Free-will, is it really biblical obedience?

[HiddenManna]

As I have walked out the demand to be crucified with Christ, I find I grow further and further from being able to accept the term "free-will" as a term that would explain and support biblical obedience. We surrender unto obedience our own will, we are "slaves" of righteousness or slaves of sin, the term free-will seems to make little biblical sense. Some who say that because we (seem) to have a choice, we have free-will? If an army is given the choice to surrender to a greater force or be destroyed, and then they go around boasting in "free-will" I think most would be able to see the error of that logic. A chained slave has a certain amount movement within his chains, to call that free-will is just not honest in my view.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

A person in love has no free will.
His only reason for living is for the other
.
I have no choice, nor would I want any.
I am a slave to my Lord.
I would have it no other way.
I am His.

 

[HiddenManna]

A person in love has no free will.
His only reason for living is for the other
.
I have no choice, nor would I want any.
I am a slave to my Lord.
I would have it no other way.
I am His.

These are very common thoughts in my own walk with our beloved Christ "not my will but thine be done" is the biblical standard that I seek. How a term such as "free-will" has been used to cover over the Cross and our Lords Command to crucify ones own will with Him, seems a mystery to me? I cannot relate to the term as having any value in my salvation. For I was saved in my great weakness by the overwhelming power and love of God. For me to attempt to take any credit as if salvation proceeded from my will in some way, would be to reject the truth of that great salvation I received as I surrendered unto the Spirit of the Living God. There was no conscience will as from me in my salvation, but a desperate conviction of my sin and need for Christ. Nor have I walked out obedience to the Spirit in the opinion of my own will, but have surrendered this false allusion that I could anyway bring about obedience to God, except I abide in a condition of weakness, as it relates to my own opinion and will.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Free will...it was Him that drew me hand over hand like pulling in a boat to Him.

I mean, i know there is free will, of course I could leave God at anytime and rob a bank.

Kidding...nope, I am His now ...maybe there was free will before God showed me Himself and locked
me in as His target. Ha!



PS...Wish my photo hadn't been taken away.

 

[HiddenManna]

Free will...it was Him that drew me hand over hand like pulling in a boat to Him.

I mean, i know there is free will, of course I could leave God at anytime and rob a bank.

Kidding...nope, I am His now ...maybe there was free will before God showed me Himself and locked
me in as His target. Ha!



PS...Wish my photo hadn't been taken away.

This is a point that I have tried to make to many who promote this term "free-will"? that the term can only be used to describe disobedience not biblical obedience to God, for all obedience is based upon the surrender of ones will unto the known will of God.



Rom 12:1


I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

This should never be described as "free-will"

P.S. What was the photo?

 

[Eltanin]

The difference between servant-hood and slavery is a choice. We have that choice, It is free will. I WANT to serve God and it is more beautiful to Him because I choose to. Real love is laying down the self in favor of servant-hood. I am not a slave, I am willingly devoted.

A slave is commanded and MUST do as told. A servant is asked and can choose not to do.

There will always be outside influences that affect our ability to act, it is called Life. Yet we are given the ability to influence and alter our motivations. That ability is our free will. We have a choice in accepting what motivates us. What pleases God is when we choose Him as our motivation.

 

[Robertson]

Yeah I think free will is our the ability to choose. You mentioned the prisoner in chains. He may not have the choice of his situation, but he has the choice of his attitude.

But in terms of the gospel, we have the choice to follow the spirit of God, repent of our sins, and become like the Father and the Son - or we can choose to not do that and follow Lucifer. Obviously the consequences will follow our choice, but it is our choice indeed. But like you were saying, once you choose the Lord, then yes, you must be obedient to the commandments. This can be termed as being a slave, but it is the choice that you made. This is what actually allows you the most freedom and the ability to continue and become like the Father and like Jesus. Basically, if you want to be a saved being like they are, then you must follow the rules that allow you to be a saved being. Otherwise, you will be a being of a lesser glory, maybe like those who have the glory like the moon or the stars... or who will have no glory at all like Satan and those who were cast out of heaven with him.

 

[jiggyfly]

The difference between servant-hood and slavery is a choice. We have that choice, It is free will. I WANT to serve God and it is more beautiful to Him because I choose to. Real love is laying down the self in favor of servant-hood. I am not a slave, I am willingly devoted.

A slave is commanded and MUST do as told. A servant is asked and can choose not to do.

There will always be outside influences that affect our ability to act, it is called Life. Yet we are given the ability to influence and alter our motivations. That ability is our free will. We have a choice in accepting what motivates us. What pleases God is when we choose Him as our motivation.

Peter said we are slaves to whatever controls us.
Romans chapter six is a good read.

 

[Wormwood]

The non-Calvinist view is that God is not a pan-determinist. It's really as simple as that.

 

[aspen]

Should I pick up my daughter who is crying, or my son who is crying, first?

What's the right answer?

 

[HiddenManna]

The difference between servant-hood and slavery is a choice. We have that choice, It is free will. I WANT to serve God and it is more beautiful to Him because I choose to. Real love is laying down the self in favor of servant-hood. I am not a slave, I am willingly devoted.

A slave is commanded and MUST do as told. A servant is asked and can choose not to do.

There will always be outside influences that affect our ability to act, it is called Life. Yet we are given the ability to influence and alter our motivations. That ability is our free will. We have a choice in accepting what motivates us. What pleases God is when we choose Him as our motivation.

Well a "servant" serves the "will" of another not there own "will". Because a "servant" has the ability to disobey does not prove that obedience comes by "free-will" in fact it is clear that obedience is "NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE" To become enslaved to Gods will is not free-will.

Yeah I think free will is our the ability to choose. You mentioned the prisoner in chains. He may not have the choice of his situation, but he has the choice of his attitude.

But in terms of the gospel, we have the choice to follow the spirit of God, repent of our sins, and become like the Father and the Son - or we can choose to not do that and follow Lucifer. Obviously the consequences will follow our choice, but it is our choice indeed. But like you were saying, once you choose the Lord, then yes, you must be obedient to the commandments. This can be termed as being a slave, but it is the choice that you made. This is what actually allows you the most freedom and the ability to continue and become like the Father and like Jesus. Basically, if you want to be a saved being like they are, then you must follow the rules that allow you to be a saved being. Otherwise, you will be a being of a lesser glory, maybe like those who have the glory like the moon or the stars... or who will have no glory at all like Satan and those who were cast out of heaven with him.

Read your own post, "must follow the rules" is not "free-will" a choice is not evidence of free will.

Peter said we are slaves to whatever controls us.
Romans chapter six is a good read.

Clearly the intention of Romans 6, is not to suggest that man has "free-will" but that we are subject to powers greater than the "will" of man. Romans 7 also makes clear that the power of sin in the flesh of man, has dominion over all men who walk in the flesh, that only in that we submit to the "will" of the Spirit, do we have power over the sin that dwells in us. The fact that all men are in a condition of bondage to sin, slaves of sin is the condition of all those born from the seed of Adam.

The non-Calvinist view is that God is not a pan-determinist. It's really as simple as that.

Do you have a scripture for your opinion? I have made the position that biblical obedience is "NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE"

Should I pick up my daughter who is crying, or my son who is crying, first?

What's the right answer?

Well not sure what point you think that makes? I assume you are in Gods Will as a mother and He has empowered you with wisdom to be a good parent? Are you raising them according to know and do Gods Will, or to walk in their own will? Do they have free-will? Can they behave as they desire or does your will have power over them? You may allow them to "choose" some things, what toys to play with etc.. But it is your will they must obey and they are not "free" to do as they like.

 

[williemac]

A person in love has no free will.
His only reason for living is for the other
.
I have no choice, nor would I want any.
I am a slave to my Lord.
I would have it no other way.
I am His.

Well, I suppose if a man proposes to you, then you will also have no choice. In fact, if a man chooses to have sex with you you have no will to say no. You will be a slave to your man.

I can't leave it there. I have to remind you and others that eternal life is "knowing" God (John17:3). Jesus knocks on the door, asking to come in and dine (have fellowship) (Rev.3:20). It helps to understand this topic if one understands the dynamic of relationship, or at least incorporates it into the discussion. Because meaningful relationship is such that it requires a willing participation from both parties. I don't really care if we choose not to call it free will. That is merely a man made term that seems to have no agreed upon definition in these discussions. How can we decide if we have it if we don't even all agree as to what it is?

But what we can see is what the scripture says. And it says that God gives grace to the humble; something I have been adding to many discussions. It seems that people want to ignore this truth. So then, I will ask...do we or do we not have the ability to humble ourselves? And does God actually get pleasure from having a relationship with one who did not want one with Him?
We look at one passage..."there is none who seeks after God", and many make assumptions as to what it is saying. In many if not most cases, these people will quote it and leave out the word "after". They say none seeks God. But that is a misquote. They forget that the passage is about righteousness. Only God is righteous. That is what the passage is getting at. No human seeks "after" His righteousness. If the passage is making the point that no human is righteous, then why insert some idea that no one wants to know God? What's that got to do with being righteous or not? As well, if we want to make a doctrine that says humans are all born with hatred for or disinterest with God, then where is the supporting scripture? On the contrary, scripture shows otherwise, as well as our own experience. For example, there are many who are trying to get to God through works but will be rejected or abased because of their self righteousness. O yes, people seek Him. Our origin is an age old debate. People want to know.

 

[aspen]

My point is that deciding to pick up one crying child before another is an exercise of free will AND there is no right or wrong answer regarding who I should pick up first. Essentially, deciding who to pick up first is choosing between two good choices, which is how all free will operated before the Fall. Unfortunately, after the Fall our free will was broken.

 

[day]

.
choice is not evidence of free will.



I have made the position that biblical obedience is "NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE"
.

Choice between two or more options (without regard to outcome) IS free will. In the example above Jesus had the choice between the options of "my will" and "thy will". In this respect he freely picked "thy will".
Choice between two or more options with regard to outcome does not allow for "free will". In order to get to a desired outcome there are not many choices, only one. In the example, "thy will" was the only way to accomplish our salvation. In this respect Jesus had no freedom to choose if he wanted to fulfill the purpose.

It seems one side of the debate is arguing from the perspective of options and the other is arguing from the perspective of outcomes. (Like arguing from different chapters but thinking you're on the same page.)

 

[aspen]

Choice between two or more options (without regard to outcome) IS free will. In the example above Jesus had the choice between the options of "my will" and "thy will". In this respect he freely picked "thy will".
Choice between two or more options with regard to outcome does not allow for "free will". In order to get to a desired outcome there are not many choices, only one. In the example, "thy will" was the only way to accomplish our salvation. In this respect Jesus had no freedom to choose if he wanted to fulfill the purpose.

It seems one side of the debate is arguing from the perspective of options and the other is arguing from the perspective of outcomes. (Like arguing from different chapters but thinking you're on the same page.)

It seems like you are trying to reduce our free will to choosing between Heaven or Hell - God's way or the Highway. If this is your definition of free will - it is not free, at all. God chooses us, we do not choose Him - we are not capable of doing so,

 

[Wormwood]

Do you have a scripture for your opinion? I have made the position that biblical obedience is "NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE"

I'm simply telling you what the debate is between "free will" (non Calvinists) and Calvinist teaching is. It isn't about whether or not we should surrender our lives and wills to Christ, but its about whether or not God determines all things by sovereign decree. When we surrender to the will of God, it doesn't mean we are embracing God's pre-determined playbook for our lives. No such playbook exists. It is about whether or not I will embrace the fruits of the Spirit and express my faith through love (which can take many different forms. God gives us freedom to choose how to express our faith and love).

Free will proponents simply do not believe that God has determined the minute details of every action, reaction and desire. A person has freedom to obey Christ or disobey him and they have the freedom of how to obey him when they surrender to his will. Your thinking on this matter convolutes what the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists really is. So, "no" I don't have a scripture on this because the point you are making is a theological one that is based on the panoply of Scripture and not an isolated text.

 

[The_highwayman]

If God has not given man free will and God has predetermined who he choses, then can you Calvinists tell me how Lucifer convinced 1/3 of the angels in heaven to defect to his side?

Even the angels were given free will.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

If God has not given man free will and God has predetermined who he choses, then can you Calvinists tell me how Lucifer convinced 1/3 of the angels in heaven to defect to his side?

Even the angels were given free will.

The mental gymnastics that Calvinists go through to deny their denial of free will is spectacular and more than a little entertaining. They will say that man has free will, but apart from special intervention from God, the reprobate "freely" choose perdition. They ask you to set aside the fact that if they're not part of the "elect" they're screwed, having no other object of free will than to "choose" rebellion and its eternal remuneration. It's like being allowed to vote, but there's only one candidate on the ballot. The "elect" are similarly dragooned into a singular fate, being irresistibly saved, yet somehow choosing salvation by "free will". They too are allowed to vote, but when they show up at the polls, there's only one candidate on the ballot...the other guy.

Now the real intrigue is that Calvinists manage to teach this tripe with a straight face.

 

[Eltanin]

We can step out of God's purpose for us by our own will. Otherwise there would be no point to even acknowledge "..Not my will, God, but Yours be done..." If we had no will, then there would be no reason whatsoever for us to acknowledge our willfulness.

If we have no free will to follow after God, then those who you say are destined for Hell were never given a choice... That doesn't sound so merciful or graceful...