Board index ‹ Free Will

[The Egg]

Where exactly in the Bible does it say that people were given free will? This is a simple question. And where does it say that god cannot violate humans freewill?

[Durzanult]

We have the right to choose, but not the right to choose the consequences of those choices.

Within the Bible, I cannot point to verses that directly state it, but I can point to a scripture that directly implies it: Genesis 2:16

[The Egg]

"16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

That seems like a stretch, to be honest. I'm not seeing how it implies freewill. It almost seems to imply the opposite, do as god says or face terrible consequences. Even if it did imply freewill, is it really freewill if not obeying leads to horrendous consequences? It would be like saying "follow my ideology or face horrendous punishment." You have a choice, but one of the options leads to horrendous consequence making the choice unrealistic.

[jimwalton]

I've been reading the thread. Free will pertains to the ability to decide, not to the possible consequences, the positivity or negativity of the consequences, or even the responsibility for our actions. Free will is the ability to decide.

Free will is inherent in and fundamental to the Bible's account of creation. The mandate to rule in Gn. 1.26, on the basis of the image (also in 26) implies the same exercise of free will that God exercised throughout the chapter. So also the blessings of "be fruitful and multiply" (1.28), the mandate to fill up and subdue the earth (1.28). It implies a legitimate degree of sovereignty, control, and direction. That humanity is to work and care for the garden (priestly terms, Gn. 2.15) are also indicators of free will. The decision presented in 2.16 with regard to the tree are, as you can see, further down the line and not the only way humanity is expected (or forced for you cynics out there) to apply his and her free will.

That some decisions are neutral (hm, what shall I eat today?) and others are consequential (if you disobey me on this point it will bring death) says nothing about the reality and possibly the necessity of free will. As we all know, that's just the way it goes with decision-making: Most are tiny, some are huge. That some decisions have dire consequences doesn't at all imply or necessitate that free will is a farce, or that Adam & Eve were arm-twisted. It's really just an honest forewarning that this is a consequential exercise of free will. That doesn't make the choice unrealistic, just significant. I'll choose a silly example to try to make my point: Suppose you're on a free fall from a plane. You have a parachute (thankfully). You really only have two choice: pull the rip cord, or don't pull it. Does that mean it's not a real choice? On the contrary, it's a VERY real choice. Does that mean you don't have free will? Of course not. It's all yours. Do or don't, it's up to you. REALLY up to you.

Someone said, "Responsible for our own actions doesn't mean we're able to choose our own actions." But it's true the other way (the way the Bible says it):Able to choose our own actions makes us responsible for our own actions. It only makes sense: your money's where your mouth is. As you decide, so you shall go, and since you're the one who set the direction, you are the one accountable for the direction.

> Where does it say that god cannot violate humans freewill?

It doesn't say it because its implicit in the definition of love. The Bible is quite firm about God being a God of love (Ex. 15.13; 20.6; Jn. 3.16, and hundreds of others) and that we are to love him in return (Dt. 6.5; 1 Cor. 2.9; Rom. 13.10 and hundreds of others). We understand by definition that love and free will can only coexist as long as there is no violation. If I constrain you, I am not acting out of love, but out of force. If I say you have free will, but then add, "But you can only choose the good," then you don't have free will, by definition. The only way both love and free will can be present is if there is true freedom.

[Mr. Bojangles]

Your explanation remains insufficient. There can be no moral accountability without moral knowledge.

[jimwalton]

I agree that there can be no moral accountability without moral knowledge. The Bible agrees with you too. Rom. 5.13: "For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." I never asserted that there was moral accountability without moral knowledge, nor did I imply it. I assume you're making an assessment of the Genesis text, in which case you're misunderstanding the text. There is no inference in the text that morality was not in the system before Gn. 2.16-17 and the decision about the fruit. As a matter of fact, it's just the opposite. For them to rule the earth as God's co-regents in Gn. 1.27 definitely takes both free will and morality; for them to subdue the earth in Gn. 1.28 assumes righteous rule since they were made in his image (1.26), requiring moral choice. There is clearly moral knowledge at play. The creation story of Genesis 1 is unambiguous about God giving the man and woman a godly and moral role to play as they fulfilled the functions to which God mandated them. Your assumption that in Gn. 2.16-17 that God was holding them accountable in an arena in which they had no background and no tools is simply false.

[Mr. Bojangles]

"Free will pertains to the ability to decide"

This is incorrect. Will is the DESIRE to decide. There's no control over that.

[jimwalton]

I beg to differ. We all know about desires that we have inside of us that we control. I see a girl. She's hot. I want her. Do I just go over and TAKE HER?No way. I have self-control. The desire doesn't rule me. I have a WILL on one level that is my DESIRE, but I have a WILL on another level that is my behavior, and I have a mind that exercises a WILL over which will I will pursue and which will I will deny. If you make "will" too simplistic, of course you can brush the whole discussion away. But "will" is deeper than you give it credit for.

I'm at a drinking party. I may have a WILL to drink, but I may also have a WILL to be safe while I drive home. I can control the desire to drink if my desire for arrive home safely is stronger than my desire to indulge, and I get to exercise my free will and decide what I'm going to do.

So I disagree with you. Free will definitely pertains to the ability to decide.

[Corinthian]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but: is an uninformed choice still a choice? Is it a significant choice—a choice for which you should be held accountable?

Let's go back to your analogy. Suppose you are in freefall, with a parachute strapped to your back. You have a choice, pull the ripcord or don't pull it. The consequences are dire.

But suppose you're like the whale from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You were spawned in mid-air mere seconds ago. There's a ripcord in your hand, but you don't know what it is. You can see the ground rushing toward you, but you don't know what that is either. You have no concept or awareness of the impending danger.

What does that say about your choice to pull the ripcord or not? The choice is still there, I suppose, but I would say it's not a significant choice. I would definitely argue that it's not a choice for which you should be accountable. If there were some deity watching this event unfold, he should reach out and pull the ripcord for you.

[jimwalton]

It sounds as if you're assuming that A&E's choice (fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) was an uniformed choice. Let's deal with that one first.

I think, because of the narrative, we fall under the delusion of telescoping. A&E were created on day 6, God rested on day 7, serpent came on day 8. They were uninformed! The tenor of Genesis 2, however, gives a picture of time passing, and perhaps significant time passing, between the various elements of A&E's experiences throughout these chapters. If we look at Gn. 2, we see time passing, processes in progress, and lengthy tasks. V. 9 speaks of an environment that was flourishing and provided provision. Things are growing out of the ground. In v. 15 the Lord God "took" A&E (from somewhere they had been previously, it can be presumed), and moved them to a prepared place as a blessing and to play the role of priest and priestess in his "temple". A&E were there for priestly purposes: "work it" and "take care of it" are priestly terms, not agricultural ones. At this point they are informed about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As I said in my previous post, this is not the first choice A&E have made. They are sentient, moral, freewill beings from the start.

When, in v. 19, humanity is given a role of ordering the animals, the clear implication is that this is a responsibility that takes some time. All this time we can assume that they are interacting with God (as is implied in 3.8), they are making choices, they show intelligence, discernment, and godlikeness in that they order the animals, similar to God's ordering the cosmos in chapter 1. They are fulfilling their roles as equal coworkers, priest and priestess, representing God and interacting with him. They have information about God, information about the world, information about their environment, and moral information. Where is the evidence they are making an uninformed choice?

And then, I have to ask: how much time passes between chapter 2 and 3, according to the text? It doesn't say. This is far from the "spawned in mid-air mere seconds ago...ripcord in hand, but you don't know what it is" scenario. You've created a false world of ignorance (A&E) with a false decision of cluelessness (tree), but neither are true to the text.

Thanks for thinking out loud in my direction. Hopefully some of the things I have said help, or will at least spawn further dialogue.