Free will or no free will?

[Heidi]

Who said anything about it being "now"?

As I have said - and I agree with you - it is God who has determined when you will die. Therefore, just stop eating. Since God has determined when you will die - nothing you do will thwart it.

I am not suggesting that you are making the decision of when you will die, God has already made that decision.

Maybe I should ask it this way: Why do you continue to eat? If you were to stop eating, would you die - even though God has ordained the time that you would die?

I believe that God operates with Sovereignity that allows for Human Responsibility.

In other words, God has ordained when we will die, but we still have a responsibility to eat, to take care of ourselves, etc.

Since I don't know when God wants me to die, then again, why should I decide that myself and deliberately stop eating? Again, that is playing God. My death is completely out of my own control. If it was in my control, such as avoiding car accidents, taking medicines, etc., then it's not from God, it's from me. Stopping eating is called suicide because it's not believing that God won't give me any more than I could bear. When I die, it's when God takes me, not me myself. So this argument is ridiculous. :roll:

 

[Guest]

Since I don't know when God wants me to die, then again, why should I decide that myself and deliberately stop eating? Again, that is playing God. My death is completely out of my own control. If it was in my control, such as avoiding car accidents, taking medicines, etc., then it's not from God, it's from me. Stopping eating is called suicide because it's not believing that God won't give me any more than I could bear. When I die, it's when God takes me, not me myself. So this argument is ridiculous. :roll:

So - what you are saying is that humans can thwart the will of God. You said yourself, if you were to stop eating, it would be suicide, and you would die sooner then when God has appointed.

So, if you must continue to eat - then who is sustaining your life - God or you? While God provides the food, YOU still have to eat.

I do not believe this arguement is ridiculous, because it is not an EITHER/OR arguement - rather it is a BOTH/AND.

God is Sovereign AND we have a responsibility. God is able to operate through our responsibility, so at not to override our responsibility and our responsibility does not override His sovereignty.

The reason I dislike the term, "predestination" is because it is too closely assocaited with "fate".

 

[Vic C.]

... God is Sovereign AND we have a responsibility. God is able to operate through our responsibility, so at not to override our responsibility and our responsibility does not override His sovereignty.

Exactly. Plus, God's will will be done despite our irresponsibility.

The reason I dislike the term, "predestination" is because it is too closely assocaited with "fate".

Add double to predestination and you border on a sort of "fatalism" as well. There are some Calvinists that take this to the extreme... they are called Hyper Calvinists.

 

[Guest]

Add double to predestination and you border on a sort of "fatalism" as well. There are some Calvinists that take this to the extreme... they are called Hyper Calvinists.

vic C. I have seen you use the term ouble predestination: before, would you mind explaining it? I do not remember coming across that term before.

In regards to Hyper Calvinists - yes, there are many on Bible College campuses it seems - or atleast at the College I attended.

It would seem that those who agree with the theology of Calvin are more "calvinists" than Calvin was!

 

[Heidi]

So - what you are saying is that humans can thwart the will of God. You said yourself, if you were to stop eating, it would be suicide, and you would die sooner then when God has appointed.

So, if you must continue to eat - then who is sustaining your life - God or you? While God provides the food, YOU still have to eat.

I do not believe this arguement is ridiculous, because it is not an EITHER/OR arguement - rather it is a BOTH/AND.

God is Sovereign AND we have a responsibility. God is able to operate through our responsibility, so at not to override our responsibility and our responsibility does not override His sovereignty.

The reason I dislike the term, "predestination" is because it is too closely assocaited with "fate".

Where did God tell us to stop eating? :o Nowhere. So no one is thwarting the will of God by eating. By your argument, then Jesus thwarted the will of God by dying on the cross because God still provided food for everyone else. So your argument is absurd. :roll:

And if you dislike the word "predestination" then if you love the word of God, you better get used to that word because He uses it in: Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4, & Ephesians 1:11. I have no further interest in engaging in arguments as ludicrous as this one. :roll:

 

[Drew]

Regarding the elect, the following is a rework of something that I have posted in the past:

This material challenges the notion that the John 6 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" text supports the notion of an "elect" whose composition is fully determined by God and includes no contribution of human free will:

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

 

[Vic C.]

vic C. I have seen you use the term ouble predestination: before, would you mind explaining it? I do not remember coming across that term before.

In regards to Hyper Calvinists - yes, there are many on Bible College campuses it seems - or atleast at the College I attended.

It would seem that those who agree with the theology of Calvin are more "calvinists" than Calvin was!

Agreed. In Calvin's time, it was considered a sacrilege if you claimed to be one of the elect saved. No one was supposed to know who was the elect.

Anyways... R. C. Sproul has something you and others might want to read concerning double predestination.

http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredes ... proul.html


Basically, this is double predestination in a nutshell:

Question: "What is double predestination?"

Answer: Double predestination is the belief that God creates some people who's purpose in existence is to be sent to Hell. Is this concept Biblical?...

http://www.gotquestions.org/double-predestination.html

That second link also explains why I don't attribute Romans 9 (10 and 11 also) directly to the ekklesia.

 

[Bubba]

Luther writes:

"When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation."

All double predestination means is that out of the sinful mass of clay that is humanity, God decides to initiate life through the Holy Spirit in what will be vessels of mercy and the rest He leaves in their sins, vessels of wrath. His soovereign choice. Yet, He nonetheless uses all people for the working out of His purposes.

Bubba

 

[jgredline]

In regards to Hyper Calvinists - yes, there are many on Bible College campuses it seems - or atleast at the College I attended.

It would seem that those who agree with the theology of Calvin are more "calvinists" than Calvin was!

Yes, this be very true.....A Hyper Calvinist is a modern day Pharisee....
I believe There are some here now and there have been some here before...It makes no sense to try and reason and debate them...You ask them a question and they will cut and paste you a ready made answer from someone....When they do use the scriptures they will usually blurt out a single verse or two out of context....

They believe God loves only the elect and hates people who are not his....
Which is why I asked the question a few threads back that went ignored....as I am sure this will...It is ok, because this has been bugging me...

A 5 point Calvinist also borders on Hyper Calvinism....I have attended 2 bible colleges and a seminary for various classes....for myself, not to be a pastor or anything like that....The point is they were ''all reformed based'' and praise God I ran into ''very few Hyper or five point Calvinist''.. I know some bible colleges are loaded with them....The biggest problem I have with them is they think (although they will not say it) God an ogre and take Gods true nature which is Love and toss it out the window...

You ask them...Why Pray? and they will cut and paste you an answer...''Because we are commanded to''

You ask them...Why have missionaries? They will cut and paste you an answer...''because the bible says so''

There answers are always dry....People who have actually studied Calvinsim will know that Calvin did not teach ''tulip''...He would be disgusted by what people have turned his name into....

 

[Drew]

"He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation."

All double predestination means is that out of the sinful mass of clay that is humanity, God decides to initiate life through the Holy Spirit in what will be vessels of mercy and the rest He leaves in their sins, vessels of wrath. His soovereign choice. Yet, He nonetheless uses all people for the working out of His purposes.

With a very important qualification which I will provide below, I submit that the position represented by the above is rather obviously incoherent (in the specific sense of not being "sensible" or "understandable" to us) if, and I emphasize if, we are born in this defective state. I think I am raising the same objection as Vic C, the poster formerly known as "Vic".... .

I am sure you are all familiar with the argument: a person cannot be justly punished for actions that are beyond his ability to control. If Fred is a vessel of God's wrath, and there is nothing Fred can do to avoid wrath, then we humans can make no sense of the idea that Fred will burn in torment eternally. Sure, we can pretend that we believe it, but I submit this concept is really unworkable for us and is devoid of meaning. It is like saying we believe in the existence of round squares.

We simply cannot reconcile the notion of punishment (at least of the eternal variety) with notions of justice (and love for that matter), in the very specific case where the one punished does not have the power to choose a path other than the one that leads to punishment.

And now for the qualification: if the the non-elect are in fact annihilated as I believe the Scriptures teach, the problem goes away. If Fred is "born bad" and is also part of the non-elect, there is no violent challenge to our deeply innate (and I believe trustworthy) sense of justice if Fred is annihilated at death. He does not suffer eternally for something beyond his control, he merely stops existing. And we cannot coherently claim that justice demands a chance at eternal life for all. There is no basis for expecting eternal life in heaven even if we are "born" bad and cannot control that.

So Bubba, there is still a chance that I might come to believe in an elect in the sense that I believe you do. Not yet there, though.....

 

[Bubba]

Yes, this be very true.....A Hyper Calvinist is a modern day Pharisee....
I believe There are some here now and there have been some here before...It makes no sense to try and reason and debate them...You ask them a question and they will cut and paste you a ready made answer from someone....When they do use the scriptures they will usually blurt out a single verse or two out of context....

They believe God loves only the elect and hates people who are not his....
Which is why I asked the question a few threads back that went ignored....as I am sure this will...It is ok, because this has been bugging me...

A 5 point Calvinist also borders on Hyper Calvinism....I have attended 2 bible colleges and a seminary for various classes....for myself, not to be a pastor or anything like that....The point is they were ''all reformed based'' and praise God I ran into ''very few Hyper or five point Calvinist''.. I know some bible colleges are loaded with them....The biggest problem I have with them is they think (although they will not say it) God an ogre and take Gods true nature which is Love and toss it out the window...

You ask them...Why Pray? and they will cut and paste you an answer...''Because we are commanded to''

You ask them...Why have missionaries? They will cut and paste you an answer...''because the bible says so''

There answers are always dry....People who have actually studied Calvinsim will know that Calvin did not teach ''tulip''...He would be disgusted by what people have turned his name into....

jgredine,
Your sounding a little like "sour grapes", I assure you I have tried my best to explain my position, since this is a voluntary format we are on, and most of us have jobs and families, don't be to hard on us if we elect to "cut and paste" (small pun).
I have read Calvin's Institutes and I know without a doubt that he would have supported (if alive), what later was a rebuttal to Jacob Arminius form of T.U.L.I.P.. The Calvinist of Jacob's day, just used the same acronym but changes his meanings to support the sovereignty of God.
Just because a person like myself believes in the 5 points of rebuttal to Arminius, does not make us a hyper anything. Usually, when one speaks of Hyper-Calvinism it is in regards to the Supralapsarian position verses the Infralapsarian, the latter being what most people like R.C. Sproul, James Kennedy, Charles Spurgeon, etc. believe to be true. I know of very few Suprlapsarians, Beza, the student of Calvin was one, but right off hand I can't think of any modern theolgians that are popular in my circles.
We have missionaries, because we do not know who are elect and the Bible tell us to preach the Gospel and those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will say yes to Jesus (the elect). Some of the greatest missionaries of the past have been Calvinists.
Bubba

 

[Bubba]

And now for the qualification: if the the non-elect are in fact annihilated as I believe the Scriptures teach, the problem goes away. If Fred is "born bad" and is also part of the non-elect, there is no violent challenge to our deeply innate (and I believe trustworthy) sense of justice if Fred is annihilated at death. He does not suffer eternally for something beyond his control, he merely stops existing. And we cannot coherently claim that justice demands a chance at eternal life for all. There is no basis for expecting eternal life in heaven even if we are "born" bad and cannot control that.

So Bubba, there is still a chance that I might come to believe in an elect in the sense that I believe you do. Not yet there, though.....

There were times(I have read) when Luther struggled with this whole idea of
eternal conscious punishment, but far as I know he never formalize a position. I can readily understand with the Roman Catholic Church breathing down his neck already over other issues of reform that he was trying to introduce to the RCC. I do not want to get into the specific's of why I am leaning to annihilation, I already have enough people on this forum who do not agree with my sovereignty of God stance or my eschatology. Yet, I am sure someone will start a thread soon enough on Hell and eternal punishment.
You are right, if the reprobate do not suffer consciously for eternity it does make "election" more palatable, unfortunately, most here would not agree with annihilation or even consider a study on it. The dogma of Hell is firmly ingrained in the majority of Christians, at least at this time.
Blessings, Bubba

 

[Heidi]

Yes, this be very true.....A Hyper Calvinist is a modern day Pharisee....
I believe There are some here now and there have been some here before...It makes no sense to try and reason and debate them...You ask them a question and they will cut and paste you a ready made answer from someone....When they do use the scriptures they will usually blurt out a single verse or two out of context....

They believe God loves only the elect and hates people who are not his....
Which is why I asked the question a few threads back that went ignored....as I am sure this will...It is ok, because this has been bugging me...

A 5 point Calvinist also borders on Hyper Calvinism....I have attended 2 bible colleges and a seminary for various classes....for myself, not to be a pastor or anything like that....The point is they were ''all reformed based'' and praise God I ran into ''very few Hyper or five point Calvinist''.. I know some bible colleges are loaded with them....The biggest problem I have with them is they think (although they will not say it) God an ogre and take Gods true nature which is Love and toss it out the window...

You ask them...Why Pray? and they will cut and paste you an answer...''Because we are commanded to''

You ask them...Why have missionaries? They will cut and paste you an answer...''because the bible says so''

There answers are always dry....People who have actually studied Calvinsim will know that Calvin did not teach ''tulip''...He would be disgusted by what people have turned his name into....

We only believe what the bible says. We don't make up scripture. We are not Pharisees because the love we have comes from the Holy Spirit inside of us, not from our own pure, intelligent, kind nature and good deeds as the Pharisees believed. "No one is righteous, not even one." So we give all the credit for everything good in us to God where it belongs, not our own free will, which comes from the sin of pride. The latter is what is Pharisiacal.

Here is another scripture that we believe: Proverbs 16:4,

"The Lord works out everything for his own ends-even the wicked for a day of disaster."

And another one: Romans 11:32, "For God bound all men over to disobedience so that he can have mercy on them all." Notice it didn't say that man was disobeidient of his own free will. That's a man-made belief.

And another one: Romans 8:20 "For the creation was not subject to frustration by its own choice, but by the will of the one wo subjected it." Notice again, that it does not say, "For it was the choice of man to be subject to frustration" which some people like to change it to say.

So you are in error when you claim that God has no say in what happens to the wicked. He is both omnipotent and omniscient. You need to read Leviticus 26:14-39 to see his plans for the Jews who disobeyed him. So I have no further interest in conversing about this issue with people who don't believe the scripture they don't like but instead believe what itching ears want to hear. if you understood God's plan, you would see exactly why he allows and at times sends evil to the world like he sent an evil spirit to Saul. Romans 9:20-25 explains that perfectly.

 

[jgredline]

We only believe what the bible says. We don't make up scripture. We are not Pharisees because the love we have comes from the Holy Spirit inside of us, not from our own pure, intelligent, kind nature and good deeds as the Pharisees believed. "No one is righteous, not even one." So we give all the credit for everything good in us to God where it belongs, not our own free will, which comes from the sin of pride. The latter is what is Pharisiacal.

Here is another scripture that we believe: Proverbs 16:4,

"The Lord works out everything for his own ends-even the wicked for a day of disaster."

And another one: Romans 11:32, "For God bound all men over to disobedience so that he can have mercy on them all." Notice it didn't say that man was disobeidient of his own free will. That's a man-made belief.

And another one: Romans 8:20 "For the creation was not subject to frustration by its own choice, but by the will of the one wo subjected it." Notice again, that it does not say, "For it was the choice of man to be subject to frustration" which some people like to change it to say.

So you are in error when you claim that God has no say in what happens to the wicked. He is both omnipotent and omniscient. You need to read Leviticus 26:14-39 to see his plans for the Jews who disobeyed him. So I have no further interest in conversing about this issue with people who don't believe the scripture they don't like but instead believe what itching ears want to hear. if you understood God's plan, you would see exactly why he allows and at times sends evil to the world like he sent an evil spirit to Saul. Romans 9:20-25 explains that perfectly.

Heidi
Who is the ''we''?

None the less I rest my case.

 

[jgredline]

jgredine,
Your sounding a little like "sour grapes", I assure you I have tried my best to explain my position, since this is a voluntary format we are on, and most of us have jobs and families, don't be to hard on us if we elect to "cut and paste" (small pun).
I have read Calvin's Institutes and I know without a doubt that he would have supported (if alive), what later was a rebuttal to Jacob Arminius form of T.U.L.I.P.. The Calvinist of Jacob's day, just used the same acronym but changes his meanings to support the sovereignty of God.
Just because a person like myself believes in the 5 points of rebuttal to Arminius, does not make us a hyper anything. Usually, when one speaks of Hyper-Calvinism it is in regards to the Supralapsarian position verses the Infralapsarian, the latter being what most people like R.C. Sproul, James Kennedy, Charles Spurgeon, etc. believe to be true. I know of very few Suprlapsarians, Beza, the student of Calvin was one, but right off hand I can't think of any modern theolgians that are popular in my circles.
We have missionaries, because we do not know who are elect and the Bible tell us to preach the Gospel and those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will say yes to Jesus (the elect). Some of the greatest missionaries of the past have been Calvinists.
Bubba

I rest my case ;-)

 

[Guest]

Heidi - do you eat food? By your actions of eating, are you not sustaining yourself?

Do you not rely on God to sustain you?

 

[Bubba]

I rest my case ;-)

What "case" are you resting?
Bubba

 

[Heidi]

Heidi
Who is the ''we''?

None the less I rest my case.

Once you answer why you used the word "Calvinists", then you will have your answer about who the "we" is. ;-)

 

[Heidi]

I rest my case ;-)

All you have to do, jgredline, is put the verses you quoted together with the verses I quoted and find an interpretation that makes those verses agree with each other, not contradict each other. Afterall, as you agreed with, scripture must be interpreted by other scripture. Then you'll find the correct interpretation of God's words.

 

[Vic C.]

... So I have no further interest in conversing about this issue with people who don't believe the scripture they don't like but instead believe what itching ears want to hear. if you understood God's plan, you would see exactly why he allows and at times sends evil to the world like he sent an evil spirit to Saul. Romans 9:20-25 explains that perfectly.

C'mon Heidi, take a breath. There's no need to get all righteous on us. 8-) It's not that some of us don't believe Scripture, it's just that some of us do not see it through the eyes of a Calvinist. It has nothing to do with itching ears.

What is it that Romans 9:20-25 explains so perfectly? What I see is Paul reflecting upon an analogy God revealed to Jeremiah, which was meant for the Nation of Israel. Actually, most of Romans 9, 10 and 11 are about National Israel.

Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

I suggest reading that passage in it's larger context.

This is from Adam Clarke's Commentaries:

The reference to this parable shows most positively that the apostle is speaking of men, not individually, but nationally; and it is strange that men should have given his words any other application with this scripture before their eyes.

(notes from verse 21 at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom9.htm )

You can skip down to where verse 20 starts and read from there.

Peace