God's Will

[saintwalee]

Isa 43:11  I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isa 43:12  I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
Isa 43:13  Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? ...
Isa 43:25  I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

I guess that should put to rest the idea of free will.

Doesn't that just take a burden off your shoulders? His salvation is His will, we can just rest in that assurance and enjoy the comfort and peace that brings.  :dsunny:

[jabcat]

 :thumbsup:   :dsunny:

[marie glen]

Absolutely! .."lest any should boast!" ...all His will,. His choosing, His election..

..and all His doing..!!

[eaglesway]

No particular verse cut out of the whole cloth "puts to rest" the idea of free will :o)

If I quote, "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve" and then follow it by saying, "I guess that puts to rest calling and election"- such a thing would be ridiculous, and of course- I believe in calling and election. I just believe that stewardship involves a measure of free will and that is how we learn to become "sons" of God- so that we can set the whole creation free into the "glorious liberty of the children of God". The reason the subject has been debated so hotly for 1500 years is because it is NOT as simple as anything that can be defined by one or two particular verses.

It is really all about love anyway.  :dsunny:

[micah7:9]

 :doh:

[eaglesway]

LOL

[Tony N]

No particular verse cut out of the whole cloth "puts to rest" the idea of free will :o)

If I quote, "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve" and then follow it by saying, "I guess that puts to rest calling and election"- such a thing would be ridiculous, and of course- I believe in calling and election. I just believe that stewardship involves a measure of free will and that is how we learn to become "sons" of God- so that we can set the whole creation free into the "glorious liberty of the children of God". The reason the subject has been debated so hotly for 1500 years is because it is NOT as simple as anything that can be defined by one or two particular verses.

It is really all about love anyway.  :dsunny:

Hi eaglesway,
The Bible does say mankind has a will. It is called the will of the flesh (John 1:13, Eph.2:3).

Now then, the "choose ye this day whom you will serve . . . " is important. Even though they said "all you say we will do," (after all, that was their choice), Joshua told them they cannot serve the Lord.

Why not? The flesh is at enmity to God and cannot please Him and is not subject to His law (Romans 8). So the will of man may be free to a certain degree but it certainly is not free to please God, do His law etc. I guess you could say mankind's will is free to oppose God. But that is actually bondage because man cannot break out of that bondage to please God unless God frees them.

[joeteekay]

Man has a will. Man makes his own choices. It is not free in the true sense of the word "free", independent of God.
In defiance of God, no way!.

Tentmaker site has a number of good articles on this most fundamental question.

Here is one:

http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/ForceOrFreeWill.html

[Tony N]

Man has a will. Man makes his own choices. It is not free in the true sense of the word "free", independent of God.
In defiance of God, no way!.

Tentmaker site has a number of good articles on this most fundamental question.

Here is one:

http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/ForceOrFreeWill.html

For the disposition of the flesh is death,
yet the disposition of the spirit is life and peace,
because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God,
for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able."
Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God. (Romans 8:6-8)

Mankind's will is the will of the flesh. That will is at enmity to God and not able to please God.

[micah7:9]

One BIG AMEN from this one! :dsunny:

[eaglesway]

Hi Tony,

I kno my position is unpopular on this, and I never claim to have the paradox completely fathomed. However, as I see it, the heart of man chooses to be "in the flesh" OR "in the spirit". IMO on some level man has a will that can choose between flesh and spirit, or the exhortations of the scriptures are play writing. That's just my opinion, but thats how I see it. A lot of interpretation and allegorizing has to be done with the simple language of scripture for it to be otherwise.

I understand that " it is God who is in you to will and to do of His good pleasure," so in now way hav I ever said that the will of man is completely free. However, at present the language of scripture has me convinced that there is a stewardship of freedom given, the exercising of which brings rewards(more of God) and penalties(less of God). The end of successful stewardship is the "glorious liberty of the sons of God"- a place in the priesthood and authority of benevolence for mature sons of God.

To me this is the "has", in to him who has more shall be given.

"Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart and you shall find rest for your souls". A simple exhortation, of which there are many, which calls to discipleship and requires a free choice in order to progress as sons. This to me is, "overcoming".

[eaglesway]

Of course I understand that everyone has reached there respective positions on this throu careful study and meditation. I do not disrespect anyones view on it, as it is a mystery in my opinion. My own views require the full satsfaction of the common language of scripture on all sides of the question, and as yet I am not convinced that the position you advocate does so.

[dajomaco]

We make a lot of choices based on how we are feeling.

God's will is not affected by our feelings.

How we feel about God's will.
We seem to have complete freedom in this area.

[micah7:9]

"However, as I see it, the heart of man chooses to be "in the flesh" OR "in the spirit". EW

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 to do that which is good is not.

1Co 12:3  wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus is anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps, I again have misunderstood your statement.
Man, in Genesis made a choice, a choice caused by God for His purpose, man's choosing's has not changed, nor can man's choosing change until  Joh 6:44  no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;
Only then can man choose and then in choosing (imo)  is caused by the WILL OF GOD, to do His Will.
Man's will has been to sin, man's will is to sin, man's will cannot change, until man is drawn, and then man's will is of God. Man on or for his own, cannot... will... freely, to choose God.
And yes of course it is my opinion that I am given to understand. :Peace2:

[Seth]

"Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart and you shall find rest for your souls". A simple exhortation, of which there are many, which calls to discipleship and requires a free choice in order to progress as sons. This to me is, "overcoming".

Here is my question though, why does it require FREE choice in order to progress as sons. I understand it requires a choice, but why a FREE choice? Can't God work sovereignly through the choices made by men so that his elect is all of his own making?

[dajomaco]

My mind is convinced that it can make choices.

I can comprehend that I choice to ask Jesus to help me.
I did this as a free choice.

I can apprehend that God willed that I make that choice.

When God's will and my will are the same, I am conforming to God's will.
When God's will and my will are not the same, I am not conforming to God's will.

God's will is past it is already done.

How can my will affect something that has already happened .

[eaglesway]

"Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart and you shall find rest for your souls". A simple exhortation, of which there are many, which calls to discipleship and requires a free choice in order to progress as sons. This to me is, "overcoming".

Here is my question though, why does it require FREE choice in order to progress as sons. I understand it requires a choice, but why a FREE choice? Can't God work sovereignly through the choices made by men so that his elect is all of his own making?

In my opinion it is a matter of opinion/emphasis/perspective :o) As I said before, I understand the theory on all sides of the question. I just am loathe to embrace explanations that go beyond(or do not fulfill) the language of exhortation in the scriptures and the accountability they entail. If I am wrong about that in due time I am sure the Holy Spirit will allow me to see it- but in the meantime I personally do not go beyond what is written, and since I see elements of  all of these theories in the writings, I believe there are elements of all of them in the whole cloth of the truth. I do not feel the need to fully understand something to the extent that I must sacrifice scriptures to resolve issues.

The reason I think there is a stewardship of freedom is because the scriptures use that language. A study of the words freedom and liberty, stewardship and discipleship- indicates to me that freedom is an important element of relationships in general, with God in particualr, and as sons, stewards and disciples in application. :o)

[Tony N]

Of course we all make choices. But are those choices really free from causality?
Example: Someone chose to quit smoking. What caused them to quit? Was it the fear of getting cancer? Was it the constant coughing and hacking at night? Was it the high price of cigarettes? No choice is uncaused, hence, not free in the truest sense of the word.

Here is another example from Scripture:
Gal 5:17 For the flesh is lusting against the spirit, yet the spirit against the flesh.
Now these are opposing one another, lest you should be doing whatever you may want."

Suppose you choose to do something as simple as go to town to sell things? Is that really a choice free from causality? James suggests it isn't:

Come now, you who are saying, "Today or tomorrow we will be going into this or that city and should be spending a year there,
and we will be trafficking and getting gain-" who are not versed in that which is the morrow's, for what is your life? For a vapor
are you, which is appearing briefly and thereupon disappearing-" instead of your saying, "If the Lord should ever be willing, and
we shall be living, we also shall be doing this or that." Yet now you are vaunting in your ostentations. All such boasting is wicked. (James 4:13-16)

Per the above, if you die you surely won't be able to go to town and sell your things. And just as powerful as death is, the Lord's will is just as powerful. If He is not willing
you won't be going.

So why are there so many entreaties in the Scriptures to do the right thing? These entreaties are what the Lord uses to get us to do the right thing.

Often when Jesus told the Jews to do this or that it was to prove to them they could not do it to show their inabilities and thus trust in the Lord. This is also why the law was given, that the offense would increase (Romans 5) and to lead them to Christ (Gal.3:24). It was not given and told to do because the Lord thought they could do it. They were told to do it to show they could not do it.

[eaglesway]

Of course we all make choices. But are those choices really free from causality?
Example: Someone chose to quit smoking. What caused them to quit? Was it the fear of getting cancer? Was it the constant coughing and hacking at night? Was it the high price of cigarettes? No choice is uncaused, hence, not free in the truest sense of the word.

Here is another example from Scripture:
Gal 5:17 For the flesh is lusting against the spirit, yet the spirit against the flesh.
Now these are opposing one another, lest you should be doing whatever you may want."

Suppose you choose to do something as simple as go to town to sell things? Is that really a choice free from causality? James suggests it isn't:

Come now, you who are saying, "Today or tomorrow we will be going into this or that city and should be spending a year there,
and we will be trafficking and getting gain-" who are not versed in that which is the morrow's, for what is your life? For a vapor
are you, which is appearing briefly and thereupon disappearing-" instead of your saying, "If the Lord should ever be willing, and
we shall be living, we also shall be doing this or that." Yet now you are vaunting in your ostentations. All such boasting is wicked. (James 4:13-16)

Per the above, if you die you surely won't be able to go to town and sell your things. And just as powerful as death is, the Lord's will is just as powerful. If He is not willing
you won't be going.

So why are there so many entreaties in the Scriptures to do the right thing? These entreaties are what the Lord uses to get us to do the right thing.

Often when Jesus told the Jews to do this or that it was to prove to them they could not do it to show their inabilities and thus trust in the Lord.

I agree that the overall causality in all things is God. I also believe God, within His overal causality creates parameters of freedom for growth into friends, disciples and stewards of God. He seeks FELLOWSHIP. IMO, He is teaching us to walk with God.

And, if I decide to sell some things, He is not concerned, as long as commerce is not my god and greed for gain my motivation. Even if it is, He might allow me to live so- I will answer for it on the Day- as James expounds.

For me, this passage confirms my view.

[eaglesway]

I also believe many entreaties are to show us our inability- so that we will turn to God for the ability/grace/spirit to do so. I have no ability without Him, yet He asks me to turn to Him and trust Him- and His grace is in all of it- even the supply of grace/faith/spirit with which I believe and turn. Nevertheless, IMO He allows mea measure of freedom so that I am not a forced lover, but a wooed one. This is the Bride. The expectant virgins hav extra oil. The indifferent one cannot arrive at the wedding feast because they lose their way in the darkness.

Therefore, let everyone await His appearing in a wakeful, prepared state. Watch, pray, be careful how youn hear what the Spirit is saying. To him who has more shall be given :o)

[Seth]

The reason I think there is a stewardship of freedom is because the scriptures use that language. A study of the words freedom and liberty, stewardship and discipleship- indicates to me that freedom is an important element of relationships in general, with God in particualr, and as sons, stewards and disciples in application. :o)

But regarding the language of freedom, what I tend to see in the scriptures is that it's usually talking about freedom from sin, by being slave to righteousness, not necessarily free from causality. In Romans, he pretty much takes all the credit: 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8)

What I see happening is that when God gives a choice, he is essentially setting a standard, one that he is actually able to fulfill himself through his foreknowledge, predestination unto conformity to Christ etc, by acting through the choices made to bring about his plan, by his own influence. That is why our faith is not of ourselves, and neither is our conformity to the image of Christ. God carries his pre-chosen throughout the entire process, so that unlike Ishmael, the born Sons are by miracle of God's choosing, like Isaac.

[dajomaco]

So the Lord God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it.
And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Adam had free will in the Garden.
God allowed Adam to name every creature.

Adam named Eve.

We have free will in name only.

[Seth]

So the Lord God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it.
And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Adam had free will in the Garden.
God allowed Adam to name every creature.

Adam named Eve.

We have free will in name only.

How do you know God didn't influence Adam to name the creatures what he wanted them to be named?

[eaglesway]

I don't see that. I would consider that, in some cases, an assumption based in systematic theology.

The freedom we are offered is way more(to mee) than freedom from sin. It is freedom to walk as John 3:5-8. The wind blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it, but you do not kno where it is going to or from whence it comes- SO IT IS with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

The consequence of freedom from sin is not the limit or the sum definition of freedom anywhere I can read.

[eaglesway]

So the Lord God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it.
And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Adam had free will in the Garden.
God allowed Adam to name every creature.

Adam named Eve.

We have free will in name only.

How do you know God didn't influence Adam to name the creatures what he wanted them to be named?

What would be the point of such a fruitless enterprise? :o)