Board index ‹ Free Will

[Malt Heaven]

Let's continue the discussion. Here's what you wrote, Jim:

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.

My response to you is this: It's really easy if you stop your definition of free will as the ability to decide but that's a pretty shallow definition.

[jimwalton]

For the sake of simplicity (unless you want to get into a discussion about libertarianism or compulsion), free will can be intelligibly defined as the power of self-determination. I would argue that the Bible teaches that humans are able to authentically choose between alternative courses of action, with a sense of personal responsibility, moral reasoning, and moral culpability. We are self-conscious, and are able to deliberate in reflective thinking. Therefore, humans are self-determining, according to the Bible. If you want to keep talking about "shallow definitions," keep talking to me.