Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Magenta]

Romans 7:18-24a ~ I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

[Blain]

you know i can choose to eat or not I can choose to drink or not isn't that excercising free will?
Or say I want to give a tip or not when I am ordering food is that not free will?

 

[Magenta]

1 Corinthians 4:7b, John 3:27, Romans 9:15-16 ~ What do you have that you did not
receive? And if also you did receive it, why do you boast as not having received it? John replied, “A man
can receive only what is given him from heaven.” “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

 

[Magenta]

you know i can choose to eat or not I can choose to drink or not isn't that excercising free will?
Or say I want to give a tip or not when I am ordering food is that not free will?

Why would you mix such mundane choices into the discussion about whether the natural man, with his inherently hostile-to-God mind and stony heart, is able to decide to believe that which which he can neither receive nor comprehend, and which is heard as foolishness by him? The discussion around free will goes far beyond and much deeper than the colour of socks you decide to wear (or not) and what you opt eat for lunch. Making such choices should not be put on a par with what Scripture says of the natural man. Let's start with = he is a slave to sin. We can carry on with he is not righteous, and cannot please God, any more than a leopard can change his spots or an Ethiopian the colour of his skin. And yet this man is said to be able to grow from the stony ground of his heart, which cannot comprehend the Word of God, the good fruit of faith, which only comes from hearing, which by necessity must encompass comprehension. The natural man is defined as darkness itself and Scripture plainly states that darkness does not comprehend the Light. Something has to change first, and that change is not set in motion by what the natural man wills to do, but by God's will and desire, and this is explicitly stated in Scripture. But free willers have complained about God acting unilaterally and say it makes Him an unjust tyrannical monster kidnapping people against their will.

 

[Blain]

Why would you mix such mundane choices into the discussion about whether the natural man, with his inherently hostile-to-God mind and stony heart, is able to decide to believe that which which he can neither receive nor comprehend, and which is heard as foolishness by him? The discussion around free will goes far beyond and much deeper than the colour of socks you decide to wear (or not) and what you opt eat for lunch. Making such choices should not be put on a par with what Scripture says of the natural man. Let's start with = he is a slave to sin. We can carry on with he is not righteous, and cannot please God, any more than a leopard can change his spots or an Ethiopian the colour of his skin. And yet this man is said to be able to grow from the stony ground of his heart, which cannot comprehend the Word of God, the good fruit of faith, which only comes from hearing, which by necessity must encompass comprehension. The natural man is defined as darkness itself and Scripture plainly states that darkness does not comprehend the Light. Something has to change first, and that change is not set in motion by what the natural man wills to do, but by God's will and desire, and this is explicitly stated in Scripture. But free willers have complained about God acting unilaterally and say it makes Him an unjust tyrannical monster kidnapping people against their will.

because as mundain as it may be it is still using free will isn't it?
if we have no choice then how can we do things like that and then further in point free will to believe or not. if we can decide what to wear today why can we not decide to believe I am just asking these questions not to prove a point but in all honesty

 

[Blain]

also if we have no free will why are we held accountable by God if the natural man cannot choose to believe then one must also come to the comclusion that some were predestined to be saved from the beginning while others not

 

[PaulThomson]

What she posted is a mishmash of quote-mined and out of context verses that extends beyond Romans 7:14-25, and your limited reference is no better. In other words, Romans 7:14-25 totally refutes the idea of people not having a free will.

For starters, or to put things in context, Paul began chapter 7 (of course, chapters were added by the translators) by saying this:

Rom 7:1
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Who, in context, was Paul speaking to? He was speaking to them that not only knew the law, but that it, the law, has dominion over a man as long as he lives. Conversely, Paul had just finished saying this to Christians:

Rom 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

In other words, whereas sin has dominion over somebody who is under the law, it does not have dominion over somebody who is under grace or over a Christian.

Now that we know who Paul was speaking to in chapter 7, let us examine what he said to totally refute the idea that the unsaved or unregenerate do not have a free will.

Rom 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Here, Paul was describing himself while under the law or before he was saved. Even in his unregenerate state, he obviously had a free will. For crying out loud, how many more times did he need to mention that which he would do (his free will choice) and that which he would not do (his free will choice). Furthermore, even in his unregenerate state, he delighted in the law of God after the inward man.

Does this sound like somebody who loved darkness and all the other quote-mined and out of context nonsense that was posted here earlier by someone else?

And before anybody even attempts to suggest that Paul was speaking about himself as a Christian here, I will remind you of his testimony elsewhere.

1Co 9:26
I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
1Co 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

As a Christian, Paul no longer had a law in his members that was bringing him into captivity to the law of sin (Rom. 7:23). Instead, as a Christian, or as someone who was now a partaker of " the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" which "had made him free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2), Paul kept under his body and brought it into subjection.

Why did sin have dominion over Paul before he became a Christian?

Paul told us exactly why when he said "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14). In other words, it is impossible for anybody to keep a spiritual law with only a fleshly circumcision. However, when someone is truly circumcised in the heart or spirit (Rom. 2:29), or when someone is truly born again of the indwelling Spirit of God, then they can not only will to keep a spiritual law, but also keep it by the power of God's Spirit which dwells inside of them.

Anyhow, even in his unregenerate state, Paul said "to will is present with me" (Rom. 7:18), and he said that because he obviously had a free will.

AS HeIsHwre said, I was responding to the post directly after mine under the false impression it was to me, but without quoting me. But it was responding to a post by someone I have on ignore for stealing so much of my data by continually forcing me to download elaborate images rather than her just posting the bible verses in plain text.

 

[GWH]

because as mundain as it may be it is still using free will isn't it?
if we have no choice then how can we do things like that and then further in point free will to believe or not. if we can decide what to wear today why can we not decide to believe I am just asking these questions not to prove a point but in all honesty

I think your point is a very good one, although of course the most important choice in life is to cooperate with GRFS/POS.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

AS HeIsHwre said, I was responding to the post directly after mine under the false impression it was to me, but without quoting me. But it was responding to a post by someone I have on ignore for stealing so much of my data by continually forcing me to download elaborate images rather than her just posting the bible verses in plain text.

Oh, okay.

Normally, I have that same poster on ignore too, but I sometimes need to momentarily take people off of ignore in order to see who/what other posters are responding to. I saw her post while doing that, and that is what I was responding to initially. When I saw your response to what I had actually said to her, I thought that you were agreeing with her. I had no idea that you had her on ignore or that you thought my initial comments were directed towards you.

Anyhow, she is way off on this topic, and totally set in her ways.

 

[Blain]

I think your point is a very good one, although of course the most important choice in life is to cooperate with GRFS/POS.

well it just doesn't make sense to me is all if we can decide in everyday life why can we not decide to follow Christ also what isgrfs/pos?

 

[GWH]

well it just doesn't make sense to me is all if we can decide in everyday life why can we not decide to follow Christ also what isgrfs/pos?

Yes, and I think "common sense" is a step toward "right logic" on the way to the "mind of Christ". :^)

 

[SonJudgment]

And this is the main point, it's only in Him that we are free from sin, right? Before that we are a SLAVE to sin, but guess what happens once God gives us spiritual life and we are born again? We get a new nature, and that nature is just as enslaved to obedience leading to righteousness as the flesh was to sin. So "our will" is never "free" according to His word. We are "A slave of sin or slave of Him" as I like to say.

What I do not mean in any way, shape, form, or fashion is that we do not have choice, or agency. His word is also very clear that we are to choose wisely and judge with righteous judgment. We have choice, that choice matters, and I believe that is the reality we exist in. However our choice is lorded over, enslaved to, and guided by our nature. They are 2 natures a man can have, the first one we are born to through Adam, the flesh born with a dead spirit. Every human being since the fall was born this way save one. Jesus the Christ who was born of the Spirit through a virgin was not born disconnected from God, and lived His whole life never sinning against His Father once. He laid down His life willingly to take the Holy and righteous wrath of God for all sin, so that the price for that sin is paid and He can not only justly forgive our sin when He brings us to repentance, but also applies Jesus righteousness to us making us a clean temple He can now indwell and guide by His Spirit as we were created to be.

Now because of Jesus we can be born again, giving us a new nature, of the Spirit, that guides and empowers us to do things pleasing to God. So no matter which one we are we never have a "free will". It's always a slave of our nature, either the flesh or the Spirit. Make sense?

Well indeed on the first part, one is a servant either way, either as a slave to sin or a servant of God. It's just simply Jesus' yoke is lighter.

On the second part though, that's where really how much of a choice does one have, or how much agency can they truly say they have? Even in the case of those that do evil, they don't really have a freewill, nor can they really even get out of the will of God. Consider the crucifixion of Jesus indeed. Many did not believe Jesus was the Son of God, therefore they crucified him, trying to prevent the will of God and steal the vineyard for themselves, but yet in doing this they played right into God's will and made certain that he is the Messiah.

For a less dramatic example, consider Joseph. Joseph had a dream sent by God where he would in effect save his family and his brothers would bow down to him. When Joseph tells this dream his brothers do not believe and furthermore they design to do evil against him specifically because of the dream. In their anger and jealousy they seek to thwart the will of God so they sell him into slavery. Since Joseph goes into slavery he winds up in Egypt where as we know he ends up becoming a high official and basically saving his family from a famine just as God had willed and revealed in his dreams long before it happened, and in fact Joseph's brothers' attempt to thwart the will of God in many ways ended up making certain that God's will would happen.

So it is that not only is there no such thing as freewill, but even by attempting to thwart God's will so very often all that ends up happening really is God's will gets further certified. That doesn't justify evil either, but it shows the futility of evil, God's will shall always be done. One can either conform to God's will or fight against it in all futility, but they're still in the same paradigm, and so very often even the opposers end up just making God's will come true even more certainly, for there is no other will besides God's will, and God's will shall be done.

Genesis 50:19-20


19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?

20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

 

[Slimsumo]

I agree that belief is not a matter of making a moral choice, however, that is just one example of what is said in egregious error by those who hold to their contrary false doctrine. I also agree that being saved, or rather made alive in Christ, comes first, then heart circumcision. This really seems to be the crux of the matter, for some believe it is their choice that makes them alive in Christ and saves them, whereas others believe they come to believe after being made alive in Christ. That is why looking at the multitude of verses regarding the natural man and seeing how he is incapable of producing the fruit of faith with his stony heart and inherently hostile-to-God mind is so important, and these verses in particular are almost always never addressed by the person who believes their will is already free in the natural state man. They have him believing that which he can neither receive not comprehend and hears as foolishness, ascribing to him qualities and characteristics only the spiritual man possesses. Some claim all hear which is obviously erroneous also, for hearing must encompass comprehension, and darkness (which is the natural man) does not comprehend the Light.

I think these verses would be helpful to answer the question:

Acts 16:14
A God-fearing woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, was listening. The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying.

Acts 11:18
And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.

2 Timothy 1:9
He has saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works, but by His own purpose and by the grace He granted us in Christ Jesus before time began.

 

[GWH]

Well indeed on the first part, one is a servant either way, either as a slave to sin or a servant of God. It's just simply Jesus' yoke is lighter.

On the second part though, that's where really how much of a choice does one have, or how much agency can they truly say they have? Even in the case of those that do evil, they don't really have a freewill, nor can they really even get out of the will of God. Consider the crucifixion of Jesus indeed. Many did not believe Jesus was the Son of God, therefore they crucified him, trying to prevent the will of God and steal the vineyard for themselves, but yet in doing this they played right into God's will and made certain that he is the Messiah.

For a less dramatic example, consider Joseph. Joseph had a dream sent by God where he would in effect save his family and his brothers would bow down to him. When Joseph tells this dream his brothers do not believe and furthermore they design to do evil against him specifically because of the dream. In their anger and jealousy they seek to thwart the will of God so they sell him into slavery. Since Joseph goes into slavery he winds up in Egypt where as we know he ends up becoming a high official and basically saving his family from a famine just as God had willed and revealed in his dreams long before it happened, and in fact Joseph's brothers' attempt to thwart the will of God in many ways ended up making certain that God's will would happen.

So it is that not only is there no such thing as freewill, but even by attempting to thwart God's will so very often all that ends up happening really is God's will gets further certified. That doesn't justify evil either, but it shows the futility of evil, God's will shall always be done. One can either conform to God's will or fight against it in all futility, but they're still in the same paradigm, and so very often even the opposers end up just making God's will come true even more certainly, for there is no other will besides God's will, and God's will shall be done.

Genesis 50:19-20


19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?

20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Yes, God's will will be done, but beware blaming God for evil by denying MFW (however limited it may be), because that borders on blasphemy.

 

[Magenta]

because as mundain as it may be it is still using free will isn't it?
if we have no choice then how can we do things like that and then further in point free will to believe or not. if we can decide what to wear today why can we not decide to believe I am just asking these questions not to prove a point but in all honesty

Who said you do not have a choice? Whether one is a slave to sin or slave to righteousness, we all make choices. The question becomes one of, which nature are you making choices out of? Men know God exists. The heavens declare His glory and men are without excuse. The natural man is a slave to sin, the bad tree that is as incapable of producing good fruit as a leopard is incapable of changing its spots. How do people get so confused about these Biblical principles? Oh, yes, we do have those who deny what Jesus said about none being good but God. To them the natural man is a good guy even against the very words of Jesus Who said otherwise.

The Bible teaches that we sin because we are sinners. Of the natural man:

- all our righteous acts are like filthy rags
- there are NONE righteous
- a bad tree cannot produce good fruit
- all (the world) are under the control of the evil one
- we need to be rescued
- man’s heart is deceitful and desperately wicked
- man is born dead in transgression and sin
- is held captive by a love for sin
- will not seek God
- he loves the darkness
- does not understand the things of God
- suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness
- continues to wilfully live in sin
- sinful lifestyle seems right to men
- rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
- hostile toward God in their mind
- does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so

The issue of free will at its crux is comprised of two main factors: can the natural man, with no help from God, choose to believe that which he can neither receive nor comprehend when he neither seeks after God and does not possess the heart or mind to do so? If you believe what the Bible teaches on this matter, then you accept that only the spiritual man can do so, one made alive in Christ, and whose heart has been circumcised (with the heart one believes). The second factor is the order of events involved in salvation. Free will is not about whether or not you choose to tip your waitress. Those who believe the will of the natural man is free to choose God against all the Scriptures that speak against such a certainty subscribe to a heresy known as Pelagianism.

 

[LifelongLearner]

I get that and know that's how so many are saved. That's how His word describes it and I can't see us understanding it any other way. I am in no way trying to "take" from that choice or even hint I'm trying to criticize or critique in any way. I'm not. However I do believe that God still gets all credit and glory for the fact you made that choice. I do not believe you could have made that choice outside of Him drawing you into Himself and every single thing in your whole life that brought you there.

See I was saved a little different. I too was drawn to Him and felt like I loved Jesus. I did choose to respond to the alter call, I did repeat the prayer with "all my heart", and was declared saved by the pastor, even baptized for good measure, but was not saved. Then after years of thinking I was saved I hit the hardest trial of my life so far. The hardship of this left me no longer believing there was a God anymore, I wasn't angry with Him, but just thought it was pointless nonsense. This was where I was mentally when He brought me to repentance. When I hit my knees the furthest thing from my mind was God or Jesus, what I was face to face with was "My Way" and the greatness of "ME". I hit my knees seeing exactly where 33 years of "my way" got me and it was nothing, on the floor broken with no way to fix it and no hope of anything ever, wanting nothing but to die, but couldn't leave my two sons with a dad that killed himself. It wasn't pretty. On my knees drowning in my own tears I quit everything, I just quit the world.

I woke up the next day a new man, but it wasn't until lunch that it hit me. After 2 solid years of uncontrollable suicidal thoughts at least every 5 minutes of everyday, I realized "I haven't thought about killing myself all day!!!". I knew then and there that whatever this was, it was God. And I knew Jesus was His Son. It's not that I have to say God gets the credit for my choice, I can't say anything but God saved me 100%, and the truth is that this holds true for every single human being that He's saved. This is why salvation is of God lest ANY man boast.

That is a tough but beautiful experience Jim, have often found times in my life which have been pretty nightmarish to go through, have a lovely end result.

You're absolutely spot on that salvation is purely of God. As someone who's felt awe/wonder deeply moved by something beautiful or amazing in life, i've often thought there must be a God.

However, occasional thoughts like that don't bestow salvation but think it possible God might respond to such thoughts at least some times, by putting in the work needed we just can't. Hope that makes sense, i'm an old dear but pretty new believer, text isn't the best medium for expressing deep thoughts either.

 

[LifelongLearner]

Who said you do not have a choice? Whether one is a slave to sin or slave to righteousness, we all make choices. The question becomes one of, which nature are you making choices out of? Men know God exists. The heavens declare His glory and men are without excuse. The natural man is a slave to sin, the bad tree that is as incapable of producing good fruit as a leopard is incapable of changing its spots. How do people get so confused about these Biblical principles? Oh, yes, we do have those who deny what Jesus said about none being good but God. To them the natural man is a good guy even against the very words of Jesus Who said otherwise.

The Bible teaches that we sin because we are sinners. Of the natural man:

- all our righteous acts are like filthy rags
- there are NONE righteous
- a bad tree cannot produce good fruit
- all (the world) are under the control of the evil one
- we need to be rescued
- man’s heart is deceitful and desperately wicked
- man is born dead in transgression and sin
- is held captive by a love for sin
- will not seek God
- he loves the darkness
- does not understand the things of God
- suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness
- continues to wilfully live in sin
- sinful lifestyle seems right to men
- rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
- hostile toward God in their mind
- does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so

The issue of free will at its crux is comprised of two main factors: can the natural man, with no help from God, choose to believe that which he can neither receive nor comprehend when he neither seeks after God and does not possess the heart or mind to do so? If you believe what the Bible teaches on this matter, then you accept that only the spiritual man can do so, one made alive in Christ, and whose heart has been circumcised (with the heart one believes). The second factor is the order of events involved in salvation. Free will is not about whether or not you choose to tip your waitress. Those who believe the will of the natural man is free to choose God against all the Scriptures that speak against such a certainty subscribe to a heresy known as Pelagianism.

Would love to have a deep chat with you through the messaging here precious friend, thought you weren't actually Calvinist either, now know you're not and we seem to share similar thoughts.

Absolutely agree it's impossible for us to achieve salvation ourselves. However, think quite a lot have some belief in God but because we're fallen/corrupted, we can't sustain the belief or even begin to do what's necessary for our salvation. Personally think it's possible God responds to people who have such times by doing the work necessary, which is impossible for us to do ourselves.

Hope that makes some sense and we can chat more about it, it's still very early days for me as a believer, know i have so much to learn. God's blessings and hugs from me for now sweetest friend.

 

[Magenta]

You're absolutely spot on that salvation is purely of God. As someone who's felt awe/wonder deeply
moved by something beautiful or amazing in life, i've often thought there must be a God.

However, occasional thoughts like that don't bestow salvation

This was a line of inquiry in one of the other threads (<= link) where this topic of free will was being discussed... since the heavens declare the glory of God... and one person was asking others if this knowledge through natural means is enough for salvation... does creation make known the gospel to us? Of course the answer is no, but I do not recall any of those being questioned being willing to admit it. They would rather detract from the issue at hand and ask irrelevant questions in return rather than answer honestly, and then they would accuse the other of refusing to answer their irrelevant questions.

 

[LifelongLearner]

This was a line of inquiry in one of the other threads (<= link) where this topic of free will was being discussed... since the heavens declare the glory of God... and one person was asking others if this knowledge through natural means is enough for salvation... does creation make known the gospel to us? Of course the answer is no, but I do not recall any of those being questioned being willing to admit it. They would rather detract from the issue at hand and ask irrelevant questions in return rather than answer honestly, and then they would accuse the other of refusing to answer their irrelevant questions.

Sure we have much in common dear friend but obviously, you have far more knowledge than me about these things.

You express deep thoughts really well, in an articulate, interesting way which really appeals to me. Kudos!

 

[Magenta]

well it just doesn't make sense to me is all if we can decide in everyday life why can we not decide to follow Christ also what isgrfs/pos?

Salvation issues and every day life. Blain, you are mixing apples and oranges. You know what doesn't make sense to me? Is how I can explain my beliefs about choice and the natural man vs the spiritual man for months on end to someone and then after all that they turn around and claim I have said man does not have a choice, as if we are all bots. Well, guess what? I have never, ever, said any such thing! Then after giving a plethora of verses over and over and over and over and over and over and over again I am told they have no idea what I mean when I talk about the natural man vs the spiritual man. Jeepers! Do these people not read the Bible at all? One must wonder. They make no distinction at all between the person who is enabled and the one who is not, and ascribe to the latter qualities and abilities only the former possess. And that is the crux of the discussion around free will. Introducing what you eat or what colour of socks you decide to wear has absolutely zero to do with any of it.