The Fallacy of Freewill

[Slider]

Re: For Stan

Slider,
In reading back a few posts and reading this post by you, you seem to be trying to explain the existance of predestination doctrine as that established by John Calvin with a lot of adaptations by subsequent theologians.

You made this statement in a previous post...
It is true today that Calvinism as Calvin developed it hardly exists any longer. But .....

Cassian,

First, I am not going to address in detail the thingsyou’ve said about John Calvin other than ask you if you have actually read hisworks. I actually have read hisworks. Not all of them, as Stan is rightin the sense that (while not a waste of time) is not a priority in regards toreading the Bible. Furthermore, hiswritings are quite extensive. I supposeit would take 4 years to read all of what he wrote and get a grasp of histeachings. If John Calvin were the bestavailable, then it’d be worth the time and probably a good idea. He is not the best available today; maybeback then in Geneva. But not today.

I don’t really even like the guy. The reasons why aren’t important tothe discussion at hand. I will say ifyou have indeed read his works (that is, those actually written by him), itmight be fun to discuss them in another thread. If you haven’t read his works, please don’t waste my time telling mewhat he said.

Therefore, let me move on to other issuesyou had. I’m not going to respond to allyour points but rather, for now, in general. SomeI will, but not all of them. However, itseems to me your theory is based on two points:

2. God foreknows our actions: He knows who will follow and who won’t. He knows your name, my name and what exactly our decisions will be.
3. While knowing them, he can’t set their path to salvation unless the believes and choses to follow.

Point number one is not an issue withme: I agree. I’m just going to ask you to confirmif you agree. It’s point number two that I have a problemwith. Do you believe that God cannot seta path of an individual until they actually believe? I’ll expand the question: do you believe that God cannot set the pathof an unbeliever who will never accept him?

I sensed this was a point you are holdingtwo based on the general wording you used throughout your response. However, there were two quotes you made thatcemented the notion that this is what you think:

“He is predestinating actions upon believers, not believers themselves.â€

“….but then God cannot make you an elect unless one believes.â€

These are two quotes that most interestedme. Let me deal with the latter quotefirst. I find it interesting that youwould even entertain to suggest what God can’t do. There is a Bible verse that says there aretwo things God can’t do. However,“making one elect unless one believes†isn’t one of the two. The two are pretty interesting to discuss,but they are better saved for another time.

The first quote is rather interesting inanother way, however. Let me firstremind you of the first point I made. Doyou believe that God foreknows our actions and decisions in a personal sense? Does he know what Cassian is going todo? Does he know what Slider is going todo? If the answer is no…. Please explainto me where I have gone amiss in my analysis of your point of view. If the answer is yes, please…. Read on.

Now that we have established that Godforeknows our path, let me bring up this verse again:

Romans 8:29 (KJV):

For those he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to theimage of his son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren.

Here is the interesting thing. Given that we both believe that God foreknowsus and what our ultimate decisions will be, this verse also says that hepredestinated them. He foreknows thepath of the individual (that we agree upon); but this verse includespredestination with “those†(individuals, which you agree upon as being the“forknownâ€). In other words, this is aninclusive statement. If God foreknows anindividual, then he also predestinated them (and the Bible says in the nextverses that inclusion involves being called, justified and sanctified).

There are other things to consider. Ultimately, this epistle to the Romans was(ahem…) predestinated to be read by many beyond simply Paul’s followers inRome. However, originally it was one man(Paul) writing to a few people (the Christians in Rome, with a reasonable beliefthat he had only a handful directly in mind). So when he says, “what shall wesay then? If God be for us, who can be against us?†he is speaking about no less than3 individuals. He is speaking of himselfand those who receive his letter. It waswritten by one individual and received by one individual with the expectationthat it would be shared with at least another person (thus, it was to theRomans – plural – and not to an individual like Timothy or Titus. But individuals were involved. We can correctlyand easily say that Paul was saying, “If God be for Paul, and Bob and Tom, whocan be against Paul and Bob and Tom?â€

That line of thinking – which is perfectlyreasonable – follows every time the word foreknown and predestined comeup. They were epistles: letters from oneindividual to another or a group of known people. Absolutely: they were ultimately written forus all, but originally it was a correspondence between individuals who had aname.

However, the first part is enough. If God foreknows the individual as being onewho loves God, then he also predestinated, called, sanctified and justifiedthat individual. And let me remind youthe word “predestinate†means to set before hand.

As for whether God can predestinate anunbeliever: I absolutely believe so. Ihave verses that say that God sends lying spirits, speaks in parables so theywouldn’t be understood, hardened heartsand so forth. Such verses are prettyclear and don’t need explanations other than what God said.


Now then… Some of your notions are far toointeresting for me to pass up commenting on. You wrote:

“Hecan also prophesy such as with Judas, he did not need to predestine Judas tobetray Jesus.â€

I suppose you believe that Judas did whathe did by his own free will? Perhaps youought to check what the Bible says on who caused him to betray Jesus.

You wrote:

“There is nothing in the context of the stories [Paul’s incident in Acts 9and Jonah] to even hint that Paul was predestined, or held captive. It clearly states that He has some verystrong influences, as with Jonah, but neither was forced to do anything.â€

Perhaps you ought to check this threadfurther. I’ve completely debunked yourline of thinking. If Paul had a choice,please by all means tell me what the Bible says that choice was. This line of thinking (that Paul and Jonahhad free will during their captivity) is like a convict telling other convictsin prison that he has freedom. When you are lying in the street, blind, terrified and Jesus is telling youit’s hard to kick against the pricks and telling what you MUST do, OR you arein a whale’s belly (Jonah, I believe, referred it to being in Hell) for threedays and three nights… Then you can tellme all about your free will.

Furthermore…. I’m sorry to hear you believe the will of Godis something that might be forced upon you. Personally, I want the will of God and accept it gladly as did Paul. My flesh might not like it always, but myinward man does.

You wrote:

“If God simply would appoint, or predestine any to be an elect, then therewould be no purpose in man believing, or even of God calling all men torepentance. It is one of those obvious anonamalies [sic] of imposingpredestination upon scripture.â€

This is based on a false premise. God does not only predestinate the path, buthe also predestinates the belief and the call to repentance. After all, he fore knows it will happen, butlike the scripture proved, he also predestinates it. I have an underlying theory (several of them actually) as to why peoplehate the truth about predestination. It’s because they believe that if you are predestinated, it means youdon’t have to do “anything†(for lack of a better term). That simply is not so. If you are predestinated to salvation, thenyou are also predestinated to take the steps…

After all, the steps of a good man areordered by the Lord!

 

[Cassian]

Re: For Stan

Slider,

First, I am not going to address in detail the thingsyou’ve said about John Calvin other than ask you if you have actually read hisworks. I actually have read hisworks. Not all of them, as Stan is rightin the sense that (while not a waste of time) is not a priority in regards toreading the Bible. Furthermore, hiswritings are quite extensive. I supposeit would take 4 years to read all of what he wrote and get a grasp of histeachings. If John Calvin were the bestavailable, then it’d be worth the time and probably a good idea. He is not the best available today; maybeback then in Geneva. But not today.

I have read a lot of Calvin. The Institutes were my textbooks in College. I taught Calvinism for 30 years.

I don’t really even like the guy. The reasons why aren’t important tothe discussion at hand. I will say ifyou have indeed read his works (that is, those actually written by him), itmight be fun to discuss them in another thread. If you haven’t read his works, please don’t waste my time telling mewhat he said.

I have no interest whatsoever in discussing what he states.

Therefore, let me move on to other issuesyou had. I’m not going to respond to allyour points but rather, for now, in general. SomeI will, but not all of them. However, itseems to me your theory is based on two points:
1.God foreknows our actions: He knows who will follow and who won’t. He knows your name, my name and what exactly our decisions will be.

2.While knowing them, he can’t set their path to salvation unless the believes and choses to follow.

Point number one is not an issue withme: I agree. I’m just going to ask you to confirmif you agree. It’s point number two that I have a problemwith. Do you believe that God cannot seta path of an individual until they actually believe? I’ll expand the question: do you believe that God cannot set the pathof an unbeliever who will never accept him?

He sets all of our paths. But setting a path does not mean we are obliged to follow. We can reject Him at every turn if we so choose to do so. This is why some men reject Him continually. The Holy Spirit is working upon all men to believe. He is calling all men to repent. God is making sure that any human being will never be able to give an excuse that he did not know God. That he did not have a chance to believe.

He is predestinating actions upon believers, not believers themselves.”
“….but then God cannot make you an elect unless one believes.”
These are two quotes that most interestedme. Let me deal with the latter quotefirst. I find it interesting that youwould even entertain to suggest what God can’t do. There is a Bible verse that says there aretwo things God can’t do. However,“making one elect unless one believes” isn’t one of the two. The two are pretty interesting to discuss,but they are better saved for another time.

It is not about what God cannot do, it is about what He will not do. To force anyone to believe goes against His own sovereign will in the reason He created man.

The first quote is rather interesting inanother way, however. Let me firstremind you of the first point I made. Doyou believe that God foreknows our actions and decisions in a personal sense? Does he know what Cassian is going todo? Does he know what Slider is going todo? If the answer is no…. Please explainto me where I have gone amiss in my analysis of your point of view. If the answer is yes, please…. Read on.

Now that we have established that Godforeknows our path, let me bring up this verse again:
Romans 8:29 (KJV):
For those he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to theimage of his son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren.

the answer is Yes.

Here is the interesting thing. Given that we both believe that God foreknowsus and what our ultimate decisions will be, this verse also says that hepredestinated them. He foreknows thepath of the individual (that we agree upon); but this verse includespredestination with “those” (individuals, which you agree upon as being the“forknown”). In other words, this is aninclusive statement. If God foreknows anindividual, then he also predestinated them (and the Bible says in the nextverses that inclusion involves being called, justified and sanctified).

but that is not what the verse is even saying. God forknows who will believe, He did nothing to predestinate them to believe, or not to believe. ONLY individual man will choose whether he believes or not. But because knew that many would believe, He had a plan for them. He predestinated that they would be made blameless, holy, and conformed to His image. These are actions upon these believers. God is NOT predestinating people here. In fact, believers leave the fold, thus they will no longer recieve this great blessing of being made holy.

There are other things to consider. Ultimately, this epistle to the Romans was(ahem…) predestinated to be read by many beyond simply Paul’s followers inRome. However, originally it was one man(Paul) writing to a few people (the Christians in Rome, with a reasonable beliefthat he had only a handful directly in mind). So when he says, “what shall wesay then? If God be for us, who can be against us?” he is speaking about no less than3 individuals. He is speaking of himselfand those who receive his letter. It waswritten by one individual and received by one individual with the expectationthat it would be shared with at least another person (thus, it was to theRomans – plural – and not to an individual like Timothy or Titus. But individuals were involved. We can correctlyand easily say that Paul was saying, “If God be for Paul, and Bob and Tom, whocan be against Paul and Bob and Tom?”

but God is for all human beings. Paul is simply directing it to believers. This whole chapter is a text of encournagement to the Romans. They were under severe persecution by Nero. They had the idea that God had forsaken them and left them to be slaughtered by Nero.

Paul is simply saying that how could you believe such a thing. God has a plan for all of you. Evil things can befall us, but that does not mean we have been forsaken by God. God is so interested in his Creatures, that He died for them while they were yet sinners. The Holy Spirit is calling all men to repentance, and these individuals in Rome were some that believed, answered that call in the positive. Christ also states that those called, were justified by faith and baptism, they will be glorified as well. And later in the chapter, God says that His love will never depart from them. When in actuality, God's love does not even depart those that actually reject Him why would he retract His love for those that love HIm.

However, the first part is enough. If God foreknows the individual as being onewho loves God, then he also predestinated, called, sanctified and justifiedthat individual. And let me remind youthe word “predestinate” means to set before hand.

But God does not do that because He predestinates, He does that because they loved Him. Christ could have predestinated all these blessings without every having foreknown who would believe. Let us say for arguments sake, that God is not omniscient. In His plan however, he predestined, set before hand, that anyone who believed, he would make holy, blameless and conformed to His Image. So, when a person believed, God would now know and as an elect, He would not participate in those blessings. If he left the Body, obviously the blessings will not follow him. They are only for those that love Him.

As for whether God can predestinate anunbeliever: I absolutely believe so. Ihave verses that say that God sends lying spirits, speaks in parables so theywouldn’t be understood, hardened heartsand so forth. Such verses are prettyclear and don’t need explanations other than what God said.

but none indicate that God does so against man's will. In all the cases you mentioned person or persons were already doing what God stated He would do. God is simply using persons who have already rejected Him and continually. Some God does cut off because of the consistant rejection, which is what Paul states in Rom 1:24-29.

Now then… Some of your notions are far toointeresting for me to pass up commenting on. You wrote:
“Hecan also prophesy such as with Judas, he did not need to predestine Judas tobetray Jesus.”
I suppose you believe that Judas did whathe did by his own free will? Perhaps youought to check what the Bible says on who caused him to betray Jesus.

absolutely so. First, predestination is not a scriptural tenent. Secondly, it goes against God's will. It also goes against the notion that God causes man to sin.

Again also, foreknowledge does not mean it was predestined.

Perhaps you ought to check this threadfurther. I’ve completely debunked yourline of thinking. If Paul had a choice,please by all means tell me what the Bible says that choice was. This line of thinking (that Paul and Jonahhad free will during their captivity) is like a convict telling other convictsin prison that he has freedom. When you are lying in the street, blind, terrified and Jesus is telling youit’s hard to kick against the pricks and telling what you MUST do, OR you arein a whale’s belly (Jonah, I believe, referred it to being in Hell) for threedays and three nights… Then you can tellme all about your free will.

Neither individual had his will in captivity. Paul was not in captivity at any time. Jonah was being taught a lesson, which even after He got to Niniveh he still was fighting against God.

It cannot be anything but free will. Maybe you have an errant view of what constitutes free will. I know that in my Calvinistic days there are about 4-5 differing concepts of free will that are used to get around the stark contradiction of predestination as understood by the reformed proponents of any stripe today.

Furthermore…. I’m sorry to hear you believe the will of Godis something that might be forced upon you. Personally, I want the will of God and accept it gladly as did Paul. My flesh might not like it always, but myinward man does.

that might be a very psychological panacea which absolves you of any responsibility for your actions, for which you could never be judged. If God does all your actions, including your sin, what fault do you have?

This is based on a false premise. God does not only predestinate the path, buthe also predestinates the belief and the call to repentance. After all, he fore knows it will happen, butlike the scripture proved, he also predestinates it. I have an underlying theory (several of them actually) as to why peoplehate the truth about predestination. It’s because they believe that if you are predestinated, it means youdon’t have to do “anything” (for lack of a better term). That simply is not so. If you are predestinated to salvation, thenyou are also predestinated to take the steps…

knowing does not demand predestinating. If God forknows anything, He does not NEEd to predestinate. It is a superfluous redundant action. And your explanation is diameterically opposed to scripture.

There is no such thing as limited atonement. A theologcial impossiblity if Christ was Incarnated and became man. No such thing as unconditional election. It denies the very purpose of why God created man in the first place, and why Christ came to redeem mankind from the fall.

Predestination and the consequent tenents of TULIP are all unscriptural. You will find no history of any prior to Calvin. Augustine mentions them, but never developes them into a belief system. The Church never held to any of these beliefes.

As I mentioned, these premises of Calvin are rooted in non Christian history, not scripture. They are man made suppositions imposed upon scripture. You have all the classic statements of a true Calvinists. I can assure you they are not scriptural. YOu could not prove any of it as historical prior to calvin and since then, by only some who use the same method you use to derive your interpretations of scripture. The fact that they have changed and are still being changed verifies that it could not be the Gospel ONCE given for all, for all time.

After all, the steps of a good man areordered by the Lord!

Yes they are, but we do not need to take them. God is leaving nothing to chance that every single human being that ever existed, will not have an excuse that they did not know God, that they did not have the opportunity to believe.

 

[Slider]

Re: For Stan

But God does not do that because He predestinates, He does that because they loved Him. Christ could have predestinated all these blessings without every having foreknown who would believe. Let us say for arguments sake, that God is not omniscient. In His plan however, he predestined, set before hand, that anyone who believed, he would make holy, blameless and conformed to His Image. So, when a person believed, God would now know and as an elect, He would not participate in those blessings. If he left the Body, obviously the blessings will not follow him. They are only for those that love Him.

This is absolutely what that verse says. Whom he did know he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son. To say otherwise you have to explain why this verse doesn't say what it says. Even worse, your proof that this verse doesn't say that is your own theory. You are saying this verse doesn't say God predestinates individuals because God does not predestinate individuals.

Furthermore, for one who didn't want to discuss what Calvin said you sure did talk about him after that.

 

[Grazer]

Has anyone seen the movie The Adjustment Bureau? Interesting concept of we have free will over the small details but the larger issues are sorted elsewhere. May not be theologically correct but just putting it into the mixer

 

[felix]

The issue of predestination vs freewill comes because, we cannot have a perspective of God.

I will try my best to explain this:

God is not bound by time. Hence, in His viewpoint, the day a man was born as a baby is same as the day he died. We simply cannot understand this because, we are always bound by time while God is not.

The closest illustration is this:
Imagine a river flowing and there is a boat sailing and you have an eagle view. You can view the point where the boat started and the point where the boat will ended. If there is a block in the path, you can view it while the boat can't and warn the boat. Now, image the river as a time that flows. Since, God is not inside the time, He can go anywhere and anytime and view exactly what happened at any moment. He knows the past the present and the future as He views them simultaneously. While we travel from past to future as the river of time flows, in God's view, the entire eternity of time flow is just before Him and every decision and every choice we make changes our future. While the future hasn't happened for us since we are bound by time, but it has already happened in God's eyes because He can simultaneously see our future.

Another best illustration is God painting a picture where the picture is time. He can change the picture the way He wanted. For God, the entire eternity of time looks like a piece of paper before Him.

Since, there are verses for freewill and there are verses for predestination, the debate will continue. However, my friends in Christ, you must come out of this debate and understand that both are true and both are scriptural but more than it, we must look this entirely from God's perspective i.e, who is not bound by time, for Scripture is His inspired words.

 

[Drew]

Re: For Stan

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us inhim before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and withoutblame before him in love:

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us untothe adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the goodpleasure of his will,

I am very familiar with this text. I believe the author is not making the point you believe he is. Here is the danger: If one comes to this text "looking for" evidence that humans are pre-destined to final salvation then, of course, you will find it here.

However, that would not be proper exegesis. I suggest, but will not present the case just yet, that the author is making a much more particular and narrow point: that God has pre-destined a small number of first century people to found the church. If this reading is correct, we cannot, legitimately anyway, use the text to support the notion of general pre-destination to salvation.

The argument is based on context and will appeal to elements in later chapters of the letter.

For the moment, it must be conceded that it is at least possible that the author is making the point that I assert he is making - there is nothing in these two verses that would rule out such a reading.

And, in case the reader has not inferred it already, I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that people are predestined to an ultimate destiny.

 

[Drew]

Has anyone seen the movie The Adjustment Bureau? Interesting concept of we have free will over the small details but the larger issues are sorted elsewhere. May not be theologically correct but just putting it into the mixer

I certainly agree that what you are suggesting is possible. Consider the following situation: I am playing tennis against Roger Federer. I am 53 years old and have spent a grand total of about two hours in my life playing tennis. Let's also apply the following constraints:

1. Mr. Federer will not get sick or get injured;
2. Mr. Federer will try to win the match;
3. The game will not be interrupted (e.g. by an earthquake, or a bomb threat).

I suggest that under this way of framing the situation, it is guaranteed that Mr. Federer will win a best of 5 sets match.

Am I "free" to deal with his shots as I see fit? I suggest that I am; I can indeed exercize free will over the decisions I make re how to play the game.

So here we have a situation where the overall outcome is effectively assured, yet the details are "open".

I do think that there are "theological" scenarios that are structured according to this template. However, I do not believe that personal salvation is one of them. I am also aware that my tennis analogy is subject to a number of challenges. While I have not thought this out in detail, my gut feeling is that the analogy can be "tweaked" and the fundamental point would still stand: God can indeed "pre-destine" some grand outcome while humans can still exercise free will within such a situation.

 

[Elijah674]

I certainly agree that what you are suggesting is possible. Consider the following situation: I am playing tennis against Roger Federer. I am 53 years old and have spent a grand total of about two hours in my life playing tennis. Let's also apply the following constraints:

1. Mr. Federer will not get sick or get injured;
2. Mr. Federer will try to win the match;
3. The game will not be interrupted (e.g. by an earthquake, or a bomb threat).

I suggest that under this way of framing the situation, it is guaranteed that Mr. Federer will win a best of 5 sets match.

Am I "free" to deal with his shots as I see fit? I suggest that I am; I can indeed exercize free will over the decisions I make re how to play the game.

So here we have a situation where the overall outcome is effectively assured, yet the details are "open".

I do think that there are "theological" scenarios that are structured according to this template. However, I do not believe that personal salvation is one of them. I am also aware that my tennis analogy is subject to a number of challenges. While I have not thought this out in detail, my gut feeling is that the analogy can be "tweaked" and the fundamental point would still stand: God can indeed "pre-destine" some grand outcome while humans can still exercise free will within such a situation.

The problem is not what God has eternally known. But it is that none of his free/will creation know ahead of time.

 

[Cassian]

Re: For Stan

This is absolutely what that verse says. Whom he did know he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son. To say otherwise you have to explain why this verse doesn't say what it says. Even worse, your proof that this verse doesn't say that is your own theory. You are saying this verse doesn't say God predestinates individuals because God does not predestinate individuals.

Furthermore, for one who didn't want to discuss what Calvin said you sure did talk about him after that.

If you agree that the verse says what it says, then why would you believe that God predestinates individuals to do anything?

I'm discussing what scripture says in opposition to Calvinism. I am not discussing Calvinism.

 

[Cassian]

felix,

Since, there are verses for freewill and there are verses for predestination, the debate will continue. However, my friends in Christ, you must come out of this debate and understand that both are true and both are scriptural but more than it, we must look this entirely from God's perspective i.e, who is not bound by time, for Scripture is His inspired words.

There are no verses for the understanding of predestination as put forth by Calvin and all pseudo-calvinists since. Just because the word exists in scripture does not mean the system Calvin developed based on the term is based on scripture. Scripture does not teach contradictory concepts. Free will is mutually exclusive of a theory of predestination.

the only place the debate exists is within Protestantism. It will always exist as will a host of other notions that are also unscriptural. Man creates his own theories and will continually pose them against other man made theories.

 

[Drew]

Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For 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.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay 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?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

If there is one thing I am quite sure of it is that in these verses from Romans 9, Paul is not talking about personal salvation. He is instead making a case about Israel and how, like the potter with his pot, God has the right to mold (harden) Israel for a specific purpose.

Again, we need to remember some fundamentals: It is simply incorrect exegesis to take a passage out of its context and use it to support some point that the original author was not talking about. And Romans 9 is a great example of this. For centuries, (some) Christians have used this material to support the doctrine of "pre-destination unto salvation". However, when context is considered, it becomes quite clear that Paul is talking something entirely different: God's "pre-destining" of Israel so that the possibility of salvation can be extended to all humanity.

I am prepared to defend this assertion.

 

[smaller]

Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

To assert freewill is to remove the Will of Divine Working in order for the lesser wills to be free.

Not even tenable.

The instant God participates in His Creation, which is [or should be] constant continually and ACTIVE in the eyes of any believer, then all claims of freewill are off the table in view of the obvious Greater Hand who is able to work all things unto good.

Heb. 4:
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

That is the view of faith.

There is no other way to see it from a perspective of faith.

How could we look at anything expecting good to come of any matter without Him being intimately involved in those same 'all things?'

Gods Word and Spirit are alive and active in His Own creation and His creation extracts Him pleasure, which same only He is capable of extracting for Himself.

Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons

You think we, you, I, have something, anything to give to God?

He Is The One Who Gave everything to us to begin with.

John 3:27
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

s

 

[Cassian]

If there is one thing I am quite sure of it is that in these verses from Romans 9, Paul is not talking about personal salvation. He is instead making a case about Israel and how, like the potter with his pot, God has the right to mold (harden) Israel for a specific purpose.

Again, we need to remember some fundamentals: It is simply incorrect exegesis to take a passage out of its context and use it to support some point that the original author was not talking about. And Romans 9 is a great example of this. For centuries, (some) Christians have used this material to support the doctrine of "pre-destination unto salvation". However, when context is considered, it becomes quite clear that Paul is talking something entirely different: God's "pre-destining" of Israel so that the possibility of salvation can be extended to all humanity.

I am prepared to defend this assertion.

Right on! The summary of that whole discourse is in Rom 11:32.

 

[felix]

felix,



There are no verses for the understanding of predestination as put forth by Calvin and all pseudo-calvinists since. Just because the word exists in scripture does not mean the system Calvin developed based on the term is based on scripture. Scripture does not teach contradictory concepts. Free will is mutually exclusive of a theory of predestination.

the only place the debate exists is within Protestantism. It will always exist as will a host of other notions that are also unscriptural. Man creates his own theories and will continually pose them against other man made theories.

Predestination:

• (Eph 1:3-6) Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
• (2Tim 1:9) who has saved us and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began
• (Acts 13:48) Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Freewill:

• (Deut 11:26) " Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse:
• (Josh 24:15) "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
• (Rev 3:20) "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

As I mentioned, Scripture supports both Predestination and Freewill but the only explanation I can say is because of the very nature of God who is not bound by time. You must come out of the human mindset that God is bound by time. For God, the entire eternity of time is before Him, just like we holding an object in our hand. He can see us, talk to us and even experience our past, our present and our future all at the same time, which is impossible for us to even think of.

 

[Cassian]

felix,

•(Eph 1:3-6) Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

this is the text in scripture that uses the word.
However, the interpretation assigned to it by the reformed view, is not in this verse. This verse is simply telling us that God, before the foundations of the world, would grant special blessings to those that would answer His call to repentance and union with HIm in His Body. Those blessings are listed. Nothing about predestining anyone to believe, nothing about even predestinating all actions of man.

•(2Tim 1:9) who has saved us and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began

Since Christ saved all human beings for the express purpose to call all men to repentance, this hardly qualifies as a predestined action upon some men, surely not believe again. Nothing in this verse supports the interpretation of the reformed view.

•(Acts 13:48) Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

everyone has been appointed to eternal life. That is what Christ accomplished on the Cross for the world. However, each individual believes based on his own desires. Everyone does not believe immediately upon hearing the word. Thus all men are predisposed, that is have the ability and capability to believe but not all believe at the same time. NOthing here about predestination again.

YOu are prooftexting, the proponents of the view have used these for 500 years. Man has imposed his will and interpretation upon scripture and to do so, must find some texts that sound as if they support his view.

Freewill:
•(Deut 11:26) " Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse:
•(Josh 24:15) "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
•(Rev 3:20) "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

these few texts of the hundreds available do show that man is the active agent in his relationship with God. It is diametrically opposed to predestination as interpreted in the reformed view.

As I mentioned, Scripture supports both Predestination and Freewill but the only explanation I can say is because of the very nature of God who is not bound by time. You must come out of the human mindset that God is bound by time. For God, the entire eternity of time is before Him, just like we holding an object in our hand. He can see us, talk to us and even experience our past, our present and our future all at the same time, which is impossible for us to even think of

It has nothing to do with time. YOu have not shown that the interpretation of the reformed view is even present in the texts you used for predestination.
Eph 1:3-6 uses the word, but does not represent the notion of the reformed view. Neither did II Tim 1:9 or Acts 13:48. These are often used but actually do not support the interpretation used.

The reformed view and interpretation of "predestination" can only be found in the theology of Calvin and other later proponents who have changed it to suit their own theologies. It is not found in scripture. Has never been a teaching of scripture prior to Calvin. For others who use sola scriptura to develop and derive other views, do not support it as a viable interpretation of scripture either.

 

[felix]

Cassian,

1. You are just ignoring Eph 1:3-6 which clearly says "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world".
2. You are also ignoring 2Tim 1:9 which says about God saving us before time began.
3. Not all are appointed to eternal life in Acts 13:48. Only those who are appointed to eternal life believed as the verse says.

God is not bound by time is extremely important in understanding this freewill vs predestination.

My questions to you:

• Is God bound by time? Yes/No
• Can God speak to you in your past, present and in your future all at the same time? yes/No

If you answer yes, then His nature of not bound by our past,present and future makes predestination valid and true. Since we are bound by time and it is created by God to flow from past to present to future, we cannot know the future until we actually face it which makes freewill valid.
If you answer no, then He is not God according to you.

You are ignoring the illustration I provided.

 

[ivdavid]

Freewill: (Deut 11:26), (Josh 24:15), (Rev 3:20)
these few texts of the hundreds available do show that man is the active agent in his relationship with God.

I've read just this last page on this thread - I will go back and read more but I wanted to address this. I read these Scriptures you've quoted - they are true - they lay moral responsibility upon man, holding him accountable for all his transgressions - they command man to choose what is right and to not choose what is wrong - and they describe God's promised response to the good acts of man, if performed. I'm reasonably sure there isn't any disagreement between us on any of this so far.

Where I do find exception to, is when you go from man being given options to choose from, where he's commanded to choose certain particular options - to concluding that man indeed has the ability to make those prescribed choices. Let's take the first Scripture you quoted -
Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
Deu 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
Deu 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God...

Note the condition in v.27 - This is the same conditional in the Law of Works -
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

So we see that man is presented with 2 options to choose from - Either he could choose life and receive the blessing by doing the commandments of God - OR he could reject life and be under the curse by not doing the commandments of God.

Is it not plain then, that no created man has ever chosen life and blessing since all mankind is under the curse of the law of works. Was he not given the option - he was indeed given it. Did he choose it - No. Why - because of sin in the flesh.

How then are you able to proclaim the freedom of the will to choose life and blessing when Scripture tells us that all have chosen to remain under the curse? Is this not where grace and mercy makes sense?

(Acts 13:48)...And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Cassian : everyone has been appointed to eternal life....

Then why the phrase "as many as" in Scripture? Why not simply "Those who desired then [from among every single person who is already ordained to eternal life <some of whom,God's ordination is somehow ineffective in> ], believed"? The same goes for John 6:64-65.

Setting these individual points aside for a time, what exactly is the base issue in accepting the doctrine that all good things are of God and of Him alone, according to His Sovereign Grace, with man not adding any part of anything good to it? By upholding this, I, in no way am denying man's accountability for his transgressions - neither am I denying any of God's holy attributes. What then is the base issue?

 

[Cassian]

felix,

1.You are just ignoring Eph 1:3-6 which clearly says "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world".

No, explaining it as it is written. The text does NOT say we are chosen to believe. It says that those IN Christ have been chosen, then lists the blessings that would follow those that believe, those that are IN Christ.

2.You are also ignoring 2Tim 1:9 which says about God saving us before time began.

The text is referrign to the Work of Christ is saving us. Christ saved the world, mankind from death. Vs 10 tells you how that "saving" took place. It is because Christ saved all of mankind from death, that He can call all men to repentance. There is not predestination here of a person to believe, or any other act of a human being.

3.Not all are appointed to eternal life in Acts 13:48. Only those who are appointed to eternal life believed as the verse says. The best meaning of the verse is that they were predisposed to believing.

All men are disposed to believe. That was the purpose of God creating us in His Image. All men have a link, a connection to the Divine. God has made sure that no man is stranded, all men have the ability, capability to believe. Men believe by different influences, at different times. All this text is saying is that some were more predisposed to believe here, others that were there, might believe at some other point down the road.

The idea that God is not bound by time has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of predestination and free will. It has to do with why God created man in the first place, and why Christ redeemed mankind, both for the same reason. Man has been specifically created free, has an independent will than that of God. It is why we even have God's revelation. In a predestinated scheme, revelation is irrelevant and quite useless.

It is your job to show that the principle of "predestination" is scriptural. You are assuming it is, however, history shows it is not. YOu can continue to twist scripture to try to make it fit, but it cannot work. The concept goes no further back than Calvin who is using an idea of Augustines, which historically can easily be shown to be pagan in origin.

 

[Cassian]

ivdavid,

So we see that man is presented with 2 options to choose from - Either he could choose life and receive the blessing by doing the commandments of God - OR he could reject life and be under the curse by not doing the commandments of God.

Is it not plain then, that no created man has ever chosen life and blessing since all mankind is under the curse of the law of works. Was he not given the option - he was indeed given it. Did he choose it - No. Why - because of sin in the flesh.

what is plain to see from scripture that every single human being that will ever live on this planet will have the choice. Every single human being will give an active answer to that choice. Man is judged upon that choice. Anything outside of man making the choice dismisses man for any responsibility and thus cannot be judged.

You are imposing one of the tenets of Calvin' predestination theory, "total depravity" which also is not found in scripture.

How then are you able to proclaim the freedom of the will to choose life and blessing when Scripture tells us that all have chosen to remain under the curse? Is this not where grace and mercy makes sense?

God has always operated as if Christ had already come from Gen 3:15. Christ in fact, when He came freed all men from that curse, death. All men will have the choice and all men will actively give an answer. No man will have an excuse that he did not know God, or was not given the choice to life or death. Paul makes that quite clear in Rom 1:18-24. Christ also makes that clear in that He redeemed the world, reconciled the world to God for the express purpose that all men might have an eternal existance and purpose, so that God can call all men to repentance, excluding no one.

Setting these individual points aside for a time, what exactly is the base issue in accepting the doctrine that all good things are of God and of Him alone, according to His Sovereign Grace, with man not adding any part of anything good to it?

also an incorrect assessment of scripture. All things are given to man. NOthing is of man. However, man was created to use the things God has given him. This is why man can be held accountable. God is not using the things He gave to man for man. Man must use the things God has given him to His glory, to his honor, to be faithful, to be obedient, to love Him freely. God desires all men to come to know Him, God is not a respector of persons.

 

[ivdavid]

what is plain to see from scripture that every single human being that will ever live on this planet will have the choice. Every single human being will give an active answer to that choice. Man is judged upon that choice. Anything outside of man making the choice dismisses man for any responsibility and thus cannot be judged.

All this is true. I have already mentioned all of this in my previous post. What I need to know is if any man has ever made that prescribed choice of choosing blessing over curse as prescribed in Deut 11:26-28 ? If no man has, then there is indeed something that withholds man from choosing life as per the Lev 18:5 condition (sin in the flesh? Rom 3:20b). On the other hand, if any man has indeed made that right choice, then such a one is not under the curse (Gal 3:10) and Christ is of no use to him since he requires no redemption from the curse that he's anyway not under (Gal 3:13).

Cassian : "Christ in fact, when He came freed all men from that curse, death."
This is absolutely true. But let's not miss inferring the obvious. For Christ to have freed ALL men from the curse, ALL men had to be under the curse - which implies that ALL men chose the curse of Deut 11:28 instead of choosing the blessing of Deut 11:27. When ALL men choose only one of the two options given, would you call that freedom of the will?

Not only this, God has predestined His people to have life in Christ and in Him alone - which concludes that man is not able to choose life as per Deut 11:27, Lev 18:5 and that every single man is dependent upon the work of Christ to redeem him from the curse he himself has chosen. Where again is this freedom of the will when it is constrained from making the right choice? Will you not concede that man is indeed corrupted by sin in the flesh which refrains such a one in the flesh from obeying God's law(Rom 8:7)? Such a one then is sustained by grace and grace alone.

Cassian: "All men will have the choice and all men will actively give an answer. No man will have an excuse that he did not know God, or was not given the choice to life or death."
Very true. But I have never proposed that man was never given the options to choose from, neither have I proposed that man is not held accountable. I hope you are not referring to freewill as just having options to choose from, which I have never denied, rather than referring to the actual choosing of any which option. As I've already mentioned, man has been given the options to choose from, he has always chosen against God's will because of sin in him and hence is held accountable for the choice he's made. Being held accountable, he is rendered the sentence of death as per the law of works and is then redeemed by God's mercy in the work of Christ on the cross according to the law of faith.

All things are given to man. NOthing is of man.

This is not quite what I was addressing. I was referring to 1Cor 1:29 when I said man in the flesh adds no part of anything good in any of his acts. If a man were to do good, it is then by God's grace alone.

God is not a respector of persons.

True. But let's not misinterpret this to deny God's sovereign election according to grace (Rom 9:11, Rom 11:5).