Free Will or Predestination

[MichaelKelley]

Free Will or Predestination?? The following teaching makes complete sense to me, and I never really understood the harmony between the two until I heard this. The Bible CLEARLY teaches BOTH...sometimes people get wrapped up in one aspect of a particular doctrine that they close off all other parts of it that they are uncomfortable with.

Listen to this teaching on the subject by Dr. Chuck Missler:
Sovereignty of Man - YouTube


Free Will and Predestination ONLY seems like a contradiction because we only know what life is like WITHIN the spacetime domain...but God exists OUTSIDE of both space and time, as He is Creator. When you take that in account the paradox vanishes...do I completely understand that? Well no, I'm not a Quantum Physicist. We have proven much of this through Quantum mechanics, and it has been called the "silliest theory proposed in the 20th century," and that "the ONLY thing it has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct."

We have reached a point in science in which we know this is true, yet it apparently contradicts most of what we know... but of what we know in science, Quantum theory MUST be true. A paradox again, which is rooted in the old free will/predestination paradox.

Like Paul said, we truly do "see through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13).

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Yes this is my stance. Both are true because the Bible clearly says both are true. We don't have to understand it to make it true, it is just true. His ways are not our ways...

 

[Hammster]

Is there a summary to what Chuck teaches? I don't have the desire to watch the videos.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Free Will or Predestination?? The following teaching makes complete sense to me, and I never really understood the harmony between the two until I heard this. The Bible CLEARLY teaches BOTH...

... and Spurgeon said the same thing 153 years ago.

Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility

 

[Hupomone10]

"Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by J. I. Packer was a good book on this if i remember correctly.

Ravi Zacharias is a respected teacher, author, and apologetics speaker.

Here's an article by him on this. It's in answer to a question sent to his ministry:

"If I may rephrase your question, you are wrestling with the dialectic of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Let me try and give you a couple of illustrations before dealing with it theologically and in a mild philosophical manner.

The sovereignty and responsibility issue should really be seen as two opposite poles of the same position. Light, for example, is viewed from some vantage points as particles. From other vantage points it is viewed as waves. Scientists are aware that light could not be both particles and waves, so they have coined a term for it, a kind of a construct, and they call it a “photon.” All they have done is create a word and a category that accommodates both perspectives which are real. I think you should view the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man as a kind of a precious stone with two facets to it. When it catches the light from one direction, you see one color; when it catches the light from the other direction you see the other color. Our propensity in the Western world to put God into a box and to systematize everything sometimes violates a fundamental precept in philosophy. It is not possible for a finite person to infinitely understand the infinite. If a finite person can fully understand the infinite, the very category of infinity is destroyed. So my proposal to you is to see both of these perspectives and hold them in balance.

For example, the biblical writers held these in tension. When you look at Acts 2:23, Peter is addressing the people. After the crucifixion of Jesus, he says, “That which God hath ordained from before the foundation of the world, you with wicked hands have taken and crucified.” What is he talking about? “That which God hath foreordained (the sovereignty of God) you with wicked hands have taken and crucified (the responsibility of man).” Peter holds it in tension. The apostle Paul in Philippians 2:12 does the same thing. He says, “Work out your own salvation (the responsibility of man), for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure (the sovereignty of God).” So Paul holds it in tension. Jesus also in Matthew 18:7 says, “Offenses must come, but woe unto him through whom they come”--the sovereignty of God and responsibility of man. So in an attempt to try to clearly highlight either of these two extremes, you will do violence to the other.

In your example of Romans 9, it is imperative that you understand the context. In Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11, Paul is primarily writing to the Jewish church in order to get them to understand that the chosenness that God had given to them was a privilege with concomitant responsibilities. He goes on to show that their privileged position was given to them because someone had to be a mouthpiece to the world and God chose the least of all the nations. He did not choose the philosophers in Greece; He did not choose the imperial might of Rome; He did not choose the splendor of Babylon. He chose a tiny little nation with whom and through whom He was going to pronounce the oracles to the rest of the world. Now, with that great privilege came a proportionate responsibility. So that chosenness was one of instrumentality, and to whom much was given much was also required. In the same way, I believe this principle applies to preachers. Just because we are called upon to stand in front of people and proclaim, it does not necessarily mean we have a better deal going for us. The fact is that our lives must be proportionate to the privilege and responsibility.

-- cont'd --

 

[Hupomone10]

When you think of the mystery of sovereignty and responsibility, the very incarnation of Christ carries this enigma. Here is the sovereign God dwelling in a finite body with all of its limitations. So in my initial answer to you, may I suggest that you look at these two points as opposite poles of a dialectic; we cannot take God and put Him in a box as absolutely free. Somewhere the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man meet. The picture I have in mind is not of overlapping circles, as if each circle represented one extreme of the pole, but of conjoining circles. At some spot the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man meet. To try to answer it and explain it away would require infinite knowledge.

The challenge you and I face, therefore, in life is to see how we can responsibly operate within the parameters that are so clear--God is sovereign, and yet I have the freedom and reserve the right to say yes or to say no. You see, God has given to every man the fundamental privilege of trusting Him or refusing to trust Him. You know, the old illustration used to be the sign outside of Heaven saying “Whosoever will may come,” and once you enter in, you see the sign that says, “Chosen before the foundation of the world.” A person who is truly born again recognizes that it was really the grace of God that brought him there because he could ever have come this way himself. It does not in any way mitigate or violate the choice that he made. The choice man makes is to trust God’s provision. Frankly, the tendency we may sometimes have is to complain that there is only one door to Heaven. Rather than complaining about it, we ought to thank God that there is at least one door by which we may enter.

There have been Calvinists and Arminians, giants of the faith, on both sides of the fence. I believe what John Calvin says holds very true: “Where God has closed His holy mouth let us learn not to open ours.” My own perspective on this is that God’s assurance of sovereignty is given to the person who wonders whatever caused him to merit the salvation, and God’s challenge of free will is to the person who tends to blame God for having even brought him into this world and that he has nothing to do to control his destiny. When you look at the encounter between Pharaoh and Moses, you see the constant availability of data given to Pharaoh, and the hardening process is really not a predestined one. It is a description after the fact that God was going to reveal the face that this man’s heart was already hardened. Remember, God operates in the eternal now.

So to sum up once again, the chapters of Romans 9, 10 and 11 are Paul’s theological treatise to the Jews to alert them to the fact that this great privilege does not let them get away scot-free. They have an enormous and a proportionate responsibility. He goes on to alert other nations that, rather than complaining about it, they should be glad that a privilege was given to someone, and through that someone this message has come to them also. In fact, if you read Romans 1, 2 and 3, you will find out that the privilege that the Jew had, in many ways, for many of them, turned out to be a disadvantage. If you read Romans 5, you will find out that even though God called Abraham, it was the faith of Abraham that justified him. Once again you see the sovereignty and responsibility. Why don’t we leave this enigma within the divine mind and just be grateful for the privilege that we have heard His voice and we can turn and follow Him?

May I strongly recommend that you pick up the book written by J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. His introductory comments alone, dealing with the difference between a contradiction and a paradox, are well done. If God were absolutely sovereign, then it would be a contradiction to say that man is absolutely free. God is not absolutely sovereign to the point that He can call something that is not as if it actually were. For example, God cannot make squares into circles. That would be a contradiction. So absolute sovereignty is really not what is being talked about here. God, therefore, has chosen to give us the option and, within that framework, He cannot call us free while absolutely violating that freedom. Both poles exist--His sovereignty and our responsibility. We rest on the fact that God is just, that God is love, that God is good, and He woos us enough so that we may trust Him and yet gives us enough freedom so that we might know that this freedom cannot be transformed into coercion."
- Ravi K. Zacharias/ 1987

 

[Hupomone10]

Another well-known pastor:

Do you think we'll ever be able to resolve the tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility?

Yes, in heaven. I think it can be resolved to a significant measure here, if you read the very best analyses of it. (Jonathan Edward's book The Freedom of the Will is as good as they get, and I think he comes to a pretty close solution. But practically I find that lay people, by and large, are not going to read such a heavy-duty book).

In the end, however, we have to live with mystery because we are finite. And we must make sure that we draw the line for mystery in the right place. I find that a lot of people agree that there is mystery, but they don't agree on what that mystery is.

The mystery is not between the sovereignty of God that governs all things (including the will of man) and the absolutely self-determining free will of man. That is not the biblical mystery.

The biblical mystery is between God, who is sovereign over all things and governs all things (including the will of man), and our accountability and responsibility to will what we ought to even though we don't have absolute self-determination. That's the mystery. And I'm willing to live with that because the Bible teaches both of those things.

- message, “Regenerated to Believe” by John Piper.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Great stuff Bill, thanks and I agree with this. After many years of going back and forth from the extremes of arminians and calvinist I can finally say that this is the clearest and most Biblical teaching of them all.

 

[Hammster]

I listened to the first part of Mussler's message. He is a nut job.

 

[Skala]

What kind of free will do you mean?

If you simply mean "the ability to choose what you desire" then of course no tension exists between free will and predestination.

But if you mean that man in his fallen state is morally neutral and is not inclined one way or another between God and disobedience, that he is perfectly neutral (free), and therefore it is just as easy for him to choose to obey God as to disobey God, then of course every Christian should disagree with free will.

The Bible is clear that man in his fallen state is hostile to God and finds the gospel foolishness, and he is not even able to do anything pleasing to God or understand the spiritual things of God. He is hostile to Christ and spiritually dead. The Bible is clear that man's heart is inclined towards evil continually from his youth, and that none seek God. It is clear that he is enslaved to the corruption of sin. He does not have "Free will" in this sense, but a will in bondage to sin and self.

A person in such a state would never choose positively for God if given the choice. Thus predestination is mandatory if anyone is ever to be saved.

"If God had not chosen some, heaven would have none" - Elder DJ Ward

 

[Hammster]

Great stuff Bill, thanks and I agree with this. After many years of going back and forth from the extremes of arminians and calvinist I can finally say that this is the clearest and most Biblical teaching of them all.

And both Piper and Ravi are Calvinists.

 

[Robs07M6S]

The Bible is clear that man in his fallen state is hostile to God and finds the gospel foolishness, and he is not even able to do anything pleasing to God or understand the spiritual things of God. He is hostile to Christ and spiritually dead. The Bible is clear that man's heart is inclined towards evil continually from his youth, and that none seek God. It is clear that he is enslaved to the corruption of sin. He does not have "Free will" in this sense, but a will in bondage to sin and self.

But skala, we are not disagreeing with any of that at all. For if God didnt call then no one would be saved, if it were not for grace no one would be saved. Where we differ is if that call can be trampled with and spurned, resisted and turned away.

I believe so far that God reaches out and calls the sinner by his grace to trust in him but I do not believe for a minute that its an irresistable call.

 

[Robs07M6S]

And both Piper and Ravi are Calvinists.

I realize that they both claim the title of calvinsim but I have also seen Piper greatly contridict the teachings of calvinism before too, just as I have John Mcarthar. I have pointed that out in the past and even provided the links showing this contridiction in Pipers own teachings but of course as usual no one was interested in listening.

Regardless I believe the OP has the correct view between Gods soverienty and mans responsibility.

 

[Skala]

But skala, we are not disagreeing with any of that at all. For if God didnt call then no one would be saved, if it were not for grace no one would be saved.

Then the question is, how exactly does God call people?

Does he leave them in their fallen state (with all of the attributes that the Bible says fallen man has) and simply ask them to obey the gospel?

Or does he do something to inwardly change people so that they will be willing to respond to the gospel?

You say you agree with depravity but you never explain how a man, while depraved, suddenly becomes willing to embrace Christ and forsake his sins.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Then the question is, how exactly does God call people?

Through the preaching of the Gospel and by the Holy Spirit of course.

Does he leave them in their fallen state (with all of the attributes that the Bible says fallen man has) and simply ask them to obey the gospel?

He gives them the choice to remain in rebellion or to come to him, its as simple as that.

Or does he do something to inwardly change people so that they will respond to the gospel?

After they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ the inward change comes, yes. But not before it.

You say you agree with depravity but you never explain how a man, while depraved, suddenly becomes willing to embrace Christ and forsake his sins.

Sure I explained it, by the Gospel and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Skala]

He gives them the choice to remain in rebellion or to come to him, its as simple as that.

So he gives people - who are hostile to him, enemies of him, hate him, and find the gospel foolish - the choice to accept or reject the gospel?

Won't 100% of people reject the gospel then?

That's like saying you offer raw meat to vegetarians hoping they will accept your gift.

After they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ the inward change comes, yes. But not before it.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is that something has to happen or those vegetarians will never be willing to eat meat.

Rememeber, the will is enslaved to sin. It is not neutral between God and disobedience.

In other words what I am trying to ask you is this:

Does any spiritual change happen in a person so that they become willing rather than remaining unwilling? Or is it simply a mental decision that has nothing to do with the spiritual realm?

 

[Robs07M6S]

So he gives people - who are hostile to him, enemies of him, hate him, and find the gospel foolish - the choice to accept or reject the gospel?

Yes he does, whats so hard to believe about that?

Won't 100% of people reject the gospel then?

Nope, not everyone rejects it. Some choose to obey it while others choose to disobey it. You know that yourself Skala.

That's like saying you offer raw meat to vegetarians hoping they will accept your gift.

I dont think so.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is that something has to happen or those vegetarians will never be willing to eat meat.

I suppose if you starved them enough they would be willing to eat just about anything.

Rememeber, the will is enslaved to sin. It is not neutral between God and disobedience.

I understand that fully and never once said the will was neutral.

Does any spiritual change happen in a person so that they become willing rather than remaining unwilling? Or is it simply a mental decision that has nothing to do with the spiritual realm?

Of course its more than just a mental decision, but its still a decision none the less and its a decision that would never be made at all without God first making the gracious offer of salvation to the sinner.

But to say this call to salvation cannot be resisted or rejected I believe is a fallacy. See Heb 6:4-6 and 10:26-31

 

[Robs07M6S]

I tell you what, Im gonna post these links from John Piper one last time and show how he himself cannot really claim to be a calvinist because this teaching from him goes against Irresistable grace and plainly shows that God calls and then Leaves man with the responsibility to respond to that call. Please do not make any comments to this post until you at least listen to this 20 minute sermon for yourself. If you dont do anything else then at least listen to the 2nd part, it is less than 10 minutes long and Piper does a great job at showing the role that the Holy Spirit plays in conversion and then he goes on to show how this work can be resisted and thwarted.

The Unforgivable Sin, Part 1 of 2- John Piper - YouTube

The Unforgivable Sin, Part 2 of 2 - John Piper - YouTube

 

[Skala]

I don't think you understand the thrust of my argument brother.

Perhaps I should lay out my presupposition.

I believe we our choices are self-determined. That is, our choices are determined by who I am. What my desires are. And the inclination of my heart.

In other words, people choose in accordance with their natures. Not against their natures. For example God is holy and he acts in accordance with his holiness. He cannot sin for that is against his nature.

The Bible is clear that men are evil, hostile to God, and they think of the gospel as foolishness. And men act in accordance with their natures, not against their natures. It is against the nature of a person to forsake what he loves and embrace what he hates.

Who in their right mind would believe something that they think is foolishness? Obviously, then, something has to spiritually happen in a person so that they no longer find the gospel foolishness. Something has to happen so that they are no longer hostile towards God, their enemy but inclined to believe and trust in Him. Something has to happen to a person, because all men by fallen nature love sin, so that they will be willing to forsake the sin they love and embrace the God they hate.

It is against the nature of a fallen person to do any of that. Something has to happen so that the person's nature is changed or affected so that making a spiritually right decision is even a possibility in the first place.

I'm asking you, if this change is not regeneration, what is it?

The Bible never says God merely pokes and prods and persuades and woos us. It says he compels us to come. He changes us. Every time the Bible speaks of our conversion it speaks of it as a powerful inward change. The blindfold is removed. The heart of stone is changed to a heart of flesh. We were spiritually dead and God made us alive.

I'm submitting that we only respond positively to the gospel because God's grace has intervened and miraculously changed us from within.

We didn't take our own blindfold off, God did. We didn't change our own heart, God did. We didn't suddenly convert ourselves, God did. (That is, we didn't make ourselves go from unwillingness to willingness, God did)

Let me remind you of these scriptures.

No man can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit.
He caused you to be born again unto a lively trust in Christ
Flesh and blood did not reveal to you that Jesus was the Christ, but God in Heaven.
You cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws you. (draw does not mean woo/persuade, it means to compel, to drag.)
You must be born again or you cannot even PERCEIVE the kingdom, let alone enter it.
Those in the flesh cannot please God. the implication is that you must be "in the spirit" to do anything spiritually right and pleasing to God.
The flesh does not avail anything towards salvation. It's the Spirit that gives life.
You were dead, but God made you alive. By grace you have been saved.
He called you out of darkness into light.

The arguments you are putting forth imply that God doesn't do a single thing to affect the spiritual nature of a person, he simply asks fallen men who are spiritually dead to suddenly do a spiritually right thing. he asks men to use their fleshly powers and faculties to do something that avails to salvation. Such a thing is unbiblical brother.

 

[twin1954]

The Scriptures never present salvation as an offer they present it a a gift.