Does God Have Free Will?

[Politesse]

I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, in my pantheistic thinking this is all a script of God. The scriptwriter has free will over the script.

 

[Skwim]

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways?

First you need a clear definition of perfection.

If so does this mean that God's will is not free?

I wouldn't think so, but in any case god's will is not free.

It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

If he had one, perhaps.


.

 

[Terese]

Sure he does. In fact he has more free will than one could possibly imagine. However, he is forced to accept our love

 

[Augustus]

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free?

Free will anthropomorphises God and implies that He thinks and changes his mind about things, has desires, emotions, etc. It suggests he has attributes that are independent from his being.

Saying He has free will actually means reducing and limiting God to something finite.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your question about free will focuses on Jesus's sacrifice. First of all, I think that most Christians agree on the fact that God is Logos, so he has no free will. He's Logic, Justice, Rationality, Love. He can be nothing else, so he can't decide. We have free will not because of His decision, but our free will is the consequence of His love.
Answering your question, I think it is illogical that God demanded a human sacrifice in order to save mankind. It is absurd.

 

[rusra02]

I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

The Bible's answer is "Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever he pleases." (Psalm 115:3) As Sovereign over all, Jehovah answers to no one. He chooses, however, of his own free will to abide by his righteous laws and standards. Thus we can depend on him to never water down or ignore his own righteous standards to sidestep a difficult situation. So I believe Jehovah provided the ransom to meet his own standard of justice while showing mercy to sinful mankind.
Romans 3:25,26 explains: "God presented him [Christ] as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, because God in his forbearance was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness in this present season, so that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man who has faith in Jesus."

 

[BSM1]

I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

Most people lose their objectivity in discussing God when they stubbornly place human attributes on an ineffable Deity Concept.

 

[Windwalker]

I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts.

We are to forgive others in the way we are forgiven, which is by the shedding of blood. So therefore, in accordance with this demand for blood, I require a blood sacrifice of a pigeon or a squirrel be made to me by those who are seeking my forgiveness. I take scripture quite literally, the more literal, the better!

My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

But he can abide sin if it's got human blood smeared all over it? That's curious. A bit odd. Oh well, I guess I wasn't wrong in demanding my neighbor smear his body with animal blood first before entering into my presence either. After all, if we are made in the image of God, and God does this, why shouldn't we all do this with one another too?

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free?

That's correct. God is subject to God's law which is higher than God. Yes Virginia, even God can make a stone that's too heavy for him to lift!

It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

Not if you're a true believer in scripture, which even God has to follow.

 

[Windwalker]

As Sovereign over all, Jehovah answers to no one. He chooses, however, of his own free will to abide by his righteous laws and standards.

You mean the ones he created for humans? He follows those himself? He places this law higher than himself in order to not kill all of us, the way we all want to kill each other in his name?

Thus we can depend on him to never water down or ignore his own righteous standards to sidestep a difficult situation.

When I think of God, my first thought is to how he toes the line of strict scriptural observation in everything he does so as not in incur his own wrath against himself. After all, if he did, it would annihilate the entire universe! Thank you God for being a True Bible Believer!

 

[Politesse]

Free will anthropomorphises God and implies that He thinks and changes his mind about things, has desires, emotions, etc. It suggests he has attributes that are independent from his being.

Saying He has free will actually means reducing and limiting God to something finite.

So you would say "no"?

I find it interesting that you say God does not have attributes independent from his being. If he has no anthropomorphic attributes, why do you ascribe him a gender?

 

[Politesse]

Well, in my pantheistic thinking this is all a script of God. The scriptwriter has free will over the script.

That's not really true, though. At least, not if they want to write a good story that people understand. Overinterpreting a metaphor perhaps, but creativity is always constrained by practicality eventually, at least as we experience it.

 

[Politesse]

But he can abide sin if it's got human blood smeared all over it? That's curious. A bit odd. Oh well, I guess I wasn't wrong in demanding my neighbor smear his body with animal blood first before entering into my presence either. After all, if we are made in the image of God, and God does this, why shouldn't we all do this with one another too?

Actually, to be exactly like the god of substitutionary atonement lore, you must shed your own blood, smear it all over them, and then forgive them, but only if they profess that they believe you did what you just did and accept the gift with a loving and obedient heart.

 

[Politesse]

The Bible's answer is "Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever he pleases." (Psalm 115:3) As Sovereign over all, Jehovah answers to no one. He chooses, however, of his own free will to abide by his righteous laws and standards. Thus we can depend on him to never water down or ignore his own righteous standards to sidestep a difficult situation. So I believe Jehovah provided the ransom to meet his own standard of justice while showing mercy to sinful mankind.

Why couldn't he just save/forgive everyone, then? If it was his will to use his body as ransom for sin, why not all sin rather than just those who belong to some religion or other?

 

[allfoak]

I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

If God requires anything then it is not God.

 

[George-ananda]

That's not really true, though. At least, not if they want to write a good story that people understand. Overinterpreting a metaphor perhaps, but creativity is always constrained by practicality eventually, at least as we experience it.

I agree that a good scriptwriter writes a script that is both reasonable and creative when viewed from the wide perspective.

 

[rusra02]

Why couldn't he just save/forgive everyone, then? If it was his will to use his body as ransom for sin, why not all sin rather than just those who belong to some religion or other?

As John 3:16 declares: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." The benefits of Christ's ransom sacrifice are open to all. However, God will not force us to accept the ransom and live according to God's will for us. Those who reject God's loving provision for everlasting life are free to do so. " The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36)

 

[Windwalker]

However, God will not force us to accept the ransom and live according to God's will for us. Those who reject God's loving provision for everlasting life are free to do so.

There was this one guy who told his wife, "I love you so much! You're free to leave of your own accord, but I'll slowly burn you to death and then bury you in an unmarked grave if you do. It's your free will choice". What do you think of this man? Inhuman, abusive, disturbed, dangerous? Yes, I agree. That's not love at all!

 

[Politesse]

" The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36)

Well, I think I follow, but I see no reason why this would need to be the case. "Accepting a ransom" is usually something the kidnapper does, not the kidnapped. What you're saying is that the kidnapped person needs to agree to be let free, or else their liberator should simply let the kidnapper have them in order to satisfy their sense of justice. But that is unfair, because those who are captive to sin, like the kidnapped child, are quite likely to be seduced or coerced into rejecting the help of their liberator. We do not usually blame this on the child.

 

[Skwim]

As John 3:16 declares: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." The benefits of Christ's ransom sacrifice are open to all.

Except for the unfortunate millions who have never heard about "exercising faith," or those, who, through no fault of their own, remain unconvinced. Nice god.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

However, God will not force us to accept the ransom and live according to God's will for us. Those who reject God's loving provision for everlasting life are free to do so.

I know this is the party line you're reciting here, but it falsely assumes everyone has the same capability for finding it creditable. Having been on earth as long as you have it should be apparent that not everyone agrees on one side of an issue. No different here. God blames people and sends them to hell because he, or his earthly representatives, fail to convince. Nice guy.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

" The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36)

Nice guy.

...................