free will vs pre destination?

[Albion]

Thank everyone for posting. I have had a hard time with some calvinist in my church. The result has made me anti calvinist. However I do not fit entirely into the Arminian camp.

I have lots of things to ponder including the posts above. It seems to me this subject all to quickly gets polarized into Arminian/Calvinism war. IMO something best avoided as the two groups tend to talk past each other and get nowhere when in debate..

I think that's a good point, EE. And when people attack "Calvinism"--or refer to it--they normally are speaking ONLY of the Calvinistic view of Election and the Perseverance of the Saints. All the rest of what distinguishes Calvinism (the Reformed and Presbyterian churches) from other varieties of Christianity is ignored or (maybe) unknown by them.

 

[zaida]

as posted by me on another board - cut and pasted -

Ive really gotten a lot out of looking into this whole topic. From my reading Im seeing that there are many versions of pre-destination:

1)double pre destination where God from the beginning of time chose some for heaven, and others perish. Those chosen cannot refuse grace. Gods choices are Gods choices and we dont question why/how the choice is made. (Lots of possibility in this - God can, for example, come to a mulsim in his last moment of life, and give him the grace of Jesus, because hes elect? We cant judge who is "in" and who is "out" because we just don't know)

2)double pre destination, with a reason behind Gods choosing - God had foreknowledge as to who "would" accept his grace if offered, and those who are the elect are those whom God had this foreknowledge about. The damned are damned because God always knew they would refuse. (lots of ways to interpret this - the muslim on his death bed above, still a possibility, so can be very hopeful)

3)Catholic pre-destination - God has pre-destined that all are elect in Jesus (He came for all) but people then can make the choice to accept their salvation (or not) - grace is offered to everyone. Salvation by grace (all are elect) and choice (we must accept the grace.) Those who don't accept in this life are lost. Free will is very tied up with this, and its related to number 2 above, but more stress on Gods respect for free will. Its offered to all men, even those who never heard of Jesus can respond to the grace given them, by how they live their lives, but the grace is through Jesus. (lots of hopefulness in this - every [person ever born has the possibility of salvation, by responding, as she or she can, to whatever grace is given)

4)Universalist pre destination - God has elected every man and woman who has lived and eventually, everyone accepts this grace - nobody can ultimately refuse. Some universalists believe this acceptance can even happen after purification, after death, if one does not accept in life...(over all, total hope for all mankind in this)

5)Barthian pre destination (still working on understanding this) - Jesus was the "elect" - He came to take all sin onto himself, and all are elect in this choice. Many debates over whether this leads to universalism, or not. Barth said it didnt, necessarily, but many say that it does.

I would imagine, within reformed positions, people are on many ends of the spectrum, various positions?

 

[Albion]

A thought--

It may be correct to identify all those POVs as different versions of "Predestination" in a certain sense, but to do that only obscures the real issue on behalf of some technicalities. To describe the "Universalist" (#4) version or the "Catholic" version (#3), for example, as versions of Predestination is really to describe something opposed to Predestination but which uses the same word. There are only two, or possibly three, to consider (and none of them seems to have been correctly described below).

1. God chose those he wanted to save and those he did not.

2. God chose those he wanted to save and did not make a parallel decision in the case of the others (who, therefore, are left to be judged on their own merits which would mean that none of them would wind up being judged as righteous).

3. God chose his Elect to salvation but offers Free Will to all others to either accept or reject Him. This is almost a contradiction but is based upon the theory that God selects some for a certain role in life...and includes salvation with it.

In no case is foreknowledge an explanation for God's decision-making since that would mean, of necessity, that these people's own actions had a part in making God choose them.

as posted by me on another board - cut and pasted -

Ive really gotten a lot out of looking into this whole topic. From my reading Im seeing that there are many versions of pre-destination:

1)double pre destination where God from the beginning of time chose some for heaven, and others perish. Those chosen cannot refuse grace. Gods choices are Gods choices and we dont question why/how the choice is made. (Lots of possibility in this - God can, for example, come to a mulsim in his last moment of life, and give him the grace of Jesus, because hes elect? We cant judge who is "in" and who is "out" because we just don't know)

2)double pre destination, with a reason behind Gods choosing - God had foreknowledge as to who "would" accept his grace if offered, and those who are the elect are those whom God had this foreknowledge about. The damned are damned because God always knew they would refuse. (lots of ways to interpret this - the muslim on his death bed above, still a possibility, so can be very hopeful)

3)Catholic pre-destination - God has pre-destined that all are elect in Jesus (He came for all) but people then can make the choice to accept their salvation (or not) - grace is offered to everyone. Salvation by grace (all are elect) and choice (we must accept the grace.) Those who don't accept in this life are lost. Free will is very tied up with this, and its related to number 2 above, but more stress on Gods respect for free will. Its offered to all men, even those who never heard of Jesus can respond to the grace given them, by how they live their lives, but the grace is through Jesus. (lots of hopefulness in this - every [person ever born has the possibility of salvation, by responding, as she or she can, to whatever grace is given)

4)Universalist pre destination - God has elected every man and woman who has lived and eventually, everyone accepts this grace - nobody can ultimately refuse. Some universalists believe this acceptance can even happen after purification, after death, if one does not accept in life...(over all, total hope for all mankind in this)

5)Barthian pre destination (still working on understanding this) - Jesus was the "elect" - He came to take all sin onto himself, and all are elect in this choice. Many debates over whether this leads to universalism, or not. Barth said it didnt, necessarily, but many say that it does.

I would imagine, within reformed positions, people are on many ends of the spectrum, various positions?

 

[HonestTruth]

No such thing as free will. Otherwise abortion victims could easily walk out of the deadly situations they are in.

 

[ilovejesusandbeads]

I think this is one of those things that is too complicated for us to comprehend at this time. Personally, I read in the Bible that both exist, and God ultimately knows exactly what He's doing. There are aspects of God that we may never understand, and it's perfectly ok for us to admit that. Instead we argue over the either/or of every single aspect of the most complex being in the universe. I am not as educated as most of y'all. So maybe I'm completely wrong, but I don't think this subject should be so divisive.

 

[Albion]

I think this is one of those things that is too complicated for us to comprehend at this time. Personally, I read in the Bible that both exist, and God ultimately knows exactly what He's doing. There are aspects of God that we may never understand, and it's perfectly ok for us to admit that. Instead we argue over the either/or of every single aspect of the most complex being in the universe. I am not as educated as most of y'all. So maybe I'm completely wrong, but I don't think this subject should be so divisive.

I appreciate that last point you made. On the one hand, it is NOT something that should be so divisive. That's because we should live our lives in the same way, trying to do what's right, whether there is free will or if it's predestination instead.

But on the other hand, it makes a huge difference in how we think of our lives and our God while we live. The difference is between living in lifelong anxiety wondering if we've done enough to please God and if we'll die in his favor or out of it, AS OPPOSED TO living for God without weighing how much merit we're building up in his eyes but, rather, trusting him completely to know what he's doing.

 

[Norah63]

Life is our responsibility.
May we choose to use it in service to our soon coming King Jesus.

 

[lesliedellow]

I come down pretty strongly in the free will camp - but would like to see all the various views presented.

Blessings!

Both. The eternal destinies of all men were decreed by God before the creation of the world, and men will be held responsible for their sins, because those sins flowed from their own free and voluntary actions.