Free Will, Predeterminism and Predestination

[GodsGrace]

I have talked to a lot of them and have never heard ANY of them say this so I do not believe you fairly represent their view. wondering quoted a calvinist chapter and verse and no word about free will. And that was an official calvinist viewpoint. No word about what you say they believe.

Of course it had to do with free will.

If God determines EVERYTHING, even the specks of dust in the air, as John Piper would say, then how could there possibly be free will?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

God is not deciding each day which man has free will and taking it away from others as you think. He has better things to do.

I showed you from the Bible that is not true. God hardens hearts.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I never said anything of the sort. I believe the parable of the different earths receiving the word describes what happens in reality. More than that I will not go. Please do not put words in to my mouth.

Well, I never said it was so that is easily dealt with. Strawmen are easy to burn down.

Don't get defensive. What you have to do is show us the scriptures that say man has the free will at all times to receive or reject the gospel, and show us why the scriptures I presented to the contrary don't really mean what they so plainly say. What you think is not going to cut it. I agree with you that it's cruel for God to send people to hell who would not have gone to hell if he would just allow them to be among the elect. But without scripture, what you and I think is right and true and just, and what is cruel really doesn't mean anything. You have to have proof of why what you think is right.

 

[GodsGrace]

You have been showing that you believe all men have absolute unhindered freedom of will all of the time when it comes to whether or not they are going to receive or reject the gospel. I showed you from the Bible that simply is not true. Our will is free to the degree that God allows it, when he allows it. And that has NOTHING to do with Calvinism which says you have no free will whatsoever when it comes to the gospel. It says the elect ONLY have the will to receive the gospel when presented with the gospel.

Man has the free will to accept or reject the gospel message...
to accept or reject God.
Grace is NOT irresistible as the reformed believe.
It is resistible and can be denied.

I think what you're speaking of, and which is getting Dorothy Mae confused is that nothing can happen UNLESS God wants it to. And He does give us much leeway.

But ultimately, God will have His way. He has a grand plan we know nothing about...
and it will come to pass, no matter what we decide, it will not be hindered.

It's the concept of the football game.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Of course it had to do with free will.

If God determines EVERYTHING, even the specks of dust in the air, as John Piper would say, then how could there possibly be free will?

And so he has come to the conclusion that there can be no free will. Just as this question has caused Freewillys to come to the conclusion that there must be free will. It's the usual 'black or white' polarization of conflicting doctrinal camps in the church. It's always an 'either or' proposition with so many Christians. What I'm presenting is evidence that shows that there is some truth in both camps. This is usually the case when it comes to these hard and fast lines of doctrine that we fight over.

I found out you learn the truth when you acknowledge the truth that is in both arguments, if there is any truth in either argument, of course. That's how you grow as a Christian in the matter of doctrine. And you find that these seemingly unanswerable doctrines of the church aren't so unanswerable after all. In this matter of free will, it is possible for, both, God and man to have and exercise free will. It's not an either or proposition where either man has free will and God doesn't, or God has free will and man doesn't. We both do. And I described how that is possible.

The proverbial rat in the maze is the best way I've found to understand it. While the rat is busy exercising his seemingly unhindered free will to move around the maze and do what he wants, God is exercising his free will in establishing the boundaries of the maze the rat is allowed to freely move about in. It's simply not an 'either-or' proposition as so many Christians insist this matter in the church is. You'll learn the truth about these kinds of things if you are willing to acknowledge the elements of truth on both sides.

(Paragraphs added for Edward 's benefit. Us AC guys have to take care of each other you know.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You need to find one. It is your insistence that you can present calvinism and of all the ones I have talked to over the years, none present their theology as you do. I suspect what you say they do not agree with.

I'm more than happy to read and consider any authoritative sources you provide.

 

[GodsGrace]

And so he has come to the conclusion that there can be no free will. Just as this question has caused Freewillys to come to the conclusion that there must be free will. It's the usual 'black or white' polarization of conflicting doctrinal camps in the church. It's always an 'either or' proposition with so many Christians. What I'm presenting is evidence that shows that there is some truth in both camps. This is usually the case when it comes to these hard and fast lines of doctrine that we fight over. I found out you learn the truth when you acknowledge the truth that is in both arguments, if there is any truth in either argument, of course. That's how you grow as a Christian in the matter of doctrine. And these seemingly unanswerable doctrines of the church aren't so unanswerable after all. In this matter of free will, it is possible for, both, God and man to have and exercise free will. It's not an either or proposition where either man has free will and God doesn't, or God has free will and man doesn't. We both do. And I described how that is possible.

I agree with the above.
But we must come to believe whether or not we have free will.
Some persons even misunderstand free will, telling me they're not able to fly and so have no free will.
When we speak of free will biblically, what we're speaking of is exactly what is being discussed here.
Do we have moral free will?
Can we choose between more than one choice? Or between 2 opposing choices?

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that calvinism is heretical.
This just means that it goes against every doctrine (teaching) that is accepted by the mainline church - or denominations.

Take the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.
Exodus 4:21 tells us that God will harden P's heart. Why would God not want His people to be let go?
Exodus 7:3 tells us that God will harden P's heart so that He can multiply His signs and wonders. God needs this?
Exodus 8:32 tells us that P hardened his heart THIS TIME ALSO, and he did not let the people go.

THIS TIME ALSO?
What about the other 2 times?

Did God harden his heart or did he harden his own heart?

Perhaps a clue is in Romans 2:24 : God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts. IOW, God let them have their way if that is what they wanted.

Romans 2:5 Because of man's stubbernness and unrepentant heart YOU are storing up wrath for YOURSELF in the day of judgment.

So, apparently, it seems it might be a bit more complicated than we might believe.
Perhaps God leaves a person to harden their heart for His own reasons.

I can't get any closer to understanding than this.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Notice he doesn’t control it and says so. It even simply fell by gravity wherever.

You're grasping.
What is it about the Son Of Man sowing the seed that you do not understand? That's a purposeful act.

 

[Cooper]

Then please tell us how Hebrews 6:4-6 doesn't mean that God does not allow a person to be restored to repentance after they have fallen away.

4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— 6and then have fallen away—to be restored to repentance

Explain how the passage is NOT preventing a person from exercising their free will to repent again after having fallen away despite the fact the passage says they can't. It doesn't matter what 'fallen away' means, so don't touch that forbidden subject (the forum doesn't allow it). Just tell us how the fallen away person CAN be restored to repentance despite the passage saying they can't.

Because Jesus died for our sins once and once only and will not die for our sins a second time.

They have committed the sin of apostasy. They have reached the place where the lights go out on the way to hell.
The enormous guilt of apostates is indicated in the words, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame (v. 6b). This signifies a deliberate, malicious spurning of Christ, not just a careless disregard of Him. It indicates a positive betrayal of Him, a joining of forces against Him, and a ridiculing of His Person and work.

The word impossible in verse 4 stands alongside :-
• It is impossible for God to lie (Heb_6:18).
• It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats can take away sin (Heb_10:4).
• It is impossible to please God without faith (Heb_11:6).

"Without faith" Essential for salvation. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved." Nobody is saved from the beginning of time, but the promise has always been there for everyone who believes.

We believe or deny of our own free will.

Adam and Eve used their free will to their harm.
.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because Jesus died for our sins once and once only and will not die for our sins a second time.

Do you see what he's saying, Dorothy Mae ? The reason the fallen person can't come back to repentance is because God does not allow it, not because he's incapable of repenting, as you say. God does not allow Christ to be crucified again and subjected to public shame. This is God purposely not allowing the fallen person to exercise free will and repent again concerning the blood of Christ that he has rejected.

Hebrews 6:4-6
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— 6and then have fallen away—to be restored to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame.

I expect you will not agree with this plain exegesis of the passage, but that is what the passage plainly says. You can not escape the obvious truth of scripture that God does in fact, under certain circumstances, take away a person's free will regarding the gospel of Christ. And this has NOTHING to do with Calvinism where people never have it to begin with.

 

[Cooper]

Do you see what he's saying, Dorothy Mae ? The reason the fallen person can't come back to repentance is because God does not allow it, not because he's incapable of repenting, as you say. God does not allow Christ to be crucified again and subjected to public shame. This is God purposely not allowing the fallen person to exercise free will and repent again concerning the blood of Christ that he has rejected.

Hebrews 6:4-6
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— 6and then have fallen away—to be restored to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame.

I expect you will not agree with this plain exegesis of the passage, but that is what the passage plainly says. You can not escape the obvious truth of scripture that God does in fact, under certain circumstances, take away a person's free will regarding the gospel of Christ. And this has NOTHING to do with Calvinism where people never have it to begin with.

God does not allow it a second time. This is after all the efforts of the Good Shepherd to return the apostate to the fold have been rejected. The prodigal son returned to the Father and was eternally secure.
.

 

[jasonc]

[/QUOTE]

And so he has come to the conclusion that there can be no free will. Just as this question has caused Freewillys to come to the conclusion that there must be free will. It's the usual 'black or white' polarization of conflicting doctrinal camps in the church. It's always an 'either or' proposition with so many Christians. What I'm presenting is evidence that shows that there is some truth in both camps. This is usually the case when it comes to these hard and fast lines of doctrine that we fight over. I found out you learn the truth when you acknowledge the truth that is in both arguments, if there is any truth in either argument, of course. That's how you grow as a Christian in the matter of doctrine. And these seemingly unanswerable doctrines of the church aren't so unanswerable after all. In this matter of free will, it is possible for, both, God and man to have and exercise free will. It's not an either or proposition where either man has free will and God doesn't, or God has free will and man doesn't. We both do. And I described how that is possible. The proverbial rat in the maze is the best way I've found to understand it. While the rat is busy exercising his seemingly unhindered free will to move around the maze and do what he wants, God is exercising his free will in establishing the boundaries of the maze the rat is allowed to freely move about in. It's simply not an 'either-or' proposition as so many Christians insist these conflicting doctrines in the church are.

Understood

 

[jasonc]

wondering
I have yet to post on the infant baptism .but many of the reformed practice it .my church does it

 

[n2thelight]

It says elected through faith, not elected to have faith. The plan is what was foreordained from the beginning, not who would participate in it. God established before creation that salvation would be through the election of faith, not the merit of one's works. Paul explains this in Romans 9:11 and surrounding verses.

The elect are already justified ,God knew they would have faith ,that's why their the only one's that don't have free will , God knew them ,like really knew them ,and not because He knows everything ,but because He met them, face to face . Let's look at the scripture you provided .

This chapter deals with how that God knew His children from the time He created their souls in that first earth age. That is why God could say to Jeremiah, "I knew you before you were in your mothers womb". Of course He did, He made Jeremiah's soul and that soul was with Him in the age that was. God knew Jeremiah could be trusted.

Romans 9:11 "(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;"

hen when the twins, Jacob and Esau were still in their mother's womb, neither having had the chance of doing either good or evil, God called one of those unborn babies to service. This deals with the election according to the purpose of God in His Will. The reason was to accomplish the writings of these Scriptures. It wasn't an accident that Jacob was loved and Esau was hated, nor was it an accident that you saw the light and repented. God has His hand on all creation and all of His children. God intercedes in the lives of His children, and there are no accidents when it comes to the actions of God.

Romans 9:12 "It was said unto her, "The elder shall serve the younger."

This statement is not according to custom. In Genesis 25:23; "And the Lord said unto her, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other; and the elder shall serve the younger."

The younger was to serve the older, and many so called teachers tell how Jacob plotted to get the blessing, they just don't understand that it was God's order from before they were ever born that Jacob would be the superior.

Romans 9:13 "As it is written "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

It was written by the Prophet Malachi in Malachi 1:2, 3; "I have loved you, saith the Lord Yet ye say, `Wherein hast Thou loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob," "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains [nations] and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

While Esau was a small embryo in his mother Rebecca's womb, God hated Esau. If it sounds a little bit unfair, then you missed the point of the entire eighth chapter where God stipulated where He foreknew those that overcame at Satan's rebellion in the first earth age. Don't you think that God is judge enough to know who to hate and who to love.

One must understand the age before the one we are currently in .

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Man has the free will to accept or reject the gospel message...
to accept or reject God.
Grace is NOT irresistible as the reformed believe.
It is resistible and can be denied.

I think what you're speaking of, and which is getting Dorothy Mae confused is that nothing can happen UNLESS God wants it to. And He does give us much leeway.

But ultimately, God will have His way. He has a grand plan we know nothing about...
and it will come to pass, no matter what we decide, it will not be hindered.

It's the concept of the football game.

The question is who decides to be In the game with God and who prefers not to do so. On this we decide ourselves.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course it had to do with free will.

If God determines EVERYTHING, even the specks of dust in the air, as John Piper would say, then how could there possibly be free will?

They don't view it that way and I have never heard them describe it that way. That is all I am asking. Their view of God paints a very cruel Being who predetermines some people have no chance to avoid hell and, of course. it has to do with his character, but none of them will admit this.

If it is so obvious, ask Roger if man has no free will at all in anything. He is a died in the wool calvinist, ask him to tell us that man has no free will at all in anything. (I know Jethro thinks man has free will for a moment in his life when he can choose God and then the window shuts down forever.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Do you see what he's saying, Dorothy Mae ? The reason the fallen person can't come back to repentance is because God does not allow it, not because he's incapable of repenting, as you say. God does not allow Christ to be crucified again and subjected to public shame. This is God purposely not allowing the fallen person to exercise free will and repent again concerning the blood of Christ that he has rejected.

That is not what it says. It does not say God allows some to be saved and some not and the backslidden ones are not allowed to do so. Jesus talked about this in the parable of the seeds on different ground. On no ground did the sower even do anything to the soil. What is says is something happens in the person that makes it impossible for them to admit their sin and repent. I have heard many a backslidden testimony and all of them say it was a lot harder to repent after knowing the truth and rejecting than becoming saved. And none of them knew the powers of the age to come, etc.

Hebrews 6:4-6
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— 6and then have fallen away—to be restored to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame.

That is not because of what God thinks or feels, it is because of what they will have to go through. Do you think God is ashamed of the crucifixion? Who will feel shame? Jesus? Do you know what the salvation experience is like? Shame is a big part of repentance. Who feels it? God? No, we do.

I expect you will not agree with this plain exegesis of the passage, but that is what the passage plainly says. You can not escape the obvious truth of scripture that God does in fact, under certain circumstances, take away a person's free will regarding the gospel of Christ. And this has NOTHING to do with Calvinism where people never have it to begin with.

God does not do this in matters of salvation and Jesus said so. The Devil takes away the word of God given to a man, not God. God does not feel shame when a backslidden believer repents. That is not plain exegesis. It is painting over the scripture and adding to it, what is does not say. God is not the subject doing the action here, it is the believer become unbeliever. That is plain English.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The elect are already justified ,God knew they would have faith ,that's why their the only one's that don't have free will , God knew them ,like really knew them ,and not because He knows everything ,but because He met them, face to face . Let's look at the scripture you provided .

This chapter deals with how that God knew His children from the time He created their souls in that first earth age. That is why God could say to Jeremiah, "I knew you before you were in your mothers womb". Of course He did, He made Jeremiah's soul and that soul was with Him in the age that was. God knew Jeremiah could be trusted.

Romans 9:11 "(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;"

hen when the twins, Jacob and Esau were still in their mother's womb, neither having had the chance of doing either good or evil, God called one of those unborn babies to service. This deals with the election according to the purpose of God in His Will. The reason was to accomplish the writings of these Scriptures. It wasn't an accident that Jacob was loved and Esau was hated, nor was it an accident that you saw the light and repented. God has His hand on all creation and all of His children. God intercedes in the lives of His children, and there are no accidents when it comes to the actions of God.

Romans 9:12 "It was said unto her, "The elder shall serve the younger."

This statement is not according to custom. In Genesis 25:23; "And the Lord said unto her, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other; and the elder shall serve the younger."

The younger was to serve the older, and many so called teachers tell how Jacob plotted to get the blessing, they just don't understand that it was God's order from before they were ever born that Jacob would be the superior.

Romans 9:13 "As it is written "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

It was written by the Prophet Malachi in Malachi 1:2, 3; "I have loved you, saith the Lord Yet ye say, `Wherein hast Thou loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob," "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains [nations] and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

While Esau was a small embryo in his mother Rebecca's womb, God hated Esau. If it sounds a little bit unfair, then you missed the point of the entire eighth chapter where God stipulated where He foreknew those that overcame at Satan's rebellion in the first earth age. Don't you think that God is judge enough to know who to hate and who to love.

One must understand the age before the one we are currently in .

Thank you for your answer to the what calvinists believe. This is more or less what I have always heard them say. It is not all how @Jethro characterizes Reformed Theology.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hi n2thelight
God is omniscient.
He knows everything that will happen.
Including knowing who will choose Him and who will not.

Because you know that your son will choose chocolate ice-cream...
does not mean that you made him choose chocolate ice-cream...

You're stating by your statement that God is not omniscient.
This is incorrect Christian theology and should not even be discussed.

I would like to see some verses that state that God CHOSE whom He will save before the foundation of the world.
I can't remember any such verse.
Thanks.

There aren’t any verses describing the cruelty of God choosing before the world began who goes to hell. There’s one verse that refers to the Book of Life that was there before the foundation of the world in which names are written, but they rearrange the prepositions so that the names are written before the foundation of the world.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And so he has come to the conclusion that there can be no free will. Just as this question has caused Freewillys to come to the conclusion that there must be free will. It's the usual 'black or white' polarization of conflicting doctrinal camps in the church. It's always an 'either or' proposition with so many Christians. What I'm presenting is evidence that shows that there is some truth in both camps. This is usually the case when it comes to these hard and fast lines of doctrine that we fight over.

I found out you learn the truth when you acknowledge the truth that is in both arguments, if there is any truth in either argument, of course. That's how you grow as a Christian in the matter of doctrine. And you find that these seemingly unanswerable doctrines of the church aren't so unanswerable after all. In this matter of free will, it is possible for, both, God and man to have and exercise free will. It's not an either or proposition where either man has free will and God doesn't, or God has free will and man doesn't. We both do. And I described how that is possible.

The proverbial rat in the maze is the best way I've found to understand it. While the rat is busy exercising his seemingly unhindered free will to move around the maze and do what he wants, God is exercising his free will in establishing the boundaries of the maze the rat is allowed to freely move about in. It's simply not an 'either-or' proposition as so many Christians insist this matter in the church is. You'll learn the truth about these kinds of things if you are willing to acknowledge the elements of truth on both sides.

(Paragraphs added for Edward 's benefit. Us AC guys have to take care of each other you know.)

I find it so sad that your theology decides we are rats in a maze in God’s lab. What an insulting view of the Father!

I care very much for God because of who He is, not because of what He gave me. I defend His character to men, cost me what it may.

If a theology causes a man to reject the idea that God is good, I suspect that the Enemy demands that he be allowed to take away the Word (seed) to some degree in that life. This is because of a refusal to receive a love of the truth. This is what I see in discussions here.

Loving the truth, btw, means one must be willing to admit to God and man that one was wrong. One must be willing to stand corrected and admit it. This is where the choice is made….my right to think as I choose or loving the truth more. Those who choose wisely are rewarded.