Chosen in Him vs Free Will Choice
- It is not our human choice whether God chose us in Him or not, that choice is His alone.
- He gives us free will to choose Him. I showed this in Ephesians 1:4-6.
Ephesians 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
- Should indicates human choice. God wants us to choose Him, but it is our choice to choose Him or not and live according to His will.
- Predestined → unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself. In other words, John 3:16-17.
John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
- Whosoever believeth in Him (believe; human choice) should not perish
- That the world (all of us) through Him might (conditional; human choice) be saved
Jesus speaking to the disciples:
John 15:14-16 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
- If ye do whatsoever I command you (do; human choice)
- That ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain (go and bring forth fruit; human choice)
James:
James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
- Chosen to be rich in faith (be rich in faith; human choice)
- ...heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised...
- ...to them that love Him (love Him; human choice)
Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 can be read one of two ways.
- All names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
- It is the book of life itself that is from the foundation of the world. Names are written and blotted out as each person makes their choice concerning God throughout their lifetime, once each case is determined.
The question is, which position does scripture support?
In 2 Peter 3 we find that God is long-suffering; He is waiting for all to come to repentance. God has chosen us in Him, but He is waiting for us to choose Him. If all names were written in the book of life, how then are we found in need of repentance?
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Lastly, we have Exodus 32:33, which should settle the issue.
Exodus 32:33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
- Whosoever hath sinned against me (human choice)
- Against me (against God's will)
- Sin can cause names to be blotted out of the book of life.
- If names are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (from the beginning), those names would likely be blotted out because of unrepentant sin, and remain blotted out until there is repentance and a newness of life.
Let me state my position so that it is clear. This is my last post. You can agree to disagree, and you can respond with your rebuttal. Let the reader decide through prayerful study of the Bible.
1. God having chosen us in Him is in no way negated by the free will He has given us to choose Him or not.
2. We are not predetermined to be saved or lost. Each of us has a choice of our own free will.
3. If names are blotted out for sinning against Him (Exodus 32:33), then names can be written back in for choosing Him and doing His will.
4. If all have sinned, then our names are not in the book of life (blotted because of sin) until we have repented and live according to His will.
Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
You've been more preachy than conversant in this exchange. This is a discussion thread, not a pulpit. Your latest post doesn't interact with what I actually said in response to you (nor have you engaged with the OP at all). I'd genuinely like to see you do so.
Once again, the issue is not
whether man chooses God. Of course he does. Humans make choices. The question is
why one person believes and another does not. What determines that difference? That's what Acts 13:48 (the passage we're
supposed to be discussing) explicitly answers:
ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον
As I argued in the OP, the sense of that statement is, "as many as were in the state of having (beforehand) been appointed to eternal life, believed."
No one in this thread has actually challenged that argument. What you're doing is engaging in a
scattershot fallacy. You're ignoring the text under discussion while attempting to counter it through a mix of red herring and verse accumulation. You're flooding the exchange with proof texts that you
think sound contradictory, relying on the sheer quantity of citations to stand in for reasoning. That's not argumentation; it's just noise. You've neither refuted my argument concerning the Greek syntax of Acts 13:48 nor harmonized Scripture responsibly. You've merely multiplied assertions.
If your only "response" to exegesis is to proof-text other passages, then your argument amounts to a tacit concession that Scripture contradicts itself, since that approach doesn't
show that the argument of the OP is actually in error. You're
assuming my reading of Acts 13:48 must be wrong, not because you've demonstrated a flaw in it, but because of your own prior interpretations of other texts. That reveals that your system, not Scripture, is your interpretive standard.
I'll respond briefly to your scattershot line of argument -- not because it actually challenges the point made in the OP, but to show that your conclusions are driven more by interpretive assumptions than by the text itself. Still, I'd genuinely like to see you engage with Acts 13:48 directly.
RE: "Should indicates human choice."
"Should" is reflecting
purpose, not uncertainty. The "should" comes from English idiom translating a Greek infinitive in a purpose/result sense. The verb εἶναι ("should be") is the present active infinitive of εἰμί ("to be"). In Greek, an infinitive followed by a verb of choosing, appointing, or predestining often expresses the purpose or intended result of the action. Here, the infinitive expresses the intended state resulting from God's choice: God chose us
so that we would be holy and blameless.
We use "should" in English because English does not have a simple infinitive that naturally carries this nuance of purpose/result. So "should" here is not about obligation, nor does it imply human volition. It's purely a translation convention for expressing the intentive/resultative infinitive in formal English.
RE: "Whosoever" in John 3:16
You're reading an English connotation into what's actually there in the Greek. The phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων literally translates to "everyone believing" or "everyone
who believes." It does not mean "
anyone can." The term "whosoever" is just smooth English for "all who." All
who believe, not all
can believe. The scope of salvation is as broad as belief extends, but the capacity to believe is still God's gift (John 6:44, 65; Phil. 1:29).
RE: The "world" (κόσμος) in John
In Johannine usage, κόσμος rarely means "every individual without exception." It generally denotes humanity in its fallen, God-opposed state (John 1:10; 7:7; 15:18). It's a
qualitative term, not necessarily
quantitative. Thus, "God so loved the world" emphasizes the astonishing fact that He loved the undeserving. It's not a statement about the quantity of individuals, nor does it imply anything about who will or can respond.
RE: The "might" in John 3:16
Similar error to your understanding of "should" in Eph. 1:4. This language reflects the subjunctive mood (ἀπόληται, ἔχῃ) that follows the conjunction ἵνα, which introduces purpose or result. The construction conveys divine intent (that the world be saved through the Son), not a hypothetical outcome dependent on human volition. The efficacy of that purpose is realized in πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, "everyone who believes," not left contingent on autonomous choice. John 3:16 is
silent on the question of who
will or
can believe. It is simply a statement that those
who believe will be saved.
RE: John 15
"If you do whatsoever I command" and "that you should go and bear fruit" express the evidences and purposes of election, not its cause. Jesus explicitly removes human initiative in verse 16: "You did not choose Me, but I chose you." The conditionals relate to sanctification, not to election.
RE: James 2:5
James is not describing
how God chooses but
whom He has chosen. "To be rich in faith" is the divine result of His choosing, not its prerequisite. Faith itself, per Eph. 2:8, is a gift, not a human contribution that triggers election.
RE: Rev. 13 and 17
You assert that Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 can be read "one of two ways," one being that "the book of life itself ... is from the foundation of the world." That's not grammatically possible. You didn't address my prior refutation of this claim. There
is ambiguity in the grammar of 13:8 (
not 17:8), but you've not correctly identified what it is. The debated alternatives are whether ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ("from the foundation of the world") modifies ἐσφαγμένου ("slain") or γέγραπται ("written"). The idea that it could modify τῷ βιβλίῳ ("book") is not grammatically defensible. There is no syntactical path for ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to attach directly to βιβλίῳ because βιβλίῳ is in a prepositional phrase (ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ) governed by γέγραπται.
In other words, "in the book" is an adverbial complement to "written," not an independent entity that could itself be "from the foundation of the world." So your claim that "the book of life itself is from the foundation of the world" invites a
third "option" that the Greek syntax simply does not permit.
Furthermore, Rev. 17:8 clears up any ambiguity. The phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ("from the foundation of the world") clearly and directly modifies γέγραπται ("written") there.
Your statement that these texts "can be read one of two ways," followed by a claim that is simply not grammatically defensible, exposes the problem with your interpretive method (not to mention you're merely repeating an assertion I already responded to). Your statement gives the impression that you're making an exegetical claim (i.e., that the Greek grammar or syntax genuinely permits another plausible reading), but then you follow that up with mere interpretive assertion, not grammatical analysis. You're not describing what the text
can mean based on its linguistic data, but what you
want it to mean based on theological preference.
RE: 2 Peter 3:9
Who is Peter addressing? "The beloved" (v. 1), whom he specifically contrasts with "the scoffers" (v. 3). When he says, "God is being patient toward
you," the pronoun "you" (vv. 1-2, 8-9) is contextually distinct from "them" (3-5). The patience he describes is for the purpose of granting time for repentance, but that patience is directed specifically to "
you" (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς), not to all humanity indiscriminately.
If God's patience were truly universal, one could question why Christ would ever return, since greater patience could always save more. But if the patience is directed to the elect scattered abroad ("you," "the beloved"), then the timing of His return is coherent: it occurs as soon as the last of the elect come to faith, fulfilling the purpose of that patience.
πᾶς ("all") and τὶς ("anyone") carry semantic range that must be interpreted by context. The Greek does not automatically imply every individual without exception; rather, these terms indicate the full scope of a defined group. In 2 Pet. 3:9, they are applied to those already addressed as "the beloved," not to the scoffers. μακροθυμεῖ ("he is patient") is directed εἰς ὑμᾶς ("toward you"), with the participle μὴ βουλόμενός ("not wishing") modifying that patience, and everything following it functioning as the object of his willing. In this context, τινας and πάντας should therefore be understood as referring specifically to members of the beloved group (i.e., any and all
of them), the scope of God's patience, not necessarily to every individual universally.
Even then, if 2 Pet. 3:9
did define the scope in view as all of humanity, it still would not serve as the proof you want, because the text may speak to God's preceptive will (what He desires in principle), not necessarily His decree (what He sovereignly ordains to occur; cf. Acts 2:23).
RE: Exodus 32:33
The Mosaic reference is covenantal and temporal, not eternal. Being blotted out of God's
book there refers to exclusion from the covenant community or from physical life (cf. Ps. 69:28), not erasure from eternal election. Revelation's "Book of Life" has a wholly eschatological scope, a different category.
RE: Summary comments
At the end of your post, you reframe divine election to make it contingent upon human response, but that reverses the biblical order. Scripture consistently presents human faith as the product of divine choice (John 6:37, 44; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29-30). The "book of life" imagery, far from portraying fluctuating entries and deletions, emphasizes the fixity of God's saving decree.
You're welcome to assert libertarian freedom if you wish, but that's a philosophical preference, not an exegetical conclusion. Until you can show from the text of Acts 13:48 that τεταγμένοι refers to human self-appointment, the debate isn't really with me; it's with Scripture.
