does free will exist prior to God's drawing?

[Sheepdog]

this has been an idea that i have been tossing around in my mind, but haven't really decided conclusively if there is merit to it. what i am conjecturing is this: One does not have free will, in the strict libertarian sense, prior to God's previent grace working in one's life. only when God has drawn you can you make a truly self-determined choice. i think both on theo/philosophical grounds and biblical grounds, there might be merit to this (but also a potential downside).

first, what does the Bible say? in explaining his comments on truth setting one free, Jesus said this: Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." John 8:34. Likewise, we see the "lost are slaves to sin" motif in Romans: Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. vv. 6:16-18. Now caution must be expressed in how we interpret this, as trying to package dynamic Bible passages into rigid theological concepts often leads to misunderstandings of what the passage is trying to say. Nevertheless, the jist of these passages is that those living in sin are under sin's control-- they cannot choose to do good because as slaves they cannot (of themselves) escape the whip of their slavemaster, Sin.

On the philosophical / theological front, we see that taking libertarian free will as universal without qualification is perilous. Namely, if a nonbeliever is totally free of outside determinative influences, then it is possible that he, apart from God, can actually do that which is Holy. Folks, this is pelagianism, a heresy condemnded by early Christianity. Since neither Calvinism nor Arminian believe it is possible for man to do that which is pleasing to God withough God, we must reject such a sweeping application of Libertarian Free Will.

Now, this doesn't mean that LFW is, as a whole, false. Rather, what i am proposing from an Arminian standpoint is that one can make a LFW choice only if God had already granted His grace to that person. Hence pre-converts and Christians have free will.

From this standpoint, some pros and cons come to mind for the Arminian's stance.

First off, it renders irrelevant the whole Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty objection. It is not uncommon for a Calvinist to caracaturize LFW as making God sit back, being unable to control His creation. To the contrary, it is only because of God that LFW could ever actually exist. Hence LFW doesn't destroy God's sovereignty, LFW would actually be established by His Sovereign Will.

Second, this could make a good point of diplomacy between Calvinists and Arminians. Without sounding like i am comprimising, this position would actually agree with the compatibilist (or even determinist) standpoint in the context of the sinner not drawn. It is not a real compromise, however, as Calvinists continue to apply compatibilism/determinism to the Christian as well.

Of course, a downside can be anticipated. Suddenly, the moral responsibility dilehma that Arminianism happens to resolve actually returns. If the nonbeliever is not responsible for his own actions, how can he rightfully be held responsible? However, if we take the most literal interpretation of John 12:32 (that God's previent grace extents to each and every individual), then moral responsibility can be justly placed on the nonbeliever, as every single one of them has had a real chance to repent.

so, anyone have any thoughts on this? questions? comments? a pitchfork and a torch?

[Sovereignishe]

My First post....

Some thoughts/question... Just breaking the ice... I found your post very interesting...

Where does the fall of man come into play in all of what you posted? Is its role assumed, or is it non-existent in regards to influence.

Given that sovereignty is an extreme term, how does it not lose some luster so to speak being placed against man’s free will in regards to them co-existing? Looking for something beyond God’s granting of free will falling under Him being sovereign. Sovereign being; One that exercises supreme, permanent authority...

Regarding previent grace which I understand to be; grace which goes before or precedes salvation. If salvation is the point of God granting it to all men, and it's agreed that all man aren't saved what is the basis for some finding Christ and others not. If one says man, how does that not render God to being at best a possible influence which means that salvation becomes somewhat a concept of the law of averages(Of course this concept would seem to ignore the influence of the fall on man...) If it be God you have the issue of Him working salvation through some, yet not all...

Regarding, "how can he(man) rightfully be held responsible..."

Creation alone renders man without excuse, the idea that God is under some obligation to present the choice of salvation isn't there... This would equate to the all the soil being fertile and the preaching of Christ crucified being the power and wisdom of God to everyone, not to those called…


Johnny
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

[JCA]

Hi SheepDog.. I have one question, and it might help me formulate a better answer..

Was Adam 'drawn' to God? I only ask because Adam seems to be the first that we see exercising Free Will by not directly obeying Gods instruction. For me, this is the first sign that we have a 'will' of our own.. otherwise, yes, I'm going to ask you why God made Adam listen to Eve..

If you think Adam was 'drawn', then my question would be: How does one who is apparently 'drawn' to God, disobey when they know God? What I mean by that is, I can see people today falling away from lack of faith etc.. but Adam KNEW God.. and so, it makes even less understanding to me to think he would make such a mistake.

Just my first thoughts though..

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[Theolog]

Free will is a dream. Free will in election only belongs to God. If mankind did have free will that is if it existed he would never will to choose the real God, like Adam who actually knew God and preferred sin. Adam had volition but not free will. Like us, Adam didn’t want to know God he wanted to be God.



Liberation is abandonment of a phenomenal center and the only practice, all else is bondage.

[mickiel]

God created and complettely controls all life, and he gives each life a limited area to think within. Gods area is unlimited, therefore unrestrained by any limitations, which is the definition of free will. He cannot be influenced by anything he created. Mankind is directly oppisite of this existance. Men have limited thinking, limited understanding, limited power, we are influenced directly by God, we are in submission to him, we must do as he says, we are restrained by him, and controlled by him. Yet , amazeingly, some hold to belief in free will like a baby holds to a bottle. It is one of the most dumfounded beliefs i have ever examined.

[geebob]

Many Philosophers have developed a view of free will apart from theological considerations on empirical and rational grounds.

In your post, you are assuming that all free will decisions are moral decisions. There is little reason to assume that this is true even though moral decisions also play an important role in promoting free will.

Now I could have a free choice between sugar cream pie and white chocolate icecreme. Does God need to draw me one way or the other? Such a notion is absurd.

As far as morality is concerned, most free will theists would agree with you that we cannot choose God apart from grace, but you are making an assumption here that you need not make (or at least it appears this way to me). You are assuming that this is only an issue of salvation and not of moral choices before hand. Many Christians think that before recieving Christ, we are only wicked and depraved. This is not so. Recall that in the old testament, all under the law were dead. As Hebrews 11 points out, many of the old testament saints did not recieve what they expected but now, they would be perfected with us in Christ. Were they all absolutely depraved? not at all. David was a man after God's own heart. Melchezidek was a model of the perfect priest. Job was the most righteous man on Earth. And so what if they all had their flaws. They often did the right thing.

But does that mean that they did it on their own? Rather, God gave to them a form of grace sufficient for them to please Him.

Ass for your slavery verses, just like death, slavery is a metaphore and to read it as absolute determinism for wickedness is to force it into a meaning that is not demanded by it's metaphorical nature (or even it's literal meaning for that matter).

[Sheepdog]

drat. i don't have the time now to participate in this thread as a want. so, i'll respond to you folks as need be, soon (hopefully)

[Theolog]

Being as how this is a theology forum I assume that the topic of “free will” is concerning as how it relates to theology.

As far as I can see “free will” in the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate is focused on “ELECTION”.

“Free will in election” has nothing to do whether or not you choose or do not choose sugar in your coffee.

The poor feeble minded Arminian, blinded by his hopelessly lost humanistic bias, prefers to turn the debate from the idea of “free will in election” to “free will in general”.

Of course this slight of hand creates fertile, yet muddled ground for the mindless Arminian to babble about the grandiose and idiotic humanism they love so much.

The theological idea of “Gods elect” does not require great intellect to understand. God chooses.

In my very gracious and exceedingly humble opinion anyone that does not understand that it is Gods choice that determines mans position is clearly lost.

The Bible is very clear on who has “free will in election”


1 Corinthians 1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

29 so that no one may boast before him.

30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

[geebob]

Being as how this is a theology forum I assume that the topic of “free will” is concerning as how it relates to theology.

yes, but issues outside of the normal scope of theology often have implications for theology.

As far as I can see “free will” in the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate is focused on “ELECTION”.

“Free will in election” has nothing to do whether or not you choose or do not choose sugar in your coffee.

the question was whether we had free will prior to what some view as the predestined moment of salvation. (I don't think such moments are predestined).

The poor feeble minded Arminian, blinded by his hopelessly lost humanistic bias

it's absurd to do theology apart from considering our humanity, especially since God created us.

In fact, considering humanity is no less an important issue fortheological determinists.

Arminian to babble about the grandiose and idiotic humanism they love so much.

God loves humans and so should you. Jesus said so. Do what Jesus says.

In my very gracious and exceedingly humble opinion anyone that does not understand that it is Gods choice that determines mans position is clearly lost.

so much for the first 300 years of church history. That's real humble to damn the first great church fathers and no doubt most of the laity. That is of course assuming that you are damning all free will theists.

This is of course the venom and the poison that is infects too many calvinists (but not all calvinists of course) that think God has given them authority to split the church. But to the likes such as them, Jesus said "I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." (rev 3:9)

Of course even I could say exactly what you just said in full honesty although I wouldn't mean the same thing that you do. There is no free will in election. God choose that his people would be a people of faith and that is choice had nothing to do with what we want. Was it your free choice that God should recognize his elect by those who had faith? Well it wasn't mine. No it was God's idea alone. Which of course isn't to say that we can choose to have faith.

The Bible is very clear on who has “free will in election”

The bible is not so clear to those who arrogantly think that the last word on Biblical interpretation is their prima facia reading. It isn't so clear to those who in essence say to God "no thank you Lord, I don't need the historical insights, I don't need the corporate interpretation of the church, the gifts of understanding, all of these which you have made available to the church. Just set me in front of a bible and anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is a liar because all of scripture was written to me theolog in the 20th century.

1 Corinthians 1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

29 so that no one may boast before him.

30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

And every word of it is true. Of course it doesn't imply individualistic predestination. Even Calvinists don't view predestination on the basis of how weak or "foolish" people are. And Paul wasn't saying that they were all like that anyway. He said "not many." Here we learn that they were choosen for a purpose, to shame the wise and the strong. That does not amount to an eternal destiny nor predestination prior to creation.

And yes it is ultimately because of God that anyone is in Christ.

[Theolog]

The issue is still Free will in election and not free will in general.

The elect of God are still chosen by God.

Yes, you are right that it is faith that we need to bee saved but it is how we get faith is where we differ.

You believe that our faith has its origin in mans will, I believe that like our righteousness our faith has it’s origin in Christ’s will and is imputed to us.

If mans faith originated in man then man would indeed have something to boast about because his faith itself would have to be considered righteous and then man would have no need for Christ’s righteousness.

[geebob]

The issue is still Free will in election and not free will in general.

That's not how I interpret sheepdog. If he disagrees with my approach to the question then he can address it.

As topic poster, he also has good degree of say in how close to the topic we have to stay.

If mans faith originated in man then man would indeed have something to boast about

Seems to me from the context of the passage you just quoted, we don't have room to boast in our Christianity because God choose some fairly undignified folks, even outcastes, to represent it to the world.

And furthermore, he gets all the credit. My small degree of undetermined participation cannot compete with the magnitude of the grace of the Father, the Gravity of the cross, nor the wooing of the Spirit. To say that my cooperation eclipses those and gives me the credit is to demean each of those actions of God.

[themuzicman]

LFW exists. However, man cannot discover God without God revealing Himself to man.

Thus, the hurdle isn't free will per se, but man's limited knowledge of God.

Michael

[Sovereignishe]

Today @ 12:55 PM post located here
themuzicman:

LFW exists. However, man cannot discover God without God revealing Himself to man.

Thus, the hurdle isn't free will per se, but man's limited knowledge of God.

Michael

What about the hurdle of God not being revealed in a efficacious manner to everyone?


Johnny
Matthew 11: 27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

[themuzicman]

Well, who does God desire to come to a saving knowledge of Him?

It would seem to me that the Son would reveal the Father to all who seek Him.

Michael

[Sovereignishe]

Yesterday @ 08:26 PM post located here
themuzicman:

Well, who does God desire to come to a saving knowledge of Him?

It would seem to me that the Son would reveal the Father to all who seek Him.

Michael

Wouldn't those be the ones given to the Son by the Father....

Is the ability or for that matter the want to seek God in such a manner inherently in man?

Johnny