Did the desires of your heart change?

This question is foundational to the matter of the will being free or bound.

As I posted elsewhere in a reply, Jonathan Edwards' Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will is essential reading on this subject. He began by addressing the basic nature and function of the human will as being the capacity for choice and, by extension, the source of every action.

Contrary to both Luther and Calvin, who both wrote treatises addressing the bound nature of the will, Edwards argues that the term 'free will' is a redundancy -- that a will, by definition, is free; it is free because it naturally (freely) chooses whatever the heart desires.

So the question is: When you were saved, were your desires changed? Is it true of you that something (Jesus, the Bible, et al) you formerly found unattractive or undesirable had become attractive & desirable?

Last question: Did you actively change the desires of your own heart?
 
So the question is: When you were saved, were your desires changed?
Yes
Is it true of you that something (Jesus, the Bible, et al) you formerly found unattractive or undesirable had become attractive & desirable?
I was attracted to the call of God prior to submitting and trusting Him, but unfortunately my love for this world was more attractive. But, after years of conviction, and the drawing of God to a new life that was empowered by Him, I consciously decided to submit and accept this new life that I now live after one of the many times He reasoned with me...I love Him so much for His loving kindness now! The attraction of God started fulfillment the moment that by faith, I submitted to Him and called out for forgiveness.
Last question: Did you actively change the desires of your own heart?
I repented which is a change of heart. I consciously decided to give up my old life entirely and wholeheartedly, and obey the call of God to live by faith to a new life that was in accordance to His will. I knew what I was to give up, and how He wanted me to live my life. I did, and continue to do so by faith.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Yes

I was attractive to the call of God prior to submitting and trusting Him, but unfortunately my love for this world was more attractive. But, after years of conviction, and the drawing of God to a new life that was empowered by Him, I consciously decided to submit and accept this new life that I now live after one of the many times He reasoned with me...I love Him so much for His loving kindness now! The attraction of God started fulfillment the moment that by faith, I submitted to Him and called out for forgiveness.

I repented which is a change of heart. I consciously decided to give up my old life entirely and wholeheartedly, and obey the call of God to live by faith to a new life that was in accordance to His will. I knew what I was to give up, and how He wanted me to live my life. I did, and continue to do so by faith.

God bless
Okay, thanks -- just for the sake of clarity: Did you actively 'cause' your own repentance? Or was it the outworking of certain altered perceptions?
 
Okay, thanks -- just for the sake of clarity: Did you actively 'cause' your own repentance? Or was it the outworking of certain altered perceptions?
Certainly God is the reason for my repentance. My responsibility is to submit and obey His will. Man participates in the salvation of his soul.

God bless
 
So the question is: When you were saved, were your desires changed? Is it true of you that something (Jesus, the Bible, et al) you formerly found unattractive or undesirable had become attractive & desirable?

Last question: Did you actively change the desires of your own heart?
I felt oppressed, this was many years ago, and…. in that state of feeling oppressed and also remorse for my own bad actions all my life, I prayed and asked Him for help. I’d not prayed in a long time…. and I prayed… Not to receive anything material but for help to repent. Then, having prayed, I felt Him tell me things and show me things though I could not grasp it all, it was in my soul not mind where I could hear Him… and I promised Him I’d listen to Him from now on. He makes the changes in me but I feel I cooperate. The cooperation is a bit like using a tiny sponge to wash an entire skyscraper. :) I’d never be able to do the job… but I want to and I want Him and I trust He can make me be pretty in my soul where before I was rags. i feel very different…
and i hold onto His promise to us to ’be saved’ from this earth, and be restored to paradise with Him at the Change…
 
Last edited:
This question is foundational to the matter of the will being free or bound.

Jeremiah should shed some light on the subject of the condition of man prior to salvation. He points out that "the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." That is what the human heart desires. The human heart is bound to sin.
As I posted elsewhere in a reply, Jonathan Edwards' Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will is essential reading on this subject. He began by addressing the basic nature and function of the human will as being the capacity for choice and, by extension, the source of every action.

Contrary to both Luther and Calvin, who both wrote treatises addressing the bound nature of the will, Edwards argues that the term 'free will' is a redundancy -- that a will, by definition, is free; it is free because it naturally (freely) chooses whatever the heart desires.
This is not how "free" is used in scripture though. One does not become free to choose, but free from the bondage of sin.

Choices can only be made in ignorance. One has no choice when they see the truth. It's what modern society refers to as "a no-brainer". It isn't something one has to think about. So, the carnal man cannot please God. It has nothing to do with the will, and everything to do with the fact that the carnal man is incapable of making the right choice. Likewise, the saved born again child of God can no longer sin. They have no choice in the matter. The blind have choices while those who see where they're going cannot choose to fall into a ditch.


So the question is: When you were saved, were your desires changed? Is it true of you that something (Jesus, the Bible, et al) you formerly found unattractive or undesirable had become attractive & desirable?
One can be attracted to Jesus, the Bible, et al and not be saved. Through gluttony, and dissipation, one can burn out on sin. This doesn't save anyone, yet they may find piety much more appealing.
Last question: Did you actively change the desires of your own heart?
No. I notice the desires of my heart changing, or have changed without any action on my part whatsoever.
 
Jeremiah should shed some light on the subject of the condition of man prior to salvation. He points out that "the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." That is what the human heart desires. The human heart is bound to sin.

This is not how "free" is used in scripture though. One does not become free to choose, but free from the bondage of sin.

Choices can only be made in ignorance. One has no choice when they see the truth. It's what modern society refers to as "a no-brainer". It isn't something one has to think about. So, the carnal man cannot please God. It has nothing to do with the will, and everything to do with the fact that the carnal man is incapable of making the right choice. Likewise, the saved born again child of God can no longer sin. They have no choice in the matter. The blind have choices while those who see where they're going cannot choose to fall into a ditch.



One can be attracted to Jesus, the Bible, et al and not be saved. Through gluttony, and dissipation, one can burn out on sin. This doesn't save anyone, yet they may find piety much more appealing.

No. I notice the desires of my heart changing, or have changed without any action on my part whatsoever.
Yes, Jeremiah speaks of the wickedness of the heart, as do other Scriptures. Ut speaks of the things we do and of our motivations. But the OP is addeessing the question of the will, and Scripture does not give us any substantial or detailed treatment of the nature or function of the will -- which is why I am fleshing it out.
 
Scripture does not give us any substantial or detailed treatment of the nature or function of the will -- which is why I am fleshing it out.
There's plenty to be gleaned concerning the nature and function of the will, but we can cut to the chase by simply looking at what Paul has to say on the subject in Romans 9.

He begins with this doozy:

"3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:...etc."

He could will this, but then adds the caveat that it doesn't really matter what he wills because...


"6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect."

Ultimately, what matters is what God promises, and one's will cannot usurp the power of God's promise.

"9For this is the word of promise, "

The gospel writer affirms that it is not we who choose Christ, but Christ who chooses who will follow him. The elect are not the one's doing the electing.

"11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"

Those works are according to one's own will which Paul has just summarily dismissed as a factor.

Paul then goes on to point out that as unfair as this may seem to those who believe God's justice must include one's freedom to choose, he simply points out that God's justice is a Given.

"12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Notice who's will is relevant?

"16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Notice also that it really doesn't matter if one believes in free will or not because one's free will is not the deciding factor at all. Instead, it is God's mercy which is the deciding factor.


"18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

The next question Paul poses is one which spotlights the audacity of those who seek only to justify their sin.

"19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

Even so, once again, Paul cuts through the nonsense, and gets right to the ultimate point which is that God creates for his purposes, not anyone else's. It is idiotic to ask God why he creates someone who is predisposed to sin.

"20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

The answer is a resounding "YES". Paul then continues with a hypothetical question which most people are reluctant to consider, especially the prospect that they may be a vessel fitted for destruction. Note that Paul is pointing out that were this the case, it doesn't negate God's righteousness. In fact, it justifies God's righteousness.

"22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

When humanity chooses to go their own way, we're left with a long drawn out pathetic history spotlighting a testament to human failure.

It doesn't matter what my will is due to the fact that my will is the will of the flesh. I can keep the commandments perfectly, and it only spotlights the glory I have in, with, through, and for my own flesh.

Faith cannot glory in the flesh because the flesh, through many trials and tribulations; can only fail. Paul points to the Old Covenant as a testament to failure.

Again, those who actually hear the gospel message cannot then seek to justify themselves. To try is to fail, but in, with, and through Christ's faith there can only be success.


"32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."

Christ points out that when this process is done in faith, the burden is light and easy. It is all accomplished in, with, through and for Christ. There is no shame in the glorious accomplishments of Christ. Everyone in the bible sees what they believe, and "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Ultimately, it is "the spirit [who] breathes where HE WILLS. You hear the sound of his voice, but know not where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the spirit" John 3:8

The metaphor of birth is apt in that no one wills to be born. Being born is not something a baby does, but something the mother does. Likewise, being begotten is an act of the father, not the son who is begotten. It is according to the will of the father, not the son. Not even Christ's will supersedes that of the father.

Why then would anyone think any different when it comes to their will?
 
There's plenty to be gleaned concerning the nature and function of the will, but we can cut to the chase by simply looking at what Paul has to say on the subject in Romans 9.

He begins with this doozy:

"3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:...etc."

He could will this, but then adds the caveat that it doesn't really matter what he wills because...


"6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect."

Ultimately, what matters is what God promises, and one's will cannot usurp the power of God's promise.

"9For this is the word of promise, "

The gospel writer affirms that it is not we who choose Christ, but Christ who chooses who will follow him. The elect are not the one's doing the electing.

"11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"

Those works are according to one's own will which Paul has just summarily dismissed as a factor.

Paul then goes on to point out that as unfair as this may seem to those who believe God's justice must include one's freedom to choose, he simply points out that God's justice is a Given.

"12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Notice who's will is relevant?

"16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Notice also that it really doesn't matter if one believes in free will or not because one's free will is not the deciding factor at all. Instead, it is God's mercy which is the deciding factor.


"18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

The next question Paul poses is one which spotlights the audacity of those who seek only to justify their sin.

"19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

Even so, once again, Paul cuts through the nonsense, and gets right to the ultimate point which is that God creates for his purposes, not anyone else's. It is idiotic to ask God why he creates someone who is predisposed to sin.

"20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

The answer is a resounding "YES". Paul then continues with a hypothetical question which most people are reluctant to consider, especially the prospect that they may be a vessel fitted for destruction. Note that Paul is pointing out that were this the case, it doesn't negate God's righteousness. In fact, it justifies God's righteousness.

"22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

When humanity chooses to go their own way, we're left with a long drawn out pathetic history spotlighting a testament to human failure.

It doesn't matter what my will is due to the fact that my will is the will of the flesh. I can keep the commandments perfectly, and it only spotlights the glory I have in, with, through, and for my own flesh.

Faith cannot glory in the flesh because the flesh, through many trials and tribulations; can only fail. Paul points to the Old Covenant as a testament to failure.

Again, those who actually hear the gospel message cannot then seek to justify themselves. To try is to fail, but in, with, and through Christ's faith there can only be success.


"32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."

Christ points out that when this process is done in faith, the burden is light and easy. It is all accomplished in, with, through and for Christ. There is no shame in the glorious accomplishments of Christ. Everyone in the bible sees what they believe, and "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Ultimately, it is "the spirit [who] breathes where HE WILLS. You hear the sound of his voice, but know not where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the spirit" John 3:8

The metaphor of birth is apt in that no one wills to be born. Being born is not something a baby does, but something the mother does. Likewise, being begotten is an act of the father, not the son who is begotten. It is according to the will of the father, not the son. Not even Christ's will supersedes that of the father.

Why then would anyone think any different when it comes to their will?
I won't disagree with much of what you posted ~ however, when I said Scripture doesn't give is a detailed account of the nature and function of the will, I didn't mean it says nothing about the matter. Yes, we can glean some basic information about what it is by inference from a number of texts (though this gives us little more than confirmation of what we know intiitively), but Scripture says very little at all about *how* the will operates, not does it define for us the actual relationship between our will, our desires, and our actions. 🤷‍♂️ Really, my whole point with this is simply to address a serious shortcoming in nearly every discussion of *free will* -- namely, that almost no one starts with a clear understanding of what the will is and how it functions. That is foolish in the extreme.
 
Scripture says very little at all about *how* the will operates, not does it define for us the actual relationship between our will, our desires, and our actions.

This is a bewildering claim. Again, the bible is replete with examples of how the will is subject to our desires. Our actions naturally follow from there.
🤷‍♂️ Really, my whole point with this is simply to address a serious shortcoming in nearly every discussion of *free will* -- namely, that almost no one starts with a clear understanding of what the will is and how it functions. That is foolish in the extreme.
I agree that to have no clear understanding of what the will is or how it functions is foolish, but I don't see how this needs to be complicated to begin with. One's will is at the disposal of one's desires. I don't see any exceptions to this fact of reality anywhere.

There are an infinite supply of things in competition for our desires. Once one is chosen, the will is pressed into service. At that point, one wills what they desire.
 
This is a bewildering claim. Again, the bible is replete with examples of how the will is subject to our desires. Our actions naturally follow from there.
I don't think so -- I would agree there are many places where you can legitimately *infer* that, but but that doesn't give us anything more than what we know intiitively. TBH, in all the scores (probably hundreds) of discussions I've had on the matter over the decades, I have found that very few people have given the relationship between the desires and the will any serious thought.
So here's the thing -- if we can agree that the will follows the desires, and eatablish that the desires are corrupted, it follows that the action of the will is also corrupted. If our desires are not 'free', neither is the will.
 
I don't think so -- I would agree there are many places where you can legitimately *infer* that, but but that doesn't give us anything more than what we know intiitively.
Could you provide an example? Everywhere I look in the bible, I see people who want, wish, or desire something, and then they place their own will at the disposal of these desires. The results are almost always disastrous.
TBH, in all the scores (probably hundreds) of discussions I've had on the matter over the decades, I have found that very few people have given the relationship between the desires and the will any serious thought.
I didn't miss that claim the first time you made it. I'm beginning to think that you just automatically assume this to be the case regardless of what is presented to you.
So here's the thing -- if we can agree that the will follows the desires, and eatablish that the desires are corrupted, it follows that the action of the will is also corrupted.
I'm not so sure that necessarily follows. Seems like a Non Sequitur.

It's like saying that the lust of the eye corrupts my ability to taste those chocolate chip cookies I'm consuming and which are spoiling my dinner.

For example, we have Lucifer who is created perfect, yet some corrupt desire to take hold of what he was supposed to be guarding seizes him. His will is still perfect, and he exercises this perfect will to accomplish the desires of his heart.
If our desires are not 'free', neither is the will.
What do you mean by "free"? Free will/free to choose, or free from bondage?

Regardless, you've just accepted my position which is that the will is never free, but subject to the desires of the heart.
 
What do you mean by "free"? Free will/free to choose, or free from bondage?

Regardless, you've just accepted my position which is that the will is never free, but subject to the desires of the heart.
My whole point is that the will is 'subject to the desires' -- which is Edwards' argument. So, we agree on that.
In Edwards' further treatment of the matter, he says the will is 'free' because it naturally functions the way it is supposed to by following the desires. He suggests that the phrase 'free will' is redundant.
 
My whole point is that the will is 'subject to the desires' -- which is Edwards' argument. So, we agree on that.
In Edwards' further treatment of the matter, he says the will is 'free' because it naturally functions the way it is supposed to by following the desires. He suggests that the phrase 'free will' is redundant.
If the will must follow the desires of the heart because it is subject to the desires of the heart, I don't see how it follows that the will is free at all.

The desires of the heart are subject to what can be seen, thought, imagined etc. The problem is that not everything is seen, thought or imagined. The heart cannot desire whatever cannot be seen, thought or imagined, or whatever it has not yet seen, thought or imagined.

These options are off the table. There is no choice between what is seen, thought or imagined and whatever cannot be seen, thought or imagined. Where there is no choice, there is no freedom of choice.

So the will may be either free to choose, or it is free from bondage. A will which is free from bondage is a free will in that it is no longer subject to bondage. This doesn't sound redundant, but necessary

If there is no choice, then free will isn't redundant, but incoherent to begin with.

One can only want what they desire, and we are all born with our own predetermined desires. The world we are born into also establishes what is to be desired or spurned as well. The smell of flowers are attractive while the smell of manure isn't appetizing, at least not to us. The flower itself finds the manure beneficial though because it was created as a flower while we were created as human beings, or if you prefer, we evolved into human beings while some plants evolved to produce flowers. In either case, our will had nothing to do with it.
 
If the will must follow the desires of the heart because it is subject to the desires of the heart, I don't see how it follows that the will is free at all.

The desires of the heart are subject to what can be seen, thought, imagined etc. The problem is that not everything is seen, thought or imagined. The heart cannot desire whatever cannot be seen, thought or imagined, or whatever it has not yet seen, thought or imagined.

These options are off the table. There is no choice between what is seen, thought or imagined and whatever cannot be seen, thought or imagined. Where there is no choice, there is no freedom of choice.

So the will may be either free to choose, or it is free from bondage. A will which is free from bondage is a free will in that it is no longer subject to bondage. This doesn't sound redundant, but necessary

If there is no choice, then free will isn't redundant, but incoherent to begin with.

One can only want what they desire, and we are all born with our own predetermined desires. The world we are born into also establishes what is to be desired or spurned as well. The smell of flowers are attractive while the smell of manure isn't appetizing, at least not to us. The flower itself finds the manure beneficial though because it was created as a flower while we were created as human beings, or if you prefer, we evolved into human beings while some plants evolved to produce flowers. In either case, our will had nothing to do with it.
I think (if Inrecall correctly) Edwards adressed the issue from two perspectives -- saying that 'free' isn't really a proper term to use of the will to start with, but if one insists on using thebterm, then it is inly proper to say it is free -- one way I would explain the second part is in terms of anatomy. The human heart beats because that's what it was made to do; the lungs respire, etc., and the will initiates action based on desires -- it just does what it was made to do, functions as it was designed. It's a functional capacity inherentnto humanity. That's all.
 
I think (if Inrecall correctly) Edwards adressed the issue from two perspectives -- saying that 'free' isn't really a proper term to use of the will to start with, but if one insists on using thebterm, then it is inly proper to say it is free -- one way I would explain the second part is in terms of anatomy. The human heart beats because that's what it was made to do; the lungs respire, etc., and the will initiates action based on desires -- it just does what it was made to do, functions as it was designed. It's a functional capacity inherentnto humanity. That's all.
The same with God, only He isn't designed, He just is.

He designed us in his image, with a will same has his.
 
The same with God, only He isn't designed, He just is.

He designed us in his image, with a will same has his.
Right -- the main point with all of this is that we get bogged down & start throwing rocks over 'free will' when the 'heart' of the matter is our desires. It's unhelpful and generates added conflict, in large measure because we don't take the time to even identify the proper starting point, which is actually something there is far more agreement on.
 
I think (if Inrecall correctly) Edwards adressed the issue from two perspectives -- saying that 'free' isn't really a proper term to use of the will to start with, but if one insists on using thebterm, then it is inly proper to say it is free -- one way I would explain the second part is in terms of anatomy. The human heart beats because that's what it was made to do; the lungs respire, etc., and the will initiates action based on desires -- it just does what it was made to do, functions as it was designed. It's a functional capacity inherentnto humanity. That's all.
This reminds me of the difficulty I have in distinguishing this subject from autonomy. Whenever I think of autonomy I think of autonomous functions like the parasympathetic and sympathetic systems, blood flow, heart beat etc. There is no will, much less a free will, evident in any of these functions.

Then there's the issue of consciousness. Most people have no idea how unconscious their choices really are. They have no clue to how easily manipulated they are. This observation is as old as the story of the great tactician Odysseus who Homer is able to spotlight his conscious ability to manipulate those around him who are essentially unconscious.

There's a British hypnotist who has a show on television where he shows how he's able to manipulate people into doing exactly what he wants without them ever knowing it. They think they have free will, but they clearly aren't even conscious of why they're doing anything.
 
This question is foundational to the matter of the will being free or bound.

As I posted elsewhere in a reply, Jonathan Edwards' Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will is essential reading on this subject. He began by addressing the basic nature and function of the human will as being the capacity for choice and, by extension, the source of every action.

Contrary to both Luther and Calvin, who both wrote treatises addressing the bound nature of the will, Edwards argues that the term 'free will' is a redundancy -- that a will, by definition, is free; it is free because it naturally (freely) chooses whatever the heart desires.

So the question is: When you were saved, were your desires changed? Is it true of you that something (Jesus, the Bible, et al) you formerly found unattractive or undesirable had become attractive & desirable?

Last question: Did you actively change the desires of your own heart?

My perspective was changed based on many factors, all of which were divine in their origin. This change of perspective was not a drastic one, for I had known the truth of the gospel for many years and had run from the implications accepting the truth would have for me. But it was a sense of realizing that I could not run forever without serious consequences. I had to get in or get out or I wouldn't have another chance. I saw that the lost of hope would be more costly than the loss of my worldly desires and dreams. Before, my perspective was that I will live under Christ's lordship later, after I had fulfilled or failed to reach my dreams. But his Spirit showed me quite abruptly and convincingly that this would only mean my destruction, for "my Spirit will not always strive with man" (Gen 6:3) and to wait would not work for me as I had imagined.

My desires certainly changed because my perspective changed, but the change of perspective came first and I had to deal with the reality of "today is the day of salvation" and I needed to decide now, for tomorrow may never be!


Doug
 
Back
Top