Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[Clare73]

Look I’m not going to play these kid games. If you can’t admit that the wage for sin is death

You got it wrong. . .and I don't agree.

The wage of sin is mortality, not death by execution.

and sin is any transgression against God then there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

Which causes mortality, not execution.

I don't agree with your error.

My 9 year old daughter knows this just from attending Sunday school, I’m not going to waste my time jumping thru hoops just to establish fundamental Christian theology that you obviously already know.

And posts #123, #131 remain unaddressed because they are "jumping through hoops."

Uh huh. . .

 

[Clare73]

To my knowledge that law was not recorded in the scriptures

If it is not recorded in the Scriptures, then it doesn't exist as law, and has nothing to do with given law, just as Paul states in Ro 5:13.

but what is recorded is that those who were killed in the flood were killed because of their sin.

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Which has nothing to do with Ro 5:13, as previously explained in post #123, and which remains unaddressed, along with post #131.

 

[zoidar]

If they can be the cause of losing salvation, they are a cause of salvation.

I don't think you can say serving Christ is a cause of salvation, but a maintaining of salvation.

If I ask Philip if we can be friends and Philip says: "yes, ok!" Then I'm welcome to Philips house. If I then start to be unkind to Philip, then Philip cancels our friendship. The reason I'm no longer welcome to his house is because I'm no longer a friend. The reason for that is because I was unkind. If I instead am kind to Philip we are keeping the friendship and I'm welcome to his house. Am I then welcome to his house because I'm kind to Philip or because we are friends?

 

[BNR32FAN]

If it is not recorded in the Scriptures, then it doesn't exist as law, and has nothing to do with given law, just as Paul states in Ro 5:13.

Which has nothing to do with Ro 5:13, as previously explained in post #123, and which remains unaddressed, along with post #131.

Explained in post 123? You call this an explanation?

Have you dealt with the dilemma posed by Paul in Ro 5:12-15; i.e.,
there was no law with a death penalty between Adam and Moses, as there was in the Garden with Adam,
where there is no law, there is no sin taken into account,
where there is no sin taken into account, there is no death (Ro 6:23),
yet all died between Adam and Moses even though they did not sin, because there was no law with death penalty to sin against.
So of what sin did they all die?

They died of the sin of (the first) Adam imputed to all those born of him, (Ro 5:12-15),
just as the righteousness of (the second Adam) Christ is imputed by faith to all those born of him (Ro 5:18-19), and
just as righteousness was imputed by faith to Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3), and is imputed to those in Christ by faith (Ro 4:1-11).

There’s post 123. You’re saying that the people who died in the flood did not sin right after I just quoted Peter saying that they God killed them in the flood because of their sins.

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So post 121 is NOT an explanation at all it’s a false claim because it directly contradicts what Peter said. Those who died in the flood were killed as punishment for the sins they committed.

Ok here’s post 131 which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The word "inherit" may not be used but its meaning; "to receive from one's ancestors or, by extension, from one's predecessors" is used (Ex 20:5, Eze 18:20).
Just as the word "sovereign" is not itself in the Bible, but its definition is everywhere of God (e.g., Dan 4:35).

Likewise with "guilt" - "fact of violating a law and involving penalty."
Adam violated the law and we are involved in the penalty (Ro 5:18).

I find it easier to use the words themselves, rather than their definitions.

You’re not using the words you’re changing them because Ezekiel 18:20 directly contradicts what you’re teaching.

The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

What you keep on saying is that Adam’s sin is imputed upon us which means that YOUR SAYING THAT WE ARE PUNISHED FOR ADAM’S SIN. That is exactly what God said He would not do in Ezekiel 18. In post 120 you attempted to change what was written in the Ezekiel 18:20 in order to twist it from its intended meaning.

Ezekiel states the son will not inherit the guilt of the father.
Adam's sin is not inherited, it is imputed by God (Ro 5:12-18), with the result that
all are by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).

Then I corrected you in post 127

What Bible version are you using that uses the word “inherit” or “guilt”? Your paraphrasing but you need to take a closer look at what was actually written.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“The son will NOT BEAR THE PUNISHMENT for the father’s inequity”. The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. In other words one man is not punished for another man’s sin, each man will be punished for his own sin. Hence sin is not imputed, ever. Romans 5 doesn’t say anything about imputed sin. You’re injecting it into the passage. The word used is “resulted” not “imputed”. Resulted can mean thru a chain of events, it can’t in this case mean that we are punished for Adam’s sin because that would directly contradict God’s own words in Ezekiel 18:20. If Ezekiel 18:20 didn’t specifically state that each person is punished for his own sins then your theology could be plausible but because it contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 it is not plausible.

If Romans 5 says that we are condemned because Adam’s sin was imputed upon us THEN IT WOULD BE SAYING THAT WE ARE PUNISHED FOR ADAM’S SIN. Condemnation is punishment. But it does not say anything about sin being imputed YOUR THE ONE INJECTING THE WORD IMPUTED INTO THE PASSAGE!! Paul used the word RESULTED as I’ve repeatedly pointed out and explained throughout this conversation. I must’ve repeated myself 5 or 6 times explaining what RESULTED means any why it cannot mean imputed. You keep dodging the truth and refuse to accept WHAT THE IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURES. If Paul was saying that we are condemned because Adam’s sin is imputed upon us then either Paul or God lied because that would mean that Paul was directly contradicting what God Himself said in Ezekiel 18:20.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good morning! Can you tell me why you don't believe in "free will?" It appears that the Bible talks quite a bit about it. The contingency of what we do with that free will determines whether we become saved or not. For instance, Ezra 7:13 says that "all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded OF THEIR OWN FREEWILL to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee." God names some of the Jews offerings distinctly "free will offerings." Not sure why someone why would not believe that we are living out our days without free will like we are robots! Thank you.

Volition. Voluntary. Why add "free"? It is one's will.

Ezra 7 "...those who volunteer..." Ezra 7:13 Interlinear: By me hath been made a decree that every one who is willing, in my kingdom, of the people of Israel and of its priests and Levites, to go to Jerusalem with thee, doth go;

And the "freewill" offerings means only that the offerings are not required by the sacrificial law.

You can't teach freewill by those.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think you can say serving Christ is a cause of salvation, but a maintaining of salvation.

Failing to serve Christ cannot cause your loss of salvation. It demonstrates your lack of salvation.

If I ask Philip if we can be friends and Philip says: "yes, ok!" Then I'm welcome to Philips house. If I then start to be unkind to Philip, then Philip cancels our friendship. The reason I'm no longer welcome to his house is because I'm no longer a friend. The reason for that is because I was unkind. If I instead am kind to Philip we are keeping the friendship and I'm welcome to his house. Am I then welcome to his house because I'm kind to Philip or because we are friends?

It sounds to me like you are demonstrating my point. If I belong to Christ, I will be obedient to Christ. Obedience does not cause my belonging to Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Explained in post 123? You call this an explanation?
There’s post 123. You’re saying that the people who died in the flood did not sin right after I just quoted Peter saying that they God killed them in the flood because of their sins.
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
So post 121 is NOT an explanation at all it’s a false claim because it directly contradicts what Peter said. Those who died in the flood were killed as punishment for the sins they committed.
Ok here’s post 131 which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The NT says in Ro 5:13 that sin was not accounted to/against them, which you still do not deal with.

You’re not using the words you’re changing them because Ezekiel 18:20 directly contradicts what you’re teaching.
The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
What you keep on saying is that Adam’s sin is imputed upon us which means that YOUR SAYING THAT WE ARE PUNISHED FOR ADAM’S SIN.
That is exactly what God said He would not do in Ezekiel 18.

Eze 18:20 is the undoing, revocation of God's law in Ex 20:5, which applied to "households," which at that time extended to the third or fourth generation.
It did not relate to descendants beyond the household, and its revocation likewise does not relate to descendants beyond the household.

In addition, Ro 5:15 states that those between Adam and Moses died (when no sin was accounted against them)
"by the trespass of one man," not by their own sin, of which there was none.
And Ro 5:18 states that the many are made righteous "by the obedience of one man," not by their own righteousness,
which we know is imputed to them (Ro 4:1-11), as it was to Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).

Ro 5:14 states that sinful Adam was a pattern of the righteous Christ to come.
Ro 5:18 states that pattern:
just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (born of the first Adam),
so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (born of the second Adam, Christ).
There is the pattern.

So how do those born of Christ become justified (righteous)?
By the righteousness of Christ imputed to them (Ro 4:1-11) by faith, as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3),
and just as the resuslt of one trespass was condemnation for all men (born of the first Adam) by imputation, which was the pattern (Ro 5:14).

Consider:
Death is caused by sin (Ro 6:23). So whose sin caused the death of the 6-month old child?
Not his own sin, it was Adam's sin. . .imputed to him. The child died "by the trespass of one man" (Ro 5:15), as everyone does.

The many died by the trespass/sin of one man (Ro 5:15). . .just as the many have life by the obedience of one man (Ro 5:18),
both by imputation, the former imputation to Adam being a pattern of the latter imputation by Christ ( Ro 5:14).

 

[zoidar]

Failing to serve Christ cannot cause your loss of salvation. It demonstrates your lack of salvation.

Some hold this view. I take the other side that it is possible to lose salvation.

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

That is not necessarily true. I know this from my own life.

Obedience does not cause my belonging to Christ.

That is true. You can't belong "more" to Christ by being obedient. The thing I believe is that disobedience can open a rift between you and Christ, that can cause you to lose salvation.

 

[Kermos]

Some hold this view. I take the other side that it is possible to lose salvation.

That is not necessarily true. I know this from my own life.

That is true. You can't belong "more" to Christ by being obedient. The thing I believe is that disobedience can open a rift between you and Christ, that can cause you to lose salvation.

There is no losing salvation because the Christ of us Christians says "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!

 

[Kermos]

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.

No Scripture states man was imparted free-will, so your second paragraph is without the Word of God.

A Will Requires A Host​

The definition of free-will must be considered first.

Free will: an autonomous will, an isolated willpower, detached volition, independent moral agency.

Next, considering "will", a will exists not in a vacuum; in other words, a will must be part of a host.

Respecting an unsaved person - the default first condition of every person, since a host person is required to host a will, then the person's will is part of the person's self, so the person's will is self-will because the person'a will is attached to the self-same person; on the other hand, the person's will is not free floating detached from the person, so the person's will is not free-will.

The Apostle proclaims a person's will is either one of but not both of:

1. a person's will is controlled by God with "God having purified your souls in the obedience of the Truth through the Spirit" (1 Peter 1:21-22) and "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
2. a person's will is controlled by man with "the Lord knows how" "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).

A person's will is dependent upon God (Christimage-will (bond-will), Romans 8:29), or a person's will is dependent upon man (self-will). No other will exists for a person; therefore, free-will is an illusion as conveyed by the Apostle Paul with "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).

While the unrighteous unbelievers daringly revel in their own glory founded in their self-willed "I chose Jesus" (2 Peter 2:9-10), we righteousness of God in Christ believers worship the Glorious One (2 Corinthians 5:21) who sovereignly chose us (John 15:16, John 15:19 includes salvation).

Thus says Adonai YHWH (Lord GOD) "I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8), yet the free-willian philosophers try to steal God's exclusive glory in the salvation of man - and stealing from God in one's heart is a severe crime against God.

 

[Kermos]

@zoidar @seeker2122

1. We Christian's gracious Benefactor produces
   1. divine choice of we beneficiaries unto salvation, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19)
      AND, Paul is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote to the Ephesians "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love" (Ephesians 1:3-4)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 state God exclusively chooses us believers by/of/through God
   2. beneficiaries' faith/belief in Lord Jesus, for the Christ of us Christians says (see also a word about belief/faith (Greek πίστις pistis) and believe (Greek πιστεύω pisteuó))
      "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29)
      AND Paul is in accord with Jesus' words for Paul wrote to the Ephesians "by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His work, created in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:8-10)
      AND Peter is in accord with Jesus' words for Peter declared "God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8-9)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 6:29 state for us believers to believe in Jesus whom the Father has sent is exclusively by/of/through God
   3. beneficiaries' fruit of the Spirit/righteous actions/good works, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21)
      AND Paul is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote to the Philippians "being filled with the fruit of righteousness that [is] by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God" (Philippians 1:11)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 3:21 state fruit in we believers is exclusively by/of/through God
   4. beneficiaries' birth by the Holy Spirit, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:5-8)
      AND Peter is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote to persons residing as aliens "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 3:5-8 state we believers being born again is exclusively by/of/through God
   5. beneficiaries' repent by God's working, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes" (Matthew 11:25)
      AND the apostles and elders are in accord with Jesus' words with thier saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25 state that God exclusively causes man to think differently after an encounter with God (repent means to think differently afterward)
   6. beneficiaries' love by God's working, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34)
      AND John is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7, see the phrase "love is from God" meaning God is the source of true love)
      AND John expands with his writing of "God is Love, and the one who abides in Love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 John 4:16, see the phrase "one who abides in Love" is equivocated with "one who abides" "in God" which extends from God's exclusivity with "God is Love")
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 13:34 states that the love, true love (John 3:33), the very righteous love, the Godly love within us children of God, this love is exclusively by/of/through God

 

[seeker2122]

No Scripture states man was imparted free-will, so your second paragraph is without the Word of God.

A Will Requires A Host​

The definition of free-will must be considered first.

Free will: an autonomous will, an isolated willpower, detached volition, independent moral agency.

Next, considering "will", a will exists not in a vacuum; in other words, a will must be part of a host.

Respecting an unsaved person - the default first condition of every person, since a host person is required to host a will, then the person's will is part of the person's self, so the person's will is self-will because the person'a will is attached to the self-same person; on the other hand, the person's will is not free floating detached from the person, so the person's will is not free-will.

The Apostle proclaims a person's will is either one of but not both of:

1. a person's will is controlled by God with "God having purified your souls in the obedience of the Truth through the Spirit" (1 Peter 1:21-22) and "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
2. a person's will is controlled by man with "the Lord knows how" "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).

A person's will is dependent upon God (Christimage-will (bond-will), Romans 8:29), or a person's will is dependent upon man (self-will). No other will exists for a person; therefore, free-will is an illusion as conveyed by the Apostle Paul with "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).

While the unrighteous unbelievers daringly revel in their own glory founded in their self-willed "I chose Jesus" (2 Peter 2:9-10), we righteousness of God in Christ believers worship the Glorious One (2 Corinthians 5:21) who sovereignly chose us (John 15:16, John 15:19 includes salvation).

Thus says Adonai YHWH (Lord GOD) "I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8), yet the free-willian philosophers try to steal God's exclusive glory in the salvation of man - and stealing from God in one's heart is a severe crime against God.

I appreciate your response but honestly I don't understand what you are getting at. It would be a lot more helpful if you can just get straight to the point. I know a lot of people on here are very well educated and well versed with Scriptures and theology but imagine trying to explain difficult issues to unbelievers this way?

What you wrote I believe is basically this:
1) There is only free will from man
2) and free will from God
and you conclude there is no such thing as a free floating free will. It is an illusion.

Ok. So what are you saying? Are you interpreting Scriptures saying to us that there is no such thing as free will? It is all pre-ordained by God?
Or are you saying man does have free will that God gave us the ability to make free will choices without his influence or working?

 

[seeker2122]

There is no losing salvation because the Christ of us Christians says "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!

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).

 

[Clare73]

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).

It's the latter. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

Some hold this view. I take the other side that it is possible to lose salvation.

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.

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.


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

That is not necessarily true. I know this from my own life.

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.

That is true. You can't belong "more" to Christ by being obedient. The thing I believe is that disobedience can open a rift between you and Christ, that can cause you to lose salvation.

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.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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).

It's the latter. . .

I just finished answering @zoidar on this very subject: From #195:

"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.

"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.

"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."

 

[BNR32FAN]

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).

Jesus answered this question in John 15:1-7 while He was speaking to His 11 faithful apostles in the upper room right after Judas had left the group to go and betray Him.

““I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus provided several implications that even His faithful 11 apostles were capable of falling away and the consequence was being thrown into the fire. He said this on the night He was to be arrested after they had been following Him for 3 years.

Paul also wrote this to Timothy in his second letter to him.

“It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭11‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Paul told Timothy that if he or Timothy were to deny Christ, Christ would deny them. It’s important to keep in mind that this was a personal letter from Paul to Timothy, Paul was not addressing a congregation like in his other epistles. Many people believe that verse 13 is saying that if we are faithless or if we lose our faith, Christ is still faithful to save us but that interpretation undermines the previous two verses. No what I believe it’s referring to is that “Christ cannot deny Himself”. Jesus specifically stated that anyone who denies Him, He would deny before The Father. If Jesus were to ignore what He said here He would be denying or contradicting Himself. Furthermore this notion would mean that we are saved by grace without having faith and without abiding in Christ.

Eternal security is a 16th century doctrine that is not supported by the scriptures, the early church writings, and has been refuted by every one of the apostolic churches.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

 

[Clare73]

Jesus answered this question in John 15:1-7 while He was speaking to His 11 faithful apostles in the upper room right after Judas had left the group to go and betray Him.

““I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus provided several implications that even His faithful 11 apostles were capable of falling away and the consequence was being thrown into the fire. He said this on the night He was to be arrested after they had been following Him for 3 years.

Paul also wrote this to Timothy in his second letter to him.

“It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭11‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Meaning, though we may be faithless and deny him, he remains faithful to himself and denies you, as he stated.
For if you denied him, you never had saving faith in the first place, your faith was counterfeit, self-generated, not Holy Spirit generated.

Paul told Timothy that if he or Timothy were to deny Christ, Christ would deny them. It’s important to keep in mind that this was a personal letter from Paul to Timothy, Paul was not addressing a congregation like in his other epistles. Many people believe that verse 13 is saying that if we are faithless or if we lose our faith, Christ is still faithful to save us but that interpretation undermines the previous two verses. No what I believe it’s referring to is that “Christ cannot deny Himself”. Jesus specifically stated that anyone who denies Him, He would deny before The Father. If Jesus were to ignore what He said here He would be denying or contradicting Himself.

Furthermore this notion would mean that we are saved by grace without having faith and without abiding in Christ.

No this notion would mean that you were never saved in the first place.

Eternal security is a 16th century doctrine that is not supported by the scriptures, the early church writings, and has been refuted by every one of the apostolic churches.

Those who deny him were never saved in the first place, as in the case of Judas, Saul, Balaam.

 

[Kermos]

I appreciate your response but honestly I don't understand what you are getting at. It would be a lot more helpful if you can just get straight to the point. I know a lot of people on here are very well educated and well versed with Scriptures and theology but imagine trying to explain difficult issues to unbelievers this way?

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

What you wrote I believe is basically this:
1) There is only free will from man
2) and free will from God
and you conclude there is no such thing as a free floating free will. It is an illusion.

Ok. So what are you saying?

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

Are you interpreting Scriptures saying to us that there is no such thing as free will?

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.

It is all pre-ordained by God?

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.

Or are you saying man does have free will that God gave us the ability to make free will choices without his influence or working?

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.