Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[Kermos]

Very good. Yes I have heard this many times. So the real question then is:
1) did a Christian / can a Christian actually lose their salvation via disobedience and open willing rebellion / opposition to God
or
2) that Christian who thought they were saved and became a Christian was NEVER ACTUALLY a christian in the first place? (ie. guys like Judas Iscariot and Balaam, and King Saul etc).

No Scripture states that Judas Iscariot, Balaam, nor King Saul were a Christian.

Read the Christ's decisive words again, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:27-30); therefore, no one - absolutely nothing - can break the assurance of the unbreakable, secure, strong grasp of Christ upon Christ's own persons!

 

[BNR32FAN]

I choose option 3.

I reject both Fatalism/Determinism, that everything is already fated to happen; as well as anything that would limit God's true omnipotence. God doesn't just know the possibilities of many worlds, if there are many worlds He knows each one concretely as real.

Predestination is true, but it only applies to God's election to save us. That is itself an entirely different subject I think however.

So yes, God knows everything, He always has, He always will, He always does--because these are all "the same". God doesn't know the future, because there is no future with God; even as God doesn't know the past, because there is no past with God.

God knows. Period.

But that doesn't mean Open Theism, or that God simply is aware of all possibilities analogous to the many worlds theory of quantum physics, or that everything is predetermined by God.

I reject all those explanations. God knows that I will do X, Y, and Z tomorrow, not only that I may do it, but that I will; but that I will isn't real until I do it--it isn't predetermined to happen. Because, again, God doesn't know the future, God knows.

Here is how I have tried to explain the idea of Divine atemporality at other times: If I watch you do something, I know you have done it, because I observed you as you did it. So my knowing you did it doesn't mean that I made you do it. God, fully atemporal (unconstrained by any sense of time) knows what you do because He is there when you do it. It's not that He knows because He can see the future or because He remembers the past; but because God is eternally in all moments.

So we could say, then, that God is both atemporal and omnitemporal. In the same way that God is every-where, God is also every-when.

Having now said all that, I still would say my most honest answer is this: I don't know. I don't understand God, and I can't. The Divine Essence is unknowable and incomprehensible.

-CryptoLutheran

Bravo my friend well said.

 

[Clare73]

The post to which you replied was not directed to an unversed unbeliever, yet it is comprehensible as shown below.

God did not impart free-will into man, but God did impart self-will into man (2 Peter 2:9-10).

"Free will" is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero), not a Biblical notion.
When we use the term "free will," we use the philosophical notion of the West.
And that notion is: man has the power to execute, without any force or constraint, all moral choices.

The Bible denies this notion, stating that man is a slave to sin (Jn 7:25, Ro 8:34, Ro 11:32; Gal 3:22),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36, cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).
"Free will" was lost in the fall when Adam's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that fallen (unregenerate) man does not have the power to make all moral choices; e.g., he cannot choose to be sinless in thought, word and deed at all times.
This inability is what is meant by the "depravity of man" (Ro 8:7-8).

The Bible presents man as a free agent; i.e., doing what he wishes or desires, acting voluntarily according to his disposition which, with his fallen (unregenerate) nature, is toward evil; i.e., self interest in preference to God (Mk 12:29-30, Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23).
So in the Bible, "free-will" is not the philosophical notion, rather it is the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what man's disposition prefers, likes.

Therefore, Biblically, "free will" is not about "hosting," it is about moral power.
Likewise, God working within the disposition of man, giving him to prefer the things of God, is not a violation of his "free will," for he still chooses what he prefers, likes with no external force or constraint applied. . .and that is exercising "free will."
God does not violate the "free will" of man, he uses it without violating it to accomplish his purposes.

I agree with the Apostle Peter who wrote "know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21), so, no, I do not interpret Scripture because the indwelling Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of Scripture to me.
Please read this carefully, "No Scripture states man was imparted free-will, so your second paragraph is without the Word of God" in reference to your original post.

I didn't write that in the post, but your statement shows that you did understand the post that Lord Jesus had me make to you.

As the post to which you replied conveys, no will is "free" because a "will" must be attached to a host.

You do not have a free-will.

 

[zoidar]

As the post to which you replied conveys, no will is "free" because a "will" must be attached to a host.

You do not have a free-will.

How do you know it's not the other way around that the "being" is attached to "free will"? Making "free will" the host of you being.

 

[zoidar]

Perhaps we can dispense with some of the peripheral implications to some of our studies: My view is drawn from God's causation, thus: That God has chosen some to whom to show mercy, and they alone are those who are ultimately saved. And NONE whom God has chosen for Heaven will be going to the Other Place. God's decree cannot be undone.

I know you have that view.

You may be thinking, besides of those, of the ones who are 'attendees' to Christianity. Who, as in Hebrews 6, have experienced even the benefits of the Spirit, but who are not actually among the Elect. They indeed may lose what they thought was their salvation. I can't honestly say that "...those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age..." do indeed 'lose their salvation', as I have several reasons to think not, but... I hope you get my point, that those whom God has chosen to ultimately be his Dwelling Place, and members of The Bride of Christ, and members of The Body of Christ, will indeed be exactly that for which, before the foundation of the world, he designated them to be, and they alone. No other random member is possible.

This is not new to me, but one might wonder what comfort it gives that the elect can't lose salvation, if we can't know whether we are of those or of the ones just "enlightened".

Mark Quayle said:
It sounds to me like you are demonstrating my point. If I belong to Christ, I will be obedient to Christ.

Ok, I'll give you that. I too am not sinless, by far! But that isn't my point. I meant that the 'need', the desire for Holiness and fellowship with Christ, and in fact actual obedience (though imperfect), is endemic to the true believer.

It was not my point either that we can be sinless. But there was a time I lived in sin that some Christians say is impossible for the born again believer to do. So from that perspective I must have never been regenerated. Or my own view, I was regenerated but drove a wedge between me and God. Today I'm praying that such a thing never happens again, but I know I have to be on guard, because the danger is there, and it's real.

You can "lose your salvation" only in that you can lose what you thought you had. You are unable to actually "kick the Holy Spirit out". But yes you can lose your fellowship. But, remember the passage, 1 Corinthians 3: "14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames." Such a person has not lost their salvation.

Chrysostom writes this about 1 Corinthians 3:15. I do have to warn you, because it's not the most optimistic view I've seen, to put it lightly. I don't even want to agree, but here it is:

"Now his meaning is this: If any man have an ill life with a right faith, his faith shall not shelter him from punishment, his work being burnt up. The phrase, shall be burned up, means, shall not endure the violence of the fire. But just as if a man having golden armor on were to pass through a river of fire, he comes from crossing it all the brighter; but if he were to pass through it with hay, so far from profiting, he destroys himself besides; so also is the case in regard of men's works. For he does not say this as if he were discoursing of material things being burnt up, but with a view of making their fear more intense, and of showing how naked of all defence he is who abides in wickedness. Wherefore he said, He shall suffer loss: lo, here is one punishment: but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire; lo, again, here is a second. And his meaning is, He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire.

6. He calls it, however, Salvation, you will say; why, that is the cause of his adding, so as by fire: since we also used to say, It is preserved in the fire, when we speak of those substances which do not immediately burn up and become ashes. For do not at sound of the word fire imagine that those who are burning pass into annihilation. And though he call such punishment Salvation, be not astonished. For his custom is in things which have an ill sound to use fair expressions, and in good things the contrary. For example, the word Captivity seems to be the name of an evil thing, but Paul has applied it in a good sense, when he says, Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. [ 2 Corinthians 10:5 ] And again, to an evil thing he has applied a good word, saying, Sin reigned, [ Romans 5:21 ] here surely the term reigning is rather of auspicious sound. And so here in saying, he shall be saved, he has but darkly hinted at the intensity of the penalty: as if he had said, But himself shall remain forever in punishment."

 

[Clare73]

I know you have that view.

This is not new to me, but one might wonder what comfort it gives that the elect can't lose salvation, if we can't know whether we are of those or of the ones just "enlightened".

It was not my point either that we can be sinless. But there was a time I lived in sin that some Christians say is impossible for the born again believer to do. So from that perspective I must have never been regenerated. Or my own view, I was regenerated but drove a wedge between me and God. Today I'm praying that such a thing never happens again, but I know I have to be on guard, because the danger is there, and it's real.

Chrysostom writes this about 1 Corinthians 3:15. I do have to warn you, because it's not the most optimistic view I've seen, to put it lightly. I don't even want to agree, but here it is:

"Now his meaning is this: If any man have an ill life with a right faith, his faith shall not shelter him from punishment, his work being burnt up. The phrase, shall be burned up, means, shall not endure the violence of the fire. But just as if a man having golden armor on were to pass through a river of fire, he comes from crossing it all the brighter; but if he were to pass through it with hay, so far from profiting, he destroys himself besides; so also is the case in regard of men's works. For he does not say this as if he were discoursing of material things being burnt up, but with a view of making their fear more intense, and of showing how naked of all defence he is who abides in wickedness. Wherefore he said, He shall suffer loss: lo, here is one punishment: but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire; lo, again, here is a second. And his meaning is, He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire.

6. He calls it, however, Salvation, you will say; why, that is the cause of his adding, so as by fire: since we also used to say, It is preserved in the fire, when we speak of those substances which do not immediately burn up and become ashes. For do not at sound of the word fire imagine that those who are burning pass into annihilation. And though he call such punishment Salvation, be not astonished. For his custom is in things which have an ill sound to use fair expressions, and in good things the contrary. For example, the word Captivity seems to be the name of an evil thing, but Paul has applied it in a good sense, when he says, Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. [ 2 Corinthians 10:5 ] And again, to an evil thing he has applied a good word, saying, Sin reigned, [ Romans 5:21 ] here surely the term reigning is rather of auspicious sound. And so here in saying, he shall be saved, he has but darkly hinted at the intensity of the penalty: as if he had said, But himself shall remain forever in punishment."

It is those who die in apostasy that are not saved, no matter their former profession.

Apostasy is not proof positive during life that one is not saved. Sometimes, there is a recovery.
But I wonder if the profession of faith before the apostasy was genuine faith, and whether they were not really saved until the "recovery."

 

[zoidar]

It is those who die in apostasy that are not saved, no matter their former profession.

Apostasy is not proof positive during life that one is not saved. Sometimes, there is a recovery.
But I wonder if the profession of faith before the apostasy was genuine faith, and whether they were not really saved until the "recovery."

That is one way to see it...

 

[Kermos]

"Free will" is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero), not a Biblical notion.
When we use the term "free will," we use the philosophical notion of the West.
And that notion is: man has the power to execute, without any force or constraint, all moral choices.

The Bible denies this notion, stating that man is a slave to sin (Jn 7:25, Ro 8:34, Ro 11:32; Gal 3:22),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36, cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).

The above is true, but we enter a divergence zone at this point.

"Free will" was lost in the fall when Adam's nature became corrupted,

Adam could not have had a free-will. As per the reasons outlined in A Will Requires A Host (post 190 in this thread), yet another reason follows here.

The timeline of Adam knowing good and evil

BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEN Adam and Eve knew not good and evil

AFTER Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEN Adam and Eve knew good and evil

FOR the delineation is clarified when God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22)

YET based on the Word of God saying "has become" recorded in Genesis 3:22

THEN Adam did not know good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

SO Adam did not know good and evil when God issued the command "from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die!" (Genesis 2:17)

THEREFORE at the time of eating, Adam listened (perceived) and followed the last that he heard about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

WHICH Adam heard from Eve

FOR God said "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'" (Genesis 3:17)

SO Adam listened to Eve and Adam ate from the tree prior to knowing good and evil

AND a person does good by obeying God; on the other hand, a person does evil by disobeying God

SO free will choosing of good or choosing of evil is not the context

AND action is the context

SINCE good and evil are not known to Adam prior to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEREFORE it follows that Adam was not endowed with the attribute of free will.

enslaving him to sin so that fallen (unregenerate) man does not have the power to make all moral choices; e.g., he cannot choose to be sinless in thought, word and deed at all times.
This inability is what is meant by the "depravity of man" (Ro 8:7-8).

The Bible presents man as a free agent; i.e., doing what he wishes or desires, acting voluntarily according to his disposition which, with his fallen (unregenerate) nature, is toward evil; i.e., self interest in preference to God (Mk 12:29-30, Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23).
So in the Bible, "free-will" is not the philosophical notion, rather it is the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what man's disposition prefers, likes.

The Bible presents man as a self-willed, evil, flesh captive (2 Peter 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians 15:46, Romans 3:19-20, 1 Corinthians 2:14) as Paul wrote "the flesh desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. For these are opposed to one another" (Galatians 5:17) or man as a captive to the Good God in Christ (Ephesians 3:1, Matthew 22:1-22, John 15:5, John 3:3-8). Not both as per the Apostle Peter "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority; daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Notice, Adam was flesh before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:23); therefore, Adam was evil before he sinned by eating of the tree forbidden as food.

Therefore, Biblically, "free will" is not about "hosting," it is about moral power.

Have you read "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1)? See the word "host", well that word includes the representation of living beings, and a host is required for a will to be associated with that host, specifically living being that is man, so a will does not exist apart from a host.

You wrote "Biblically, 'free will' is not about 'hosting,' it is about moral power", yet, Biblically, "free will" exists only in an illusory sense per the Apostle Paul "but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14) - and this is the single and only reference to "free will" in all the New Testament.

In effect, you preach that God imparted free-will into man, yet no Scripture states God imparted free-will into man. Just watch how the remainder of your post, quoted next, contains no Scripture references.

Since a will requires a host, then a will cannot be free; in other words, your will is under the auspices of yourself, and notice the word "self" in yourself which translates to your self-will per the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:9-10), but not a free-will for you, and this is all in the Biblical sense.

Likewise, God working within the disposition of man, giving him to prefer the things of God, is not a violation of his "free will," for he still chooses what he prefers, likes with no external force or constraint applied. . .and that is exercising "free will."

God does not violate the "free will" of man, he uses it without violating it to accomplish his purposes.

The Apostle Paul wrote "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

You conflict against yourself in your first paragraph, there, because "God working within the disposition of man" (your words) is by definition an "external force" (your words) "applied" (your word) to man.

There is no such thing as free-will, but there is such a thing as self-will for hosts unconverted by God (Matthew 18:3, 2 Peter 2:9-10, John 3:3-8).

There is absolutely no way for a self-willed person to choose Jesus because Lord Jesus says:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people to be friends (John 15:15 , the prior verse) and to believe (John 6:29) and to be born again (John 3:3-8) and for righteous works (John 3:21, John 15:5) and to repent (Matthew 11:25) and to love (John 13:34) and unto salvation (John 15:19 the same passage).
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Paul told Timothy that if he or Timothy were to deny Christ, Christ would deny them.

The notion is powerful, and so we are warned to stay faithful. But Paul didn't say they would lose their salvation, but implied that if anyone denies Christ, that they are not saved. Christ would indeed deny them, along with those who say such things as, "But Lord, didn't we cast out demons in your name?" and he responds, "I never knew you."

You can't break even with God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away

If apart from Him we can do nothing, then we can't even abide in Him, apart from Him. This is God's work, even if it exhausts us. Those he has chosen and regenerated by the grace of God, will abide in him, by the grace of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Clare73 said:
"Free will" was lost in the fall when Adam's nature became corrupted,

Adam could not have had a free-will.

Clare may have already answered this, but just in case, I think she is referring to the fact that before Adam fell, he had the ability to choose disobedience AND obedience, unlike the lost since the fall, that are unable, apart from regeneration, to submit to God's law, nor to please God. And just a note: obedience is not mere compliance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

one might wonder what comfort it gives that the elect can't lose salvation, if we can't know whether we are of those or of the ones just "enlightened".

Speaking for myself, my attention went from my worries about the sincerity of my repentance and "acceptance of Christ", upon which I thought all eternity hinged, to thankfulness and amazement at the comfort of God's justice, and power and intent, that he would accomplish all he set out to do, and if that included me, then good, but if that did not include me, he is still to be praised and honored for his power and glory and kindness and mercy, and enjoyed for his pleasure in the things he has planned and accomplishes. Also, and this is no minor thing, the Spirit of God witnesses with my spirit, that I am a child of God, one of his own people.

It was not my point either that we can be sinless. But there was a time I lived in sin that some Christians say is impossible for the born again believer to do. So from that perspective I must have never been regenerated. Or my own view, I was regenerated but drove a wedge between me and God. Today I'm praying that such a thing never happens again, but I know I have to be on guard, because the danger is there, and it's real.

I wouldn't put much stock in "what Christians say", to be honest. They are right, in that sin does identify one as a child of the devil instead of as a child of God, but they have no gauge by which to measure the power and tender mercy of God.

Chrysostom writes this about 1 Corinthians 3:15. I do have to warn you, because it's not the most optimistic view I've seen, to put it lightly. I don't even want to agree, but here it is:

"Now his meaning is this: If any man have an ill life with a right faith, his faith shall not shelter him from punishment, his work being burnt up. The phrase, shall be burned up, means, shall not endure the violence of the fire. But just as if a man having golden armor on were to pass through a river of fire, he comes from crossing it all the brighter; but if he were to pass through it with hay, so far from profiting, he destroys himself besides; so also is the case in regard of men's works. For he does not say this as if he were discoursing of material things being burnt up, but with a view of making their fear more intense, and of showing how naked of all defence he is who abides in wickedness. Wherefore he said, He shall suffer loss: lo, here is one punishment: but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire; lo, again, here is a second. And his meaning is, He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire.

6. He calls it, however, Salvation, you will say; why, that is the cause of his adding, so as by fire: since we also used to say, It is preserved in the fire, when we speak of those substances which do not immediately burn up and become ashes. For do not at sound of the word fire imagine that those who are burning pass into annihilation. And though he call such punishment Salvation, be not astonished. For his custom is in things which have an ill sound to use fair expressions, and in good things the contrary. For example, the word Captivity seems to be the name of an evil thing, but Paul has applied it in a good sense, when he says, Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. [ 2 Corinthians 10:5 ] And again, to an evil thing he has applied a good word, saying, Sin reigned, [ Romans 5:21 ] here surely the term reigning is rather of auspicious sound. And so here in saying, he shall be saved, he has but darkly hinted at the intensity of the penalty: as if he had said, But himself shall remain forever in punishment."

If this is typical of Chrysostom, I don't care for him. But I note, that I agree with him for the most part, until his conjecture —warning?— at the end, but even then, he says, "as if". There is nothing that can separate anyone from the love of God, if they are of those to whom God has chosen to show mercy.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The notion is powerful, and so we are warned to stay faithful. But Paul didn't say they would lose their salvation, but implied that if anyone denies Christ, that they are not saved. Christ would indeed deny them, along with those who say such things as, "But Lord, didn't we cast out demons in your name?" and he responds, "I never knew you."

You can't break even with God.

Peter denied Christ 3 times. Was he not saved after following Christ for 3 years? Was he not a believer?

 

[BNR32FAN]

If apart from Him we can do nothing, then we can't even abide in Him, apart from Him. This is God's work, even if it exhausts us. Those he has chosen and regenerated by the grace of God, will abide in him, by the grace of God.

Except for the fact that no one can come to Him unless The Father draws him. So those people in verse 6 who fail to remain in Christ couldn’t have come to Him in the first place without being drawn to Him from The Father.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Peter denied Christ 3 times. Was he not saved after following Christ for 3 years? Was he not a believer?

The Bible says many times that one who is saved doesn't sin. Does that mean that each time one sins one has returned to being condemned? Of course not. So with Peter denying Christ.

But this is, as usual, becoming silly and contentious.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Except for the fact that no one can come to Him unless The Father draws him. So those people in verse 6 who fail to remain in Christ couldn’t have come to Him in the first place without being drawn to Him from The Father.

Correct. So how is that an exception?

 

[Kermos]

How do you know it's not the other way around that the "being" is attached to "free will"? Making "free will" the host of you being.

There are a multitude of reasons, but I present you with just two powerful reasons.

Before heading into this, I want to point out that, largely, I use free-will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

First, will is used in reference to a possessive noun, that is, the possessor of the will, and the possessor/host is the owner of the will. For example, respecting the will of God, we do not say Will's God, rather we say God's Will, please see an example in 1 Peter 2:15; therefore, the Apostle Peter's declaration about man's self-will is true "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority; daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Second, there is no such thing as free-will for man because the Christ of us Christians declares

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people to be friends (John 15:15 , the prior verse) and to believe (John 6:29) and to be born again (John 3:3-8) and for righteous works (John 3:21, John 15:5) and to repent (Matthew 11:25) and to love (John 13:34) and unto salvation (John 15:19 the same passage).
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Bible says many times that one who is saved doesn't sin. Does that mean that each time one sins one has returned to being condemned? Of course not. So with Peter denying Christ.

But this is, as usual, becoming silly and contentious.

Perhaps I misunderstood your position but I was under the impression that you were saying that if someone denies Christ they were never saved. Hence the Matthew 7 quote, “I never knew you”. So according to this position Peter never knew Christ after following Him for 3 years. The reason Peter was saved was because he repented, he didn’t continue denying Christ. If you don’t believe that repentance is necessary for salvation then your teaching that Peter could’ve continued denying Christ and he still would’ve been saved.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Correct. So how is that an exception?

Well you said that those God has chosen will remain in Christ. So my question is how can these people who didn’t remain in Christ have been connected to Him in the first place if they were not chosen if the scriptures specifically state that no one can come to Him unless The Father draws them?

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Free will" is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero), not a Biblical notion.
When we use the term "free will," we use the philosophical notion of the West.
And that notion is: man has the power to execute, without any force or constraint, all moral choices.

The Bible denies this notion, stating that man is a slave to sin (Jn 7:25, Ro 8:34, Ro 11:32; Gal 3:22),
that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36, cf Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).
"Free will" was lost in the fall when Adam's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that fallen (unregenerate) man does not have the power to make all moral choices; e.g., he cannot choose to be sinless in thought, word and deed at all times.
This inability is what is meant by the "depravity of man" (Ro 8:7-8).

The Bible presents man as a free agent; i.e., doing what he wishes or desires, acting voluntarily according to his disposition which, with his fallen (unregenerate) nature, is toward evil; i.e., self interest in preference to God (Mk 12:29-30, Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23).
So in the Bible, "free-will" is not the philosophical notion, rather it is the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what man's disposition prefers, likes.

Therefore, Biblically, "free will" is not about "hosting," it is about moral power.
Likewise, God working within the disposition of man, giving him to prefer the things of God, is not a violation of his "free will," for he still chooses what he prefers, likes with no external force or constraint applied. . .and that is exercising "free will."
God does not violate the "free will" of man, he uses it without violating it to accomplish his purposes.

For the sake of the reader, I feel compelled to add, that the depravity of the lost is pervasive to his identity, it is endemic of his very nature, he cannot do true good. From our surface view, we can assess the lost as being as deep thinking as believers in Christ, as well intentioned, as empathetic to the needs of others, even as desirous of God, and some of them as saturated with Scripture and even appear to be full of the Spirit of God. But the fact remains, that they are unable to please God. They do indeed serve God's purposes, and his plans concerning them, but they do not submit to him, even if they themselves believe that they do.

We even have invented a concept to bring the lost to the level of the believer: "The altruistic act". I'm sorry, but there is no such thing. Or perhaps we can identify the act as such, but the person is not altruistic, but only being used for that purpose at that moment. His motives are either not brought to bear, (and, ironically, "freewill" there is bypassed by God), or his motives are behind it all indeed evil —selfish and in opposition to God.

We believers can hardly even tell sometimes, our own motivations for our deeds. Our consciences now condemning, now defending us; but God is greater than our consciences. You see, our salvation is not from us, but from God. We don't always know whether we are motivated by "the old man" or by the Spirit of God, or by our mere intellect, or vagrant emotions, or our regenerated spirit, or what. Not everything that seems clear to us is accurate, and many things that are not clear to us should be.

(We have been asked here many times, of what advantage is it to those who believe that only God knows for sure whether one belongs to him or not. And I have to remark: Have we not all seen how easily we fool ourselves? WHAT are we to do when God says, "Depart from me, for I never knew you!"? Where is our confidence —in our selves and our compliance with the formula for salvation? In our selves and the intensity of our desire for Christ? In our selves and our constancy of dedication? In our integrity and our changed nature? Should we not rather find confidence in the mere GRACE OF GOD? I could go on and on, with the fact that the confidence isn't even so important in the end, but the Glory of God, but I digress.)

Clare well uses the secular dictionary definition for freewill to make her point, that the motivations of the lost, their inclinations, their preferences, are what bring about the decisions they make —always (by motive) in opposition to God. I want to repeat here, that even the person making the choice does not necessarily know he is deciding in opposition to God. The cat-calls ensuing, that "by the fruit ye shall know them", does not answer this fact. (What God sees as fruit does.)

Finally, when the secular world composes a definition, the definition only describes the notion —it does not present its validity. Clare says by way of the dictionary, that "he still chooses what he prefers, likes with no external force or constraint applied. . .and that is exercising "free will"." Do not let that confuse you! I'm pretty sure that Clare does not believe in absolute spontaneity by the human. God is still in control of everything he has made. (But neither she, nor I, denies that man indeed makes real, effective, choices —God being that much above us that there is no robotics implied.)