Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[FutureAndAHope]

John 1 12

to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

So how do you explain John 14? About receiving the Holy Spirit?

As for John 1:12 it starts with "who were born, not of blood,", this is naturally talking about the fact that God's children are not born in a fleshly way. But even if it were a spiritual concept regarding man's ability to respond to the gospel, it says "not by the will of the flesh", we know that the flesh is opposed to God, being:

Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries,

Salvation is not by man's will for man's will is a desire for the flesh. Salvation comes not by fleshly desire, but by God's will.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So how do you explain John 14? About receiving the Holy Spirit?

As for John 1:12 it starts with "who were born, not of blood,", this is naturally talking about the fact that God's children are not born in a fleshly way. But even if it were a spiritual concept regarding man's ability to respond to the gospel, it says "not by the will of the flesh", we know that the flesh is opposed to God, being:

Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries,

Salvation is not by man's will for man's will is a desire for the flesh. Salvation comes not by fleshly desire, but by God's will.

I hear your interpretation and I don't agree that the verse means that.

This verse confirms that God chooses who will be born again.

 

[Clare73]

So you think your view of the word foreknowledge is better than the early church's understanding? So people separated, no more than 150 years after Jesus has a "more corrupted" view of God (In your opinion), than someone 2000 years later with "NO UNDERSTANDING" of the original languages, or church tradition.

Your view of God is a joke. You go around quoting the word like a hero of predestination, but you refuse the most simple of concepts as displayed clearly, that need no interpretation:

1Ti 2:4-6 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

How many people had access to the Greek manuscripts to learn directly from them?

It's a matter of the language, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Clare73]

I still don't understand why you call it "free". Why not just call it will or individual will? Since from your view you have been created in such a way you will make this specific choice. You will only will what has been decreed, so how is that will free?

It's not complicated.

If I get to choose what I want, without anyone stopping me, I am free.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why do we fight for the preservation of free will when the Scripture clearly speaks of Choosing the Elect.

We never had free will in an absolute sense anyway.

Does God not have the prerogative to choose who He will eternally fellowship with ?

 

[zoidar]

Why do we fight for the preservation of free will when the Scripture clearly speaks of Choosing the Elect.

We never had free will in an absolute sense anyway.

Does God not have the prerogative to choose who He will eternally fellowship with ?

The question is if God chooses the elect to come into Christ to be saved, or if God chooses the saved/the elect/those who are in Christ to be holy and blameless.

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
— Ephesians 1:4

My personal view is we are elect when we are in Christ through faith. Not before we have faith. I would however be interested in passages saying while being unbelievers we were of the elect.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The question is if God chooses the elect to come into Christ to be saved, or if God chooses the saved/the elect/those who are in Christ to be holy and blameless.

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
— Ephesians 1:4

My personal view is we are elect when we are in Christ through faith. Not before we are in Christ and have faith. I would however be interested in passages saying while being unbelievers we were of the elect.

The answer is both are true.

Scriptures for your consideration...

Romans 9

8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” 10 And not only that, but there was also Rebekah, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

...does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles

 

[zoidar]

The answer is both are true.

Scriptures for your consideration...

Romans 9

8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” 10 And not only that, but there was also Rebekah, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

...does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles

I gave you thumbs up, but I will have to say Romans 9 seems to be one of the most misunderstood chapters in the whole Bible.

 

[Clare73]

"Adam, as the head of the human race, caused every person after him to be born into a fallen condition or sinful state. This effect of Adam’s sin is known as original sin and is often referred to as inherited sin. All human beings have inherited a sinful nature

A distinction here must be maintained, for the sake of the parallel with imputed righteousness (Ro 4:1-4).

We have not inherited Adam''s sin, it is imputed to us (Ro 5:12-19).
We have inherited Adam's sinful nature, as you state.

through Adam’s original act of disobedience (Romans 5:12–14).

In addition to receiving a fallen nature, all people who came after Adam have been credited with the guilt of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:18). That is the meaning of imputed sin."

What is imputed sin? | GotQuestions.org

What is imputed sin? In what way is sin imputed to us? How is it fair for sin to be imputed to our account?

www.gotquestions.org

Keeping in mind that we did not inherit sin itself, but a sinful nature, while sin itself is imputed (Adam's guilt is credited) to us.

 

[trophy33]

"Adam, as the head of the human race, caused every person after him to be born into a fallen condition or sinful state. This effect of Adam’s sin is known as original sin and is often referred to as inherited sin. All human beings have inherited a sinful nature through Adam’s original act of disobedience (Romans 5:12–14).

In addition to receiving a fallen nature, all people who came after Adam have been credited with the guilt of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:18). That is the meaning of imputed sin."

What is imputed sin? | GotQuestions.org

What is imputed sin? In what way is sin imputed to us? How is it fair for sin to be imputed to our account?

www.gotquestions.org

Yeah, its not in the original text. Nobody is credited with the Adam's guilt or with imputed sin.

Gotquestions sometimes misses the target, which is normal, they are just a website.

The origin of this error is with Augustine, he misunderstood the Greek of Paul. It got adopted in Roman Catholicism, after that.

Some traditional protestant churches like Lutherans have simply taken it from Catholicism and did not reform this area properly. Thats why you can find it on some protestant websites, too.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Adam, as the head of the human race, caused every person after him to be born into a fallen condition or sinful state. This effect of Adam’s sin is known as original sin and is often referred to as inherited sin. All human beings have inherited a sinful nature through Adam’s original act of disobedience (Romans 5:12–14).

In addition to receiving a fallen nature, all people who came after Adam have been credited with the guilt of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:18). That is the meaning of imputed sin."

What is imputed sin? | GotQuestions.org

What is imputed sin? In what way is sin imputed to us? How is it fair for sin to be imputed to our account?

www.gotquestions.org

No I don’t agree with original sin I agree with the Orthodox belief of ancestral sin which teaches that we inherited Adam’s sinful nature but not the guilt of Adam’s sin. This is based on Ezekiel 18 “the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. The whole chapter talks about how God does not credit the wickedness nor the punishment of the wicked upon anyone except the one who commuted it. Because of Ezekiel 18 we don’t interpret Romans 5 as condemnation being the result of Adam’s sin but instead the result of his disobedience or sinful nature because Paul specifically says that death came to all because all sinned not because Adam sinned. So the punishment itself is a result of each individual’s sins not Adam’s sin.

““Now behold, he has a son who has observed all his father’s sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife, or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, he keeps his hand from the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity. “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 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 ‭18‬:‭14‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to this passage punishment for sin is not imputed to anyone.

 

[Jermayn]

Thank you. So option 1 is the problematic one.
Option 2 is one that could be understood.

The problem with option 1 is:
So if everything is already predetermined and predestined, then we don't really have free will.
I was programmed and destined to make the choices that I'm going to make before I was even born.

The issue is this. Maybe God had a plan for me and if I only obeyed him I would have had an amazing life with God full of adventure (hardships/suffering but an adventure!), but since I already know that I won't be able to fully commit 100% soul body and mind, then I will never live up to the life God had planned for me. Therefore he already knows that I'm NOT going down that path of a great life of adventure and faith with Him that he has prepared.

So why would God deny certain things as distractions and hinderances to my faith if he already knows that it won't matter because I was never going to lead a life of 100% obedience and submission to God? Why not just allow me the pleasures then of living my life out with some sort of enjoyment instead of denying me those things because they were "hindrances" to my faith?

If he's keeping certain things from me because he knows it's going to compete with my love for Christ as #1 in my life, then that would indicate things are NOT predetermined and predestined and that he is giving me a chance to make the right choices and follow him 100% hence OPTION 2 as I said.

So this leads me to believe that OPTION 2 must be true. OPTION 1 cannot be true

Sorry if this has already been said. Didn't read all 17 pages. God knowing what decisions you will make doesn't necessarily mean you didn't make them out of your own free will. The part of this people see as problematic is that it also means God created A LOT of people knowing they would spend eternity in hell due to their decision not to accept Jesus as their savior. Does this mean God is cruel and uncaring? No. First of all, God's ways are higher than ours and we will never fully comprehend him, so we trust him because...well...he is God. Beyond that, the only thing my simple mind can come up with is that he saw the people that will accept him as being worth the tradeoff.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Adam, as the head of the human race, caused every person after him to be born into a fallen condition or sinful state. This effect of Adam’s sin is known as original sin and is often referred to as inherited sin. All human beings have inherited a sinful nature through Adam’s original act of disobedience (Romans 5:12–14).

In addition to receiving a fallen nature, all people who came after Adam have been credited with the guilt of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:18). That is the meaning of imputed sin."

What is imputed sin? | GotQuestions.org

What is imputed sin? In what way is sin imputed to us? How is it fair for sin to be imputed to our account?

www.gotquestions.org

Your link makes this statement and I believe it is in error.

Physical death is also a penalty for imputed sin: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). The guilt of Adam’s sin was directly charged or imputed to the whole human family so that all people are now subject to death (Romans 6:23).

This person even quoted Romans 5:12 that specifically says that death came to all because all sinned. That means that death didn’t come to all because Adam sinned it came to each person because each person sinned. I don’t know how they can conclude that death is imputed because of Adam’s sin and quote Romans 5:12 that is saying the exact opposite. This is why I don’t do commentaries unless they’re from the first 2 centuries of the church.

 

[Derf]

Sorry if this has already been said. Didn't read all 17 pages. God knowing what decisions you will make doesn't necessarily mean you didn't make them out of your own free will.

Notice how you changed from what God knows will happen in the future to what "you" decided in the past?

The issue here is that if everything I do is determined before I exist, then I'm not the one who determined it. If I don't determine my own choices/actions, then I shouldn't be held responsible for them.

And if everything is determined before I exist, then it must have been determined by God, unless God merely knows what I will choose, in which case God is less powerful than the other person that did the actual determining--something akin to the Greek Fates.

The part of this people see as problematic is that it also means God created A LOT of people knowing they would spend eternity in hell due to their decision not to accept Jesus as their savior. Does this mean God is cruel and uncaring? No. First of all, God's ways are higher than ours and we will never fully comprehend him, so we trust him because...well...he is God.

That's a poor excuse for not searching the scriptures to find out what God tells us about Himself, imho.

Beyond that, the only thing my simple mind can come up with is that he saw the people that will accept him as being worth the tradeoff.

But that's not what the bible says, is it? He condems those deserving of condemnation, which means He is not the source of those choices.

If we reject the concept of the Greek Fates, because the Fates are more powerful than God, and if we reject the idea that God would cause us to do something He abhors, the only option remaining is that the future choices of men are unknown to God before those men exist.

 

[Halbhh]

Yeah, its not in the original text. Nobody is credited with the Adam's guilt or with imputed sin.

Gotquestions sometimes misses the target, which is normal, they are just a website.

The origin of this error is with Augustine, he misunderstood the Greek of Paul. It got adopted in Roman Catholicism, after that.

Some traditional protestant churches like Lutherans have simply taken it from Catholicism and did not reform this area properly. Thats why you can find it on some protestant websites, too.

Well, Lutherans never seem to mention original sin in sermons (of which I've now hear about ~600+, nor in their confirmation classes (of which I've been involved as one of the teachers now along with several others and have reviewed the teaching book carefully, and the small catechism, etc.).

My impression is that the thing we do hear over and over in a Lutheran Church -- that we are all sinners, that everyone is a sinner -- concupiscence -- that's what 'original sin' would make a Lutheran think of usually: just concupiscence.

I noticed just now this fits the general attempt to define what Lutheran doctrine is: "For Lutherans, original sin is the "chief sin, a root and fountainhead of all actual sins". Lutherans teach that sinners, while capable of doing works that are outwardly "good", are not capable of doing works that satisfy God's justice. Every human thought and deed is infected with sin and sinful motives."

That's definitely just concupiscence. (the tendency of the flesh to want to sin)

e.g. -- "
Luther's view of sin reflects the variety of biblical terms used to describe evil. The essence of sin or unrighteousness for him (original sin) lies in lack of trust in God, which corrupts all of human nature. The desires turned against God, concupiscence, permeate human thinking and remain as sin after baptism."

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34343/chapter-abstract/327333265?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Here's a good question from my point of view: do most (or many) other churches that have a concept of 'original sin' see it as basically just (the same as) concupiscence, in actual practical terms?

Or put another way, do other churches think we'd have concupiscence at all, except that Adam broke faith and humans (or humans with accountable souls) were ejected from the Garden (from perfect walking with God).
Put another way, what are viewpoints about why we are subject to concupiscence, the baser urges, those of the flesh?

It makes very good sense why we are here in a life dealing with concupiscence -- in order to learn better. We have to learn that God's way is best, and learn to trust Him -- that's why were are here.... So, we sin, and then learn it's not good, and learn to repent and trust God instead. It's an invaluable lesson by experience.

So, I'm not asking why we have concupiscence.

I'm instead asking about denominational theories/doctrines about what is 'original sin', and what they think it means specifically.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A curious analogy just for a moment. If someone is drafted into military,
and their course is already layed out by the military for however long,
and without the one who is drafted planning to, ever, kill anyone,
but the military simply "owns" them, and sends them to drop bombs
on villages in asia, and people are killed by those bombs...
are they responsible for the deaths ?

That’s not the same scenario because people can actually choose whether or not they will drop the bombs. According to your theology can we act in violation of God’s plan? No, because in Calvinism God doesn’t only sees everything that happens He actually determines everything that happens. In your scenario the pilot still has the ability to act against the military’s plan whereas in Calvinism the person can’t because they have no choice, it’s already been predetermined by God. So if the person has no choice other than to do what God has determined and he does push the button then who is actually responsible for pushing the button? According to Calvinism God is the only one who had any choice in the matter.

 

[trophy33]

Well, Lutherans never seem to mention original sin in sermons (of which I've now hear about ~600+, nor in their confirmation classes (of which I've been involved as one of the teachers now along with several others and have reviewed the teaching book carefully, and the small catechism, etc.).

My impression is that the thing we do hear over and over in a Lutheran Church -- that we are all sinners, that everyone is a sinner -- concupiscence -- that's what 'original sin' would make a Lutheran think of usually: just concupiscence.

I noticed just now this fits the general attempt to define what Lutheran doctrine is: "For Lutherans, original sin is the "chief sin, a root and fountainhead of all actual sins". Lutherans teach that sinners, while capable of doing works that are outwardly "good", are not capable of doing works that satisfy God's justice. Every human thought and deed is infected with sin and sinful motives."

That's definitely just concupiscence. (the tendency of the flesh to want to sin)

e.g. -- "
Luther's view of sin reflects the variety of biblical terms used to describe evil. The essence of sin or unrighteousness for him (original sin) lies in lack of trust in God, which corrupts all of human nature. The desires turned against God, concupiscence, permeate human thinking and remain as sin after baptism."

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34343/chapter-abstract/327333265?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Here's a good question from my point of view: do most (or many) other churches that have a concept of 'original sin' see it as basically just (the same as) concupiscence, in actual practical terms?

Or put another way, do other churches think we'd have concupiscence at all, except that Adam broke faith and humans (or humans with accountable souls) were ejected from the Garden (from perfect walking with God).
Put another way, what are viewpoints about why we are subject to concupiscence, the baser urges, those of the flesh?

It makes very good sense why we are here in a life dealing with concupiscence -- in order to learn better. We have to learn that God's way is best, and learn to trust Him -- that's why were are here.... So, we sin, and then learn it's not good, and learn to repent and trust God instead. It's an invaluable lesson by experience.

So, I'm not asking why we have concupiscence.

I'm instead asking about denominational theories/doctrines about what is 'original sin', and what they think it means specifically.

Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.

Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.

Original sin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Martin Luther was still quite influenced by his Roman Catholicism he was learned in. What is currently preached in various local churches throughout various countries, in practice, I am unable to tell.

 

[Halbhh]

What is currently taught in various local churches throughout various countries, in practice, I am unable to tell.

Yes, my report from is from one church here in the U.S. and a number of Lutheran articles and posts online of course. But it seems for understanding what is 'original sin' for Lutherans relying on the small catechism, basically it amounts to simply concupiscence.

i.e. --

104. What is meant by original sin?
Original sin is the inborn wickedness, deep corruption, and evil disposition, of the human heart. ...
105. What is actual sin?
Actual sin is all evil thoughts and desires, words and acts, springing from original sin.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Luther's Small Catechism: Explained in Questions and Answers, by H. U. Sverdrup (Translated by H. A. Urseth).

 

[Jermayn]

Notice how you changed from what God knows will happen in the future to what "you" decided in the past?

The issue here is that if everything I do is determined before I exist, then I'm not the one who determined it. If I don't determine my own choices/actions, then I shouldn't be held responsible for them.

And if everything is determined before I exist, then it must have been determined by God, unless God merely knows what I will choose, in which case God is less powerful than the other person that did the actual determining--something akin to the Greek Fates.

That's a poor excuse for not searching the scriptures to find out what God tells us about Himself, imho.

But that's not what the bible says, is it? He condems those deserving of condemnation, which means He is not the source of those choices.

If we reject the concept of the Greek Fates, because the Fates are more powerful than God, and if we reject the idea that God would cause us to do something He abhors, the only option remaining is that the future choices of men are unknown to God before those men exist.

Your post is kind of all over the place, so I'll just tell you what I'm hearing and you tell me if I'm right.

First off, I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. You haven't figured out something that has been debated for literally thousands of years by scholars who have dedicated their lives to biblical study, so you need to get down off your high horse and realize your opinion, on this particular topic at least, is just that....your opinion.

Second, Greek Fates are not real. Not sure how they became a part of this conversation.

Lastly, I found it shocking that you would say God is not omniscient. Perhaps you would like to explain this passage: 1 John 3:20 (NIV): "If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

 

[Derf]

Your post is kind of all over the place, so I'll just tell you what I'm hearing and you tell me if I'm right.

First off, I don't appreciate the condescending attitude.

Ok

You haven't figured out something that has been debated for literally thousands of years by scholars who have dedicated their lives to biblical study,

Maybe I have, but certainly not by myself.

so you need to get down off your high horse and realize your opinion, on this particular topic at least, is just that....your opinion.

Sorry. Maybe you missed the "imho".

Second, Greek Fates are not real. Not sure how they became a part of this conversation.

Follow the logic. If God merely looks at the future to find out what's going to happen, then someone else determined it (before we existed, so we didn't determine anything). I don't agree with that view, but a lot of people hold to it.

Lastly, I found it shocking that you would say God is not omniscient. Perhaps you would like to explain this passage: 1 John 3:20 (NIV): "If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

I will explain that one if you will explain this one, written by the same author exactly one chapter earlier:
1 John 2:20 KJV — But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

John is obviously telling believers they are omniscient, right?