Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[Jonaitis]

I like that.

But be careful there: I expect you mean by "rationalizing it", something along the lines of "reasoning concerning it". But to say "rationalizing it" will to some people carry a whole lot of baggage.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." - Galileo

Man is a rational animal. The world is intelligently designed. All roads, logically, must inevitably return to Him if that is true. If not, then something is amiss.

 

[Clare73]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." - Galileo

Man is a rational animal. The world is intelligently designed. All roads, logically, must inevitably return to Him if that is true. If not, then something is amiss.

What is amiss is your omission of man's fallen (corrupt) nature and the assumptions of its logic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So we know that one of the attributes of God is that he is all-knowing and all-present,
which means that he knows everything past, present, and future.

We're told that we have also been given free will to make our own choices.

However, this would mean that nothing we choose out of our free will would come as a "surprise" to God as if he didn't know that was going to happen. He already knows then what choices we are going to make now and the future.

So this means 1 of 2 things.
Either
A) Everything is already predetermined and predestined by God and he knows all that will happen because he is not limited to time but outside of time which means seeing the past and future is simultaneous for him. There is only one universe/timeline that is going to play out and nothing else that would "surprise" God like a "twist" he didn't see coming.

or

B) God has created an infinite number of timelines/multiverses that exist BASED on every possible choice that every single human being makes in the history of this timeline. In other words, God would still know the outcome of all the infinite other possible timelines based on what choice I make today. So we still have free will to choose which timeline we are going to play out based on the choices I make today, right here, right now. God doesn't actually know which timeline I'm going to play out because it's my free will to choose BUT he does know what the outcome and entire timeline of every possible choice I make. (Follow me on this: So God already knows my entire life and timeline if I choose to disobey him and not live the life He wants for me AND he knows the entire life and timeline if I choose to obey him and follow him wholeheartedly. All the possible outcomes he already knows, but since we have free will, He is allows us to choose which timeline we are actually going to play out and that is the only part He doesn't actually know what I'll choose.

Your second paragraph/sentence is false, if it means that we are told in Scripture that we have free will. Scripture only shows that we have actual, real, effective choice, and that, according to our inclinations.

A) is a bit off, because it assumes he knows only as a result of the fact he can see. As @Jonaitis was saying in #23, we see these as separate attributes because we don't know how to see them otherwise. But, if for no other reason than his existence outside of time (and there are many more reasons to believe he is not part this, part that), we can well know that his love and his plan and his predestination and his foreknowledge (and so on) are simply his nature. It would even make more sense to say that he knows and he sees because he causes. Otherwise, one must logically admit to the illogic of causation by mere chance.

It might be worthwhile to take a look at the philosophical attribute called, the Simplicity of God. Also fitting would be the Aseity of God.

B) is vacuous, unnecessary, speculation. I also know of nothing in scripture to imply or suggest such a thing. (But the thought experiment begun with this is kind of fun:


1) HOW would God bring all such 'universes' each to the conclusion that all the elect are saved?

1a) Or to ask it differently, would his selection of the elect not have to be dependent on who decides, rather than God's decision? 1a.a) Is there any scripture that demonstrates such a notion (that his selection of the elect is dependent on who decides), apart from OUR inference? 1a.b) I can see how a universalist might revel in the notion of one universe per each 'possible' decision.

1b) If every option is actually possibly chosen, thereby 'generating a new universe' is there not then at least one universe where nobody chooses God? 1b.a)


2) If one were to find himself in a universe where nobody chooses God, does this imply value to the notion that there are multiple universes? ;o

2a) I ask '2', because that is the universe where we find ourselves, but for the Grace of God.

3) These numbers could go on for quite some time!)

SO, (pardon my little excursion there), if your two premises leading to your conclusion which itself means that only either A) or B) is true, then either one or both the premises is in some way mistaken, or the logic is faulty by which the conclusion is drawn, because neither A) nor B) is quite right. But yes, A) is much better than B).

 

[Mark Quayle]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." - Galileo

Man is a rational animal. The world is intelligently designed. All roads, logically, must inevitably return to Him if that is true. If not, then something is amiss.

I didn't mean that it is right to forego one's use of reason, but that the words, "I rationalize", to some people will imply that one excuses oneself for being wrong.

 

[Halbhh]

So we know that one of the attributes of God is that he is all-knowing and all-present,
which means that he knows everything past, present, and future.

We're told that we have also been given free will to make our own choices.

However, this would mean that nothing we choose out of our free will would come as a "surprise" to God as if he didn't know that was going to happen. He already knows then what choices we are going to make now and the future.

So this means 1 of 2 things.
Either
A) Everything is already predetermined and predestined by God and he knows all that will happen because he is not limited to time but outside of time which means seeing the past and future is simultaneous for him. There is only one universe/timeline that is going to play out and nothing else that would "surprise" God like a "twist" he didn't see coming.

or

B) God has created an infinite number of timelines/multiverses that exist BASED on every possible choice that every single human being makes in the history of this timeline. In other words, God would still know the outcome of all the infinite other possible timelines based on what choice I make today. So we still have free will to choose which timeline we are going to play out based on the choices I make today, right here, right now. God doesn't actually know which timeline I'm going to play out because it's my free will to choose BUT he does know what the outcome and entire timeline of every possible choice I make. (Follow me on this: So God already knows my entire life and timeline if I choose to disobey him and not live the life He wants for me AND he knows the entire life and timeline if I choose to obey him and follow him wholeheartedly. All the possible outcomes he already knows, but since we have free will, He is allows us to choose which timeline we are actually going to play out and that is the only part He doesn't actually know what I'll choose.

Neither are correct. It's best to just read through (all) the Bible for this and many more things.

 

[stevevw]

Galatians 6:8 seems to imply we do have free will.
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature [1] will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

So it seems the choices we make will determine our destiny. I think this is true even if we are subject to other influences such as environmental ones. At every point God gives us a way out. I believe we are aware of what our choices will lead to but we can be overcome by the afflictions of life.

We can go into denial but deep down we know its not right. In the end it comes down to surrendering ourselves I believe and that may be harder for some than others. That seems a bit of a contradiction as far as free will is concerned.

But I think there's a paradoxical truth that giving in to God actually gives freedom to choose.

 

[TedT]

Is God omniscient or not?

It depends upon how you define it, eh?

The Pagan Greeks defined it as God knows everything from eternity past to eternity future. The Church, idolizing all Greek thought, accepted this definition as oh so glorifying even though it forced us to also accept the blasphemy that GOD knew who would go to perdition before HE created them but created them anyway which is the logical conclusion of this definition as you mentioned:

Does he know all things, or only some things--just those of the past and present?

If he knows before he creates them that they are going to hell, how is he not creating them to end up in hell?

Honesty cannot avoid that conclusion.

BUT The Bible itself defines what HE knows in
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. This limits HIS omniscience to 'all HIS works' and it started at 'the beginning of the world.' All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees.

From this we can logically conclude that IF HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend HE did NOT decree or create the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.

GOD is Love. All doctrine must conform to HIS nature. All doctrine that impugnes HIS nature is a blasphemy. The accepted definition of HIS omniscience that implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY is not loving no matter how many books of theo-babble have been written to try to make it so...therefore it is blasphemy.

The definition that HE gave us a free will able to make decisions which HE did not know how we would choose glorifies GOD rather than insults HIM as a monster. How HE knows or does not know something is immaterial; that HE does not know the results of our free will decisions before we choose them is the only logical outworking of our creation, our free will, and eternal hell with HIS truly loving nature.

The accepted definition also contradicts scripture so it is a blasphemy: GOD does all things for HIS pleasure but HE takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked - therefore HE did not create them to go to hell! Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Also, HE wants all people to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. so whether HE will get this want fulfilled or not, HE obviously did NOT create anyone without hope for salvation, ie, destined to hell before their creation!

All He had to do to fulfill HIS wants and desires of these verses was to NOT create those people whom HE knew would end in hell!! Where is the blasphemy in that?

HE IS Love and HE HAS sovereignty...which implies that HIS sovereignty serves HIS nature of love, love is not subservient to HIS sovereignty. HIS sovereignty is used to bring, express, HIS love to, for, all HIS creation, and could not possible be used to create people outside of HIS love for no expressed reason. To elevate HIS sovereignty above HIS nature of love so HE can supposedly act contrary to the dictates of love is blasphemous. The current definition of omniscience is sadly in need of a complete overhaul.

 

[TedT]

If God is outside of time, then God does not actually experience anything.

Time is the measure of change, not a state of being. If there is no time there is no change, just stasis.

The Trinity is a loving unity of three persons, distinct and separate persons who are unified by their divine attributes. To say there is no time is to say there is no personal exchange within the Trinity, just...nothing.

Therefore no decision could be made to create anything new by any new communication, no new exchange of thoughts...nothing could change.

People have invented the Time Lord God outside of time to mollify contradictions life brings to theology but it is an abject logical failure.

 

[TedT]

where in Scripture do we find that man must, or does, have free will?

Everywhere it says we are guilty for our doing certain acts and everywhere the heavenly, loving marriage between GOD and HIS creation does or may exist.

Men are possessed of a limited free will,

A limited free will is non-existent as contrary to the definition of a free will. This is the same sophistry as saying man is enslaved by sin but also has a free will at the same time - sheer doublethink used to mollify the cognitive dissonance created by the need to accept contradictory things as both true at the same time.

Free means free from coercion or constraint in choosing between the available options within our choices...not to be under coercion lite so to speak...

 

[Jonaitis]

Time is the measure of change, not a state of being.

That's why God is timeless.

If there is no time there is no change, just stasis.

The Trinity is a loving unity of three persons, distinct and separate persons who are unified by their divine attributes. To say there is no time is to say there is no personal exchange within the Trinity, just...nothing.

Therefore no decision could be made to create anything new by any new communication, no new exchange of thoughts...nothing could change.

People have invented the Time Lord God outside of time to mollify contradictions life brings to theology but it is an abject logical failure.

God does not actually communicate within the Godhead in the same way we are right now. That is analogous of what the Trinity is.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Everywhere it says we are guilty for our doing certain acts and everywhere the heavenly, loving marriage between GOD and HIS creation does or may exist.



A limited free will is non-existent as contrary to the definition of a free will. This is the same sophistry as saying man is enslaved by sin but also has a free will at the same time - sheer doublethink used to mollify the cognitive dissonance created by the need to accept contradictory things as both true at the same time.

Free means free from coercion or constraint in choosing between the available options within our choices...not to be under coercion lite so to speak...

This is not correct in an absolute sense.

Man was created with limitations that put a boundary on what he is capable of. he does not have the free will to cross these boundaries.

 

[Clare73]

It depends upon how you define it, eh?
The Pagan Greeks defined it as God knows everything from eternity past to eternity future. The Church, idolizing all Greek thought, accepted this definition as oh so glorifying even though it forced us to also accept the blasphemy that GOD knew who would go to perdition before HE created them but created them anyway which is the logical conclusion of this definition as you mentioned:

BUT The Bible itself defines what HE knows in
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. This limits HIS omniscience to 'all HIS works'

But that is the definition of divine foreknowledge, not omniscience.
God knows all his works from the beginning, because he decreed them at the beginning, therefore, they are what will come to pass.

and it started at 'the beginning of the world.'
All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees.

"All his works" describe any and all, spiritual and physical, works that he does everywhere as long as he does them. All were decreed from the beginning.

From this we can logically conclude that IF HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend HE did NOT decree or create the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.

Somebody has not reckoned with and appropriated Romans 9.
I contend what the Scriptures present.

God knew precisely what the results for every single person would be because
every single person is born without the Holy Spirit (unregenerate), condemned (Romans 5:18),
by his very nature (with which he is born) an object of God's wrath (Ephesians 2:3),
blind (John 3:3,)
not accepting the things that come from the Spirit because they are foolishness to him, for he cannot understand them (1 Corinthians 2:14), and
hostile to God (Romans 8:7-8).

That being the Biblical case (i.e., no one could decide in favor of God), he--according to his sovereign right, chose/decided before the foundations of the world whom
he would regenerate (John 3:3-8)--just as he sovereignly chose Jacob according to his sovereign right to do so (Romans 9:11-12), and
give the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1; Acts 13:48, Acts 18:27; Romans 12:3),
which remits sin (saves from God's wrath, Romans 5:9),
in order that Jesus would have many adopted brothers (Romans 8:29).

Had God himself not decided, at the price of a horrendous ransom (Matthew 20:28) to his Justice, to choose some, none would be saved (Romans 9:18).
Therein is the Gospel love of God--that he did not let all perish, but had mercy on some. . .those who did not receive his mercy also serving his sovereign purpose (Romans 9:18-23).

 

[Clare73]

Everywhere it says we are guilty for our doing certain acts and everywhere the heavenly, loving marriage between GOD and HIS creation does or may exist.

So?

That conclusion--Scripture requires free will to be guilty of sin--is based on an unproven assumption of man.
That is nowhere stated nor presented in Scripture.
That we are guilty is everywhere presented, but that we are guilty because of free will is nowhere stated, that is a non-Biblical overlay on Scripture to agree with man's assumption.

We are guilty of the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18), with which we had nothing to do.
We are likewise acquitted with the righteousness of Christ, with which we also had nothing to do,
free will not-with-standing in either case.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So?

That conclusion--Scripture requires free will to be guilty of sin--is based on an unproven assumption of man.
That is nowhere stated nor presented in Scripture.
That we are guilty is everywhere presented, but that we are guilty because of free will is nowhere stated, that is a non-Biblical overlay on Scripture to agree with man's assumption.

We are guilty of the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18), with which we had nothing to do.
We are likewise acquitted with the righteousness of Christ, with which we also had nothing to do,
free will not-with-standing in either case.

Yes - I agree with your summary as to Salvation.

When it comes to individual eternal reward limited free will plays a part.

 

[IoanC]

Among the possible universes is the one in which time and material laws don't have such an effect. For instance, God's Grace makes us spiritually happy, shielding us from the world of cause and effect.

 

[seeker2122]

Your second paragraph/sentence is false, if it means that we are told in Scripture that we have free will. Scripture only shows that we have actual, real, effective choice, and that, according to our inclinations.

So then you agree with Martin Luther's position that our definition of "free will" actually means we don't have free will to do anything, only the free will to do what is in our nature. Being sinful in nature and "bent inwards" that means we are only free to will ourselves to more sin. We are not free to will ourselves to doing what God can do or wants us to do unless he has given us the capacity to be good, holy, blameless, etc.

A) is a bit off, because it assumes he knows only as a result of the fact he can see. As @Jonaitis was saying in #23, we see these as separate attributes because we don't know how to see them otherwise. But, if for no other reason than his existence outside of time (and there are many more reasons to believe he is not part this, part that), we can well know that his love and his plan and his predestination and his foreknowledge (and so on) are simply his nature. It would even make more sense to say that he knows and he sees because he causes. Otherwise, one must logically admit to the illogic of causation by mere chance.

Interesting. So he doesn't just know as a result of the fact, but he must know because he causes it? Is this something related to the Elect? God chose already who will be the elect?

It might be worthwhile to take a look at the philosophical attribute called, the Simplicity of God. Also fitting would be the Aseity of God.

Thank you for the recommendation. Those sound interesting!

B) is vacuous, unnecessary, speculation. I also know of nothing in scripture to imply or suggest such a thing. (But the thought experiment begun with this is kind of fun:

True and agreed. It was just something I thought of and sounded reasonable to believe although I don't believe He doesn't know what I will choose. He must know otherwise he would only be a limited God.

1) HOW would God bring all such 'universes' each to the conclusion that all the elect are saved?

1a) Or to ask it differently, would his selection of the elect not have to be dependent on who decides, rather than God's decision? 1a.a) Is there any scripture that demonstrates such a notion (that his selection of the elect is dependent on who decides), apart from OUR inference? 1a.b) I can see how a universalist might revel in the notion of one universe per each 'possible' decision.

Hmm. I think verses like: John 3:16 where it says, "anyone who believes" .....that makes it sound like we have a choice and determine if we will receive salvation or reject it. Even stuff like Luke 9:23, you have to deny yourself and pick up the cross daily. That seems to me to be a choice we have to make everyday. If we don't, then we are not true disciples/followers of Jesus. There's probably 100 more verses that present this idea that it is up to us to "choose" to believe/accept/obey and IF you don't, then you will perish from your sins and forever be separated from God (unsaved).

1b) If every option is actually possibly chosen, thereby 'generating a new universe' is there not then at least one universe where nobody chooses God? 1b.a)

Very interesting haha. That would be one heck of a universe!! Hmm.... if everyone chose to reject God, then it would seem to me that God would almost be put to "shame" because he literally just played with himself and his own creation rejected him 100% so wasted time and what was it all for? Therefore, God would never just allow himself to waste his own time and go through all this just so at the end of it nobody will be saved. It does support what you are saying that God then MUST be the causation behind people's salvation. This does seem to suggest that Election must hold truth or some truth.

2) If one were to find himself in a universe where nobody chooses God, does this imply value to the notion that there are multiple universes? ;o

2a) I ask '2', because that is the universe where we find ourselves, but for the Grace of God.

3) These numbers could go on for quite some time!)

SO, (pardon my little excursion there), if your two premises leading to your conclusion which itself means that only either A) or B) is true, then either one or both the premises is in some way mistaken, or the logic is faulty by which the conclusion is drawn, because neither A) nor B) is quite right. But yes, A) is much better than B).

I definitely don't think B is correct either. A would be more likely. It sounds to me you are saying A but adding that it is not we who choose but that God has already chosen?

 

[Zandy12]

Hmmm... I believe that both options can be true at the same time: that God sits in a plane where things can be predestined/predetermined according to him and that multiple possibilities can exist independent of him. It's kind of like the trinity, where Jesus can be the holy spirit, God, and yet be the son of God as well. Trying to understand God is like a 2D creature trying to understand 3D. Same for a 3D creature (us) trying to understand 4D (read: Flatland - Wikipedia). I also agree with OP's view of God being more of an observant rather than an interventionist. Most US founding fathers had this exact diestic view of christianity.

 

[Halbhh]

So then you agree with Martin Luther's position that our definition of "free will" actually means we don't have free will to do anything, only the free will to do what is in our nature. Being sinful in nature and "bent inwards" that means we are only free to will ourselves to more sin. We are not free to will ourselves to doing what God can do or wants us to do unless he has given us the capacity to be good, holy, blameless, etc.

If you don't mind, I'd like to offer another reasonable view right here, at this moment.

We are like toddlers compared to God.

That's it.

So, we can have a genuine free will, yet, nevertheless, we are indeed profoundly and extensively reliant on our Parent to take our hand and lead us across the street, so that we don't get run over by a car (just maybe 1 of perhaps thousands of correct analogies on how toddlers are profoundly reliant on their parents).

So, the realistic view of what we are like compared with God suggests we can have genuine free will (so that all the instruction to us in scripture isn't mere decoration...) but also be overwhelming dependent on God.

we know that one of the attributes of God is that he is all-knowing and all-present,
which means that he knows everything past, present, and future.

Actually, if you are willing to divert here some....
I'd love you to ignore debate a minute or 3 regarding precisely what of the future God decides...and just read through Isaiah chapter 46 (in a clear translation like the NIV) and combine what you find there with the fact of what Christ said in John 5:17, and wonderfully we can notice it's "work" and that instantly tells us that the future isn't exhaustively predetermined (if it were fully predetermined in all ways, there would be no 'work' to do...)....

Not predetermined except that God has decided to "bring about" (work to bring about) certain things, and declared some of these! And these things will happen.

That's what is predetermined.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Edit: Removed the redundant portion. I don't know how it got on there, but it looked like I was the one responding to myself!

So then you agree with Martin Luther's position that our definition of "free will" actually means we don't have free will to do anything, only the free will to do what is in our nature. Being sinful in nature and "bent inwards" that means we are only free to will ourselves to more sin. We are not free to will ourselves to doing what God can do or wants us to do unless he has given us the capacity to be good, holy, blameless, etc.

More or less correct --I doubt Luther said we don't will to do anything, but perhaps that it is not entirely free. We do have choice, we do have will. One of the best treatments I've heard on the matter says what we should all do is drop the word "free" from freewill, so that we can discuss just how this actually works.

Interesting. So he doesn't just know as a result of the fact, but he must know because he causes it? Is this something related to the Elect? God chose already who will be the elect?

'Fact' doesn't 'just happen'. It is caused, all of it, except First Cause, whom the Bible refers to as the "I AM" or, "I AM THAT I AM". (There we see the difference between God and everything else. Anything that 'becomes', comes from something that was before it. But First Cause does not become. It only IS.)

Yes, the Elect are called that because they are chosen, and, according to Scripture, chosen before the foundation of the world. It doesn't make sense to me to think God would "choose" someone for salvation because he merely foresaw that they would be saved. It is circular. --What is there to choose?

Thank you for the recommendation. Those sound interesting!

There are several more, but just remember, they don't 'exist' by themselves. And, they can be a little hard to take, one by one, because God is not like us.

True and agreed. It was just something I thought of and sounded reasonable to believe although I don't believe He doesn't know what I will choose. He must know otherwise he would only be a limited God.

Agreed. But, again, as First Cause, he is not only not limited in what he knows, but everything besides himself is only what he makes it. (And again, this does not deny actual choice, because our choices are among the many ways he accomplishes what he set out to do.) If he causes it, of course he knows it.

To say that there are things he did not cause, even if he knows about them, is also to invoke a limited god.

Hmm. I think verses like: John 3:16 where it says, "anyone who believes" .....that makes it sound like we have a choice and determine if we will receive salvation or reject it. Even stuff like Luke 9:23, you have to deny yourself and pick up the cross daily. That seems to me to be a choice we have to make everyday. If we don't, then we are not true disciples/followers of Jesus. There's probably 100 more verses that present this idea that it is up to us to "choose" to believe/accept/obey and IF you don't, then you will perish from your sins and forever be separated from God (unsaved).

We do have a choice, (although, in the Greek, the words we want to get the notion, "anyone who believes", out of, only says, "all those believing". The fact that we have choice does not deny the fact that we are chosen first. And yes, I agree we choose all the time. But the Born-Again will choose according to their inclinations, just as the lost will choose according to their inclinations.

Very interesting haha. That would be one heck of a universe!! Hmm.... if everyone chose to reject God, then it would seem to me that God would almost be put to "shame" because he literally just played with himself and his own creation rejected him 100% so wasted time and what was it all for? Therefore, God would never just allow himself to waste his own time and go through all this just so at the end of it nobody will be saved. It does support what you are saying that God then MUST be the causation behind people's salvation. This does seem to suggest that Election must hold truth or some truth.

When I consider the fact that nothing is up to chance --and in fact that it is self-contradictory to say that something can happen by chance-- the whole notion of multiple universes based on what we suppose are possibilities, seems ludicrous.

(We haven't even got any proof, as far as I know, that anyone even can choose what they end up not choosing. The obnoxious fact is right there in front of our faces that we have never yet chosen something that we have not chosen, so how can we say it is possible that we could? I say this, tongue-in-cheek, but, in fact, I've never heard a good rebuttal to it. Even in Scripture where God speaks contingently, giving people a choice between this path and that, it never says that they actually chose anything except what they chose. It only says that they have real choice between options.)

I definitely don't think B is correct either. A would be more likely. It sounds to me you are saying A but adding that it is not we who choose but that God has already chosen?

No. Well, no and yes. When it comes to being born-again, the slave to sin will not, and therefore is unable, to submit to God's law, or to please God, and we read also that "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin". The slave to sin is unable to do more than lip service to the Gospel. (And, to add to that, none of us has the integrity, strength of will, knowledge and understanding of just what one is committing to, and the dedication to accomplish such a thing even if we "decide for Christ".) The ones to whom God chose to show mercy will come to Christ, but that, only because God has already done that change from "death to life" in them. If I desire to submit to God, the only way it is a real is by God doing it in me.

But subsequent to regeneration, we do choose God, still, because of God in us. Our obedience is not just our effort, but God's work in us. Our desire for him, and desire for purity, and Godliness, and so on, is because HE is in us.