Free will

[Marysmuse]

I hope I do this quoting thing right!

Hi Mary, and welcome to the CF!

Well, yes it's certainly good practice to share Scripture whenever possible. I think that at times though, for those who have discussed these issues at length with one another, we're already familiar with which passages we're discussing, so may not take the time to post them so often. This is something to reconsider though, as it is always good to have the Scriptures here to read as well.

I didn't know much of the details of Calvinism vs. Arminianism either before I came to CF. Coming here kinda forced me to research them a bit, and I'm glad I did. I'd always been taught that Calvinism was some kind of evil cult or something. But guess what... it's not at all. In fact I believe it is a more accurate and deeper view of God's sovereignty, now that I understand it better. Now true, issues like these should not cause us to break fellowship. But at the same time, it is good to discuss them so that we can lean and force ourselves to ask the hard questions.

I agree, it's important to dig past the "easy" answers. That's why I'm asking here- to learn more about why people, including a friend of mine (Hi Dawn!) believe in pre-destination.

OK, but does that mean you are a Universalist? If not, then you know that some are indeed lost. The question is how and why. But even more important - how and why any of us are saved, since we are all deserving of eternal damnation.

No, I'm not a Universalist (and I only recently discovered what that belief was called. I'm afraid you'll have to bear with me a bit, though my Bible knowledge is pretty thorough, my knowledge of denominational divides, and of terminology, is far less so.

I believe "universal" salvation would be a violation of the very idea of free will. Universalist salvation would be God saying wholesale, "You don't want Me? Too bad. I know what's best for you, and you're coming to Heaven, like it or not."

While He DOES, absolutely, know and want our best, I believe the reason people do go to Hell is that they choose to reject His offer. The very fact that people do go to Hell at all is what makes me believe in free will. If God had His way, surely every single person would go to Heaven. The only reason I can think of God would "choose" me over someone else more... for lack of a better term, deserving (Please understand, NONE of us are deserving. I'm using the term relatively.), is free will. He chose me because I chose to accept the gift when it was offered. That was the sum total of my contribution to my own salvation- God did absolutely all the work. I am in NO WAY worthy or deserving of being in His presence, except by His power of salvation through Christ. I have no glory at all in making that choice. My part is minuscule. Without God's power, I am lost. And without His sovereign mercy, I wouldn't even have the opportunity to choose.

I simply believe that a just and holy God makes the same "offer" to everyone.

God, and God alone, provides for our salvation through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. I do not believe we can get to Heaven or reach God's standard, or even come close, by any effort of our own. Trying to do so seems rather like trying to reach up and touch the sky- it simply can not be done, it's so far out of our reach.

However, I do believe we choose to "get on the bus". Getting on the bus does not put us in control of it, nor does it convert our choice into the power it takes to run the bus. If we get on, and the driver doesn't start it and proceed to our destination, we will get nowhere, despite our desire and intention to journey. In the same way, God is the driver of our salvation, and nothing we can do can "earn" us a ticket to Heaven.

I would hope that we all look to the Scriptures to form doctrine instead of basing it on what some stranger said on a forum. In fact I don't recommend forums for new believers at all because anyone can slap on a Christian icon and teach all kinds of heresies. I see it every day. That's not exactly solid discipleship.

Agreed. Yikes. lol I see so many on forums who get their information from the 'net, and it frankly scares me. People believe Westboro is the "typical" fundamental Christian church. People believe what they read about medical topics, because of what someone posted on a forum... It's a frightening trend.
(I do tend to hang out on forums with a younger crowd, so it may be a trend among 'net-savvy youngsters rather than a larger societal wave.)

It also caught my eye that you mentioned God keeping His covenants. You may be very surprised to learn that that's actually a big part of Reformed theology.

Well, no, it doesn't suprise me, because I'm not familiar with Reformed theology. I obviously have some learning to do! (and that's why I'm here.)

Well, first of all, Calvinism never suggests that we know who is the elect and who is not. If your sister is not currently a believer, you cannot EVER just assume that she is not elect. You don't know. I also urge you to consider God's whole character, not just that He is Love. He is also Holy and Just. And we are fallen creatures, unworthy of entering into His presence. So, that He saves any of us at all is incredible grace and love. It is not something any of us deserves on our own.

My sister was saved when we were children. She was my first role model, and the first to read Bible stories to me. (she's 12 years older than I am.) I am as sure of her salvation as we can be of a choice made by another person. Through tragic life circumstances, she grew very angry with God, and turned away from the church, and from Him. I do believe her struggles indicate He has not let her go, and I have been praying for a softening of her heart for getting on to 20 years.

I do believe God is just, first and foremost. The angels at the throne sing "Holy, Holy, Holy".

To clarify what I believe about God:
I believe God is the ultimate good. He is the definition of justice and His love is perfect as well. Only God can love every single individual, because only by being perfectly just and all-knowing can He understand both the depth of our depravity and the pain of our wounds. He can look upon His broken children with compassion, and still hold us accountable for our sin, because He is holy.

The best definition I've heard is God is light. He can no more tolerate sin in His presence than light can tolerate darkness. The two are completely incompatable. Since God is the ultimate good, anything contrary to His will is, by nature, not good. I don't believe God rejects sin out of some ego-trip insistence on absolute control. I believe God rejects sin because it is, by its very nature, harmful.

A lot of people who have never really researched the Reformed doctrines of grace tend to assume that Calvinists are all just a bunch of elitist kooks or something. But I encourage you to reserve judgment on that until you have researched the actual doctrines for yourself, if you feel so inclined to. I highly recommend RC Sproul's "Chosen by God". It's a light overview of and a fairly quick read. Whether you agree with it or not in the end, at least you can then have a better understanding of it.

Thanks for the book suggestion, I'll look into that. I'm finding out I don't know how much I don't know... lol

Rejoicing in the day,
-Mary

 

[Nadiine]

Hi sis! Great to see you too! I'm finally able to stay logged in to CF after all this time, yay!! I still cannot see many of the graphics people put in posts and in my guestbook most of the time. But at least I'm not getting booted off all the time anymore.


I just wanted to pick up on this part of your post.
(And I'm not gonna fix yer spellings of Calvinist/ism either, cuz it gave me a giggle. )

*croaking*

You can giggle, I'll crawl away in sheer embarrassment. :o
oh dear, that's really bad.
(in some defense. . I didn't read my post over after I posted)

Anyway, you make a good point about hyper Calvinism. Many confuse it with Calvinism, when in fact it is absolutely NOT Calvinism or even just a slight degree off. It is legalistic and utterly lacking in grace. Unfortunately, because it is so often confused with Calvinism, many assume the worst and never look deeper into the doctrines. And yep, Johnny Mac is one of us! LOL. Actually when I first started studying the doctrines, I found his overviews very helpful.

Ya I can see why people would attack it if they were pushing hyper CALVINISM.
(checks dictionary)
lol

So glad you aren't getting booted anymore too! finally.
I was losing my connection for a few days about 2 wks ago, but
it's all cleared up now too.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I'm always confused by those who say that both Calvinism and Arminianism have a possibility of being true at the same time and at the same sense. If you say this either you are a)ignorant or b) you love contradicting yourself or love paradoxes.

Calvinism and Arminianism are fundamentally opposed each other at its very essence. I will show this in the very first and one of the most important points. Each views view of sin.

Calvinism Framework:

Total Depravity: No one has any possibility of choosing God on their own because we are so dead in our sin. God must come into the picture and intervene so that he changes our will so that we choose God willingly.

Arminian Framework:

Total depravity: The holy spirit enables all humans to have the ability to choose God. Ultimately it's up to us to choose God, but God constantly call us to all to him.

How then can anyone say that they both can be true?

 

[Rhamiel]

I'm always confused by those who say that both Calvinism and Arminianism have a possibility of being true at the same time and at the same sense. If you say this either you are a)ignorant or b) you love contradicting yourself or love paradoxes.

Calvinism and Arminianism are fundamentally opposed each other at its very essence. I will show this in the very first and one of the most important points. Each views view of sin.

Calvinism Framework:

Total Depravity: No one has any possibility of choosing God on their own because we are so dead in our sin. God must come into the picture and intervene so that he changes our will so that we choose God willingly.

Arminian Framework:

Total depravity: The holy spirit enables all humans to have the ability to choose God. Ultimately it's up to us to choose God, but God constantly call us to all to him.

How then can anyone say that they both can be true?

well that happens when people downplay how extream Calvinism really is
if you look at anything that talks about Gods forknowledge as "being kinda Calvinist" then all of Christianity will look Calvinistic lol

 

[ReformedChapin]

well that happens when people downplay how extream Calvinism really is
if you look at anything that talks about Gods forknowledge as "being kinda Calvinist" then all of Christianity will look Calvinistic lol

huh?

What do you mean extreme? You mean Full Glory to God for our salvation or damnation? God always gets all the glory, that's nothing but plain Gospel itself.

 

[Rhamiel]

that God created some memebers of mankind for the sole purpose of burning in hell for ever as a means of showing His Justice
i would call that an extreamist view

 

[ReformedChapin]

that God created some memebers of mankind for the sole purpose of burning in hell for ever as a means of showing His Justice
i would call that an extreamist view

You still have the same problem in the Roman Catholic View or Arminian view. God created people well knowing that in the future they would go to hell. He would have been better if he didn't make them at all and spare them the agony.

In either case, using your own logic you can't get God off the hook. You are just trying to throw in an extra variable "free will" to excuse the fact that God in any orthodox position is still creating people fully knowing that they will go to hell.

 

[Rhamiel]

You still have the same problem in the Roman Catholic View or Arminian view. God created people well knowing that in the future they would go to hell. He would have been better if he didn't make them at all and spare them the agony.

In either case, using your own logic you can't get God off the hook. You are just trying to throw in an extra variable "free will" to excuse the fact that God in any orthodox position is still creating people fully knowing that they will go to hell.

Free will makes a big differance, it makes God responsible for Salvation and man responsible for damnation, that is a substantial differance from Calvinism

 

[ReformedChapin]

Free will makes a big differance, it makes God responsible for Salvation and man responsible for damnation, that is a substantial differance from Calvinism

Free will is nothing but man made dogma. God can choose to place the responsibility for anything on anyone. Scripture is clear, God is fully in control and man is fully responsible, not because of our free will but because we choose our actions even if they are directed from above.

This is what man refuses to accept even in Christian circles. God is fully in control and do what his creation what he wants.

 

[Rhamiel]

This is what man refuses to accept even in Christian circles. God is fully in control and do what his creation what he wants.

then He does not want to save everyone?

 

[MrJim]

 

[Ryft]

I am deeply disturbed at how few actual Scriptures I've seen referenced in 8 pages of discussion.

Do not be troubled, Mary. I assure you, it is not out of some abdication of Scriptures. As someone already suggested earlier, it is simply because most of the participants are usually familiar with the subject and the relevant scriptural passages already and happily dive right into the issue. If someone is not already familiar—like you, for example—they need only mention something and people will be quick to pull them out. But you can be certain that practically all those who enjoy engaging the Calvinism vs. Arminianism discussion are every bit as passionate about God and his Holy Scriptures as you are.

Pre-destination does not make sense to me in light of the verse that says he "is not willing that even one should be lost".

That is from 2 Peter 3:9 and it says that God is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." There are some basic questions you need to ask yourself when trying to understand this passage rightly, not the least of which is, "Who is being referred to here?" Predestination makes absolutely perfect sense when you understand who Peter is talking about.

Your immediate instinct, probably, is to believe that it means literally everyone, i.e., all mankind without discrimination. That is an especially tempting instinct when this verse becomes isolated from the rest of the passage (and the letter itself, and the letter which preceded it), as some kind of independent proof-text standing alone. But the passage itself is clear about who is being referred to in this ninth verse.

First of all, the complete verse reads: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." That is the vital key so many people overlook: "with you." Peter has a specific group of hearers. The "anyone" and "everyone" that Peter is describing here is directly related to the "you" he is writing to. That direct relationship is important to note. Consider the following illustration.

Imagine that you have called a staff meeting. As you stand looking over the people gathered in the board room, you announce, "We cannot afford to have anyone miss this information, so before I get to what I have to tell you, I need to know if everyone is here." Obviously you are not asking if all six billion people on the planet are present in the board room; and you are certainly not asking if all people who have existed, do exist, and will ever exist are present. The "anyone" and "everyone" are directly related to the "you" being addressed: your staff members.

The Lord is patient with you, Peter said. Of all you that the Lord is patient with, he does not want "anyone" to perish. Of all you that the Lord is patient with, he wants "everyone" to come to repentance. So who is this "you" Peter is addressing? Is his address directed at all mankind?

Back up to the first verse. We find Peter saying, "My friends, this is now my second letter to you." So the "you" being addressed is not all mankind without discrimination but rather those who Peter considers "friends" that he has already written to once before. Moreover, the beginning of the letter (2 Peter 1:1) is addressed even more clearly still: Peter is writing "to those who, through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, have received a faith as precious as ours." Obviously what Peter has to say is not addressed to all mankind because not all mankind has received the faith of the apostles. He is addressing the faithful flock of Christ. Peter had a specific mission with a specific message.

But it is important to remember that this message of his in 2 Peter 3:9 is being addressed to friends he has written to before. So what will we find out about these people from that first letter of his? We will find out that they are (1 Peter 1:1) "God's elect . . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood." That is who God is patient with in 2 Peter 3:9, who he will not have perish but have come to repentance. God is patient with you, my friends, to whom I have written before, who have received the faith of the apostles, God's elect, chosen by the Father through the Spirit for the Son. Every one of you will be redeemed.

This understanding gains even further support still when you read elsewhere in the Scriptures that God has a select remnant of Israel chosen by grace and a select number of Gentiles. God is not slow in keeping his promise; he is being patient, waiting until that full number of God's chosen has been fulfilled. In other words, the Day of the Lord will not come until all those he has chosen have been born and redeemed. God's people must not be impatient with God and his timetable, but faithful and praising the glory of his plan set from eternity, humbled and giving thanks to his incomprehensible mercy. Not only does predestination make sense, it is the only thing that does.

Under an Arminian understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very poor sense because it holds that God's plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet innumerable billions have, and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet innumerable billions have not, and will not. The desire of sinful man (choices) is more important to God than his own sovereign glory.

Under a Reformed understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes perfect sense—within the context of that verse itself, within the context of the letter overall, within the context of that letter and the one before it, within the context of letters written by other apostles, etc. God's own sovereign glory is more important to God than the desire of sinful man (choices). As John Piper said, for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory, "he would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry . . . Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable?"

The only reason I can think of God would choose me over someone else [...] is free will. He chose me because I chose to accept the gift when it was offered.

To say that God chose you because you chose Christ is completely backwards from Scripture. There are three passages I want you to prayerfully consider and study (including the entire chapter they come from).

The first is John 6:37 which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." What you said above would reverse that: all who will come to me the Father gives me.

The second is John 10:26 which says, "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." What you said above would reverse that: you are not my sheep because you do not believe.

The third is Acts 13:48 which says, "all who were appointed for eternal life believed." What you said above would reverse that: all who believed were appointed for eternal life.

You might also prayerfully consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14: "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

And there are so many more, so very many more, but I am going to leave it at this for now.


SOME POINTS TO CONTEMPLATE:

"Statements like these seem to imply that my view of God is somehow less valid than yours."

Is it impossible for you to be wrong? Are you infallible? Of course not. So pause and think about what that means. It means that it's possible for your view of God, in one respect or another, to be less valid than someone else's—and that is perfectly all right! I fully embrace the idea that my view of God can be less valid than someone else's, and if they can prove it to me through the Word, then all praise to God for the light they brought to my world. As the Reformed tradition proclaims, Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (which in English means, "The church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God").


"The same God who allowed free-will to happen in the Garden is the same God who allows people to choose hell."

If God knew who would choose faith, then he also knew who wouldn't. So the question for you to contemplate is this: "If God does not want anyone at all to perish, why would he create those he KNEW would perish? If he created them despite knowing they would perish, that means their perishing was part of his plan; i.e., he did will that some perish."


"If God chose me, and not my sister, how can I love him?"

Do you believe it is unfair for God to choose one and not the other? That is a terrible thing to believe, and I will tell you why: because it denies the damnable immorality of sin. If sin is horrifically reprehensible and deserving of God's wrath, then the sinner's condemnation is entirely fair and just. Both you and your sister, like every human being, are sinners who deserves the fires of hell. That is the justice of a Holy God toward our manifold sin which spits in his face. You are a sinner deserving hellfire. So is your sister. Why should you love God?

Because he plucked you from the clutches of damnation. That's why. Since God would have been just in delivering all mankind over to destruction and hellfire, the fact that he saves any at all is a testimony to his unspeakable and glorious mercy. Is that not infinite reason to love him forever?

"What about my sister?" Okay, what about her? Are you willing to suggest that sinners 'deserve' to have God choose them? To suggest that God should love the reprobate is to suggest that there is something inherently adorable to God in the reprobate, such that he can love them outside the context of Christ. Is this to be found in Scripture? I should like to know where.

 

[ReformedChapin]

then He does not want to save everyone?

If he wanted that he would have done it. He could have easily created a system or a world where everyone could believe him or not allowed the fall to happen. This whole problem could have been avoided by not placing the tree in genesis.

 

[edie19]

Ryft - just want to say great job - clear, concise, well thought out explanation - and (IMO) correct

 

[Rhamiel]

Do you believe it is unfair for God to choose one and not the other? That is a terrible thing to believe, and I will tell you why: because it denies the damnable immorality of sin. If sin is horrifically reprehensible and deserving of God's wrath, then the sinner's condemnation is entirely fair and just. Both you and your sister, like every human being, are sinners who deserves the fires of hell. That is the justice of a Holy God toward our manifold sin which spits in his face. You are a sinner deserving hellfire. So is your sister. Why should you love God?

well that is like saying God hates wet people, and all mankind has been born in the ocean because Adam and Eve decided to jump in.

 

[Rhamiel]

If he wanted that he would have done it. He could have easily created a system or a world where everyone could believe him or not allowed the fall to happen. This whole problem could have been avoided by not placing the tree in genesis.

But there was a tree and the Fall was allowed to take place because God loves freedom, it is not really love if we do not have a choice, I do not worship a god that feels the need to force himself on people

 

[Nadiine]

But there was a tree and the Fall was allowed to take place because God loves freedom, it is not really love if we do not have a choice, I do not worship a god that feels the need to force himself on people

Hi Rhamiel =)

I tend to think that God visiting Paul and blinding him with light
is a type of force,
and Jonah who God chased down was a type of force.

I think our freedom is limited and God can overrule us if He
sees fit.
In another similar thread to this, someone said the right word isn't
"choice" but "response". We have opportunity to respond to
God's calling/drawing and message, or to not respond.

But that it isn't our choice as if we would choose God or seek Him
on our own becuz we're told we won't. God has to do ALL the work;
even to providing a level of faith we can't have.

So to say it's "choice", tends to make it sound like it's
"my idea to find God & accept Him", making Him subject to us.
That's my problem w/ choice, it puts us in the drivers seat when
we can do NOTHING without God

 

[Nadiine]

Ryft

Under an Arminian understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very poor sense because it holds that God's plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet innumerable billions have, and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet innumerable billions have not, and will not. The desire of sinful man (choices) is more important to God than his own sovereign glory.

I tend to agree w/ your points (this is what RC Sproul and John
MacArthur note, that alot of the verses we use to promote
Arminianism are actually to or about the elect - not the
entire world)

The only thing that confuses me about this paragraph is that I think
God has different types of will. He has a permissive will where He
allows things He dislikes.
God also wishes that none of us would sin, but that is 'thwarted' becuz
we still do and will continue to.

 

[ReformedChapin]

But there was a tree and the Fall was allowed to take place because God loves freedom, it is not really love if we do not have a choice, I do not worship a god that feels the need to force himself on people

Scriptural reference to the fact that God loves freedom....k thanks.

Either way your framework of love doesn't work. Love under the free will concept is nothing but aribitraness. We randomly choose to love God because we randomly choose him. What kind of love of is this? We get lucky so we lucky to love God. Unlike the biblical concept love of God, in which he loved us first so that we may love him!

 

[Rhamiel]

Scriptural reference to the fact that God loves freedom....k thanks.

Either way your framework of love doesn't work. Love under the free will concept is nothing but aribitraness. We randomly choose to love God because we randomly choose him. What kind of love of is this? We get lucky so we lucky to love God. Unlike the biblical concept love of God, in which he loved us first so that we may love him!

Bible referance for Gods love of freedom? ok, the Tree of Knowledge in Eden, God gave mankind the freedom to follow His rules or to leave, that is how we were created! our freedom has been hurt by the presance of sin, but restored by His Grace