> General Discussions
Free Will
Lightseeker:
I've read the article and I'll have to admit that I still struggle with a lot of this teaching (but not all of it). So what I'm going to say here isn't to argue...it's to ask for anwers which satisfy my questioning heart.
All quotes from Ray:
--- Quote --- "Let this MIND BE IN Y-O-U, which was also in Christ Jesus..." (Phil. 2:5).
--- End quote ---
In reading this scripture I can't help but focus on the first word "LET" which precedes getting that 'mind of Christ'. 'To let' ,by inherency, means one has the capacity 'Not to let'...doesn't it?
--- Quote ---Without the mind of God, we will never understand the spiritual things of God. They will ALWAYS seem like "foolishness" to the carnal mind. "But the natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED" (I Cor. 2:14).
--- End quote ---
But in reading this in context, we have to consider the very next verse.
1CO 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth/anakrino all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
0350 anakrino: to scrutinize, i.e. (by impl.) investigate, interrogate, determine
So if we're to judge/determine all things...is that only possible 'after we did what we couldn't help but do'? If we have that freedom to judge after...don't we have it before?
What do I do with the following verse:
1CO 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
I'm not trying to split hairs here...but what's the difference between having 'the mind of God' and 'the mind of Christ'? Aren't they both 'free wills'? Doesn't scripture say Jesus had God's mind? Let's go back to Ray's first verse quoted and read it in context.
PHI 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
So if Jesus' mind was equal to God's mind then am I to believe that God doesn't have free will either? Surely we don't believe that do we? And if we are 'to let' that same mind be in us...then how can it not be a free mind/will and yet still be the same as God's mind/will?
--- Quote --- ....And can the carnal mind indeed love God by its own nature; its own heart; its own desires? NO IT CAN'T......The natural mind is totally incapable of loving God: "For the carnal mind is enmity [deep-seated HATRED] AGAINST GOD..." (Rom. 8:7).
--- End quote ---
Scripture, to me, seems to say that not only can a "Christian" 'will to obey out of his new nature'...but even an 'unbeliever' can will to do so out of his unregenerated nature.
ROM 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Gentiles do 'by nature'??? What nature?, surely not the old "sin nature"!!! That nature which hasn't even been regenerated, renewed, converted and hates God...Help me here. How can this verse mean what it says without them having freedom of will?
I know I asked a lot of questions here. But for me they are good questions worthy of good answers. Answers which I need to fully accept the 'whole teaching'. Please bear with me on this.
hillsbororiver:
Perhaps you should reread the Free Will portion(s) of the Lake of Fire papers;
"Free Will" DEFINED
The American Heritage College Dictionary:
"free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."
My Meriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary/Eleventh Edition has an even more precise definition:
"free will n. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."
It is useless to have a study on this term "free will" unless we stick to a strict, concise and precise definition of the term. As can be seen from our dictionaries, "free will" does not have for a concise or precise definition the ability to "make choices." Yet this is the way it is often defined.
Notice that our dictionaries are specific in stating that it is "FREE choice" that is the definition of "free will," rather than just "choice" alone. To be an expression of "free will," choices must also be free. Free from what? We just read it:
Free from "PRIOR CAUSES."
Free from "CONSTRAINT."
Free from "EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES."
Free from "FATE."
Free from "DIVINE WILL."
Free from "DIVINE INTERVENTION."
Those who would argue for free will, however, refuse being held to these precise and concise definitions. They want the mere ability to "make a choice" to be considered an act of "free will." Well it is nothing of the kind. Making a choice has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of "free will." This is easily demonstrated. Computers make "choices." They can make trillions of choices per second. It would take a trillion people to make that many choices in a second. All that these marvelous machines do is make choices.
Now then, will anyone contend that computers have unprogrammed and uncaused, free wills? So now we have proof that making choices is not the same as "free will."
We are not speaking of "Hal" in the Hollywood science fiction fantasy: "2001—A Space Odyssey." Computers do not have "free wills," yet THEY CAN MAKE CHOICES, but those choices are anything but free. Their choices are all a matter of PRE-programming. They cannot think and act independently of "causes." Neither can man think or do anything outside of the realm of "causes." In order for an effect to be present, there must first be a cause, and once something is caused, the effect must follow, and neither could have been prevented.
There is not one example that can be presented by scientific a method, that can demonstrate that man’s will is free from causality. Neither is there an example in all Scripture that can be shown to be the exercise of a will that is free from causality. And that certainly includes all that our Lord Himself ever thought, said, or did.
SUBJECTED TO VANITY NOT WILLINGLY
Here is another profound reason why man’s will is not and never was free. We saw that Eve was already in a state of spiritual weakness and actually committed all of the three categories of sin before she actually ate of the forbidden fruit. And the reason she was in this condition and easy pickins for the serpent, is taught us in the Romans 8:20.
"For the creature [Gk: ‘creation’] was made [put under, subordinate to, to obey] subject to vanity [Gk: ‘futility’], not willingly, but by reason of Him Who has subjected the same in hope."
WOW! What have we here? Free will? I think not. Pay close attention to the words that God inspired:
"WAS MADE"—This is an ACT or CAUSE of God: Not of man’s will.
"SUBJECT TO VANITY"—CAUSED by God: Not man’s choice.
"NOT WILLINGLY"—According to God’s will: Not man’s will.
"BY REASON OF HIM"—By reason of GOD: Not by reason of man.
"WHO HAS SUBJECTED"—Subjected by GOD: Not chosen by man.
So where is the "free" will in all this? There is no free will in all this!
Notice verse 21:
"Because the creature [Gk: ‘creation’] itself also shall be delivered from THE BONDAGE OF CORRUPTION into the glorious liberty of the children of God."
Man was never "immortal," neither was he "incorruptible." Not before Adam and Eve sinned, nor after. This is why Paul tells us that,
"For this CORRUPTIBLE must put on incorruption, and this MORTAL must put on immortality" (I Cor. 15:53).
This is not speaking of something that happened later in the history of the human race. No, this goes back to the very CREATION of all things. It is GOD Who does the CREATING and it is GOD Who does the SUBJECTING, and man’s will has absolutely NOTHING to do WITH IT, or ABOUT IT!
If man has a will that is free from being something other than what God Himself has SUBJECTED it to, why doesn’t man just "free will" himself to NOT be subjected to futility and corruption? I’ll tell you why: Because the will of man is NOT FREE to do others things than what it is caused to do, and has absolutely NO POWER OR AUTHORITY to do otherwise, independent of God’s will and God’s choices for him. How about a Chapter and Verse on that statement? Okay:
"Then said Pilate unto Him, Speak you not unto me? Know you not that I HAVE POWER to crucify you, and have POWER TO RELEASE YOU? Jesus answered, You could have NO POWER AT ALL against Me, except it were GIVEN YOU from above…" (John 19:10-11).
Lightseeker, attempting to get the members to condense all of this into a "Reader's Digest" format in the order of your questions is not a reasonable request, reread the material and e-mail Ray any disputes you may have with his views with 2 scriptural witnesses.
Thanks,
Joe
Brett:
--- Quote ---In reading this scripture I can't help but focus on the first word "LET" which precedes getting that 'mind of Christ'. 'To let' ,by inherency, means one has the capacity 'Not to let'...doesn't it?
--- End quote ---
Hi Lightseeker,
I understand your concering the scripture. I looked up Phil. 2:5 "Let" in e-sword with Greek is phroneo. This does not mean 'let'. I believe the translation were not correct to write "let" because the Greek manuscript in Phili. 2:5 never find "let". The word Phroneo mean 'mind' or 'think', so the translation must have added "let". But I found correct translation from American Standard Version:
Have this mind [phroneo] in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
I do not see similar as 'free will'. Hope this help you? :-\
Brett
Joey Porter:
I reckon I've probably only spent a couple hundred hours thinking about this issue, as opposed to thousands, so Ray is probably much more enlightened. But I've been thinking recently about how God answers prayers.
Most Christians will happily proclaim all the answered prayers that God has blessed them with. But do they stop and think about how God answers prayers?
If God answers your prayer by orchestrating some event that invovles another person, did that person have free will to do or not do what he or she did to answer your prayer? If we say "God answered my prayer by this person coming into my life and helping me," then, how could that person have had free will not to help us? How could that person have had any other choice but to help us if God had determined to use that person to answer our prayer?
Can we say "that person chose to help me on his own free will" and in the same breath say "God answered my prayer by that person coming into my life and helping me?"
gmik:
thanks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version