Free Will?

[Stagmitis]

What does FREE WILL mean ?



Is it there a free will of man to choose God over Satan?


Is it the free will to choose to SIN or not?


Or, does GOD choose YOU?


Stag

[Esquire]

Nothin like grabbin the bull by the horns, Stag!

I have always been fascinated by the power of this issue to polarize people. It baffles me a little bit. The good book has some very intriguing and difficult passages on this thing called pre-destination. Yet, it is also very clear that God intends man to have a role to play in salvation. There is a deep mystery that is laid out in the tension between God's sovereignty and man's free will.

As Susan Sarandon said to Sean Penn in Dead Man Walking: "Redemption isn't some kinda free admission ticket you get because Jesus paid the price. You have to participate in your own redemption. You got some work to do."

Some folks think that if God really knows the future, we got no choices. But it is clear that we do get to make choices. And God does know the future!

Larry Norman: "Everybody has to choose whether they will win or lose, follow God or sing the blues and who they're gonna sin with. What a mess this world is in, I wonder who began it? Don't ask me I'm only visitin this planet...This world is not my home, I'm just passin through..."

God is not willing that any should perish (II Peter 3:9) and He gave His son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). At the same time, He has mercy on whom He desires and hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:18). So which is right? Both!

He chooses, and we participate. And both are necessary for a complete understanding...

Mike

[BLACK WOLF]

Yep, complete agreement with Mike.

Ray ;)

[Camp Cook]

ditto here.

JOY

[Ray Cover]

Mike is right.


This has been debated for almost 2,ooo years now. The problems come in when folks get to far to one isde or the other of the debate.

There are a lot of things we need to consider. As Mike already pointed out two of those are; 1. God is totally soveriegn and not one electron that moves around one atom is outside his ultimate control and 2. We are responsible for the choices we make (even those dealing with salvation).

I heard a preacher one time put it this way. "The gate to Heaven has a sign on each side of it. Over the gate on the way in it says 'Welcome you who chose Christ' once you pass into heaven and look back the sign on the inside of the gate says 'Thank you Lord for choosing me'.

There is a balance between the two where the truth rest. The problems come in when we try to push the utlimates at either end of the scale.

For example; If we say that man has total free will we get into problems. We do not have total free will. We are not free to conquer God we can rebel against God but our limited abilites prevent us from conquering God. We do not have the free will to "make" God do anything. We can ask Him to do something but we cannot force Him. We cannot defy gravity and fly no matter how much we may choose to. We do have an amount of free will but we are not totally autonomous in that free will.

How that works out in a practical way in our relationship with God is something like this. We can make choices, choices to obey God or choices to rebel against God. We are free to make such choices. But we do not have free will to to the extent that we can choose or control the consequences of those chioces.

On the other hand, while I do beleive God is ultimately sovereign I do not believe He treats us like puppets on a string. I beleive He grants us just enough freedom to be responsible for our own actions and chioces. I do not beleive God is going to drag anyone into heaven kicking and screaming who does not want to be there nor do I beleive He is going to cast anyone into hell who honestly desires to go to heaven.

Ray

[BLACK WOLF]

Absolutely Ray ;)

Ray ;)

[greenghost]

Stagmitis, If you haven't seen this before, there is a great article by the logician Raymond Smullyan called "Is God a taoist? (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html)" It is worth reading. The rest of his book (of which this is a chapter) is called The Tao is Silent and is well worth picking up and reading.

[CM Sackett]

"Free will"?

This is one of those things which, to debate, instead of simply exercise wisely... is a waste of both time... and Eternity.


Sackett

[BLACK WOLF]

I agree...it's within our freedom to debate it, exercise it wisely or waste our time with it....and the situation, time and people involved will indicate which one is being utilized ;)

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

Hey Stagmitis,

Some good points mentioned in the previous posts. Hope I'm not redundant, but helpful.

For those who look to Scripture alone as the basis for truth - the familiarity with the concepts of libertarianism (also known as incompatibilism) and compatibilism ought to be helpful in generating answers to your questions. And, yes, like Mike has said - these ideas have been debated for centuries, but that shouldn't abdicate or excuse any of us from arriving at our own convictions on the matter. Although I've met some folks on both sides of the camp that would strictly view those who oppose their view as being unsaved, but I personally think well intended folks can be confused on the issue and still genuinely love Christ....though, I'm not saying that all confused folks love Christ. :) All of us still have confusion floating around in our heads to some degree....certainly me!

Pelagius and Augustine notoriously hashed this out in the 5th century, and in the 15th century Luther and Erasmus followed. Frankly, the tone at times on both sides was very harsh and unedifying....sinful, indeed. That being said, I admire the attitude that's characterized this forum even when there is disagreement among folks who post on issues like this.

R.K. McGregor Wright in his book "No Place for Sovereignty" defines libertarianism as:

"The belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. This is commonly called 'the power of contrary choice' or 'the liberty of indifference.' This belief does not claim that there are no influences that might affect the will, but it does insist that normally the will can overcome these factors and choose in spite of them. Ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is auonomous from outside determination."

The emphasis of those that hold this view is that God does not determine choices in advance - he merely responds to them. The argument rests on the premise that if God did decide in advance all of the decisions that people make - then the will isn't free, therefore it wouldn't make sense (or it wouldn't be just) that God could hold us personally accountable - we would merely be puppets. Rather, we are the original cause of our decisions. Though there are moderate variations of this perspective, it seems folks that adhere to this favor contemporary authors like Clark Pinnock. I am limited in identifying others....mental block. :)

On the other hand, compatibilism as defined by D.A. Carson in his book "How Long Oh Lord?...Reflections on Suffering and Evil":

"God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized, or mitigated. Human beings are morally responsible creatures - they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent."

The emphasis of those that hold to this view is that since there are multitudes of verses scattered throughout the Bible linking God to all events good and evil, we must rightly conclude he is in some way the original cause of all things (even our choices...if he wasn't...something could get out of his control and go awry), but not in the sense that he is morally responsible for the evil since he is absolutely holy and righteous - but, on the other hand, in a sense that he is certainly directly responsible for ALL good since he is absolutely good. He doesn't stand behind evil and good in the same way. There are myriads of texts to show forth these examples.

These truths, then, don't cancel out God's justness in holding people or angels accountable or liable for their evil actions....there are myriads of texts showing this as true. As was pointed out in an earlier posting...there is a real sense of mystery on our part in understanding exactly how these seemingly contradictory principles work themselves out. Our understanding is finite. Authors like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, John MacAuthor, John Frame seem to be some of the favorites of those who hold to this position.

I'll see if I can posts some helpful excerpts regarding the latter view, since that's what I presently subscribe to. If you'd like the texts referred to above identified, let me know.

[Swanny]

Here are some random excerpts from D.A.Carson's book I mentioned previously (I'm feeling ill today, no T-Day dinner planned and can type speedily):

"I will hasten to say that with some expressions of the 'free-will defense' (FWD) I have no quarrel, and I shall draw the necessary distinctions later in this book. But as popularly presented, the FWD assumes that for human beings to be held morally accountable before God, they must be absolutely free: that is, their choices must be entirely free from divine constraint or necessity. At such points God is absolutely contingent: in other words, he is not in control, but is merely responding to the situation. If he were in control, it is argued, then human beings would not be 'free', and therefore not morally responsible.

At this point, proponents differ. Some think that God not only chooses not to interfere, but, because he has assigned such awesome freedom to his creatures, he cannot even know in advance what they are going to do. Others, as we have seen, think that God has the knowledge but not (because of his self-limitation) the power.

We shall shortly see that this view simply does not do justice to the language of Scripture. That does not mean there is no 'free will' in any sense; but free will must not be defined in such a fashion as to make God contingent. Moreover, in the stronger form, where God does ot even know in advance what free choices human beings will make, it is hard to see why it is not possible that God could be finally thwarted. It is even possible, surely, that creatures with such free will could, much to God's suprise, break out in rebellion once again in the new heaven and new earth.

As in so many of these theories, there is an element of truth in the analysis....If such absolute freedom is necessary if we are truly to love God, does this mean we will no longer love God in the new heaven and the new earth, when (presumably) we will no longer be able to sin? Or are we to think that even there we might sin? But if God can so arrange things that in the new heaven and the new earth we will love him wholly and truly and without failure, why could he not do so without taking the race through a fallen world? Why should it be only here, in this fallen world, that we must have absolute freedom to be able to grow?" Taken from pgs. 34-36

[Swanny]

"If compatibilism is true and if God is good - all of which the Bible affirms - then it must be the case that God stands behind good and evil in somewhat different ways; that is, he stands behind good and evil asymmetrically. To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents, to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents.

In other words, if I sin, I cannot possibly do so outside the bounds of God's sovereingty (or the many texts already cited have no meaning), but I alone am responsible for that sin - or perhaps I and those who tempted me, led me astray and the like. God is not to be blamed. But if I do good, it is Gods' working in me both to will and to act according to his good pleasure. God's grace has been manifest in my case, and he is to be praised.

If this sounds just a bit too convenient for God, my initial response (though there is more to be said) is that according to the Bible this is the only God there is. There is no other.

Both propositions [of compatibilism] make much of human moral responsibility. But so far I have not tried to tie human moral responsibility to the notion of freedom. That is because the notion of freedom, in any biblical perspective, is exceedingly difficult to nail down. If compatibilism is true - and I cannot see how the biblical evidence supporting it can be evaded - then any Christian definition of freedom must lie within two constraints.

First, human freedom cannot involve absolute power to contrary; that is, it cannot include such liberal power that God himself becomes contingent. That would deny the second of the two propositions that constitue compatibilism. That is why some of the best treatments of the will have argued that freedom (sometimes called 'free agency') should be related not to absolute power to contrary, but to voluntarism: that is, we do what we want to do, and that is why we are held accountable for what we do.

For instance, no matter how God operates behind the scenes in the crucifixion of his Son, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the other did what they chose to do; they did what they wanted to do. That is why they are rightly held responsible. But that is quite different from saying that they had absolute power to contrary in the event, for hen God himself would have been contingent, and then the cross becomes an afterthough in the mind of God. It certainly becomes impossible to say that the human participants did what God ordained would happen! The human participants were thus not absolutely free; for if they were, God could have ordained that the events of the crucifixion take place, and then the human beings involved could have decided otherwise. But God did not ordain that they do something as if they were mere puppets, or, still worse, against their will. They did what they wanted to do, and that is why they were rightly held accountable.

Second, human freedom since the fall cannot be discussed without reference to the fall. Jesus insists that everyone who sins is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). Even when doing our best, we hear a little whisper over our shoulder telling us how good we look while we are doing it. We devote ourselves to God for an hour of prayer, and spend part of the time wondering if people realize how pious we are. We give ourselves sacrificially to some good cause, then spoil it by being condescending or unforgiving to those who have not similarly given themselves. We live for a few moment or a few hours with God genuinely at the center of our affections, our desires, our goals, and then get sidetracked by personal ambition, lust, or greed. Our wills, then, are not truly free; they are enslaved by sin.

Within this framework, real freedom is freedom to obey God without restraint or reserve. it is not absolute power to contrary; it is wanting to please God at every moment.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Christology of John's Gospel. There Jesus is repeatedly shown to be the one who fulfills what has been written of him and who aligns himself with the Father's plan, but who does this in self-conscious obedience to his Father. The cross is inevitable: Jesus is the Lamb of God, the predicted "hour" must arrive, the passion is foreseen in Scripture; yet on the other hand, no one simply takes Jesus' life from him: he voluntarily lays it down of his own will (10:18). In Jesus the divine determing and the perfection of human obedience come together in one person, since his very food is to do the will of him who sent him (4:34), and he always does what pleases the Father (8:29). Here we see the 'free will' operating at its best!" Taken from pgs. 213- 215

[Swanny]

"Here objections are made possible because those who object make use of a priori definitions that force evidence into an artificial mold. By "a priori definition" I mean a definition of a crucial term that is based not on an evenhanded and inductive study of the biblical evidence, but on some prior assumption, usually a philosohical bias.

Doubtless the most frequent abuse in this regard concerns the expression "free will". Everyone who holds that human beings are not just puppets who cannot be held responsible for what they say, do, think and are, holds to som definition of free will. But many people simply assume that free will must entail absolute power to contrary. And that brings free will into irreconcilable conflict with the biblical evidence that denies God ever becomes absolutely contingent. For instance, when the Basingers posed the question of the book they edited, they put the matter this way: "To what extent does human freedom pose limitations on God's sovereign control over earthly affairs?" That, of course, begs the question. They have assumed that any definition of human freedom must "pose limitations [sic: I think they mean 'impose limitations'] on God's sovereign control". And they have done this without reflecting on whether such an assumed definition of freedom is either warranted or forbidden by the biblical texts themselves.

The result is that theologians and thinkers in this camp take all kinds of creative steps that cannot be squared with the biblical evidence. Bruce Reichenbach cannot believe that Ephesians 1:11 means what it says, so he reinterprets it to mean nothing more than that "everything God does he does in conformity with his purposes." That is such a truism it is scarcely worth saying; in any case, it is not what the text of Scripture says. In the same volume, one author adopts this definition of free will and limits God's power but not his knowledge: God knows what free moral agents will do in advance but does not in any way determine it. Another author, who lapses into regrettable sarcasm, limits God's knowledge: the nature of free decisions is such that not even ominiscience could know the outcome. But neither of these authors works through any of the relevant biblical material that flatly eliminates their a priori definition.

Quite apart from the failure of these writers to engage the biblical texts, they have not addressed the most common of objections. For instance, if "free will" necessarily entails absolute power to contrary, will we enjoy such "free will" in heaven? Most Christians agree that in heaven there will no longer be any danger of apostasy: we will be kept from sinning. But if God can keep us from sinning there, does this mean that "free will" is sacrificed? Are human beings in glory deprived of this sublime capacity that (allegedly) makes them moral creatures? Is it not better to question whether the a priori definition is right? Taken from pgs 218-219

BTW: His book isn't about this particular issue...he merely touches on it because this subject is an underlying part of the greater issue of suffering and evil.

Ya'll have any thoughts and responses.....would love to hear them. I trust these were thought-provoking and edifying.

[BLACK WOLF]

"But if God can keep us from sinning there, does this mean that "free will" is sacrificed?"

I believe when God destroys everything evil there will be no more sin or the ability to sin, but we have to remember it is something we chose based on the choices given to us by God.

We are basically given 2 choices under this circumstance...to believe or not to believe and those that choose to believe have also chosen to be free from sin...therefore I believe it is sacrificed, but it is chosen freely without another entity controling our choice.

"Are human beings in glory deprived of this sublime capacity that (allegedly) makes them moral creatures?"

I wouldn't use the word deprived because I feel it is misleading. It suggests that we didn't have any choice in the decision at all, which in fact we did. All through the Bible God asks us to believe so we can live eternally with Him.

To believe is an action that requires a choice, which is based on faith. We can deny the truth or we can accept it, but it is God who had the power and sovereignty to give us that choice and allow us to make it freely within the boundries He has created.

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

HI Ray, Thanks for the feedback. :) I'm not sure I follow you 100% so I'd like to reference a non-salvific example to see how far we are viewing this subject from the same perspective.

In Ex. 6: 29-30 The Lord instructs Moses to approach Pharoah and speak to him. Initially Moses was guilty of "monoperspectivalism"...his response was purely based upon one perspective: "But Moses said to the Lord, 'Since I speak with faltering lips, why would Pharoah listen to me.?' " He was basically arguing that his speech wasn't eloquent and sophisticated enough to feel confident that he could motivate Pharoah to act accordingly.

The Lord didn't respond to his response with "You know, if you practice enough you won't be tongue tied, and will be effective enough to change his mind" or "I will make your speech sound as if you had years of training in Egyptian rhetoric in order to be convincing enough to Pharoah to make the right choice".

Instead, the Lord said in vs.2-4 of chptr 7..."You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharoah to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharoah's heart, and though I will multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you." Moses needed to see another side of the issue...that God was ultimately in charge of Pharoah's response. He planned and decreed that Pharoah would harden his heart, and what he decrees is guarranteed to happen because he is Yahweh or Lord God of all things. It will not fail to come to pass. Moses was to believe God had the authority and the ability (i.e. sovereignty) to do this. This wasn't like a local news forecast where God sees into the future and gives Moses inside information on 'mother natures' weather pattern, rather, this is God telling Moses what He is going to bring to pass or cause to happen. God didn't merely 'allow' this to happen!

At this point some folks take issue and say that Pharoah really didn't have a 'free' choice IF his hardening was predetermined by God. But the passage goes on to indicate that God holds Pharoah accountable for his actions, AND that Pharoah himself deliberately chooses each time to hearden his heart....he wanted to because his heart/nature was evil. So we could rightfully say that God was the primary or procuring cause (but God doesn't get blamed or held liable for Pharoah's evil rebellion), Pharoah's own sinful nature is the secondary or responsive cause (and receives the blame). The first statement is compatible with the second.

Is then God guilty of "puppeteering"? Do you take issue with anything I've said thus far?

[BLACK WOLF]

"But the passage goes on to indicate that God holds Pharoah accountable for his actions, AND that Pharoah himself deliberately chooses each time to hearden his heart....he wanted to because his heart/nature was evil. So we could rightfully say that God was the primary or procuring cause (but God doesn't get blamed or held liable for Pharoah's evil rebellion), Pharoah's own sinful nature is the secondary or responsive cause (and receives the blame). The first statement is compatible with the second."

I agree with that 100%

Is then God guilty of "puppeteering"?

IMO, absolutely not. Hardening is not the same thing as controling or forcing. Hardening is a response to a choice and action from another individual. I view hardening, humbling and tempting basically the same in this reference.

I can do or say something that can harden you, humble you or tempt you...non of which are controling.

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

Ray - Not sure I would subscribe to the idea that Pharaoh wasn't a puppet just because God's hardening isn't a form of control.

1) hardening is similar to constraining (same idea as when we make a knife and heat the metal....in order to harden it and control it from being easily swayed and bent and dulled when we use it), or keeping Pharaoh's desires from softening (a form of mercy)...which would ultimately lead to a change of mind..i.e., repentance in letting the Israelites go (which would be a 'good' thing compared to keeping them in bondage, but still done from a sinful/rebellious nature that displeases God).

God didn't want the letting go to initially happen. Why? In order to make his awesome power known (Ex.7:4,5 compare with Rom. 9:17). God has the right to do this as Creator and Sovereign Ruler of his creation....these are the rights of the potter! God's decree was not based upon anything Pharoah did or did not do, it was based upon his own purposes in how he was going to use Pharoah.

2) I think we should be faithful to the passage by acknowledging that God controlled/limited (in a real sense) Pharaoh's response as described above, at the same time Pharaoh willfully chose his response because he was captive to his own desires, was justly held accountable, and God's power was eventually made known. Therefore, Pharaoh isn't merely a puppet because he genuinely wanted to do what he did, he genuinely chose to do what he did (God didn't coerse or force him by threatning to slay him if he didn't), he made a literal choice with real consequences - none of which describes the behaviour of puppets (as you and I know them). Puppets aren't free to do what their hearts desire...they don't have hearts and minds and personality of their own!

"Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." Ex.7:13

"He would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord has said." vs. 23

"But when Pharoah saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said." 8:15

"But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go" vs.32

"But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses." 9:12

"When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts." 9:34

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them...that you may know that I am the Lord" 10:1,2

God dealt harshly with the Egyptians and lovingly with the Israelites...so that God may put his full character on display...."so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt". 11:9

Do you think I'm not being completely faithful to what the Scripture is conveying in my statements on control (hardening of Pharoah's heart)?

[BLACK WOLF]

Swanny,

"Do you think I'm not being completely faithful to what the Scripture is conveying in my statements on control (hardening of Pharoah's heart)?"

I believe you are being completely faithful to what you believe.

I believe one of God's miracles and examples of sovereignty and power is that He is able to allow us to make choices freely, know those choices before we make them and than uses our choices to bring glory to His name.

There is a balance between free will and knowing the future that exists that most people can't comprehend because we are not able to know the future exactly as God knows it.

As some people might say...timing is everything.

Everything happens within God's perfect timing.

There is a reason God chose Pharoah and chose that time to bring Glory to His name.

For the Bible to be the true Word of God it has to be accurate and there is a reason why the Bible doesn't use the word "forced" in place of "hardened". There is a difference and that is why the word "forced" was not used.

How else could God chose the exact time, person and place to bring glory to His name if He didn't already know what the outcome would be?

By limiting our understanding of time and knowledge, we are limiting our perceived capabilities of our All Mighty Creator.

I believe our God is a fair, just and loving God and it wouldn't be fair, just or loving to FORCE a man to do something he had no control over and than punish him for it.

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

I believe one of God's miracles and examples of sovereignty and power is that He is able to allow us to make choices freely, know those choices before we make them and than uses our choices to bring glory to His name.

There is a balance between free will and knowing the future that exists that most people can't comprehend because we are not able to know the future exactly as God knows it.

So, am I understanding you correctly, Ray, that you would insist that Pharaoh had the total freedom to decide to soften his heart?

Does your useage of the word "sovereignty" render it void of any element of power to constrain or control people, angels or objects?

For the Bible to be the true Word of God it has to be accurate and there is a reason why the Bible doesn't use the word "forced" in place of "hardened". There is a difference and that is why the word "forced" was not used.

I think we are mostly agreeing on this....as I mentioned earlier that God didn't force Pharoah by using outward coersion or guilt manipulation...but God did narrowly restrict the existing boudaries of what Pharoah wanted or desired in order to accomplish his own purposes. These boundaries were originally restricted via Adam's sin imputed to Pharoah...in which Pharoah had no freedom of choice whatsoever. God didn't ask Pharoah if he wanted a sin nature. Rather, He inherited a sinful corrupt nature that controls him....and God chose not to rescue (be merciful to) him from it's control.

Don't be bashful in outright telling me that you don't think my best guess is not being faithful to what God intended to convey through his Word....He might determine to use you to show me something I am not considering, but you've got show substantial evidence to me via textual means. Thanks for the dialogue. :)

[BLACK WOLF]

Hi Swanny,

I'm not trying to be bashful, but I am trying to be compassionate and understanding ;)

That goes both ways...God very well may use you to get me to see something I may have missed before ;)

"So, am I understanding you correctly, Ray, that you would insist that Pharaoh had the total freedom to decide to soften his heart?"

Yes, within the boundries that God has created for us all.

"Does your useage of the word "sovereignty" render it void of any element of power to constrain or control people, angels or objects?"

You can constrain or control people, angels or objects by setting laws, allowing choices and/or than fulfilling the foretold consequences to those choices.

We do not have the complete freedom to DO whatever we want because God put limitations on us, but we do have the complete freedom to make Choices and God is the only One, who has the power to allow or deny the fulfillment of those choices.

To me...that is still an example of a Sovereign King.

Yes, I believe Pharoah inherited a sinful nature as we all have, which is the example of the potter and the clay, but to say that our sinful nature is the ONLY thing controling us in our decisions as adults would be incorrect...otherwise we would all end up exactly as Pharoah did.

Rather, it is our upbringing, our life experiences, the presence of God and our sinful nature that influences our choices.

The person in power is the one who makes the rules and has the power to enforce those rules. God made the rules. God gave us a choice and God has the power to grant or deny that choice.

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

Bear with me, Ray. Gotto ask a similar question from a different angle:

Are you saying that Pharaoh had the ability, or was able to choose (freedom) to soften his heart after God hardened it? Was Pharoah able to resist God's power in hardening?

Would God be unjust in holding someone accountable for something they lacked in ability to do?

[BLACK WOLF]

Swanny...I've got plenty of bear to spare ;)

"Are you saying that Pharaoh had the ability, or was able to choose (freedom) to soften his heart after God hardened it?"

Yes, but he chose not to and God knew He wouldn't.

"Was Pharoah able to resist God's power in hardening?"

Yes, but history tells us he chose not to.

The key to understanding the balance of free will and God's power is understanding God's ability to forsee the choices we will make, and how and when He uses it to His and our benefit.

"Would God be unjust in holding someone accountable for something they lacked in ability to do?"

Yes...and that is why I believe that children before the age of maturity are not held responsible as I do those who are metally retarded.

As far as I see it...God created us with the abilty to have children and experience situations similar to the one's we share personally with Him.

I would no more eternally punish my child for something they lacked in abilty to do than I believe God would.

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

"Are you saying that Pharaoh had the ability, or was able to choose (freedom) to soften his heart after God hardened it?"

Yes, but he chose not to and God knew He wouldn't.

Ray - If Pharaoh had the ability to resist God in this situation, then his actions, if he 'freely' decided to do so would have rendered God's actions and puposes ineffective....thus, like Carson has said, that would make God absolutely contingent on Pharaoh. God's knowledge of what Pharaoh would do in response is inextricably tied to his controlling or governing or authoring the situation. They are inseparably linked. "...who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." Eph 1:11. It doesn't say 'he works out everything in conformity to what he knows people will freely decide'.

"Was Pharoah able to resist God's power in hardening?"

Yes, but history tells us he chose not to.

The key to understanding the balance of free will and God's power is understanding God's ability to forsee the choices we will make, and how and when He uses it to His and our benefit.

Romans 9:16 -21 says "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire [i.e.choice] or effort, but on God's mercy....One of you will say to me: 'then why does God still blame us? For who resists is will?" [rhetorical answer: No one can]. 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?' [without the ability to resist your will and yet, blameable].

Do you think this passage adequately answers the dilemma of whether Pharaoh was ultimately able to resist?

"Would God be unjust in holding someone accountable for something they lacked in ability to do?"

[U]Yes...and that is why I believe that children before the age of maturity are not held responsible as I do those who are metally retarded.

As far as I see it...God created us with the abilty to have children and experience situations similar to the one's we share personally with Him.

I would no more eternally punish my child for something they lacked in abilty to do than I believe God would.

Did God enter into a covenant agreement with the children of Israel with full knowledge that they wouldn't be able (inability) to keep the covenant fully in order to receive the covenant blessings? Answer: Yes, according to Ex. 19 - 36. He told Moses this several times. In other words: Can Israel faithfully keep the covenant commands? Answer: No, they lacked the ability to do so. The covenant actually incited them to sin even more (Rom 5:20 "The law was added so that the trespass might increase..."). Did their inability mitigate, or cancel out, their responsibility? Answer: No - God held them liable and judged them accordingly with the Babelonian and Assyrian captivities. God's anger burned hot as they rebelled time and time and time again. Was God unjust in doing so? Not at all. He's got the right to do as He pleases. What he pleases to do is righteously just.

Some more scriptures that speak to man's inabilities due to the sinful nature:

"The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." Rom.8:6-8

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit". Mtt.7:18

Speaking to the Jews that had supposedly 'believed' in him (vs.31), Jesus says: "Why is my language not clear [i.e., understandable/comprehendable] to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire." Jn.8:43,44

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned". I Cor.2:14

'Cannot' at face value literally means lack of ability, i.e., inability. If my kids ask to go outside in this way..."Can I go play"...the correct definitive response is "Are you able?". If I ask them "Are you able to climb to the top of the rope?" and they answered "I can"...then I would need to see them actually climb to the top in order to prove that they aren't lying about their ability.

Ray, as gently and unprovokingly and as unpiously as I can.... (or am able :) )

How would you respond to someone's questioning whether you are yielding allegiance to an 'a priori definition' concerning the extent of man's ability to choose? If your responses don't contain references to what you think are clear texts of Scripture speaking directly to the issues, then is it possible you are operating from assumptions, or intuition, or logical deductions? Does that concern you in your search for understanding the mind of God?

Granted, you may have texts that have convinced you of your position, but just haven't referred to them.

I will readily admit my interpretations of certain texts may be wrong, but I must maintain a commitment to build a framework from a basis of Scripture.

If anyone else out there reading in on this discussion has any insightful comments for us both....feel free to jump right in! :)

Got to jump in bed....thanks for the conversation, Ray. I appreciate your efforts to know God more and highly respect you for your edifying attitude. Blessings to you.

[BLACK WOLF]

Swanny,

"If Pharaoh had the ability to resist God in this situation, then his actions, if he 'freely' decided to do so would have rendered God's actions and puposes ineffective..."

Again...Pharoah chose to not believe and God knew he wouldn't. You have to remember God knows everything and He isn't going to attempt something He doesn't already know the outcome of...like I said earlier...there is a balance between free will, God's sovereignty and time that I believe you are not able to understand as of yet.

"It doesn't say 'he works out everything in conformity to what he knows people will freely decide'."

You are right it doesn't say that but if you understand God's will, which includes giving us the freedom to make choices than you understand that it is a part of His will and purpose.

"Do you think this passage adequately answers the dilemma of whether Pharaoh was ultimately able to resist?"

Resist what...God's will?

And what is God's will?

As I stated above, I believe it was to create man so that we could share a personal relationship with Him based on being able to choose it freely within the boundries that He originally layed out.

No one can resist His will. No one can get away without making a choice, unless of course they are unable to.

Who are we to say: "Why did you allow us to have a choice between obeying and disobeying you and why did you allow us to inherit a sinful nature?" That is how I understand Romans 9:16 -21.

I believe that passage often confuses people into believing that God is a puppet master.

"The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." Rom.8:6-8

Swanny...correct me if I'm wrong...you are a Christian...correct?

Do you still sin?

If you do...wouldn't that indicate that you are still sinful and controlled to some extent by your sinful nature...correct?

So how can God be pleased with you if you still are being controlled to some extent by your sinful nature?

How can that be based on that passage above?

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit". Mtt.7:18

Again, in other words how can you still sin and bear good fruit?

'Cannot' at face value literally means lack of ability, i.e., inability...the key is...at that present time.

Again, the missing ingredient or hidden treasure I believe you are over looking or can't see yet...is 'time'. Everything that we do is based on time. There is a begining and an end and everything that has, is or will happen is known by God.

"If my kids ask to go outside in this way..."Can I go play"...the correct definitive response is "Are you able?". If I ask them "Are you able to climb to the top of the rope?" and they answered "I can"...then I would need to see them actually climb to the top in order to prove that they aren't lying about their ability."

That is human reasoning. God doesn't need to reason like that because He already knows if they can or can't. In other words...He doesn't need to see them actually climb anything to prove that they can.

So you want scripture...I'll give you scripture...but what you do with it is your choice.

Ex 10:3-4 "So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will bring locusts into your country tomorrow."

Why does God ask how long Pharoah will REFUSE to humble himself if in fact He can't?

Based on that verse Pharoah does have the choice to humble himself...but he REFUSES...that indicates Pharoah is in control of his choice...not God.

Again...hardening is not the same as controling.

How does God harden Pharoah's heart?....by bringing locusts into his country as punishment for his choice to not humble himself. It isn't by force or control, it's by punishment. God gives us a choice with consequences and than we make a choice and than God responds with the consequence and than we are given another choice. This goes on and on every minute and every second throughout life to this day.

The key is to also understand some over-looked but important words...in this case they would be...hardened and refused.

It is becoming increasingly apparent you are set in your beliefs as I am and that no matter what I say or share with you will just cause you to research more and share verses that you believe support your belief.

Whether or not a person believes exactly as you or I do, is not the determining factor on whether or not we are saved. I think we both agree that the only thing a person needs to believe for salvation is that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior.

If you or anyone else feels this is something they are benefiting from than I think we should continue, but if not than we should agree we disagree.

Respectfully,

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

but if not than we should agree we disagree

That's fine, Ray. Thanks for chatting. Have a good day! :)

[BLACK WOLF]

Thank you too, Swanny...and may God Bless you.

Ray ;)