Great opening post 🙁. I would have liked some elaboration, but since none is available, allow me to elaborate for you.
Free will was never a construct of Christianity. The concept of free will is historically traceable to what we know of today as the "age of Enlightenment" (18th century America, 17th century Europe - particularly the result of the free-thinking Scots). It was people moving away from the God-cenred, God focused belief to a belief in personal destiny and personal choice.
Before the time that we know as the Age of Enlightenment, there was no concept of free will. God was in complete control of our lives and our destiny. Then people started to postulate: "what if we are in control of our own lives and our own destiny"? Thus came the birth of free will.
Since that date, Christians have latched onto free will as a reason for our life on earth. It does make a certain level of sense, after all. We are here on earth because God didn't want robots to follow him without choice. What many CHristians fail to realise however, is that free will is a non-existent concept in the Bible. Indeed, there are many passages where a person had no choice in the matter (1 Peter 2, and ROmans 9 are the most obvious - the Romans passage moreso).
I used to believe in free will until i did a detailed study on the subject, when I was forced to change my biblical belief in this concept.
So to conclude, there is absolutely nothing biblical about free will, and it never was a Christian concept or myth. I guess I should note something about the illusion of free will being almost as powerful as free will itself, but I'm too tired to go into that discussion right now (4am here, lol).
So good night folks, I bid you all Merry Christmas.
Luke 4
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Romans 8
[21] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
2 Corinthians 3
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Galatians 2
4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal.5
[1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
[13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidfree will has always been there, adam and eve practiced free will when they ate from that tree.
Great opening post 🙁. I would have liked some elaboration, but since none is available, allow me to elaborate for you.
Free will was never a construct of Christianity. The concept of free will is historically traceable to what we know of today as the "age of Enlightenment" (18th century America, 17th century Europe - particularly the result o ...[text shortened]... scussion right now (4am here, lol).
So good night folks, I bid you all Merry Christmas.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenombut it is not a myth created by Christians, it has always existed. i can do w/e i possibly can right now, and so could the first humans on earth.
free will has always been there, adam and eve practiced free will when they ate from that tree.
Since we seem to be laying the bible verses down thick and fast, I thought I'd post a little dissection of Romans 9 for you to read "😉 that I made on another forum a while back.
.................................
1 Peter 2:8 is the single most obvious verse, where it states of non-Christians - "They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."
But if you want the best exposition of such a topic, Romans 9 is a great passage. Paul answers many questions that a Christian can't logically ignore simply because they believe in freewill.
Freewill is a fairly recent concept, historically speaking. Since then, Christians have latched onto freewill as a reason for our existence here on earth. Before this time, the idea of freewill was never an issue.
Now, an extensive Bible Study on Romans 9. For non-Christians here, I apologize for this Bible quoting - normally I don't like doing such, so feel free to ignore me. But put it this way, you can use it as amunition against us "believers":
Romans 9 *picking up from verse 10*
10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Paul starts in vers 10 by appealing to the Old Testament story of Esau and Jacob. Esau lost his birthright to Jacob, even though he was the rightful heir. Paul states clearly in verse 11 - before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works..... I can't see it getting any clearer than that. God's purpose of election in choosing one over the other, not because of anything they had done, indeed before they were born this was chosen. This should end the debate, but the rest of this chapter provides great insight also......
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Paul uses the old Testament example of Pharaoh, when the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and it's concerning Pharaoh's hardened heart. Paul continues, quoting Exodus 33 in stating "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy". He repeats this in various wording in this section multiple times. And in verse 17, again talking of Pharaoh - I (God) raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power..... Does this sound like Pharaoh had a choice in the matter? Not to me, especially when Exodus notes that Pharaoh was about to let the Israelites go, except for God's intervention in hardening Pharaoh's heart. And next is where the passage gets really interesting on the debate....
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Paul specifically addresses the argument that many today use "if God made me like this, how can God still blame me for my actions". And the simple answer Paul gives - who are you to talk back to God. God, the King, the creator. You can't understand GOd. he's too big for you, you're just a human. It's not an answer a lot of people like. It's not exactly an ideal answer, but it's the answer Paul gives. Paul then uses an analogy that any in the day could understand - the potter can make grand pots or common use pots. A decorative vase, or a chamber pot for example. The pot has no say in the matter - it's all up to the creator of the pot. Moving on......
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
And I'll end the exposition here after these verses (the rest of the chapter is interesting, but this is the climax of the passage, as I can see). Paul theorizes why people are actually created for destruction. What if God created these "objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction" to show those he created the riches of his glory, whom he "also prepared in advance for glory".
I at one stage believed in freewill also, but after studying the passages, found that it is just not compatible with scripture. But does that give me the right to sin because I'll just be doing what God prepared for me to do? By no means. In addition to this chapter saying I'll still be held accountable, read Romans 6 (hell, read the whole book of Romans. It'll give you a good outline for the entire CHristian Faith).
From our perspective, we do not know God's ultimate plan. What we do is very much our own choice (at least it feels like it). Therefore, what you do, you have no excuse for. We do not have "free will", but as Australian theologian Al Stewart describes it, we instead have "real will".
I am of course not adverse to you giving me your own opininon of Romans 9. In itself, it shows me without a doubt the absence of free will. But if you think it's saying something else, I'm all ears. Your thoughts on the passage would be most interesting to hear. Or if you just want to ask for clarification on any particular point in my post, then feel free also to ask away.
~ PA
We have free will.
In response to the Bible passages about supposedly saying there is no free will, I'd like to elaborate on those.
Before I do, remember that people defended slavery with qoutes on the Bible.
To start off, someone referenced 1 Peter 2:8 by questioning the word destiny in the verse. - "They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."
The person who referenced 1 Peter 2:8 left out the first part of the verse so the verse should read
"and "A stone that will make people stumble and a rock that will make them fall." They [the unbelievers] stumble by disobeying the word as is their destiny.""
Here destiny has nothing to do with free will. Free will means we can make decision of our own accord but that doesn't stop someone else from affecting us. In this case the author is saying that Jesus will be a stumbling block to non-believers.
If you put your hand on a hot coal, you will get burned. You don't decide if you will get burned or not. In the same way non-believers will stumble whether they want to or not. Free will is a choice, not a result although by our willed actions we try to attain a certain result.
Here the author is saying that to unbelievers Jesus is an obstacle.
As for Romans 9, the passage certianly seems to give the impression of that God does whatever he wants and too bad for the recipients.
In Romans 9, the author recants in Romans 9:13 I loved Jacob but hated Esau.
In translation, in Semitic usage, the word "hate" can mean "to love less." Basically what is being said is that mere natural descent from Abraham does not mean you will be bestowed with divine gifts but that it is God's sovereign prerogative to bestow or withold from anyone he wishes. A way to think about this is to understand that every human being is different. Some of us are better at chess than others because we pick it up faster while it takes others much longer to learn. We all have different abilities. It is not that God loves the grandmaster more than the 1200 rated player but that he has different plans for us. What is important to understand is that we decide if we want to follow God's plan or not.
Ultimately, we decide if we are going to follow his plans. We make a decision. Jesus prayed to God in the garden of Gethsemane Matthew 26:39 where he prays to God saying "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will but as you will."
Jesus did not want to die on the cross and he had numerous chances to back out but he chose to follow God's plan out of his own free will.
In the Gospel of Mark chapter 10 a rich man asks Jesus about how to inherit eternal life and after Jesus tells him the rich man walks away. The rich man had the opportunity to follow Jesus but chose not to.
As for the Pharoh, below is a website that has an article regarding this intricate matter. The article also talks about a couple key translations.
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1165
Romans 9 talks about God's free choice. Although Paul does not display God as arbitrary (Romans 9:15 - I will show mercy on whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will."😉
The directions on divine election are part of the Gospel and show that the gift of faith is the enactment of God's will. God chose Moses, who considered himself a poor speaker, to speak for the Israelites. God has Moses as an example of mercy and the Pharoh as an example of someone who obstinately opposses God despite several chances to back off.
Sorry for the long post but this is an important issue.
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
As for Romans 9, the passage certianly seems to give the impression of that God does whatever he wants and too bad for the recipients.
Not exactly. It does show that God is in control of all things, including the choices we made. Jacob was chosen over Esau, not because of anything either of them had done (or would do) but simply because God decided that this would be the case - so that God's "purpose of election" might continue.
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
In Romans 9, the author recants in Romans 9:13 I loved Jacob but hated Esau.
In translation, in Semitic usage, the word "hate" can mean "to love less."
I'd agree with this. If you look to Genesis 34 also, you'll notice exactly how successful Esau has been in life, as a direct result of the blessings of God, despite the fact that the Bible says God "hated" him. He was hardly a reviled individual.
That aside, I'm not sure I see the importance of the translation of this word has to a debate on free will, but thanks for the information anyway.
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Romans 9 talks about God's free choice. Although Paul does not display God as arbitrary (Romans 9:15 - I will show mercy on whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will."😉
The directions on divine election are part of the Gospel and show that the gift of faith is the enactment of God's will. God chose Moses, who considered himself a poor speaker, to speak for the Israelites. God has Moses as an example of mercy and the Pharoh as an example of someone who obstinately opposses God despite several chances to back off.
Exactly. God's choice, not ours. Interesting spin on Romans 9, mate, but I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation of the passage. The analogy of the potter deciding what to do with the clay, and the "what if" scenario that Paul plays out in saying what if the objects made for destruction were made that way to show God's glory to the objects made for glory, show (to me, at least) the absence of free will.
Thanks for sharing though.
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Sorry for the long post but this is an important issue.
No worries. I didn't think it was that long, really.
- Joined
- 08 Jan 06
- Moves
- 11173
everyone has a conscience and it is called free will conscience means with knowledge,and with this knowledge you are able to make choices arent you?you know right from wrong dont you?,this is called free will, if we didnt have free will we wouldnt be able to make choices in life about anything,so if you are saying you dont have a free will then you must not exsist,this topic dont exsist.. ..