"Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not fair.' Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
The Lord says ... if you do X, He will do one thing. If you do Y, then He will do another. The choice is ours.

If... if... IF... It has no meaning if we have no free will.

This seems to describe one side of the equation.

1. We need to factor in a person's desire. What if sin has so corrupted a person that he has no desire to turn away from his sin. Does not love for sin (or anything) influence one's choices on issues related to that sin?

2. What about the knowledge of the individual. A person with greater information about a situation will make a different decision than one with less information.

3. In the same sense as above, what about outside influence. Paul says that those headed for destruction have been blinded by Satan. A Blind man can have "free" will but he will make different decisions than a man who can see. God met Saul on the road to Damascus. Whatever Paul did afterward, he could not be the same man as before that encounter and he would decide differently on the same issues (as is obvious from his behavior before and after that encounter).

I heard that Martin Lurther said that free will was a lie. He might be right.

[semmie]

11-04-2003 @ 06:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271685#post271685)
mickiel:
This is free will; having no limitations in your thinking. The ability to decide for yourselves. Having no bounds or rules, no physical or moral restraints. One must be exempt from subjection to the will of others. It is having pure mental self control. Yours is the opition, yours is the discretion, yours is the command. Their is no one on this earth that has this, NOR IN HEAVEN. The human will of self is so strong and deluted, it thinks itself a god. We think we have Godly priviledges. This is the mentality of satan the evil one. He seeks to gather humans to himself, to believe his hidden theology.

hey mickiel, where did you find this definition of free will? i don't think free will implies zero limitation.

i heard the president of youth for christ in my town use the analogy once of a goldfish.

consider a goldfish in an aquarium. that goldfish has no choice about the fact that it's in the aquarium. it has no choice regarding the color of pebbles their owner puts in the tank. it has no choice regarding whether it lives alone or with other fish. it can do nothing to change its surroundings. that is outside the fish's control. what IS in the fish's control, is where it swims. if there is plastic seaweed in the tank and the fish takes personal pleasure in swimming through it--no one is stopping him; no one is forcing him. if the fish wants to swim in circles for hours on end--no one is stopping him; no one is forcing him. the only determining factor is the walls of the aquarium. the fish cannot swim beyond them, no matter how hard he wills, no matter how badly he desires to. if he jumps out of the aquarium, thereby defying what was originally outside of his control, he dies.

of course every analogy is going to fall short when we are trying to explain the nature of god and how we relate to him. but i think this analogy makes a few good points.

#1: free will never implies that we have options other than what god gives us. (today i set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. now choose life...)

#2: having determined boundaries does not lessen our ability to act of our own will (whether based on desire, experience, or will).

#3: if we should choose to step outside of given boundaries, we can expect death. boundaries are placed for our good and for god's glory; not for control.

also, i would say that having free will doesn't equate an "i wanna be god" mentality. remember that we were created in his image? we were created in the very likeness of god. that doesn't mean we can be as he is. but that does mean we share some of his qualities and characteristics. god created. man has the ability to create, also (though man cannot get something from nothing): music, literature, art, etc. god is loving. man has the ability to love, also (though man cannot seem to love as purely and wholely and definitely as god does): friends, family, spouses, strangers, etc. god is just. god put men in positions of mainaining justice (though man cannot ever see things from an eternal, perfect perspective, so we are bound to screw up from time to time): rulers, judges, kings, authorities, presidents, etc. why, then, can't we say that a god who possesses a free will to act in whatever manner he deems has not granted us some degree of that part of his charcater?

so yeah. those are my $0.02 worth.

peace,
~sarah

[Sheepdog]

11-06-2003 @ 08:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=273063#post273063)
rhutchin:

This seems to describe one side of the equation.

1. We need to factor in a person's desire. What if sin has so corrupted a person that he has no desire to turn away from his sin. Does not love for sin (or anything) influence one's choices on issues related to that sin?

the libertarian interpretation of Total Depravity allows for that. the difference isn't so much that we cannot choose to do "good" (as in the eyes of men), but inability to please God (even the "good" deeds of the unregenerate are tainted with sinful motives). however, there is a difference between having a influenced choice and having no choice at all.


2. What about the knowledge of the individul. A person with greater information about a situation will make a difaferent decision than one with less information.

granted. however, i doubt you'll find an adherent to free will that doesn't recognize that there are real limitations on choice.


3. In the same sense as above, what about outside influence. Paul says that those headed for destruction have been blinded by Satan. A Blind man can have "free" will but he will make different decisions than a man who can see. God met Saul on the road to Damascus. Whatever Paul did afterward, he could not be the same man as before that encounter and he would decide differently on the same issues (as is obvious from his behavior before and after that encounter).

first, Paul is a special case. second, nothing you said here discounts a true free will, because we recognize that there are limitations and influences on one's will... we just don't believe that those influences are determinative.


I heard that Martin Lurther said that free will was a lie. He might be right.

eh. Luther said a lot of things. this isn't relevant, but did you know he wanted James removed form the Bible?

[Sheepdog]

the problem with trying to make a Biblical theology on free will is, it isn't well defined in the Bible. in fact, the best we can do is infer free will from what certain passages seem to imply. this has allowed for a lot of wiggle-room in one's view of free will vs. determinism.

i believe the best case is John 15:1-8; specifically, note verse 4: "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me." Here Jesus is talking to the disciples, though obviously it applies to anyone. Notice, however, Jesus doesn't say that you will abide in Him, nor that, "the elect shall abide in me." No, it is given as a command, as though it were in one's power to disobey. If we were elected despite our choice in the matter, what do we make of this verse? I believe that any form of determinism (including compatibilism i'd argue, as it is merely determinism posturing in libertarian language) renders Jesus' command pointless and irrelevant. instead, it makes perfect sense if one assumes that we have the capability to choose otherwise.

[Alukard]

If the traditional Reformed notion of man being totally dead in sin and incapable of doing anything good, and totally enslaved to sin and corruption so that free will is destroyed is true, then why does Satan have to blind anyone's eyes? Calvinist's often like to say that we are corpses when it comes to spiritual things, yet the last time I checked a corpse didn't need to be blinded since he couldn't see anything anyways. Seems pretty contradictory to me!