Free will

Recently I came across an incident I knew how to respond to, but I couldn’t articulate it well in the moment. So that got me to thinking about the spiritual implications of such a matter.

In Christian nice guys are abused I discussed the nature of requests to the nice guy and how the nice guy feels and thinks like he is obligated both spiritually and lovingly obligated to help out other women or men with the tasks they desire of him.

In the discussion of love is and please, the blinders are pulled back and we know how to approach love and the nature of asking instead of demanding love.

When we examine a moment such as a woman telling you to do a task we have entered into an interaction where there is an imposed demand on another human being. Imposing a demand on another human being is inherently limiting to free will, which is basis of the fundamental nature of Christianity. The fundamental nature of Christianity is loving God and loving others and the unity that springs forth; however, there can be no unity without free will which is the decisions to walk into that unity.

Normally, I’m more than happy and willing to serve others in their needs, especially when they are having difficulty with things. However, when someone else imposes a need on me it rubs me the wrong way. Before this encounter I had, I had previously thought that even though it rubbed me the wrong way that it was only my human fallibility of not wanting to love others. However, that was incorrect.

It SHOULD rub you the wrong way. The need or burden is being imposed without consent. This is a disregard of free will, and the action you take if you agree with it is not of love but of obligation. Even if the obligation is good, it’s an obligation and not love. There is nothing wrong with performing obligations because you want to, but you need to understand that they’re obligations and not love.

God brought to mind Jesus’ rebuke of Peter, and you can see a similar instance of what is happening here with imposing what we perceive to be “good things” on other people.

Matthew 16:21 From that time [r]Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “[s]God forbid it, Lord! This shall never [t]happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on [u]God’s interests, but man’s.”

Peter thinks that “this isn’t the way it should be” and that Jesus “should do this instead.”

It’s funny that when you understand this concept, it necessitates that the Christian walk must be out of desire to have a relationship with God. When you eliminate forcing others to do what is good, it MUST come from their heart to want to do good and follow God.

This is not only a problem for women to men in this day and age, but it is also a problem from men to men, women to women, and men to women.

One of the biggest things that falls into this category is the concept of duty sex either for the wife to the husband or the husband to the wife. Telling a spouse to have more sex with you is literally going to rub them the wrong way and kill their desire to actually have sex just as if an obligation was placed on you to help set something up at the church without your consent. I think in the past on this blog I’ve been siding more along the lines of legalism rather than desire to please God.

At the core of these concepts is that all we can really do is ask nicely and not put an obligation on others to obey the word of God. As we know, the only person we can control is ourselves, and it is out of our desire and love for God that He can use that to inspire others to change.

It’s very easy to miss this important concept because personal stewardship isn’t taught as much anymore, and we’re taught to be selfish by society. We have our own demands and priviledges without any responsibility, and it is others’ responsibility to meet those demands. Getting out of that thinking is extremely difficult, and God has shown me that even having been in the manosphere for a while I still have missed some parts of this as you have seen in this post.

Going back to the example of the obligation placed on me instead of saying no, declining, or going along with it my plan is to using it as a teaching moment on the interaction between love and free will.

This entry was posted in Learning godly behavior and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Free will

  1. Looking Glass says:

    When I’m “volun-told”, I choose to “volun-leave”. 🙂

    At the same time, we do have our duties & obligations to God. We can either choose to do them or choose to not do them. The issue, normally, revolves around the reality that no one else can actually force an obligation upon you. Even if painful consequences happen for denying that obligation, it’s still a choice to take it on.

    The cultural training of Men to be “helpful” is a perversion of the much older “duty to society”. There’s a pretty big difference between them, though we don’t realize it until we look closely back at the past.

  2. Red says:

    “Telling a spouse to have more sex with you is literally going to rub them the wrong way (…)”

    It’s literally dependent upon the technique employed to obtain maximum consonance.

  3. Jonadab says:

    The choice is not sex out of duty or love, that is a false dilemma. The duty is to love and have sex, to have loving sex and to foster more love through sex. The uni-vocal message of the church and christian husbands, ought be that a wife is in sin if she does not respect (how the Bible describes love toward one of greater authority) her husband, and if she is not fully giving herself sexually to him.

    Duty Sex without Love/respect tempts a husband to be a rapist (against her desire), a beggar (he will give up his duty as head for sex, bribing and buying sex) and eventually a eunuch. For a wife who either withholds respect or sex .she tempts her husband to become rapist, a beggar or a john looking to but sex from his prostitute wife. (sex for trade of money or other commodity)

    The issue becomes troublesome due to the fact that God gave no instrument to rule over one;s wife like the rod for children, the sword for the magistrate or the keys for the church. He only has the Word with which to wash her and cleanse her from her rebellion. Thus a husband cannot coerce her to Godly submission under his rule, it is a voluntary though required duty. This is similar to Christ’s relationship with the church, He has betrothed her and He will declare the finality of His faithfulness to justify her at the judgement/wedding supper of the Lamb. But until then she chooses to fear/respect/honor/love Him. Her refusal to obey Him, to commune with Him in love/awe/honor/respect is like feminism in that it is leading to the destruction of the family and society while concomitantly harming the church/wife and instead of being an instrument to advance becomes an instrument to impede the Husband/Christ’s dominion.

  4. Looking Glass says:

    I’ll have more later, but as I was praying, the issue finally all “clicked” (and/or God was poking me. Take your pick).

    Paul was, in fact, being very specific in what to do with a Wife. We Christians just have, for roughly the last 2000 years, really screwed up both what “Love” and “Wash” mean. But it’s actually quite simple: How did Jesus interact with the Disciples?

    We’ve been taught to think of “and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25) as the Cross itself, but look back at Ephesians 5:2. These are not unrelated discussions, even if Paul switches direct addressing. Walking as Jesus walked would mean: Putting the Lord’s Will above all other considerations, constantly correcting those closest to you, never answering a question directly (unless it’s the rare, honest question) and giving specific orders to those with you. You can include all of the other “rabble rousing” the Jesus was up to, as well.

    That’s the crux of the issue: we don’t want to get what “Love” actually looks like when it’s not the warm, fuzzy feeling stuff. That’s not hidden, it’s right there in the text. It’s just so easy to look past.

  5. @ Jonadab

    Yes, the position of the Scriptures via 1 Corinthian 7 is that it is a sin for either spouse to deny each other sex.

    The main problem is that most “Christians” are in Christian in name only. That means they call themselves “Christians” but are really unbelievers because they don’t adhere to the Scriptures.

    If a wife or husband actually was a believer and you showed them these Scriptures they should be like “wow, you’re right… let’s have sex” knowing that obey God’s word will produce fruit (which enables that cycle of love-sex-love-sex-etc. that you talked about).

    However, if you know they won’t submit to correction, it is best to treat them as if they are an unbeliever because they are.

  6. trugingstar says:

    Ha, I’m using your blog to promote MY blog! What now?

  7. Pingback: God hates chivalry | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  8. Faistos says:

    You – all of you – should really learn about orthodox christianity.

    God bless you

  9. Faistos says:

    On second thought, I think you do know orthodoxy, at least some of your writings have a fragance very close to the orthodox..

  10. infowarrior1 says:


    Unfortunately the eastern orthodoxy has also alot of unbiblical baggage that goes along with the similarities we share.

    I will give them the fact that eastern orthodoxy as a church is more masculine-oriented than Western Christianity. Considering it is untouched by bridal mysticism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s