Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[studier]

What was utterly dumb was Kroog's attempt to romanticize slavery and downplay its seriousness

Sure, @Kroogz romanticized slavery & downplayed its seriousness. Trying to undo dumb with dumb is just dumber.

Also, your assumption that if a man chooses to "ask God" proves he has "freewill" involves circular reasoning; for it fails to take into account that God could have efficaciously enabled him to ASK!

It's not circular if he has alternate choices, which he does.

When you say "could have" aren't you also suggesting the alternative, that man could choose based upon his freewill to do so?

So, which is it, determinism or not? Are you softening?

I'm not including your out of context use of what Jesus said.

 

[Rufus]

I hope @GWH stills answers you even though I'm jumping in. I'm enjoying his work.

2 Now Moses called all Israel and said to them: "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land--3 "the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders. (Deut. 29:2-3 NKJ)

God did perform miracles in the way God desired to perform miracles.

To some of us God is doing things a certain way to address man's will and to educate him to what God wills because at minimum God desires men to willfully love/obey Him. And we know from Scripture that some did that even though not to the perfect degree God desires as He revealed in His perfect Son.

But, since you see God as the primary cause of man's rebellion, why don't you just rest there and stop all the rhetoric? Your election + compatibilism concept is well understood by some of us.

What's interesting here to me is that I could join you in the primary cause analogy if it weren't for the way you see it.

Your primary cause ties to your focus on God's hatred for men and your erroneous view of election that ties to it. Your view is really very simplistic.

When some of us look at primary cause it would be that in giving men signs and wonders God graciously gave them things to accept or reject - He addressed beyond their senses into their will and their hearts - the same as He did in the Garden.

This is similar to how Paul dealt with his later understanding of Law in Rom7 - how Law was revealing a problem inside of himself that God through Law was revealing to men about themselves

The fact is that there is a tension created in Scriptures like these. God revealed Himself in grace > some rejected Him > God withholds some grace > God tells them to repent and keep covenant. God is addressing their will.

The only weak link here is men who choose to reject. Your answer is God chose them to reject. Mine is they chose to reject, and I see God doing many things through history to get men to look deeper into both Him and themselves.

Your simplicity looks right past such things.

The tension is revealed both in very simple context and additionally in wording I've attempted to highlight that actually causes some of us to look even deeper into the context and see a bit more than a simple contrast that the people see but don't see.

Yes, God performed the outward miracles at THAT time, and those miracles were not very effective because if they had been, there would have been no need for Moses to write about what kind of miracles God also did NOT perform AT THAT TIME. God's miracles did not extend to the Hebrews' HEARTS -- only to their physical eyes and ears, which AGAIN -- had no effect on their rebellious, hostile, God-hating attitude.

And, yes, at the end of the day the unegenerate "freely" chose to be controlled by their sin nature -- they choose to sin because that is what God ordained for them to do, since the WAYS of all the sons of men are in God's hands. Pharaoh, clearly chose to be stubborn and obstinate and obtuse precisely because God removed restraining grace from him, which empowerd his sin nature to become more active. Ditto for Acts 4 wherein the Jews and Gentiles of Jesus' day did exaxtly what God had purposed and planned for them to do.

Tell me, Mr. Studier, do you even believe that God actively restrains evil in this world? Or in your heart of hearts are you really a DEIST?

 

[GWH]

Your reply "illustrates the [great] difficulty you have in exegeting and interpreting scripture in its context. Deut 30 contains the same kind of tension between the sovereignty of God and the the moral responsibility of man. You conveniently overlook the future promise of heart circumcision to the chosen people that would efficaciously enable them to love God and keep his commandments (v. 6). Yet, at the same time, this did not prevent Moses from reminding the people of their duty to love God and keep his commandments presently -- before the day of His circumcision arrives (v. 16). Therefore, this is yet another passage that clearly teaches what the commands of God really denote: And it's not man's moral/spiritual ability, but rather his sacred duty towards his Creator.

So...the "good news" of your perverted, twisted version of the gospel is that God's potential savior at once enbables all mankind that He supposedly is eager to save from perishing to believe and not believe! God speaks out of both sides of his mouth! Or is it you who does this!? YOU...who don't believe in the efficacy of God's grace still confess that His grace is efficacious since you say that God [EFFECTIVELY] gives people the ability to obey and not obey. Yet, at the same time, you have often denied the very efficacy of his grace which you now unwittingly propound -- totally oblivious to your own contradictions.

Well Ruf, you discussed well for a couple of posts, but reverting to ad hominem insults indicates that YOU are the eisegete,
so I will bid you happy trails for now. When you calm down and have another Scripture to discuss congenially, let me know.

 

[studier]

Tell me, Mr. Studier, do you even believe that God actively restrains evil in this world? Or in your heart of hearts are you really a DEIST?

Non sequitur and other fallacies. Not interested in the baiting techniques.

Sounds like you're back to God as primary cause choosing men to make them rebellious.

Dizzying.

 

[Rufus]

Sure, @Kroogz romanticized slavery & downplayed its seriousness. Trying to undo dumb with dumb is just dumber.



It's not circular if he has alternate choices, which he does.

When you say "could have" aren't you also suggesting the alternative, that man could choose based upon his freewill to do so?

So, which is it, determinism or not? Are you softening?

I'm not including your out of context use of what Jesus said.

Who has alternate choices? And when I say "could have", I'm speaking hypothetically, since you firmly believe that man is in total control of his own destiny. Your reasoning is circular because you have baked into your conclusion your premise.

And when Jesus told his disciples that they can do nothing apart from Him, it means they can bear NO GOOD FRUIT of any kind at any time, including the good fruit of their lips that confesses that "Jesus is Lord". They cannot even make this kind of heart-felt confession apart from the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). And your memory is still totally shot at your old age because you conveniently forget Jesus' reply to Peter's confession of faith (Mat 16:17). (For your info, Jesus did not give credit to Peter's "freewill"). Both these texts teach the efficacy of God's saving grace. God does not bring to the point of delivery only to shut the womb.

 

[Rufus]

Well Ruf, you discussed well for a couple of posts, but reverting to ad hominem insults indicates that YOU are the eisegete,
so I will bid you happy trails for now. When you calm down and have another Scripture to discuss congenially, let me know.

You live in a world of lies and self-contradiction, clearly proving the veractity of Jer 17:9! It's really sad that you cannot see this. God clearly has not given you eyes to see and ears to hear.... In order to exalt your god Volition, you denigrate the Holy Creator of the Universe and Redeemer of men by stating that he simultaneousl enables belief and unbelief -- even though at the same time He's not willing that any human being on this planet perish. Some god you have!

 

[Rufus]

It is ironic that Mag cites Scripture saying that souls are slaves to what they obey: sin or obedience,
which "OR" obviously indicates MFW.
Oops!

No irony. Man is either enslaved to his sin nature or of the new nature of which he has been qualified to partake in. Men, like their Creator, have always been free to act according to their nature -- not against their nature!

Maybe you want to answer the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23a to which your bud Studier was too embarrassed to publicly give a simple "yes" or "no" answer. What about it: Can Ethiopians change the color of their skin and the leopard this spots?

 

[Rufus]

Non sequitur and other fallacies. Not interested in the baiting techniques.

Sounds like you're back to God as primary cause choosing men to make them rebellious.

Dizzying.

Why can't you answer my question about the restraint of Evil in this Dark World? Does God actively restrain evil? Or are you a closet Deist and you're just too ashamed to admit it publicly?

 

[studier]

Who has alternate choices?

Man has alternate choices to choose or to reject God. So it's not circular reasoning to say man making a choice is evidence of freewill to do so.

And when I say "could have", I'm speaking hypothetically, since you firmly believe that man is in total control of his own destiny.

There is no hypothetical in your view so please don't attempt to accommodate me.

And you misstate my position.

Man is not in total control of his destiny and this is where we enter into the philosophical debate about free will. It's why some choose to speak of limited free will. It's also why I have explained that if I use the phrase freewill, it's within the context of the Bible and not in the absurdities of the philosophical debates.

So, God is in control of man's destiny and has determined that this will be based upon what man chooses, either rejection or acceptance of God on His terms.

Even if I agree with you that in a sense man is in control of his own destiny, and I'm happy to do so with anyone that doesn't have your baggage, it is on the basis just explained. But man is not free to restructure God's Plan for mankind.

Your attempts to assert what you want us to be believing are dumb and fallacious and seem to be about the only weapons in your limited arsenal.

Re: Jesus speaking to His disciples, let's keep discussions within their context. Are you trying to move the context of the above discussion into discipleship matters? It's part of your m.o. so I think it fair to ask.

 

[studier]

Why can't you answer my question about the restraint of Evil in this Dark World? Does God actively restrain evil? Or are you a closet Deist and you're just too ashamed to admit it publicly?

Diversion. Just shows you're loosing the argument at hand.

Not interested.

Also you should stop lying about previous discussions. It's really not a good thing to be functioning without shame.

 

[Rufus]

Man has alternate choices to choose or to reject God. So it's not circular reasoning to say man making a choice is evidence of freewill to do so.



There is no hypothetical in your view so please don't attempt to accommodate me.

And you misstate my position.

Man is not in total control of his destiny and this is where we enter into the philosophical debate about free will. It's why some choose to speak of limited free will. It's also why I have explained that if I use the phrase freewill, it's within the context of the Bible and not in the absurdities of the philosophical debates.

So, God is in control of man's destiny and has determined that this will be based upon what man chooses, either rejection or acceptance of God on His terms.

Even if I agree with you that in a sense man is in control of his own destiny, and I'm happy to do so with anyone that doesn't have your baggage, it is on the basis just explained. But man is not free to restructure God's Plan for mankind.

Your attempts to assert what you want us to be believing are dumb and fallacious and seem to be about the only weapons in your limited arsenal.

Re: Jesus speaking to His disciples, let's keep discussions within their context. Are you trying to move the context of the above discussion into discipleship matters? It's part of your m.o. so I think it fair to ask.

 

[Magenta]

I have explained that if I use the phrase freewill, it's within the context of the Bible and not in the absurdities of the philosophical debates.

Except there are no usages of the word freewill in the context of unregenerate man choosing to believe the gospel or not. That man is defined to be a slave to sin who does not seek after God and cannot understand or receive the spiritual things of God,.. nor can he submit to Gods law. He is not free to do so.

 

[Rufus]

Man has alternate choices to choose or to reject God. So it's not circular reasoning to say man making a choice is evidence of freewill to do so.

Wrong! The progeny of Adam LOST that freedom after he sinned. Adam clearly was capable and free to choose between good and evil. But subsequently, man's choices, like his Creator's, is restricted by his inherited, sinful nature. That's what Jer 13:23 is teaching, and the reason why you cannot give us a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question.

Also, your explanation of Jesus' statement to his disciples applies in principle to all men! If his own disciples could do no good thing or bear any good fruit apart from the power of Jesus, then what makes you think that the situation with unsaved sinners is different in order for them to become His disciples? Are unregenerate sinners better off than Christ's disciples, even though it's not possible for them to believe and confess Christ in their hearts apart from the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit? Don't unregenerate sinners themselves BEAR FRUIT for DEATH (Rom 7:5)? Now you're going to foist your perverse version of the gospel upon us and tell us that unregenerate sinners do not need the efficacious power of Christ in order to bear fruit for life?

There is no hypothetical in your view so please don't attempt to accommodate me.

Of course, there is because there is a viable alternative, BIBLICAL explanation for the commands in the bible (see Deut 29-30)!

And you misstate my position.

Man is not in total control of his destiny and this is where we enter into the philosophical debate about free will. It's why some choose to speak of limited free will. It's also why I have explained that if I use the phrase freewill, it's within the context of the Bible and not in the absurdities of the philosophical debates.

Hence, we come full circle back to Synergism, in which now you have man and God both in control of man's destiny? Which one has controlling share (power), pray tell: The opportunity maker or the opportunist who is smart enough, wise enough, good enough, pious enough to take advantage of the opportunity? Who makes the final, ultimate choice: God or man? If man, then how can God be in control of man's destiny, since He doesn't actually save anyone but only presents opportunities for people to save themselves. But even gets worse for man because mankind's ways are NOT in ourselves! Our ways are in God's hands! So much for your insipid Synergism... You keep ignoring the explicit statements of scripture that teach Monergism, so that you can read into your pet verses Synergism and tell us what they supposedly imply. Give me one explicit text of scripture that says that man is in control of his eternal destiny.

Tell me: Did God give Ishmael and Esau opportunities to enter into a personal covenant relationship with Him?

 

[GWH]

Except there are no usages of the word freewill in the context of unregenerate man choosing to believe the gospel or not. That man is defined to be a slave to sin who does not seek after God and cannot understand or receive the spiritual things of God,.. nor can he submit to Gods law. He is not free to do so.

On the contrary, discussions with y'all has prompted me to realize that
"IF" is the fulcrum of faith, the condition that makes sinners blameworthy
and God just for ordaining self-imposed punishment for sin,
so let us consider the implication of "IF".
For example, "IF they repent" implies that they may repent or not,
and "IF they seek" implies they are able to repent--unless God is being tricky!
IOW, IF implies MFW.

The TOP in Romans is that works are NOT meritorious!
Good works are fruit of the HS and motivated by faith/love for God (Eph. 2:8-10)!
Salvation cannot be merited/earned apart from God's grace,
which is why it is obtained "by faith from first to last" (Rom. 1:17).

IOW, we should not divorce faith that saves from faith that sanctifies.
A passage teaching this truth is Colossians 2:6-7: “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord [kerygma],
continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught [didache].”

There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion
and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (Eph. 2:8-10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17),
but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–
and faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

 

[Magenta]

But, since you see God as the primary cause of man's rebellion

Eh? Where is this???

 

[BillyBob]

For example, "IF they repent" implies that they may repent or not,
and "IF they seek" implies they are able to repent--unless God is being tricky!
IOW, IF implies MFW.

If they repent and if they seek does not imply anything, nor does it mean that God is being tricky. God did give them a choice through the prophet. But, they harden their hearts and would not listen. They were told over and over to trust in God, but refused to do so.
So I guess we should blame God for their disobedience! Are we the creature able to tell God that it is His fault that we cannot obey or should we instead be thankful when He enables us to obey?

 

[Magenta]

If they repent and if they seek does not imply anything, nor does it mean that God is being tricky. God did give them a choice through the prophet. But, they harden their hearts and would not listen. They were told over and over to trust in God, but refused to do so.
So I guess we should blame God for their disobedience! Are we the creature able to tell God that it is His fault that we cannot obey or should we instead be thankful when He enables us to obey?

I say all glory goes to God, but baked into the free will theology is their self-exalting vanity.

 

[GWH]

If they repent and if they seek does not imply anything, nor does it mean that God is being tricky. God did give them a choice through the prophet. But, they harden their hearts and would not listen. They were told over and over to trust in God, but refused to do so.
So I guess we should blame God for their disobedience! Are we the creature able to tell God that it is His fault that we cannot obey or should we instead be thankful when He enables us to obey?

You do not understand the meaning/implication of "if". Here is what I found online:

• Conditionality:
  "If" signifies that one event or state of affairs (the consequence) depends on another (the condition). For example, "If it rains, the game will be canceled."
  
  
• Hypothetical situations:
  "If" can introduce scenarios that are not currently true but are being considered as possibilities. For instance, "If I were rich, I would travel the world."
  
  
• Uncertainty:
  The use of "if" often implies some degree of uncertainty or doubt about whether the condition will actually be met.
  
  
• Implied negative:
  In many cases, using "if" implies a corresponding negative outcome if the condition is not met. Quora says if the condition is not met, the implied action might not occur. For example, "If the train is on time, I'll be there by 7." implies that if the train is not on time, the speaker may not arrive by 7.
  
  
• Logical implications:
  In logic and mathematics, "if" is often used to express a conditional statement, where the truth of one statement implies the truth of another.

 

[BillyBob]

Conditionality:
"If" signifies that one event or state of affairs (the consequence) depends on another (the condition). For example, "If it rains, the game will be canceled."

God proclaimed that (1) if they turned from their ways that (2) Then He would relent from His anger. That seems conditional to me. He is not to blame for their inability to do so.

 

[GWH]

God proclaimed that (1) if they turned from their ways that (2) Then He would relent from His anger. That seems conditional to me. He is not to blame for their inability to do so.

The "if" does indeed indicate a condition, and it also implies that they are able to satisfy that condition,
so God is indeed not to blame for their unwillingness to do so.