Do We Have Free Will?

A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB): What The Bible Says About Freewill (Determinism)

[SAB] God determines who is going to heaven ...

Response: Greek mythology portrayed the three goddesses, the Fates, as those who spun the thread of life and determining the length of it, cut it. The Bible teaches no such thing. Though the language used in modern translations can be somewhat misleading, when looking at this difficult subject it is important that we are careful with language. For example, under the heading "God determines who is going to heaven" it is important to note that that statement is true. God does determine, or decide, who is going to heaven. It doesn't necessarily imply that God predetermines this.

Acts 13:48 (KJV) uses the term "ordained." To be ordained in a religious sense is to officially appoint someone to a position such as Priest or Rabbi. Keep in mind that to appoint someone doesn't in itself determine the outcome of it. It doesn't dictate their success or failure. To ordain in a legal sense means to establish something formerly as by law. Again, this doesn't dictate success or failure. The law ordained isn't necessarily obeyed or followed.

In an attempt to get a better sense of what is being implied, compare the verse with other translations. The NIV, YLT and ESV use the term appointed. To me this is a more appropriate term. It can mean previously agreed upon, and met at the appointed time, but it can also mean decorated in the sense of being well furnished or equipped.

With all of this in mind consider the NWT, which uses the most easily understood and scripturally accurate (supported) terminology. They use the term "rightly disposed."

So the reader has the choice of leaning towards a fate predetermined like the goddesses of Greek mythology mentioned above, which isn't supported by scripture, or leaning, instead, to the peoples of the nations hearing the statement given at Acts 13:47: "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth" they would see themselves as being given the opportunity to meet this appointment quoted from Isaiah 42:6-7. The Christian era had opened the possibility of salvation to the Gentiles; the nations.

The possibility of salvation. There would be no need for repentance of the wicked, nor the need to continue in righteousness if it were all decided for each of us beforehand. (2 Peter 3:17)

The point being that God at some point knew that the Gentiles would have this opportunity but didn't foreordain the acceptance of those Gentiles of that opportunity, the choice was up to them.

When considering Romans 8:29-30 it is apparent that it isn't a reference to specific individuals, but rather with a class of people. Jehovah has determined that there will be a group of people - Christians - who would be justified or declared righteous rather than that specific individuals were predestined for it. This is obvious, again as with Acts 13:48, when addressing the same group of possible candidates for this group, Peter warns of the possibility of failing. (2 Peter 1:10) If God had predestined these individuals for either failing or succeeding in being a part of this group there would be nothing they could do to change that. The possibility of failing wouldn't be for those whom God had foreordained for that position, so that isn't the case.

The King James Version reads the latter portion of 2 Timothy 1:9 as "before the world began." Various translations differ: YLT "Before the time of the ages" / NIV "before the beginning of time." / Douay-Rheims "before the times of the world." / ESV "before the ages began." What exactly does this term mean? Most people tend to think of it incorrectly as being before the creation of earth and man, meaning that all since then had been foreknown by God. That isn't the case at all.

The Greek term katabole is used, and literally means a casting or laying down. For example, throwing down a seed. At Hebrews 11:11 the term is applied to Sarah's being given the gift to "conceive" at a late age.

At Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us insight on when this term, the founding of the world, began. From the blood of Abel. Abel, of course, was the offspring of Adam and Eve, so this time began when the first human couple conceived and began the race of mankind.

The word "world" is translated from the Greek kosmos, which has various meanings. 1. Humankind as a whole. 2. The structure of the human circumstances into which one is born and lives and 3. The masses of humankind apart from God's servants.

So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he towards it's beginning and we towards it's conclusion. The founding of the world, in this sense, then, would be the period of time after Adam's sin but before Adam and Eve conceived. This is the period of time in which God began to allow for the possibility of salvation from the harmful effects of Adam's sin. Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy of the Bible, is often overlooked as the beginning of all of this because it is often viewed as strictly a pronouncement upon Adam and Eve and the Serpent. When actually it is the first indication that there would be a division of, in a sense of the word, worlds. Those siding with Satan's seed; his "offspring" so to speak and those of Jehovah's seed from the woman, his earthly organization of faithful followers who were proved to be rightly disposed or ordained as a class of people from that moment until the conclusion of the world. Put simply, there would be those for Jehovah and those against.

The same would apply to Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as with 2 Timothy 1:9

[SAB] and who is going to hell.

Response: The Bible doesn't teach the hellfire doctrine.

At 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, where the KJV uses the term "a strong delusion" other translations use "working of error," (ASV) "a misleading influence, a working of error," (AMP) "fooled into believing a lie." (CEV) The question is, what does this mean?

In a basic sense it means God will allow them to believe as they will, which in this case, was a lie as it was with King Ahab at 1 Kings 22:1-38; 2 Chronicles 18. If you prefer the lie there is nothing that God can do to change that except hold you accountable to it. Note that other translations use the term "judged" rather than damned as the KJV uses. Also note that, where most translations, including the KJV, use the term "found pleasure" in unrighteousness literally means in Greek "having thought well." They have given it thought and strive in an intellectual sense, to come to the conclusion they desire.

[SAB] There's nothing you can do about it.

Romans 9:11-22 - Verses such as these are often judged in a predestinarian perspective which is, at best, arbitrary. Fortunately God's perfection isn't so demanding so as to feel the need to measure up completely to the standards of excellence set by those who are not qualified to judge its merits. Put simply, as the Christian would put it, most often without having even the slightest knowledge of why, it amounts to God's grace. In other words, God's undeserved kindness. There is nothing we can do to make it so we "deserve" it.

In the case of Jacob and Esau, the firstborn, by tradition, was expected to have a claim on birthright, but Jehovah decided that it would be Jacob. Esau didn't appreciate it. Jehovah would see to Jacob's prospering. Is this a case of predestination? No. Even in the womb before they were born the twins struggled, and so then Jehovah revealed to Rebekah the way things would be. (Genesis 25:22-23; also see Psalm 139:13-16)

I believe so but only within a certain margin.

Whatever the Bible is said to teach, the subject of free will remains a subject on which there is no conclusion. The arguments still go back and forth. Even in those who still seek answers to anything at all in the Bible, what it actually is claimed to teach is disputed. Predestination, loved by some, seems to preclude free will. Again, given that "we were chosen before the foundation of the world" (St Paul, Ephesians), free will seems to rest in God alone. (I will leave the question of whether even an all knowing God could actually foreknow the choice of a radically free creature yet to be created)

But to consider free will as often envisaged by certain Christians (of the conservative/literalist/fundamentalist Protestant Reform tradition - AKA [to themselves] as the "True Christians"...😀 ) let us analyse it.

It is claimed that God gave us free will so that we, created beings born unasked into a world of extreme inequalities and ambiguities, could "accept" or "reject" Him. Rejection leading to a "just" fate of perpetual conscious torment.

Yet statistics show that up until very recently around 50% of those ever born have died prior to puberty - i.e. before being capable of exercising free will even if they were to have it.

Second, taking the preaching at face value, the only exercise of free will deemed ultimately significant is whether of not anyone has chosen to "accept Jesus". All other choices appear to have no significance. A human being who chooses to study medicine - for instance - simply because they seek to help mankind, yet who has no time for Jesus, has apparently been deemed to have rejected God. No doubt other examples can come to mind. The creedo "not by works but faith alone" is cited to justify the rejection of those who demonstrate a love of their fellow human beings who yet scorn all religion.

Again, free will - so "important" - exists only for our "three score years and ten" (those years if we are lucky!) and then ceases to be. The saved can no longer choose evil, the damned can no longer choose non-existence rather than perpetual torment.

What is actually left of "free will" in such a scenario, in such a creed? To think at all is to recognise its absurdity.

Of course, outside such theologies, Christianity in its sheer width, depth and breadth, has deeper insights. Alas, insights, and theologies, deemed "apostate" by such "True Christians". I could quote here the "Gift of Freedom" by Thomas Merton of the Catholic Church (AKA "The Great Whore of Babylon...😀 ) , a shortish essay that begins to make sense of human freedom. Or perhaps drift towards ideas to be found in the Dharma.

I would simply say that as I see it radical freedom belongs only to Reality-as-is, and in uniting with such Reality freedom is found/received. "The truth sets us free" (as the Good Book says.....😀 ) It is gift, grace. We are not born with it, to choose or reject some transcendent Being, but when the "self" surrenders, freedom is found.

That is enough.

I don't believe we do. We act up in instinct or memories. We used intelligence.

If the self is just a fiction,a delusion then there's no self to have free will.

Technically no we don’t. But we have choice but to live with the assumption that we have it.

Interesting Indian philosophical perspective on freewill. Must listen completely.


[media=https://youtu.be/VzbyeU3dK4g]

Lmao! This is dumb asf

Yeah, I stopped reading about the time you said that being ordained didn't mean being ordained.