Free Will

[Easystreet]

"he predestined because he foreknew" makes no sense at all ....... for what is foreknown is certain and predestining something that will surely come to pass anyway is POINTLESS !

it would do nothing if God did or didn't predestine what is foreknown because it is foreknown that it WILL come to pass , anyway!

what scripture speaks of is people who he foreknew (ie, loved) He also predestined !

and also ;

Act 2:23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Jesus being delivered up by the determinate counsel , ie, predestination and foreknowledge of God ......... notice Predestination preceeds forknowledge as logically it MUST!

what scripture speaks of is people who he foreknew (ie, loved) He also predestined !

Forced meaning of the word foreknew.

 

[Easystreet]

Dictionary.com Unabridged
fore·knowl·edge –noun knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience: Did you have any foreknowledge of the scheme?
[Origin: 1525–35; fore- + knowledge

]

—Synonyms presentiment, premonition; foresightedness.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source fore·knowl·edge n. Knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience.

foreknowledge
noun - knowledge of an event before it occurs [syn: precognition]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

 

[cygnusx1]

hahaha , gotta love these diversions in explaining the obvious while missing the logical challenge !

 

[Epiphoskei]

This is the most complicated matter in the entire Bible to me, and I pray for enlightenment on it. I think Luther had it right, the whole subject is best left avoided.

I'm not sure a man who wrote De Servo Arbitrio, or On the Bondage of the Will, can be said to have left it avoided. Calvinism isn't also called "Reformational Theology" for nothing.

As to your previous statement that if predestination and predetermination are true then we have no free will, the Calvinist postion is not that God's sovereignty is so great that it compromises the sincerity and genuineness of our will, the calvinist point would be better put that the so great sovereignty and predetermination of God do not compromise the genuineness of the will.

 

[Rick Otto]

is amply exhibited in the fact of its existence.
Predestination does not eliminate the fact of volition (will), it eliminates the self-sovereignity of it.
It is either serving God, or serving the devil.
The will that serves God can only do so by the intervention (force) of mercy.
Paul was literaly forced off his high horse on the way to execute Christians in Damascus. Metaphoricaly, we are forced off our "high horse" of self-(sin)-direction, when the irresistable force of mercy regenerates the eternal life of spirit in our souls. Belief & repentance are the visible consequence.

When God creates evil(Isaiah45:7), He does so out of holy motive. When Man sins, he does so out of wicked intent. Judge by the motive, not by the action.
Acts 2:23 contains all that,'in a nutshell'.
Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Do NOT resort to insulting posting.

Flaming is unacceptable.

BE CIVIL.

 

[Renton405]

Not even gonna apologize for your error in attributing to me something I did not say?

Considering you claim someone is lost is arrogant. Whether you mean he is saved or not. You are not in that authority to make that claim. You say a person is lost because he dosen't agree with your 16th century interperatation of scripture. That is immature. You can agree to disagree, but you cannot claim something about a person you do not know..

I notice you are ignoring my other statements though. The verse where is says God foreknew first before he predestined. How do Calvinists answer this??

 

[Renton405]

Forced meaning of the word foreknew.

Do you always twist definitions of words to fit calvinistic view?

 

[Renton405]

No it doesn't, necessarily. It can as easily (& does) mean simultaneously.

No, because it wouldn't say "He also"... meaning an addition.. simultaneously dosen't work based on the grammar..

 

[Renton405]

Thanks for the kindness in your response, bro, but I don't have them reversed because they are not a chronological sequence in either 'order'.
Pedestining is done in omniscience, not clairvoyance.
Clairvoyance is seeing ahead to what is otherwise unknown. Omniscience creates in full knowlege of what & who is being destined to be. It is also referred to as predeterminate counsel in Act 2:22 or 23.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren-Romans 8:29


No it doesn't, necessarily. It can as easily (& does) mean simultaneously.


Wishfull thinking.


That would turn His act of mercy into a merited reward.

Apparently not,...babe.


You have to twist grace into works to read it that way.


It wouldn't change a thing if he did. You're projecting a cause & effect relationship where only a mercy & grace relationship exists.

But you get major props for your level of concern.

I guess you don't believe In the book of James where it says faith without works is dead, and thus don't believe the word of God


God is both Clairvoyant and Omnipresent.

Merited Reward.. Hmmm ..funny you say that:

Knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.

And men will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; Surely there is a God who judges on earth!

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done

What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.

"Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you

Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward

BIG VERSE ABOVE.. if we were predestined God would not ask us to watch ourselves, and more importantly, we would not be able to lose our salvation like this verse says. It shows God judges us, and if we were predestined in the Calvinistic sense there would be no need for judging. This shows God puts responsibility on us. It also shows some rewards are greater than others.. Otto this verse really puts a big log in your theory...



The word of God disagrees with you about reward it seems

 

[Rick Otto]

Renton405;I guess you don't believe In the book of James where it says faith without works is dead, and thus don't believe the word of God

Renton my friend, statements like that is what makes you sound at least presumptive, if not "arrogant".

God is both Clairvoyant and Omnipresent.

No, sir. God is omniscient. If you already know everything, you don't have to peek into the future to find out what is there.

Merited Reward.. Hmmm ..funny you say that:
Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward

BIG VERSE ABOVE.. if we were predestined God would not ask us to watch ourselves, and more importantly, we would not be able to lose our salvation like this verse says.

No sir, that isn't what it says.

It shows God judges us, and if we were predestined in the Calvinistic sense there would be no need for judging. This shows God puts responsibility on us. It also shows some rewards are greater than others.. Otto this verse really puts a big log in your theory...
he word of God disagrees with you about reward it seems

Not realy, but I appreciate your kind concern, so I'd like to turn you on to an explanation better than my own:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]John Gill's Exposition of the Bible[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2 John 1:8[/FONT]
Look to yourselves that we lose not those things which we have wrought;
or as the Alexandrian copy, and many other copies, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "that ye lose not those things which ye have wrought"; in embracing the Gospel, making a profession of it, walking in it, showing a zeal, and contending for it, expressing a love both by words and actions to the ministers of it, and suffering much reproach on the account of it; all which would be lost, and in vain, should they at last drop the Gospel, and embrace the errors of the wicked; see (Galatians 3:4) . Moreover, such who do not go such lengths, as to let go the head, Christ, but retain him as the foundation, and the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, yet, among many precious things, may lay much rubbish on this foundation; and therefore should take heed what they build upon it, since, though they themselves may be saved, their works may be destroyed, and so they suffer loss; see (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) ; and if we read the words, "that we lose not--which we have wrought"; the sense is the same, it being only a figure which rhetoricians call communion, and it is frequently used when a common duty is exhorted to; see (1 John 2:28) (2 John 1:5) ; unless it should be thought that this has a peculiar reference to the ministers of the Gospel, as it may: for though the Gospel preached by them can never be lost, being the everlasting Gospel, and the word which abides for ever; yet it may be received in vain, and persons may fall from it, and imbibe error, and so the labour of Christ's faithful ministers may be so far in vain, and lost; and likewise, many souls whom they have thought they have gained to Christ, and that they have been instruments of working upon them for good, and have hoped they would be their joy and crown of rejoicing another day; when such are carried away by deceivers, fall off from the truth, ministers of the word lose what they thought they had wrought, which must give them great concern; and this is improved by the apostle into a reason and argument why the persons he wrote to should beware of seducers and their errors:
but that we receive a full reward;
in heaven, and which itself is called the recompense of reward, and the reward of the inheritance; not that this is a reward of debt due to the works of men, which are not rewardable in themselves; for they are such as are due to God before they are performed; and when they are done, they are not profitable to him, nothing is given to him, or received by him; when all is done that can be done, men are unprofitable servants; but this is a reward of grace, God has of his own grace promised it to those who love and serve him; and because it will be given them of his grace, after their work is over, as wages are given to a servant when he has done his work, it goes by this name: and whereas it is said to be a "full" one, the meaning is not as if it was different to different persons, for there is but one recompense of reward, or reward of the inheritance common to all the saints; or, as if it might be incomplete in some; it only signifies a large and exceeding great reward; see (Genesis 15:1) ( 2:12) ; in which last place the same phrase is used as here; and where the Septuagint interpreters use the same words as here; and which is thus paraphrased by the Targumist,

``the Lord give thee a good recompence in this world for thy good work, and let thy reward be (amylv) , "full", or "perfect", in the world to come.''
​

And the Jews F7 often speak of a full reward, and an equal one, to be received hereafter. Perhaps regard is here had particularly to the ministers of the Gospel, who have their reward in part here, for the workman is worthy of his reward, and they will have it in full hereafter. Moreover, the apostle might here be concerned, that he, and every faithful minister, might have their full number, they expected, that none may be missing, and which he may call a full reward: though the above copies and versions read here, as before, "ye", and "not we".

Renton, Jesus' yoke is light. The gospel of works is a heavy yoke. I urge you to take refuge in the assurance of your adoption, and to take liberty in performing your works mentioned in James, out of gratitude, not out of fear of damnation. [/FONT]

 

[Easystreet]

No, sir. God is omniscient. If you already know everything, you don't have to peek into the future to find out what is there

.


Otto, my friend, the above statement.

Now, don't go thinken the wrong thoughts, no don't even intertaint it, I will never be RT or a Calvinist.

I am not sure this is the best ThumbsUp icon. The hand looks like a can.

If you care to you may join me at the corner of Free Will Ave. and Calminian St. for a cup of moca.

This is the Day the Lord has Made and we will rejoice and be glad in it. is the Lord.

 

[cygnusx1]

"he predestined because he foreknew" makes no sense at all ....... for what is foreknown is certain and predestining something that will surely come to pass anyway is POINTLESS !

it would do nothing if God did or didn't predestine what is foreknown because it is foreknown that it WILL come to pass , anyway!

what scripture speaks of is people who he foreknew (ie, loved) He also predestined !

and also ;

Act 2:23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Jesus being delivered up by the determinate counsel , ie, predestination and foreknowledge of God ......... notice Predestination preceeds forknowledge as logically it MUST!

for who can predestine what is already foreknown > seeing as it will come to pass ANYWAY!

more like POST-destination folks!



do I build a house that I already live in .........

 

[Jipsah]

No, you got them reversed, lol.. He predestined because he foreknew

Speaking of LOL, were you trying to be serious when you said "He predestined because He foreknew"? On that basis, can I claim that because I know the silly arguments that Arminians are gonna use beforehand, that I therefore predestine them to happen? Wow!

The interesting thing there is that you've made God into an even more passive being than anyone other then the hyper-Arminians believe Him to be. The hyper-Arms, of course, deny foreknowledge; they believe that not only did God not predestine, He didn't foreknow either, since that would just be too grossly unfair. Y'all haven't gone quite that far, you've merely reduced God to watching what's going to happen and allowing it to happen. "Predestine", then, takes on the meaning of "didn't interfere with".

Even a baby could understand this.

If, of course, the baby had been carefully trained to take a position fisrt, and then doctor the meanings of Scripture to fit the position. <Laugh>

 

[Jipsah]

For what it's worth, I have a huge problem with the whole concept of predestination and predetermination

So do a lot of people, which is why they try and "interpret away" the Scriptures that are very, very explicit on the subject.

if that is truly the case, then we truly have no free will.

Non sequitur. Being predestined or not has no bearing on whether or not we possess "Free Will". As I've pointed out ad nauseum, we demonstrate our Free Will with every sin we commit.

The whole argument that God sees all outside of time, and that He simply knows what we will do before we do it doesn't work and never has. If the words literally are predetermined and predestined, then the meaning is not just that He knew or observed, but that He actually caused it to be.

Your honesty is refreshing. And yeah, you're right. So the sticking point for you seems to be the "it isn't fair" objection, correct? I stuck there too, for a long time (I'm a fairly late convert to Reformed thought). I ultimately got unstuck by the following asumptions (take these for what they're worth, mind you, they worked for me and perhaps no one else):

1) Our "Free Will" is unhindered, but since our will is as corrupt as everything else we do, then it's uniformly destructive. I can't think of anything that I do or say that doesn't have at least some taint of my own sinful self-worship.

2) God's election is analogous to pulling a person out of a raging flood while the person is trying to fight you off. They victim wants out of the water, but is afraid that you;re gonna pull them under, so they fight you tooth and nail. You have to ignore their "Free Will", grab 'em by the hair, and haul 'em out.

3) God is to be praised for pulling anybody out, not reviled for not pulling everybody out. That especially since we don't know how many people He's gonna save. I'm betting on it being a bunch more than anybody except the universalists was counting on. I reckon there'll be a lot of "God saved them?" going on in Heaven.

4) It can't be about merit, however you decide to try and not call it merit. It ain't about works. If being saved is about holding your mouth right, then you can opt not to call holding your mouth right a "work", but it still is. If it's faith that we gen up ourselves that meritorious, then it's still about merit. In the end, that's no different from any other religion that says "here's what you have to do and/or be to be saved. Saying "to be saved you have to have faith" is no different than saying "to be saved you have to pray towards Mecca 12 times a day" or "to be saved you have to have green eyes". In any of those cases it's about merit, the only difference is what's considered meritorious.

5) I can't see salvation as being something extended primarily, if not solely, to those who happen to belong to the correct nationality/race/language/ethnic group. My unbelieving great-grandparents never heard of our Lord, or the Bible, or the Plan of Salvation, or anything else of that nature. If they had, as likely as not they'd have dismissed it as some sort of foreign nonsense. If salvation is about faith merit, then they're doomed. If it's about God's election, then there's hope. If God really wanted everyone to be saved (as the Scripture says), and having having heard of our Lord and making the correct decision is the only means of being saved, then why were all those millions of folks left without hope? Fat lot of good Free Will did for them, huh?

Those things helped get me off the dime. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary.

And I, for one, cannot accept that Jesus died only for some and not all who would choose to accept salvation.

What about the folks I talked about above who were never given the choice for good or ill? Would God want all to be saved but give only some the means? That's a fairly nasty concept, isn't it?

If God chose who would go burn in hell forever

Hyper-Calvinism there. I don't believe any such thing, and neither do most Reformed folks.

 

[Easystreet]

Free Will - Not all that are drowning fight back for fear they are going to be pulled under.

Accepting God's provision is the key to understanding why forced election is incorrect. When the lifeline is offered the freedom to accept does not negate our nature, but acknowledges God's provision, in spite of our nature. Sinful man can acknowledge, and agree with God that he is in a condemned state and freely trust in Christ and be saved. With the mouth confession is made and belief is from the heart. A lost person simply believes the truth and ask for help / forgiveness. The person can not help himself. At the point of agreement with God about his state and the asking for help, believing God can help, the person is regenerated, saved, born from above, etc.

 

[cygnusx1]

"forced election" ......... who said election was forced , straw burning !

 

[Rick Otto]

"we demonstrate our Free Will with every sin we commit. "

God BLESS you, brother!
I haven't laughed so hard in ages!

 

[cygnusx1]

Speaking of LOL, were you trying to be serious when you said "He predestined because He foreknew"? On that basis, can I claim that because I know the silly arguments that Arminians are gonna use beforehand, that I therefore predestine them to happen? Wow!

The interesting thing there is that you've made God into an even more passive being than anyone other then the hyper-Arminians believe Him to be. The hyper-Arms, of course, deny foreknowledge; they believe that not only did God not predestine, He didn't foreknow either, since that would just be too grossly unfair. Y'all haven't gone quite that far, you've merely reduced God to watching what's going to happen and allowing it to happen. "Predestine", then, takes on the meaning of "didn't interfere with".

too true bro the god presented by none Reformed is UTTERLY redundant , does nothing saves no-one and gets resisted by His creation all the time after handing them the keys to their destinies He can only watch wait and be a cosmic FAILURE!

SUCH A GOD DESERVES PITY NOT WORSHIP.

 

[Hismessenger]

If there had been no tree in the in the garden for them to choose to eat from, what choice would they have has as far as free will is concerned. Could they have willed a tree into the garden? Free will is to be able to choose an option of your manifestation. Adam displayed this only once in Genesis when he was given the free will to name the animals. He didn't have to choose from choices given.

hismessenger