The Absence of Free Will

You CHOSE to love your children? And they CHOOSE to love you? Is it not inherent, or rather created?

In fact, when we see a mother that doesn't instinctively love her child we think she has some mental flaw.

We don't think of ourselves or our children as robots. Yet we KNOW that we instinctively love them. Almost like we were programmed (lol) to love them!

Hello PennEd,

We are created with the “capacity” or “ability” to love but, we have to choose to do so.

God is LOVE - He is the Creator. Never was He created.

Love cannot be created.

That’s nice sister, but you didn’t answer any of the questions.

I must not be a "dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist" if your reference is directed toward me, because I have told you that I do believe that God has given mankind a free will to choose how he want to live his life here on earth, but God plainly states that our eternal destination is by his grace, without the help of man.

How refreshing to hear from someone who understands the truth in the scriptures, unlike most of the responses that I get. May God continually bless you.

I have my doubts about the seriousness of anyone who denies that we have freewill.
Being made in the image of God generally means that we have the same traits as him even if not to the vastly superior level as him. So I would certainly consider free will as one of those traits.
As to what roll our free will plays in our salvation is another matter. This is my view on the it. Being as we are corrupted and fallen so much so that our very nature is degenerate, I believe our free will only serves one end, and that is to resist to gospel. It is only by the Holy Spirit through conviction and convincing us of our need for Christ, that our will begins to break. Under the weight of conviction if we begin to break, he gives us power to believe and stop resisting.

I believe that Eph 1 says that God choose a people, in a covenant relationship with his Son, before the foundation of the world and predetermined them to be adopted by his Son, in which Jesus was faithful to his Father in paying the adoption price by his death on the cross and that the final and last step of the adoption will be when Christ will come back at the last day to collect all of those that God choose and gave to him and take them home. Our adoption process is patterned after the process that God used to adopt those that he choose. Step 1, We go to the adoption agency and choose the ones that we want to adopt, notice, the children have no say in the matter. Step 2, We pay all of the legal fees for the adoption. Step 3, We go to the agency and bring our adopted children home. God, by his foreknowledge saw that no one would seek him, which made it necessary to implement the adoption process (Psalms 53:2).

Well that's fare and you can feel however you want, but I have my doubts about people so dug into their own position that they close their ears to what the other person is saying, and they seem to think they know the other person's beliefs much better than the person does to the point they refuse to hear what's being said.(this can be said of everybody at some time, so please know I'm not just attacking you") Can you please direct me to the comment where anyone here denies we have choice? Because I haven't seen one person here deny we choose, we have a will, and most say "free will", I seem to be the only one that rejects that term here, and not even in a "big deal type way". I just disagree with the term "free" will because Jesus and Paul tell us we are slaves one way or the other. See here's the thing though, I can listen, understand, and realize that what you are calling free will is the same thing I just call "a will", and I don't have to divide myself from you because we term things differently, and with my God given mind and logic I can realise this and unite as on body with you because we are called to, in His name, for His glory. This is another HUGE example of two cliques saying the same thing differently and dividing over it. Unite the body 4 LIFE!!!

I have a question for you. How can the Holy Spirit convict and convince a natural man that cannot discern spiritual things when the Holy Spirit, himself, is a spirit telling him about spiritual things. My reference is 1 Cor 2:14. I believe that Eph 2 explains how the natural man is transformed into a spiritual man by the grace and power of God while the natural man is YET SPIRITUALLY DEAD in sins and unable to respond to spiritual things.

I didn't read the whole thread and certainly haven't accused anyone here. I have heard others attempt to make the case, and oddly enough some were atheists.
I see your point about the word "free" and to that extent I agree. Morally speaking that is. I guess I only apply free in a very general sense, as it applies that we can choose to eat a taco for lunch rather than a ham sandwich if you will.
I agree that the will is morally bound to its allegiances, if corrupt to corruption, if regenerate the to the Lord.

I do not know if this fits in with your reasoning or not. The natural man until he is born again is only influenced by his faith in the things of the world and God has given him freedom as to how he wants to dictate his life. The spiritual born again man has been given the same freedom as the natural man, but his choice is influenced either by his fleshly nature (the carnal man) or by his spiritual nature. God instructs the spiritual man to choose to follow his commandments and God does not force him to choose either way. I hope this makes sense to you. If not, disregard it.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things !”
Romans 10:14‭-‬15 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/rom.10.14-15.NASB
I believe that in preaching the Holy Spirit works, because the spirit inhabits his words. So that in preaching the Holy Spirit convicts the degenerate man, and burdens him with the weight of his sin and the ends there of. Then upon the breaking of the will he grants faith to believe, (which can still be rejected) but this is the beginnings of transformation. But I believe that a man can harden himself and reject even at this point.

I like to use an analogy kind of like training a horse, but that's a lot more typing that I can do right now.

You will have to explain John 3:16.

Absence of free will really complicates many scriptures.

No one who has any understanding of the Gospel claims that man "helps" in his salvation. But that does not mean that sinners are not required to obey the Gospel.

If you are in any of the armed forces and are commanded to obey orders, you are not helping anyone. You are simply obeying orders. And that is exactly what applies to the Gospel: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Rom 10:16)

If people could not freely respond to the Gospel, how could God say this of anyone?

Do you see how bogus the Calvinistic idea of no free will is?

Well without getting into OSAS and staying within free will. I agree we have free will. Your interpretation limits it but still allows free will. So the idea of the original OP still holds between us and that is good with me. Thank you for your patience and explanations.

God acts through nature which is called natural revelation like the amazement of the universe, language capabilities of the DNA, teleological arguments of all structures and laws, and the moral law. But God also acts in spiritual revelation before belief as in the Holy Spirit. Both revelations work in unison so none can be without excuse if they rebel against both revelations.

This has nothing to do with the gospel A long well thought out presentation that is not profitable to anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus and not worth any debate

I think the abortion issue of today says yes we as humans choose to love. Because it is our nature to please self. This is why a marriage doesn't survive on emotion of love alone. We chose to create another human with preexisting ideas and emotions to embrace the child and love the child. So throughout the pregnancy we continue to build on that idea. Of course the chemical messengers called hormones come in and affect many processes including mood. But what do you have when those run out?

Often sacrificial love sparks emotional love. As one gives to another hormones are released on each end and this stirs the emotional response. If practiced long enough you can train the brain chemistry and subconscious to be wired with more feelings towards that individual.

After all we are more than just mere animals. Yes we still have the genetic instincts that produce the chemical reactions but are not solely guided on those actions due to our soulish nature and struggle between good and evil.

Now God is love and the source of love we all experience as he is acting in us as we respond and abide in him. God is the example of genuine love.

God never had to choose to love because it is his very nature. God chose to create out of love including all humans. To use God's love in comparison to ours isnt a good example. God is love, we choose to love. Big difference. And no not all children love their parents due to the parents actions or inactions. If love was inherited then we would have 100% of children who love their parents regardless and 100% of parents who love their child and not willing to kill them in the womb.

Deuteronomy 30:20
20 You can make this choice by loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and committing yourself firmly to him. This is the key to your life. And if you love and obey the Lord, you will live long in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

Your statement has nothing to do with gospel and isnt profitable to anyone either. But you thought of it as important to share also.

But unfortunately your wrong because I have spoken to many atheists on the issue of free will that materialism destroys and the illogic that follows that. My original OP equips the believer with good arguments and questions to stir the mind of a nonbeliever from materialism.

And how will they hear without a preacher. In John 10 Jesus talks about his SHEEP (those that are his born again children) in verse 26 Jesus says "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you my sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow them and I give unto them eternal life. So my question is, Who will hear the preacher? I say only his sheep. Jesus told his Apostles to go and preach unto the LOST SHEEP of the house of Israel. Accepting, repenting, believing, having spiritual faith, and so on, are all products of being born again and not the cause to get born again. Eph 2 explains it pretty well when it says while the natural man was YET SPIRITUALLY DEAD and could not discern spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) he was quickened (made spiritually alive) us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved). God's sheep are never lost eternally, but most of them are lost from a knowledge of the truth. Romans 10:1-2 Paul explains it well, that some of the house of Israel who had a ZEAL of God (evidence that they were his sheep) but had a lack of knowledge and were going about to establish their own righteousness by the works of the law and not submitting themselves unto the righteousness of God.