Enyart replies to AMR's question about God and "will"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
AMR, Knight asked me to reply to this one question of yours, and in December (Lord-willing, after the launch of a new nationwide organization) I'll look at your answers and make a general reply. For now, here's the post I put in the one-on-one:

Thanks for going through all those 50 BR X questions AMR. I'll answer the one question you've asked for now (per Knight's request). On TOL we often discuss God and the future. We Open Thesists argue that God is a living Person, and that He therefore has a will, and therefore has the ability to decide, and that He remains eternally creative, and able to bring truly new things into existence (flowers, songs, books) and that therefore, because God has a will, and is eternally able, free and creative, the future is open because God is able.

Before I answer your question, consider this personhood issue:

To be a person means to possess a will. There is one God in three Persons, and each Person of the Godhead possesses a will. The primary way we can distinguish that God exists in a Trinity of three Persons (as opposed to a unitarian God) is by noticing in Scripture their respective wills, most explicitly portrayed in Gethsemane when God the Son said, “not as I will, but as You will” (Mat. 26:39).

Greek words for will are thelo, boule, boulomai, etc. These words are used of the persons of the Trinity (John 5:30; 6:38, etc.), and basically of all other persons. As I glance very quickly at the New Testament I see these Greek words used: of the Gentiles (1 Pet. 4:3), of Joseph’s will (Mat. 1:19), of a plaintiff’s will (Mat. 5:40), of a debtor (Mat. 5:42), of any man with self interest (Mat. 7:12), of Christ’s enemies (Mat. 12:38), of Herod (Mat. 14:5), of Joseph of Arimathea’s will (Luke 23:51), the majority’s will (Acts 27:12), the evil soldiers’ will (Acts 27:42), the wills of evil men (1 Cor. 4:5), etc., etc., etc.

Personhood requires a will. (Notice, by the way, how central this personhood thing is, and this made in God’s image thing, which must be admitted for a right understanding of most everything.) AMR, I’m taking it from memory that you asked me how it is, if the future is open, that I could trust that God will have the final victory. And here I pick up the dialogue from your post. I answered:

BE: I have faith in God's wisdom, power, and love.

AMR: Do you believe that God acts as a master chess player with wisdom, skill, and resourcefulness to bring about His purposes?

(And then [I haven’t looked up if anything transpired before the next quote]):

BE: ...there is no such thing as overruling someone's will. That is a non sequitur. I'm not saying just that it is not possible, I am saying that it is not rational (it is illogical). Will is the ability to decide.

AMR: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you saying that you believe that God will always respect the free will of His creatures? Or are you saying that God cannot interfere with a person's free will--that it is an impossibility?

Now fast-forward to the present. I try to not dodge questions, but to be direct and complete when I answer. So I’ll answer your question, as you put it, and then I’ll answer a few variations of your question, as I think you meant it.

I am saying that God created creatures with a will, which is their ability to decide. Thus, when Gabriel loves God, it is not God deciding to love Himself through a zero-sum portal. It is Gabriel, this creature, exercising his will. There IS NO SUCH THING as God exercising Gabriel's will. That is a non sequitur. It is irrational. The very notion flows from a misunderstanding of fundamental personhood. There is no such thing as God exercising AMR's or Bob's wills, that is a non sequitur. (And I'm really glad that God is not the one who exercised my will in the godless ways that I have exercised it.) God created beings in His likeness, with a will (the ability to decide) and therefore, with the ability to love or hate, like Gabriel and Lucifer. God does not love Himself through Me, any more than He hates Himself through Lucifer. These are nonsense ideas.

When you ask if God can “interfere” with a person’s free will, perhaps you were imprecise. Interfere? I’ll answer your question with the word interfere, and then I’ll answer it with overrule, and some variations on overruling. If someone is counting to ten, and I spook them, I’ve interfered. If a Christian is deciding whether to marry an unbeliever, and I quote from Paul’s epistle, I’ve interfered. God can rightly educate, urge, trick, etc., a person and thereby interfere with the exercise of his will, that is, to influence the outcome of the use of his will. That is a natural everyday process. But in the end, it is the man’s will, deciding. But I think you wanted to ask something else, and something that is so irrational, that it is somewhat difficult to put into words. But I’ll try.

If you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He physically compel that man to take an action he otherwise would not take? For example, Can God levitate a gun into a man’s hand, point it at someone, and force the man’s muscles to pull the trigger? Of course. Yes. God has the raw power to pull the man’s tendons. But is that overruling the man’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He psychologically manipulate a man to freely do something that he would never otherwise do? For example, Can God deceive a man into shooting someone he would never shoot of his own free will? Of course. Yes. God has the raw power to play such a trivial mind game, and give a person a delusion and make him think he is doing one thing, when he is actually doing another, or give him a delusion to make him think he must do a certain thing, for a very good reason, which reason doesn’t actually exist. In some circumstances, administering drugs can do likewise. But is that overruling or overcoming the man’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He compel a man to freely do something that the man would never otherwise do, something the man is fully aware of, but something he would never do of his own independent will? For example, Herod willed to put John the Baptist to death. And although Herod willed (Greek thelo, will) to murder John, he feared the multitude, so he did not do what he willed (Mat. 14:5). A billion times a day God’s influence moves men to do otherwise than they would have done had His Spirit, His law, His Church, etc., not influenced them otherwise. But is that overruling or overcoming a man’s will? No. Did the multitude overrule Herod’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He… [ad infinitum]

This is an exercise in nonsense. The best I can infer from your question AMR is that you mean to ask something like this: Can God overrule a man’s free will in such a way that now the man actually wills something by his own free will that his own independent free will does not will. This is gibberish.

Ask Mr. Religion, you don’t realize this, but your question, Can God overrule a man’s free will, is the same as asking, Can God unmake a person? Did God put eternity in a man’s heart? That is, Is man created as necessarily an eternal creature? Or, Can God unmake a person? That is what you are asking.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Nang's GPV: Gabriel Puppet Version of the Old and New Testaments

Nang's GPV: Gabriel Puppet Version of the Old and New Testaments

Nang said:
First response from the peanut gallery:
When did Gabriel ever exhibit or exercise a will or ever declare a love for God? I read that Gabriel served God as an angel messenger. It would seem to me that Gabriel is commissioned to serve God as his Sovereign. But maybe I read a different version of the Bible.

Yes Nang, you obviously do. The one that says that Gabriel doesn't love God, and is just a puppet, like everyone else.

-Bob Enyart
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Yes Nang, you obviously do. The one that says that Gabriel doesn't love God, and is just a puppet, like everyone else.

-Bob Enyart


Bob,

I am just am glad you have replied to AMR. He put a lot of effort into giving you sincere and knowledgable answers to your 50 questions.

Nang
 

PKevman

New member
Yes Nang, you obviously do. The one that says that Gabriel doesn't love God, and is just a puppet, like everyone else.

-Bob Enyart

I don't see how Gabriel would be any different than any of the other angels. If Lucifer and the angels who fell could rebel against God, it is obvious they had a will of their own. Unless you take the position that God created Lucifer to fall and wanted Lucifer to fall, and therefore God is the architect of sin and death.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I don't see how Gabriel would be any different than any of the other angels. If Lucifer and the angels who fell could rebel against God, it is obvious they had a will of their own. Unless you take the position that God created Lucifer to fall and wanted Lucifer to fall, and therefore God is the architect of sin and death.

Bob seems to imply that being a willful creature defines personhood. I say being created in the image of God defines personhood.

And personhood is the foundation for a loving relationship between God and His creatures.

Angels are spirit beings. They are not persons, for they were not created in the image of God. The Scriptures say they are designed to serve God, not to have loving relationship with God.

So it is strange to me that Bob uses Gabriel as example of what he wants to sell.

I have answered Pastor Kevin further in this regard, on "The Grandstands" Forum in the Discussion - "Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)" thread. That is the proper place for any further discussion between PK and myself (and any others), unless Bob wants to add his own comments here.

No sense having discussion split on two different forums . . .too hard for readers to follow.

Nang
 
Last edited:

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
NANG hung up on angels; AMR on his own will

NANG hung up on angels; AMR on his own will

Nang wrote: Bob seems to imply that being a willful creature defines personhood. I say being created in the image of God defines personhood.

Nang, God is a person, and He is not made in His own image, so you'll have to adopt a new definition of personhood. (It's not good to make this stuff up as you go along.) God made man in His image and likeness, and these are not synonyms. Some spirit creatures have very different forms as compared to humans, and some angels appear to have the general form of a man. The righteous spirit beings love God, and praise and serve Him. The fallen angels hate God, and oppose Him. Spirit beings that look nothing like humans are not made in God's image (the image He created that His Son now eternally indwells, that of a Man), but only His likeness (they are sentient, moral creatures capable of love).

AMR to Bob said:
Thank you for your response. I appreciate the dissection of my question, but I don't think you keyed in on my actual words, to wit:

AMR: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you saying that you believe that God will always respect the free will of His creatures? Or are you saying that God cannot interfere with a person's free will--that it is an impossibility?

Can you respond to the specific questions above? I believe you have answered the second item as "no, it is not impossible for God to do so, but it is absurd". Fair enough. But you have left the key item unanswered. Does God always respect the free will (by 'free will' I mean the libertarian free will assumed by the open theist) of His creatures?

AMR, I'm done with your question of will. I answered you directly.

In December, Lord-willing, I plan on looking at your BR X answers and making a reply. As for your answers to that material, I hope you answered my questions directly and substantively. I'll make my judgment on that after reading your answers to the first five questions, so, you have time to go back and make sure your answers do not dodge but directly respond to my questions. In your reply quoted above, you just gave us an example of using obfuscation to ignore an answer to your own question. It would have been more instructive if you had actually addressed my answer, and then offered a follow up question. That very exercise may have helped you more honestly assess whether or not I had actually answered your question.

It is my observation, after many years of doing this (see BR X, our Bob Debates a Calvinist DVD, etc.), that Open Theists show more courage in answering questions directly and in generally not obfuscating, not because they are better debaters, but because we have truth on our side, and are therefore not afraid of questions and arguments. But regardless, thanks for participating here on TOL, so that various claims about truth and reality can be compared to Scripture and then weighed by so many others.

The only regret I have in such debates is that a hardened Calvinist is far more of an insult to God than is a casual Calvinist. A studied Calvinist often disdains non-Calvinists, I believe, because they bring to his mind the severity of the charge: that the Calvinist falsely attributes all vulgar wickedness ultimately to the mind of God, who decreed that a certain man would rape a certain young boy, and He made a million men like that, each with no possibility of refraining from such brutality. To teach that, from before the foundation of the world God decreed all of mankind's sexual assault, cruelty, treachery, filth and rebellion is of course, blasphemy. Thankfully, God is rich in mercy even toward such Christians who insult His holiness.

-Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nang, God is a person, and He is not made in His own image, so you'll have to adopt a new definition of personhood. (It's not good to make this stuff up as you go along.)

You are the one presenting the premise that having a will defines personhood, not me.

My dogs and my cats exhibit willfulness . . .are they persons?

Angels are willful creatures, but they remain spirits and are not persons, no matter their ability to take forms, because they were not created in the image of (personal) God.


Some spirit creatures have very different forms as compared to humans, and some angels appear to have the general form of a man.

In case you are not aware, this has nothing to do with your definition of will = personhood.


The righteous spirit beings love God, and praise and serve Him. The fallen angels hate God, and oppose Him. Spirit beings that look nothing like humans are not made in God's image (the image He created that His Son now eternally indwells, that of a Man), but only His likeness (they are sentient, moral creatures capable of love).

So how does this enhance your argument that possessing a will, defines personhood?





It is my observation, after many years of doing this (see BR X, our Bob Debates a Calvinist DVD, etc.), that Open Theists show more courage in answering questions directly and in generally not obfuscating, not because they are better debaters, but because we have truth on our side, and are therefore not afraid of questions and arguments. But regardless, thanks for participating here on TOL, so that various claims about truth and reality can be compared to Scripture and then weighed by so many others.

It is my observation that I have lived longer, and been saved in Christ longer, than any Open Theism advocate present around here and longer than the OT movement began. So far, there are no OT debaters able or willing to successfully engage my questions or debates. Including yourself.

The only regret I have in such debates is that a hardened Calvinist is far more of an insult to God than is a casual Calvinist. A studied Calvinist often disdains non-Calvinists, I believe, because they bring to his mind the severity of the charge: that the Calvinist falsely attributes all vulgar wickedness ultimately to the mind of God, who decreed that a certain man would rape a certain young boy, and He made a million men like that, each with no possibility of refraining from such brutality. To teach that, from before the foundation of the world God decreed all of mankind's sexual assault, cruelty, treachery, filth and rebellion is of course, blasphemy. Thankfully, God is rich in mercy even toward such Christians who insult His holiness.

Bah. What a theologically deficient, blow-hard you reveal yourself to be . . .resorting to ad hominem rather than face legitimate Christian dialogue.

:nono:

And Knight . . .before you ban me outright, for simply responding to this tripe, please read carefully the history of this entire exchange, and determine who has been most contributory, patient, and polite, in the face of serious Christian confrontation.

Nang
 

PKevman

New member
Nang said:
Bah. What a theologically deficient, blow-hard you reveal yourself to be

I sure didn't get that impression from reading Bob's responses. Maybe your theology has corrupted your ability to objectively consider things?
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
You! You're the one... you are the...

You! You're the one... you are the...

Nang, I did not mean to imply that the definition of person is will.

I wrote, "To be a person means to possess a will." It means a lot of things, and having a will is a fundamental attribute of personhood.

And you Nang wrote: "Bob seems to imply that being a willful creature defines personhood."

And then on your own you turned that absolute to: "You are the one presenting the premise that having a will defines personhood, not me."

Actually, it was you, turning a seeming implication into a definition.

For 16 years on air, [edit: including as recently as this last week], I've taught that plants have bodies, animals have bodies and souls (as Scripture teaches), and humans have bodies, souls, and spirits. And that all animals have rudimentary souls as compared to humans, but that some animals have much deeper quality souls, like horses, cats and dogs, and thus you can have rudimentary relationships with them as compared to with a cow.

And yes, animals have a degree of willfulness. For that reason, I would never DEFINE person as having a will. (The PETA people would have a field day with that one.) But, to be a person means to possess a will, you can't be pesonal without having a will.

If you want to know my response to your comment about angels not being created in the image of God, just read my reply to you in post 6. I already replied to your comment, and you could have addressed that if you had wanted to. You seem to object that I or others don't respond to you, but I am drawn toward responding to those who substantively engage, and lose interest in those who ignore and obfuscate.

-Bob Enyart
 
Last edited:

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Trees don't have souls

Trees don't have souls

Therm soul,as Bob uses it means awareness. They don't have awareness because they don't have brains.

Delmar, here's one time when I have to disagree with you. Brains are not spiritual or soulical (if you'll allow that word), brains are physical, made up of atoms and molecules. Awareness is a non-physical attribute. Trees don't have awareness because they don't have souls or spirits. Atoms and molecules, no matter how complexly arranged, cannot have awareness. That requires a something non-physical. Knowledge, wisdom, pain, these are all non-physical.

Our brain is less like a computer than it is like a telecom switch, it is an interface to our soul/spirit. Our awareness, understanding, all that non-physical comprehension occurs in our soul/spirit, and our brain functions as the super high-bandwidth interface to our soul/spirit.

A PC has a brain (a microprocessor), but does not and cannot have awareness. If you enginered and grafted a brain onto a plant, it would not have awareness. You'd have to give it a soul/spirit to be aware.

-Bob
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I was a tad surprised to read that AMR didn't think Bob had fully answered his question. The way I read it Bob directly answered both aspects of AMR's question.

Fun stuff,thanks Bob, your post made me think about a few things I had never considered before.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Delmar, here's one time when I have to disagree with you. Brains are not spiritual or soulical (if you'll allow that word), brains are physical, made up of atoms and molecules. Awareness is a non-physical attribute. Trees don't have awareness because they don't have souls or spirits. Atoms and molecules, no matter how complexly arranged, cannot have awareness. That requires a something non-physical. Knowledge, wisdom, pain, these are all non-physical.

Our brain is less like a computer than it is like a telecom switch, it is an interface to our soul/spirit. Our awareness, understanding, all that non-physical comprehension occurs in our soul/spirit, and our brain functions as the super high-bandwidth interface to our soul/spirit.

A PC has a brain (a microprocessor), but does not and cannot have awareness. If you enginered and grafted a brain onto a plant, it would not have awareness. You'd have to give it a soul/spirit to be aware.

-Bob

What about animals? I don't believe they "go to heaven". But my dog is aware. If I roll a newspaper, he knows. It is obvious to me that people have a line of thought that animals don't, but aren't they aware too?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
What about animals? I don't believe they "go to heaven". But my dog is aware. If I roll a newspaper, he knows. It is obvious to me that people have a line of thought that animals don't, but aren't they aware too?

For 16 years on air, until just this last week or so, I've taught that plants have bodies, animals have bodies and souls (as Scripture teaches), and humans have bodies, souls, and spirits.

-Bob Enyart
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
From the One-on-One for BEL forum readers...

From the One-on-One for BEL forum readers...

AMR, you said that I did not directly answering your question, and I think you’ve come very close to proving your accusation. I was going to dismiss your claim, since I tried to answer fully, not only your question, but variations of your question that came closer to what you really meant to ask. But with all that, you convinced me that I must have been unclear when you took my answer to be the opposite of what I had intended. You gave me a multiple choice question with suggested A or B answers. My answer utterly rejected A, and I MUST HAVE BEEN UNCLEAR to some extent because, after reading my answer, you assumed I had actually answered A.

Wow.

So, I’ll repost, and make my answer more clear.

AMR asked Bob said:
Are you saying that you believe that [A] God will always respect the free will of His creatures? Or are you saying that God cannot interfere with a person's free will--that it is an impossibility?


I did not answer A. By A, I believe you meant: Bob, Does your Open Theism lead you to conclude that God willingly chooses to not violate a man’s free will? I definitely don’t mean that. (I hope I am being clear.) Selecting A would imply that there is a choice to make, but there is no such choice. Here are examples of this: God does not refrain from making a duplicate God fully like Himself by choice. That is irrational. God cannot duplicate Himself; He cannot make a rock bigger than He could lift, and then lift it; He cannot make Himself wicked and remain righteous; He cannot undo His own existence. These are irrational concepts. And so, if you were to ask Me, Does God refrain from duplicating Himself because He respects monotheism?, I would answer: Your question betrays a confusion about reality. That is an irrationality; that is not something God could do. And that is how I was responding to you.

My answer to your A or B question included:
Bob said:
There IS NO SUCH THING as God exercising Gabriel's will. That is a non sequitur. It is irrational. The very notion flows from a misunderstanding of fundamental personhood. There is no such thing as God exercising AMR's or Bob's wills…

Rejecting A as the answer, I went on to address B separately, because they were two different questions. And it seemed to me that your terminology was too loose to get to your actual question. I stated that “interfere” is perhaps too broad a word for what you meant to ask, because we all commonly “interfere” or, influence one another in the exercise of our wills, and this has nothing to do with your notion of “respecting someone’s free will.” Of course, God can and does interfere, i.e., influence us, in the exercise of our wills.

But you interpreted all this as:
AMR said:
I will take your previous lumbering response as "yes, God always respects the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of the person".

Boy! I must have been unclear for you to think I was selecting A as an answer. I had just utterly rejected A as irrelevant. But your confusion is reasonable evidence that I must have been unclear. Hence, this post…

And not wanting to be unresponsive to the deeper question that you meant to ask, I went on to answer your question restated to: Can God overrule a man’s free will? And I answered four versions of that question: physical, psychological, compel against his free will, compel with his free will.

So, with your question restated, to Can God overrule a man’s free will?, for all four versions of this question, I answered, “No.” (For the first three, I actually wrote the word, “No,” and for the fourth version, I used an idiom: gibberish which means “No!!”.)

And even with all that clarification (I hope I am being clear), I still think it will be easy for AMR and others to misunderstand my answer, because people have a hard time separating the meaning of “will,” which is the ability to decide, from the figures of speech that grew out of that word, which are matters of achievability, instances, and valuations. Let me explain this, and then I’ll re-answer your question. Consider…

Definition: Will is the ability to decide.

Implications: Will can only be free. The Father wills to love the Son. Love requires will, meaning that it cannot exist apart from the ability to not love (hate). One’s will is commonly confused with:
* being able to achieve what we will (what we call ability or power)
* an instance of the exercise of the will (a choice, decision, selection)
* sets of values that the will prioritizes and decides between (preferences, principles)

People confuse these figures for the original all the time! And for my TOL friends who have debated the meaning of will, consider that this pattern of confusion is not unexpected. For words have spheres of meaning, and words commonly become figures of speech taking on the above relationships. For example, to breathe means to inhale and exhale, which should not be confused with:
* achieving the goal of each inhale (to be breathing, i.e., to be alive)
* an instance of breathing (a breath)
* sets of instances of easy respiration (take a breath, catch your breath, he needs a breather)

On the next line, I’ve typed a word, followed by three related figures of speech:
will, will, will, will.

This word has an original meaning, and popular usage replicated it creating secondary figures related to the original.

This happens with the word will, and people have a hard time distinguishing the ability to decide from achievability, instances, and valuations. For the remainder of this post, please keep these uses distinctly separate in your mind, and realize we are not talking about the common figures of will but will in its original meaning, which is, the ability to decide. Now to answer AMR’s question again:

To be a person means to possess a will. [And for Nang’s sake, I’ll clarify: I did not intend that to be a definition; personhood means a lot of things, with a primary attribute being the possession of a will.] There is one God in three Persons, and each Person of the Godhead possesses a will. The primary way we can distinguish that God exists in a Trinity of three Persons (as opposed to a unitarian God) is by noticing in Scripture their respective wills, most explicitly portrayed in Gethsemane when God the Son said, “not as I will, but as You will” (Mat. 26:39).

Greek words for will are thelo, boule, boulomai, etc. These words are used of the persons of the Trinity (John 5:30; 6:38, etc.), and basically of all other persons. As I glance very quickly at the New Testament I see these Greek words used: of the Gentiles (1 Pet. 4:3), of Joseph’s will (Mat. 1:19), of a plaintiff’s will (Mat. 5:40), of a debtor (Mat. 5:42), of any man with self interest (Mat. 7:12), of Christ’s enemies (Mat. 12:38), of Herod (Mat. 14:5), of Joseph of Arimathea’s will (Luke 23:51), the majority’s will (Acts 27:12), the evil soldiers’ will (Acts 27:42), the wills of evil men (1 Cor. 4:5), etc., etc., etc.

Personhood requires a will… God created creatures with a will, which is their ability to decide. Thus, when Gabriel loves God, it is not God deciding to love Himself through a zero-sum portal. It is Gabriel, this creature, exercising his will. There IS NO SUCH THING as God exercising Gabriel's will. That is a non sequitur. It is irrational. The very notion flows from a misunderstanding of fundamental personhood. There is no such thing as God exercising AMR's or Bob's wills, that is a non sequitur. (And I'm really glad that God is not the one who exercised my will in the godless ways that I have exercised it.) God created beings in His likeness, with a will (the ability to decide) and therefore, with the ability to love or hate, like Gabriel and Lucifer. God does not love Himself through Me, any more than He hates Himself through Lucifer. These are nonsense ideas.

When you ask if God can “interfere” with a person’s free will, perhaps you were imprecise. Interfere? I’ll answer your question with the word interfere, and then I’ll answer it with overrule, and some variations on overruling. If someone is counting to ten, and I spook them, I’ve interfered. If a Christian is deciding whether to marry an unbeliever, and I quote Paul, I’ve interfered. God can rightly educate, urge, trick, etc., a person and thereby interfere with the exercise of his will, that is, to influence the outcome of the use of his will. That is a natural everyday process. But in the end, it is the man’s will, deciding. But I think you wanted to ask something else, and something that is so irrational, that it is somewhat difficult to put into words. But I’ll try.

If you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He physically compel that man to take an action he otherwise would not take? For example, Can God levitate a gun into a man’s hand, point it at someone, and force the man’s muscles to pull the trigger? Of course. Yes. God has the raw power to pull the man’s tendons. But is that overruling the man’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He psychologically manipulate a man to freely do something that he would never otherwise do? For example, Can God deceive a man into shooting someone he would never shoot of his own free will? Of course. Yes. God has the raw power to play such a trivial mind game, and give a person a delusion and make him think he is doing one thing, when he is actually doing another, or give him a delusion to make him think he must do a certain thing, for a very good reason, which reason doesn’t actually exist. In some circumstances, administering drugs can do likewise. But is that overruling or overcoming the man’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He compel a man to freely do something that the man would never otherwise do, something the man is fully aware of, but something he would never do of his own independent will? For example, Herod willed to put John the Baptist to death. And although Herod willed (Greek thelo, will) to murder John, he feared the multitude, so he did not do what he willed (Mat. 14:5). A billion times a day God’s influence moves men to do otherwise than they would have done had His Spirit, His law, His Church, etc., not influenced them otherwise. But is that overruling or overcoming a man’s will? No. Did the multitude overrule Herod’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He… [ad infinitum]

This is an exercise in nonsense. The best I can infer from your question AMR is that you mean to ask something like this: Can God overrule a man’s free will in such a way that now the man actually wills something by his own free will that his own independent free will does not will. This is gibberish [which being translated, is: No].

Ask Mr. Religion, you don’t realize this, but your question, Can God overrule a man’s free will, is the same as asking, Can God unmake a person? Did God put eternity in a man’s heart? That is, Is man created as necessarily an eternal creature? Or, Can God unmake a person? That is what you are asking.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Did you HONESTLY understand what he said? I appreciated the affort to answer AMR, but I didn't really get it. I found the answer more confusing than the first one.
In my own words Bob said,

Will is the ability to choose. Everyone has the ability to choose regardless of the situation. To claim that one person can "choose for" another person is only true in:
A) a non-literal sense. "If you had a gun to your head would you have a choice?" "He twisted his arm so he had no choice."
B) a situation where one person foregoes their ability to choose and follows the will of another.

In A) you should be able to clearly see that the ability to choose is not gone. In A) you should be regarding the gun and the arm as literal and the absence of choice as the metaphor.

In B) you should clearly see that the submission of a will requires the retention of that will. If one did not have a will how would one find the will to suppress one's will?


I'm fairly certain that is what Bob was trying to communicate. Though I might be wrong, I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top