Do Calvinists believe in free will?

[dcyates]

Within Calvinism, there is no free will but merely the illusion thereof. Since it teaches that everything is predetermined and that God's foreknowledge includes everything before it happens, then followed logically, one cannot do anything other than what God foreknows ahead of time. You may 'think' you're making your own decisions, but in truth you are not.

Therefore, such a system, by necessity, negates personal, moral responsibility. For instance, if God knows ahead of time that I'm going to sin by, say, stealing a car tomorrow at precisely 8:32 PM, then what am I going to be doing tomorrow at precisely 8:32 PM? Answer: stealing a car. Because if I choose not to, then God's foreknowledge is inaccurate.

So, if I could not do anything but that which God foreknew, then how can I be held morally responsible for having done it?

 

[angelmom01]

However, there is a huge difference between "foreknowledge" and "foreordination". God KNOWING the end from the beginning is very different from God ORDAINING (or DECLARING, DETERMINING) the end from the beginning.

And certainly we have scriptures that speak to predestination and foreordination:

Isa 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring (nâgad = to manifest, to announce) , the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:


Eph 1:3-12 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 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 (proorizo[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT] = to limit in advance, to predetermine)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. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated (proorizo[FONT=&quot]&#772 [/FONT]according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.



Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained (proetoimazo[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT] = to fit up in advance)that we should walk in them.




Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained (prographo[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT] = to write previously; palai = formerly, ancient) to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
​

I am not questioning that as we know this:

2Ti 2:19-21 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
​

I am not even questioning the fact that “many are called but FEW ARE CHOSEN”.

What I am questioning is that the “many” will be lost FOR ETERNITY simply because GOD decided NOT to choose THEM or predestine THEM to obtain salvation?

What are those who are “chosen” chosen FOR? Isn't it to "overcome" THE (this) WORLD?

How does that even begin to address the ETERNAL fate of the wicked? Or how or when salvation might come TO THEM?

Isn't it through THEIR UNBELIEF (the Jews) that we have received mercy and isn't by OUR MERCY that the Jews shall obtain mercy? So that ALL ISRAEL (Spiritual Israel) shall be saved?

I do not disagree with predestination and foreordination, or even God's sovereignty. But to WHAT END does God exercise His sovereignty? To the total destruction of or the eternal torment of most of His creation?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

If they believe in the doctrine of election and irresistable grace... how can they also believe in free will?

If by the term "free will" you mean that man or God is capable of acting in a manner that is inconsistent with their natures, then NO, free will does not exist.

If you mean that man posesses the capacity to make choices, then YES.

Let it be known however that Calvinists believe that without Divine intervention, mankind's choices...both individually and corporately will always be inclined toward evil.

In a like manner, even God is not free to act out of accordance with His nature...He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot cease to exist, etc. Like it or not, this is the revelation of scripture.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

So "all" doesn't really mean "all"?

And God did not put ALL things (excluding Himself) into Christ's hands?

You sure God's word is "quite clear" on that?

NO. It is quite clear that "All" ( pav" )does not mean ALL without exception every time.

Context is at least as important as grammar and syntax when looking at scripture.

 

[cygnusx1]

[SIZE=+2]De Servo Arbitrio[/SIZE]
"On the Enslaved Will"
Or
[SIZE=+3]The Bondage of the Will[/SIZE]
By
[SIZE=+1]Dr. Martin Luther[/SIZE]


a summary can be found here ​

 

[Elderone]

I do not disagree with predestination and foreordination, or even God's sovereignty. But to WHAT END does God exercise His sovereignty? To the total destruction of or the eternal torment of most of His creation?

Question 12 of the Westminster Larger Catechism answers that question.

Question: What are the Decrees of God?

Answer: God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will,a whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time,b especially concerning angels and men.

a. Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; 9:14–15, 18.
b. Eph. 1:4, 11; Rom. 9:22–23; Ps. 33:11.

 

[angelmom01]

NO. It is quite clear that "All" ( pav" )does not mean ALL without exception every time.

Context is at least as important as grammar and syntax when looking at scripture.

I agree, and "many" doesn't always mean "less than all" either.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Unless you want to claim that "not all" were "made sinners"?

 

[angelmom01]

Question 12 of the Westminster Larger Catechism answers that question.

Yes, for HIS GLORY and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER, right?

So they'll be doing that "from hell" and that will somehow "glory" God?

 

[angelmom01]

Question: What are the Decrees of God?

Answer: God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will,a whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time,b especially concerning angels and men.

a. Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; 9:14–15, 18.
b. Eph. 1:4, 11; Rom. 9:22–23; Ps. 33:11.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Rom 9:14-15 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 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 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Eph 1:4 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:

Rom 9:22-23 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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Especially Rom 11:33.

 

[Elderone]

So they'll be doing that "from hell" and that will somehow "glory" God?

Yes they will be doing that from hell. If God has not explained it in Scripture He has decided it is of no importance to us.

There is vastly more that has been revealed in the Bible than we know how to handle, that is what we need to study.

De 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.

 

[angelmom01]

Pro 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Ever done a study on that which is "above" (which is "not of this world") and that which is "beneath" (which is "of this world")?

Ever wonder why it was the rich man's TONGUE that he wanted cooled (given the fact that THE TONGUE is a world of iniquity, set on fire of hell)?

 

[A New Dawn]

If they believe in the doctrine of election and irresistable grace... how can they also believe in free will?

We have free will to act according to our nature. An unregenerated man will only be able to choose out of his fallen nature, but a regenerated man will be able to choose according to his redeemed nature.

Because an unregenerated man will only be able to choose out of his fallen nature, he will never be able to choose to follow God, which, IMO, is the basic underlying question with free will.

 

[A New Dawn]

Within Calvinism, there is no free will but merely the illusion thereof. Since it teaches that everything is predetermined and that God's foreknowledge includes everything before it happens, then followed logically, one cannot do anything other than what God foreknows ahead of time. You may 'think' you're making your own decisions, but in truth you are not.

Therefore, such a system, by necessity, negates personal, moral responsibility. For instance, if God knows ahead of time that I'm going to sin by, say, stealing a car tomorrow at precisely 8:32 PM, then what am I going to be doing tomorrow at precisely 8:32 PM? Answer: stealing a car. Because if I choose not to, then God's foreknowledge is inaccurate.

So, if I could not do anything but that which God foreknew, then how can I be held morally responsible for having done it?

God only foreknows the elect.

 

[DeaconDean]

Since the OP mentioned the T.U.L.I.P. outline, or at least two points thereof, it should be stated up front that not even Calvinists would deny that man was created with a "free will."

But the issue that seems to be overlooked more often than most is the "illusion" of "free will."

The OP asked:

If they believe in the doctrine of election and irresistable grace... how can they also believe in free will?

Has anybody taken the time to read what is written in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament about the issue of "predestination' as it pertains to election, grace, and free will?

When looking at the most controversial verse in the Bible, Rom. 8:29, one single word stand out in prominance than even the word for predestination; "ina."

According to "The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, it means:

"ina – that, in order that, Mt. 19:13; Mk. 1:38; Jn. 1:22; 3:15; 17:1; ina mhe, that not, lest, Mt. 7:1; in the N.T. equivalent to wste, so that, so as that, Jn. 9:2. et al.; also, marking a simple circumstance, the circumstance that, Mt. 10:25; Jn. 4:34; 6:29; 1 Jn. 4:17; 5:3; et al.;"

Now you may be asking, what in the world does this have to do with the subject at hand? Well, it has a great deal to do with it. Ethelbert Stauffer commenting in the TDNT says:

"But the impulse which makes all human action possible is the divine action. In Jesus this is the theological presupposition of all ethical imperatives, and it is worked out in detail by Paul and his followers. Here the guiding theological concepts of Apocalyptic ethics are worked out consistently. The divine creation is a calling forth in the original sense of the term. God’s historical work has the character of word. It is a word or summons directed to the will of man. In this sense, statements concerning God’s will and act lead on to final causes which speak of the possibilities and tasks that are posited of man, Rom. 8:29; 9:11 f.; 17, 23. But this determination of the goal is no mere fatalism. Predestination is orientated to the will of man. Nor is this determination of a will a deterministic enslavement. It is a voluntaristic awakening of the will. God wills the will of man. It is the will of man which He directs to His goals according to His own purposes. He is not directing a mere vessel with no will of its own. God’s will calls forth the will of man, and liberates it by taking procession of it. This predestinating will of God is fulfilled in the Christ event. This is again both God’s work and God’s word. It is directed to the will of man and it calls forth his action. th cavritiv ejste seswsmevnoi, oujk ex ergwn, ina mhv tiV kauchshtai aujtou gavr ejsmen poivhma, ktisqevnteV, ejn Cristw ihsou ejpi ergoiV ajgaqoiV, oijV prohtoivmasen oJ qeoV iwna ejn aujtoiV peripathvswmen, Eph. 2:8 f."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, By Gerhard Kittel, Translated by Geoffery W. Bromiley, D. Litt., D.D. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, , Vol. III, Q - K, Ina, Section B, Ethical Final Causes, Sub-sect. 2, In the New Testament, part b, p. 331-32, Ethelbert Stauffer commenting.

And certainly, a right understanding of mans supposedly "free will' needs explaining also.

God, Jesus, and Jeremiah all three say that it is the heart that is the seat of mans supposedly free will.

God said in Gen. 8:21 that mans heart is evil from his youth up. Jeremiah says that the heart is desperately wicked above all things, who can know it? (Jer. 17:9) And Jesus Himself said that everything that defileth a man comes from the heart. (Mt. 15:18-20)

The actions of the heart is what guides a mans actions. And if the heart is wicked, evil from his youth up, and the actions which defileth a man proceeds from the heart, then how can mans will be truly free?

It isn't. A man will only do what is in his heart. And a man cannot do what is right in God's eyes until he has been given a new heart. (Psa. 51:10)

Unless God draws a person, and the Holy Spirit is working from within to convict a person of their sin, how can they all of a sudden start doing whats right? They can't plain and simple.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

Yes man has a free will, but until conviction, regeneration, and faith and repentance takes place first, his will is to do evil.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cygnusx1]

here's a good summary concerning Calvinists , free-will and free agency ; takes only ten mins to read and has a lasting influence

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

 

[arunma]

Within Calvinism, there is no free will but merely the illusion thereof. Since it teaches that everything is predetermined and that God's foreknowledge includes everything before it happens, then followed logically, one cannot do anything other than what God foreknows ahead of time. You may 'think' you're making your own decisions, but in truth you are not.

Therefore, such a system, by necessity, negates personal, moral responsibility. For instance, if God knows ahead of time that I'm going to sin by, say, stealing a car tomorrow at precisely 8:32 PM, then what am I going to be doing tomorrow at precisely 8:32 PM? Answer: stealing a car. Because if I choose not to, then God's foreknowledge is inaccurate.

So, if I could not do anything but that which God foreknew, then how can I be held morally responsible for having done it?

I don't hold to the view that you describe, nor do I know many Calvinists who do. Indeed I couldn't see any Biblical support for the belief that man does not have some sort of "free will," since Scripture sometimes speaks of people rejecting evil and choosing good. As it says,

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)
​

As others have stated, Calvinist doctrine (which I think is simply Biblical doctrine) states that man's "free" will is bound by sin to the extent that he can do nothing good apart from the grace of God, including submission to the Lord Jesus. It says,

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (Romans 7:18)
​

But I sense that the point you were trying to make is that if God in his sovereignty elects people to salvation, then how can he justly condemn those whom he does not elect? One can find the answer directly in Scripture:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:18-24)
​

It is most interesting to noe that the Apostle specifically foresaw the objection that you raised. Though the Apostle of course wrote under divine inspiration, I think his ability to foresee this counterargument is merely a result of the fact that it is the natural man's response to the doctrine of election. No one wants to believe that God is sovereign, yet everyone wishes to charge God with failure to use his sovereignty to save everyone. I don't even except myself from this, since I had similar objections to Calvinist doctrine before becoming a Christian, and even afterwards (for the exceedingly short time that I was a non-Calvinist Christian). Alas, this view of free will is found in Scripture, and we must submit to Scripture rather than the "all people are basically good" doctrine that atheistic Western society would have us believe.

 

[dcyates]

However, there is a huge difference between "foreknowledge" and "foreordination". God KNOWING the end from the beginning is very different from God ORDAINING (or DECLARING, DETERMINING) the end from the beginning.
And certainly we have scriptures that speak to predestination and foreordination:

Isa 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring (nâgad = to manifest, to announce) , the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: ​

Yes, but angelmom, this text doesn't really speak to what I'm addressing. My position is that, if God possesses perfect foreknowledge, then by necessity, since we cannot do anything other than that which he knows ahead of time (otherwise he doesn't know it ahead of time), we don't possess free will.

Isaiah 46.9-10 deals with God's complete sovereignty and, as the last two lines indicate, with his ability to bring about anything he plans to accomplish. This is akin to my declaring that in ten seconds, I'm going to have a drink of tea (my plans are obviously far more modest than are God's).
... 8, 9, 10: drink

Eph 1:3-12 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 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 (proorizo[FONT=&quot]̄

= to limit in advance, to predetermine)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. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated (proorizo[FONT=&quot]&#772 [/FONT]according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

[/FONT]

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained (proetoimazo[FONT=&quot]̄ = to fit up in advance)that we should walk in them.[/FONT]

Again angelmom, I naturally have no quarrel with the texts you've selected, or the language therein. But again, I don't think they speak to God's foreknowledge, but rather his bringing his overall plan to fruition. Ephesians 1.4 says, "Even as he chose us in (Christ) before the foundation of the world in love, for us to be holy and blameless in his sight." But who is the "us" that he has chosen supposed to refer to? In order to properly understand this, we need to bear in mind that those of us living in the 21st-century West tend to think in very individualistic terms. But that's not how ancient people thought. They thought in very corporate, communitarian terms. Thus, the "us" being referred to is not so much me and you and you and you, as it is the corporate body as a whole: the People of God--or in our context, the Church. Read these passages again, and put "the Church" or "the People of God" in place of each "us" and "we" and we'll get a better idea of what Paul is saying here.

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained (prographo[FONT=&quot]̄

= to write previously; palai = formerly, ancient) to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[/FONT]

But this isn't to be understood as suggesting that the condemnation of these specific men was pre-ordained. Instead, given the character and false teaching of these "godless" or "ungodly" men, Jude appeals to the testimony of the Old Testament (vv. 5-8, 11), from Jewish traditions (vv. 9, 14-16), and from the teaching of the apostles (vv. 17-18) to declare that all these sources testify that the "condemnation" of men like this has already been long established.

I am not questioning that as we know this:

2Ti 2:19-21 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. ​

I am not even questioning the fact that “many are called but FEW ARE CHOSEN”.

What I am questioning is that the “many” will be lost FOR ETERNITY simply because GOD decided NOT to choose THEM or predestine THEM to obtain salvation?

It appears we share the same concerns, angelmom. I, too, question the legitimacy of such doctrine as that which would teach us that the condemnation of the vast majority of God's created humanity has been pre-ordained by God himself; that God deliberately chose not to save them and that that is why they are doomed to an eternity in hell.

What are those who are “chosen” chosen FOR? Isn't it to "overcome" THE (this) WORLD?

I'm sure this is an important part of the answer, but I think that the primary reason that 'the chosen' are chosen is the same reason that Israel was chosen from amongst all the other nations: to be a light to the nations. In other words, just as ancient Israel was chosen not so much for special privilege as for special purpose, so is the new Israel, the Church.

How does that even begin to address the ETERNAL fate of the wicked? Or how or when salvation might come TO THEM?

Isn't it through THEIR UNBELIEF (the Jews) that we have received mercy and isn't by OUR MERCY that the Jews shall obtain mercy? So that ALL ISRAEL (Spiritual Israel) shall be saved?

But keep going, what does Paul further teach? "For God has shut up all mankind together in disobedience, in order that he might show mercy to all" (Rom 11.32). Isn't the initial "all mankind" without exception? Then why isn't the second "all" as well?

I do not disagree with predestination and foreordination, or even God's sovereignty. But to WHAT END does God exercise His sovereignty? To the total destruction of or the eternal torment of most of His creation?

Yeah, I think we make the mistake of believing that religion in general and Christianity in particular is all about individual salvation and "going to heaven after you die." Far from it. The testimony of Scripture is rather that God is working towards reconciling all of his creation with him and restoring it to the way it was always meant to be.

 

[dcyates]

I don't hold to the view that you describe, nor do I know many Calvinists who do.

Oh, I know that few Calvinists would agree with the premise that there is no free will and that our experience of free will is merely an illusion (I don't adhere to that position either, which is why I'm not a Calvinist). But that is the inescapable conclusion if God does indeed possess perfect foreknowledge of the future.

My position is that there is nothing to know, apart from that which God has specifically planned, since the future hasn't happened yet. It's only with a cyclical view of time, where what is the future to us has already happened at some point in the distant past, and therefore exists to be known. This is how all the people of the ancient world viewed time (including the classical Greeks), with the sole exception of the ancient Hebrews. Rather, their conception of time was that it was linear in nature; that it had a definite beginning and moved inexorably forward with each moment never to be repeated again.

Indeed I couldn't see any Biblical support for the belief that man does not have some sort of "free will," since Scripture sometimes speaks of people rejecting evil and choosing good. As it says,

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)​

As others have stated, Calvinist doctrine (which I think is simply Biblical doctrine)...

Of course. Just as an Arminian sees Arminian doctrine as simply 'biblical' doctrine.

...states that man's "free" will is bound by sin to the extent that he can do nothing good apart from the grace of God, including submission to the Lord Jesus. It says,

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (Romans 7:18)​

But I sense that the point you were trying to make is that if God in his sovereignty elects people to salvation, then how can he justly condemn those whom he does not elect? One can find the answer directly in Scripture:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:18-24)​

It is most interesting to noe that the Apostle specifically foresaw the objection that you raised. Though the Apostle of course wrote under divine inspiration, I think his ability to foresee this counterargument is merely a result of the fact that it is the natural man's response to the doctrine of election.

In point of fact, this passage has nothing whatever to do with my objection. Paul is here citing various OT prophetical texts (such as Isa 29.16, 45.9; with echoes of 64.8 and also of Jer 18.1-6) dealing with a stage in Israel's history when God was struggling with rebellious Israel, like a potter with clay that simply wouldn't go into the right shape. The image of potter and clay was not designed to speak in general terms about human beings as lifeless lumps of clay, over against God as the only truly living, truly thinking being; it was designed to speak very specifically about God's purpose in choosing and calling Israel, and about what would happen if Israel, like a lump of clay, failed to respond to the gentle moulding of God's hands. Paul is teaching concerning God's purposes not only with Israel but, much more importantly, through Israel.

What were the purposes which God wanted to put into effect through Israel? As I have previously alluded, the answer is that Israel was called to be the light of the world, the people through whom God would speak his word of promise and new creation to all the nations. But the prophets themselves saw that Israel as it stood was rebelling, like a lump of clay challenging the potter and demanding to be made into a different shape.

Paul's developing argument has got to the point here where he has established that God has the right to remould his people. He now begins to suggest that he has done so in fact, not least by calling Gentiles to share as full and equal members. This is a drastic and unprecedented new point within the story of Israel as normally told in Paul's world. Somehow, he now sees the torch being passed from a group consisting only of Jews to a group consisting of Jews and Gentiles together.

Paul will develop this in the following verses. For the moment though, we should simply note that the idea of a "vessel of mercy" doesn't mean so much a vessel which receives mercy, but a vessel through which God brings mercy to others.

No one wants to believe that God is sovereign, yet everyone wishes to charge God with failure to use his sovereignty to save everyone. I don't even except myself from this, since I had similar objections to Calvinist doctrine before becoming a Christian, and even afterwards (for the exceedingly short time that I was a non-Calvinist Christian). Alas, this view of free will is found in Scripture, and we must submit to Scripture rather than the "all people are basically good" doctrine that atheistic Western society would have us believe.

Far be it from me to be lumped in with "atheistic Western society." But neither do I adhere to the doctrine of original sin (but then again, neither have Eastern Orthodox or Celtic Christians, or have the Jews). I have simply come across too many non-believers who live genuinely better lives and are far easier to get along with than are too many people I know who call themselves Christians.

 

[heymikey80]

Oh, I know that few Calvinists would agree with the premise that there is no free will and that our experience of free will is merely an illusion (I don't adhere to that position either, which is why I'm not a Calvinist). But that is the inescapable conclusion if God does indeed possess perfect foreknowledge of the future.

That's simply not true, dcyates. I don't see free will as an illusion. I simply see free will quite differently from specific illusions about it. Facts tend to argue against a will that is truly free. And that would render illusions embracing that feeling instead of the facts, into delusions.

Advertisement works. It exercises some control over people.

Societies enforce implicit social codes, again exercising control over people.

Human parents control their minor children's actions and "raise" children. Do parents have no control over forming their children's wills? Are those children's wills then free of such control? What's the point of raising children?

As long as the term "free will" continues to be vaguely defined, of course it will be mercuric and yes, invite imaginary ideas about our reality.

 

[angelmom01]

Yes, but angelmom, this text doesn't really speak to what I'm addressing. My position is that, if God possesses perfect foreknowledge, then by necessity, since we cannot do anything other than that which he knows ahead of time (otherwise he doesn't know it ahead of time), we don't possess free will.

So you are saying that we don't have free will? And this is because of God's foreknowledge?

I agree, that we do not have "free will" (not to mean that we do not make choices, just that those choices are not "free" from influence that we have no control over).

I also believe that there is a difference between foreknowledge and foreordination. Scriptures says that God has preordained and predestinated certain things. That speaks to me of more than just a "knowledge" of what is "going to happen".

Isaiah 46.9-10 deals with God's complete sovereignty and, as the last two lines indicate, with his ability to bring about anything he plans to accomplish. This is akin to my declaring that in ten seconds, I'm going to have a drink of tea (my plans are obviously far more modest than are God's).
... 8, 9, 10: drink

God works all things according to the counsel of HIS OWN WILL. If that is what you are saying, then I agree.

Again angelmom, I naturally have no quarrel with the texts you've selected, or the language therein. But again, I don't think they speak to God's foreknowledge, but rather his bringing his overall plan to fruition.

Amen, so are we talking about "foreknowledge", then, or not? I'm getting confused now.

Ephesians 1.4 says, "Even as he chose us in (Christ) before the foundation of the world in love, for us to be holy and blameless in his sight." But who is the "us" that he has chosen supposed to refer to? In order to properly understand this, we need to bear in mind that those of us living in the 21st-century West tend to think in very individualistic terms. But that's not how ancient people thought. They thought in very corporate, communitarian terms. Thus, the "us" being referred to is not so much me and you and you and you, as it is the corporate body as a whole: the People of God--or in our context, the Church. Read these passages again, and put "the Church" or "the People of God" in place of each "us" and "we" and we'll get a better idea of what Paul is saying here.

I agree, yet I believe that the "us" includes all mankind, as we are all "one body", "one new man", created in Christ Jesus. I think the term "ekklēsia" (church) may be misunderstood. I can't say for sure (I am not a Greek scholar) but I do know that God was in Christ reconciling THE WORLD unto himself, creating ONE NEW MAN (taking down the wall of partition, etc) in Christ. I do not think that "the body" of Christ is made up of only "Christians", though who "the chosen" are (among them) is a different story.

But this isn't to be understood as suggesting that the condemnation of these specific men was pre-ordained. Instead, given the character and false teaching of these "godless" or "ungodly" men, Jude appeals to the testimony of the Old Testament (vv. 5-8, 11), from Jewish traditions (vv. 9, 14-16), and from the teaching of the apostles (vv. 17-18) to declare that all these sources testify to the "condemnation" of men like this has already been long established.

I can agree with that; however, if some were (before) ordained TO BELIEVE then it would have to be true that others were NOT ordained to believe, right? And didn't Christ say to TO THEM (His disciples) IT WAS GIVEN to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but the others is was NOT GIVEN?

Isn't it also true that no man can come to Christ UNLESS the Father draws (helkuō helkō = to drag) him?

It appears we share the same concerns, angelmom. I, too, question the legitimacy of such doctrine as that which would teach us that the condemnation of the vast majority of God's created humanity has been pre-ordained by God himself; that God deliberately chose not to save them and that that is why they are doomed to an eternity in hell.

Not all men lay hold of "eternal life", but that has nothing to do with their "eternal" fate.

I'm sure this is an important part of the answer, but I think that the primary reason that 'the chosen' are chosen is the same reason that Israel was chosen from amongst all the other nations: to be a light to the nations. In other words, just as ancient Israel was chosen not so much for special privilege as for special purpose, so is the new Israel, the Church.

I agree, we are to be a light unto the world; we are to be AS HE IS (IN THIS WORLD).

It was by the casting away of the Jews that salvation came to the Gentiles; through THEIR UNBELIEF we have received MERCY; and it is through OUR MERCY that they shall obtain MERCY. So that "all Israel" shall be saved.

Doesn't sound to me like anyone is left out (in the long run, only in the short run).

But keep going, what does Paul further teach? "For God has shut up all mankind together in disobedience, in order that he might show mercy to all" (Rom 11.32). Isn't the initial "all mankind" without exception? Then why isn't the second "all" as well?

Indeed!!

Yeah, I think we make the mistake of believing that religion in general and Christianity in particular is all about individual salvation and "going to heaven after you die." Far from it. The testimony of Scripture is rather that God is working towards reconciling all of his creation with him and restoring it to the way it was always meant to be.

Ever looked closely at "the heavens" and "the earth" to see how they relate to US (mankind)?

As I see it, God has already created A NEW HEAVEN and A NEW EARTH (as I see these things as spiritual truths).