If God is sovereign, then predestination is logical

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

My argument also comes to the conclusion of divine election. But it's grounded in the idea of a totally sovereign God. Which is a traditional Christian belief.

You might want to give consideration to what the word "sovereign" means. As far as I understand it and as far as it is seen in the Bible it is not about making people do things, but commanding them to do things and expecting it to happen.

The first instance tends to fit with a Calvinist idea of God, but not with the Biblical idea of sovereignty, which is why it causes problems.

I see God as someone who commands his people and expects them to follow his commands. He is not someone who makes people do things any more than King David did.

 

[Oldmantook]

You might want to give consideration to what the word "sovereign" means. As far as I understand it and as far as it is seen in the Bible it is not about making people do things, but commanding them to do things and expecting it to happen.

The first instance tends to fit with a Calvinist idea of God, but not with the Biblical idea of sovereignty, which is why it causes problems.

I see God as someone who commands his people and expects them to follow his commands. He is not someone who makes people do things any more than King David did.

Problem is you can't compare God who is omnipotent with King David who was not omnipotent. What God desires, He accomplishes, which is why He is sovereign. God can draw a person to himself, even if it is not his/her wish to do so. The Apostle Paul's conversion is a good example of this.

 

[bling]

I'll state right off that I don't believe in any supernatural god. I'm posting this to point out what I see as a logical inconsistency in Christianity. The Judeo-Christian tradition claims the absolute sovereignty of God. There are numerous OT and NT verses to support this idea.. A small sampling:

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;
Daniel 4:35

The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.
Psalm 103:19

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33

Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?
Lamentations 3:37

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Romans 11:36

The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,
Isaiah 14:24

So, if God is the ultimate sovereign, and has a grand plan for the universe, then wouldn't that include who becomes a Christian and who doesn't? There are NT passages that appear to support predestination. Several more samples:

Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Ephesians 1:4

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 6:65

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:29

If these passages are true, can anyone really choose to accept Jesus? And even if you believe you made the choice of your own free will, how can you know it wasn't God directing your will subconsciously? (Not to mention that another logical implication of predestination is that evangelization is useless.)

BTW, I'm not arguing for Calvinism. Strict 5 Point "TULIP" Calvinism grounds predestination in man's Total Depravity (the T in TULIP.) Which says that humans are so depraved by sin that they're unable to make a righteous decision to accept Jesus of their own free will. It's only by God's election that anyone becomes a Christian. This is a bleak and pessimistic view of human nature and has never been well accepted by most Christians. My argument also comes to the conclusion of divine election. But it's grounded in the idea of a totally sovereign God. Which is a traditional Christian belief.

You show lots of great logic and see a huge problem with many people calling themselves Christians poor logic.

I am not sure how you are defining: “absolute sovereignty of God”, but most Christians I have talked with seem to agree: “God has the ability and power to allow individuals to have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to make at least one autonomous free will choice.” This could be for a very limited amount of time.

I do not agree with the doctrine as it is written of “total depravity”, but do believe all mature adults have and will sin and even if they have the power within to keep from any one sin at a particular time they cannot keep from all sins at all times, with just their personal ability.

God is really arranging the world and each mature adult individual (which can be 99.9% of all choices) to be brought to their senses (maybe multiple times) by their own actions to make the one autonomous free will choice.

Sinful man would not come to God out of Love for God, but for purely unrighteous selfish reasons. If sinful man was really macho, he would hang in there as a good soldier, be willing to pay the piper, take the punishment he fully deserves and not bother his Father with undeserving requests. It is only the wimps, those who give up and those who surrender to the enemy they hate, while they still hate God, with only an unrealistic hope (faith) that God’s Love is great enough to give them undeserved charity and so they are just willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from their enemy.

That willingness to just accept pure undeserving charity from God their enemy allows God to shower them with unbelievable wonderful gifts. If they truly accept those gifts which includes forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt created by sin, automatically results in an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) which means they automatically Love God back after He first Loved us by forgiving us. Jesus taught us this truism which we see around us “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” Luke 7.

The verses you quote do not address this one possible free will choice. They are talking about other choices which come after the one choice they made.

 

[public hermit]

If these passages are true, can anyone really choose to accept Jesus? And even if you believe you made the choice of your own free will, how can you know it wasn't God directing your will subconsciously? (Not to mention that another logical implication of predestination is that evangelization is useless.)

What about compatibilism? Is it not possible that divine sovereignty and human free will are somehow compatible, but compatible in ways we may not understand? I think there is some precedence for philosophical compatibilism in Kant. From the perspective of the phenomena we experience making choices and wanting that which we choose, but from the perspective of the noumena things are clicking along according to the demands of causal influence. Neither one need to be less real, only different aspects of the same reality. Besides, what is free will except the ability to want that which one chooses? We know that much obtains. The other side of the equation is a bit of a mystery. That's true whether God exists or not.

 

[Kaon]

I'll state right off that I don't believe in any supernatural god. I'm posting this to point out what I see as a logical inconsistency in Christianity. The Judeo-Christian tradition claims the absolute sovereignty of God. There are numerous OT and NT verses to support this idea.. A small sampling:

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;
Daniel 4:35

The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.
Psalm 103:19

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33

Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?
Lamentations 3:37

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Romans 11:36

The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,
Isaiah 14:24

So, if God is the ultimate sovereign, and has a grand plan for the universe, then wouldn't that include who becomes a Christian and who doesn't? There are NT passages that appear to support predestination. Several more samples:

Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Ephesians 1:4

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 6:65

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:29

If these passages are true, can anyone really choose to accept Jesus?

No. There are a finite number of entities that are part of the election - and they have been chosen since before the creation of this plane of existence and the heavens.

And even if you believe you made the choice of your own free will, how can you know it wasn't God directing your will subconsciously? (Not to mention that another logical implication of predestination is that evangelization is useless.)

No one has free will, prophecy is an example of this. No created being has free will, only holy beings have free will gives 100% of their will to the Most High - which makes them holy in the first place.

BTW, I'm not arguing for Calvinism. Strict 5 Point "TULIP" Calvinism grounds predestination in man's Total Depravity (the T in TULIP.) Which says that humans are so depraved by sin that they're unable to make a righteous decision to accept Jesus of their own free will. It's only by God's election that anyone becomes a Christian.

Yes, but I don't personally believe in total depravity. Some people actually come into this plane of existence relatively holy - as in, they sin very little and they have always had a fully operational understanding of who they are, and who the Most High is.

 

[ChetSinger]

If these passages are true, can anyone really choose to accept Jesus? And even if you believe you made the choice of your own free will, how can you know it wasn't God directing your will subconsciously? (Not to mention that another logical implication of predestination is that evangelization is useless.)

From what I've read the ancients didn't worry about any of this. Afaik these conundrums are products of Calvinism.

Yes, God is sovereign; the forces of evil have nothing on Him. He's also a God of love, and anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be resurrected. Anyone. That includes you and me. Jesus himself said "it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom". He actually wants to enjoy our company while sharing his house with us forever. Go figure.

Some people God chooses, by drawing them to Jesus. And there are others who were never chosen who will also be resurrected, as described in Matthew 25:31-46. Just because someone isn't chosen doesn't mean they're damned.

Why evangelize? Because Jesus told us to.

 

[Silmarien]

My argument is simply about logical coherence. Believing that God is fully in control is logically inconsistent with believing that one can choose to accept Jesus or not. Here's a somewhat different example: I read in our municipal newsletter a while back about a local church sponsoring a career program for young teenagers. Different professionals gave presentations on what their occupations were like, what training was required, and so forth. One girl was quoted as saying that she really enjoyed it because it will "help me find God's plan for my life." I've heard that expression before. I'm sure I've seen in these forums. But isn't it illogical? If God has a plan for your life, then it's inevitable that it will happen. Why would you need someone's help to find it? Isn't it an article of faith for Christians that God does indeed have a plan--both for our lives and for the universe? And if God is truly sovereign in all things, then by logical extension, that plan must include who is a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, a non-believer, or anything else. Because nothing can occur that isn't in accord with what God has ordained. God's will be done. Do you see my point?

One of my concerns with this whole train of thought is that it can just as easily be used against any atheistic determinist. Instead of asking if Christians are being illogical in trying to figure out what God's plans for their lives are, we can ask whether a determinist is being illogical in trying to make any plans whatsoever. If you believe that your actions are predetermined by past events, psychological states outside of your control, and the laws of physics, then why try to figure anything out? Things are just inevitable.

The same types of responses (and more) are available to the theist as to the atheist. For the simplest possibility, the theist can say that even in trying to figure out God's plan for their life, they are acting in accordance with his sovereign will, since if he didn't mean for them to try to figure things out, they wouldn't be doing so. I've seen this argument used by atheistic determinists, and I think it's ridiculous, but if a Christian really wants to be a non-compatibilist about sovereignty and free will, the same type of argument is available.

That said, I think what you're doing is forcing one particular view of sovereignty to fit one particular view of free will, and declaring the result logically impossible without engaging with alternative ways to approach the question. I personally don't adhere to this sort of "puppet master" take on sovereignty--I think we are given a significant degree of freedom to act, but that God will turn what is done to his own ends. I don't think this is a particularly low view of sovereignty, but those who disagree have a variety of forms of compatibilism available to them. (I know Aquinas has some form of it, though I haven't looked into it.)

And re evangelism: Maybe superfluous is a better term than useless. I can see that there may be some benefit to the evangelist. Learning how to share the gospel could strengthen his/her own faith. And provide some sense of satisfaction that he/she is doing good works. But if it's in God's plan that one accepts Jesus, then God will make it happen with or without evangelization.

Honestly, I think that to at least a certain extent, the point behind evangelism is relationship. It's more of a commercial industry these days than it was traditionally, but you still hear stories about people calling up professional apologists to share their conversion stories. The one time I had someone try to share the Gospel with me, I had just started going to church and did need that sort of discussion, so... conclusive? No. Superfluous? Not really, either.

 

[jayem]

One of my concerns with this whole train of thought is that it can just as easily be used against any atheistic determinist. Instead of asking if Christians are being illogical in trying to figure out what God's plans for their lives are, we can ask whether a determinist is being illogical in trying to make any plans whatsoever. If you believe that your actions are predetermined by past events, psychological states outside of your control, and the laws of physics, then why try to figure anything out? Things are just inevitable.

Not exactly. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I believe the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. And I believe that our decisions and actions are solely the products of neural circuitry in our brains. I am a determinist in that if our brains are in exactly the same state at 2 different times, we will make exactly the same decision both times. However, the healthy brain is a highly dynamic organ. Neuronal pathways that generate our thoughts, memories, and emotions are constant forming and reforming--even during sleep. The chance that a physiologically normal brain will be in exactly the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly low. So this creates the impression that we have free will to make decisions and plans, and to act on them. But it's a relative free will. It's a free will for all practical purposes. Though it's not absolute.

I personally don't adhere to this sort of "puppet master" take on sovereignty--I think we are given a significant degree of freedom to act, but that God will turn what is done to his own ends.

I'm basing my take on sovereignty on the Bible. Specifically, the plain meaning of passages translated into English. A couple of which I quoted in the OP where Jesus says no one comes to him unless he's been called by the Father, or it's been granted to him. If these are true, then no one really makes a free will decision to accept Jesus. God--as a sovereign entity--has made that decision for him. And I'll ask again how anyone who thinks he came to Jesus by his own choice can really know that. Is it not possible that God directed his will?

 

[Silmarien]

Not exactly. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I believe the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. And I believe that our decisions and actions are solely the products of neural circuitry in our brains. I am a determinist in that if our brains are in exactly the same state at 2 different times, we will make exactly the same decision both times. However, the healthy brain is a highly dynamic organ. Neuronal pathways that generate our thoughts, memories, and emotions are constant forming and reforming--even during sleep. The chance that a physiologically normal brain will be in exactly the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly low. So this creates the impression that we have free will to make decisions and plans, and to act on them. But it's a relative free will. It's a free will for all practical purposes. Though it's not absolute.

That sounds identical to the situation that holds under your version of sovereignty. We have the impression that we have free will to make decisions and plans and to act on them, even if it's relative and not absolute.

Unless you believe that Christians lack the subjective experience of having free will, I don't see where the difference lies. What's the distinction between saying that our decisions and actions are solely the products of neural circuitry and saying that they're solely the product of divine sovereignty?

I'm basing my take on sovereignty on the Bible. Specifically, the plain meaning of passages translated into English. A couple of which I quoted in the OP where Jesus says no one comes to him unless he's been called by the Father, or it's been granted to him. If these are true, then no one really makes a free will decision to accept Jesus. God--as a sovereign entity--has made that decision for him. And I'll ask again how anyone who thinks he came to Jesus by his own choice can really know that. Is it not possible that God directed his will?

I agree with this part. Like I said earlier, I don't think my conversion was an entirely free choice. I was drawn, and I responded. In the negative, but very few of the things that finally led to that changing were in my hands.

I don't think this in any way implies the puppet-master view of sovereignty, where you don't have to try to figure anything out because God has decided everything in advance and your life will follow the course he predestined with or without your cooperation.

Really, I don't know how tenable that sort of biblical interpretation would be, given how present the theme of rebellion is throughout Scripture.

 

[jayem]

Unless you believe that Christians lack the subjective experience of having free will, I don't see where the difference lies. What's the distinction between saying that our decisions and actions are solely the products of neural circuitry and saying that they're solely the product of divine sovereignty?

One is a natural phenomenon. Which is massively complex and incompletely understood. But is amenable to scientific study. And like any other biological process, it follows the laws of nature. The other is a supposedly supernatural phenomenon. Which, by definition, is outside the realm of scientific study, and is independent of the laws of nature.

As an example, the former is like explaining thunderstorms as the result of warm, humid air at lower levels colliding with cold., dry air at upper levels. And the latter is like explaining thunderstorms as the result of Zeus being angry.

 

[zippy2006]

One is a natural phenomenon. Which is massively complex and incompletely understood. But is amenable to scientific study. And like any other biological process, it follows the laws of nature. The other is a supposedly supernatural phenomenon. Which, by definition, is outside the realm of scientific study, and is independent of the laws of nature.

As an example, the former is like explaining thunderstorms as the result of warm, humid air at lower levels colliding with cold., dry air at upper levels. And the latter is like explaining thunderstorms as the result of Zeus being angry.

If we're going to get wet either way, what's the difference? If naturalism and theological determinism both prohibit free will, then why does it matter to go on and point out that one is supernatural?

 

[Silmarien]

One is a natural phenomenon. Which is massively complex and incompletely understood. But is amenable to scientific study. And like any other biological process, it follows the laws of nature. The other is a supposedly supernatural phenomenon. Which, by definition, is outside the realm of scientific study, and is independent of the laws of nature.

As an example, the former is like explaining thunderstorms as the result of warm, humid air at lower levels colliding with cold., dry air at upper levels. And the latter is like explaining thunderstorms as the result of Zeus being angry.

Zippy beat me to it, but how is that at all relevant?

Whether something is a natural phenomenon or a supernatural phenomenon, assuming the distinction is even valid, doesn't seem to have much of an impact on whether our actions are free or not. From the perspective of the thunderstorm, it doesn't matter whether it's the result of meteorological conditions or Zeus being angry. It has no free will, and presumably not even the subjective impression of being free to act.

I still fail to see the practical difference between our acts being determined solely by neural circuitry and solely by divine sovereignty. The fact that the former is a natural phenomenon that is amenable to scientific study doesn't make it more objectively free. I'd actually think it's less free because of that.

 

[jayem]

If we're going to get wet either way, what's the difference? If naturalism and theological determinism both prohibit free will, then why does it matter to go on and point out that one is supernatural?

Because a natural phenomenon is predictable. It follows the laws of nature. A naturalistic explanation has practical, real-world utility. When you know the mechanics and the conditions under which a natural event will occur, you can possibly control or manipulate it. Or at least steps to avoid getting wet. A supernatural phenomenon suspends, or violates the laws of nature. Anything can happen, at any time, under any circumstance. Meaning confident predictions are impossible, and it can’t be controlled or manipulated. It has no real-world practicality or utility. You can’t avoid getting drenched.

But this is getting off-topic.

 

[Silmarien]

Because a natural phenomenon is predictable. It follows the laws of nature. A naturalistic explanation has practical, real-world utility. When you know the mechanics and the conditions under which a natural event will occur, you can possibly control or manipulate it. Or at least steps to avoid getting wet. A supernatural phenomenon suspends, or violates the laws of nature. Anything can happen, at any time, under any circumstance. Meaning confident predictions are impossible, and it can’t be controlled or manipulated. It has no real-world practicality or utility. You can’t avoid getting drenched.

But this is getting off-topic.

I don't think it's off topic. I actually think it is the topic.

A couple of points:

1) Divine providence is a Christian doctrine also, not just divine sovereignty. With the possible exception of some radical voluntarists, people don't think that God is going to just play around with your mental circuitry because he has the power to do so.

2) Naturalism is no where near as secure as you're claiming, given some of the problems that spring from Hume. Just because the world seems to act according to natural laws today, how do you know it will continue to do so tomorrow? You take for granted that it will because our brains are effectively programmed to do so, but this means that you're in no surer a position than the theist who balances divine sovereignty and divine providence.

(In fact, I think you're in a considerably more precarious position than the theist over this, given that natural law has no grounding under naturalism--that is a very big part of why I'm not a naturalist.)

 

[zippy2006]

Because a natural phenomenon is predictable. It follows the laws of nature. A naturalistic explanation has practical, real-world utility. When you know the mechanics and the conditions under which a natural event will occur, you can possibly control or manipulate it. Or at least steps to avoid getting wet. A supernatural phenomenon suspends, or violates the laws of nature. Anything can happen, at any time, under any circumstance. Meaning confident predictions are impossible, and it can’t be controlled or manipulated. It has no real-world practicality or utility. You can’t avoid getting drenched.

But this is getting off-topic.

I'm not sure it's off-topic either, but I'm still trying to figure out your point in the OP. You believe in naturalism which you believe precludes free will. Theological determinists believe divine sovereignty precludes free will. Note that the exact same conclusion has been reached. The conclusion that free will does not exist doesn't suddenly have "practical, real-world utility" on naturalism and not on supernaturalism. It's the exact same conclusion with the exact same utility, and neither the naturalist nor the theological determinist can "control or manipulate" the fact that free will does not exist to "avoid getting wet." There's really no difference here that I can see.

As to the OP, obviously you are saying that the absence of free will is bad, and therefore divine sovereignty is bad. Or, more precisely, that any Christian decision, such as accepting Christ, is pre-determined by God and not under the influence of the one "making" the choice, and hence there is some form of logical inconsistency.

But this is a strange argument given your own beliefs about naturalism and free will. Is it some form of tu quoque? where you are saying, "Christians can save free will no more than I can"?

Spoiler: Deeper Parallels

I think there are even deeper parallels between naturalism and theological determinism. You say that the object of naturalism--nature--is complex and difficult to understand. So is the object of theology: God. Both systems have an obscure object.

Further, both systems approach this obscure object with a method that itself guarantees determinism. The naturalist's mechanistic premise ensures beforehand that everything they study, including free will, will be mechanistic (and deterministic). The theological determinist's premise that God is a competitive thing in the world competing with other things in the world ensures beforehand that any causal influence God exercises over creatures will be linear and competitive. Thus if God is sovereign then man is not free.

In both cases it is methodology and the understanding of the object that leads to the conclusion, and if either party's method is flawed then their conclusion may also be flawed.

 

[Emsmom1]

If sovereign means "possessing supreme or ultimate power," I don't understand why God can't be sovereign and decide to give us free will. Can't both be true (God is sovereign and gives us free will)? Or does sovereign mean something different in the bible?

 

[jayem]

1) Divine providence is a Christian doctrine also, not just divine sovereignty. With the possible exception of some radical voluntarists, people don't think that God is going to just play around with your mental circuitry because he has the power to do so.

If you believe God is omnipotent, how you can you know that he isn't directing your will? There's Biblical precedent. It's recorded in Exodus that Pharaoh was apparently willing to set the Hebrews free after several of the plagues. But the text says God hardened Pharaoh's heart against emancipation. On more than one occasion. So that the plagues would continue and God's power would be demonstrated. People can think anything they want. But it seems to to me that they're putting God in a box by claiming he won't act to bring someone into the fold.

2) Naturalism is no where near as secure as you're claiming, given some of the problems that spring from Hume. Just because the world seems to act according to natural laws today, how do you know it will continue to do so tomorrow?

I'm familiar with Hume's critique of inductive reasoning. But really....is any rational person going to jump off the roof of a 20 story building thinking that this could be the exact moment when gravity is no longer in effect?

 

[jayem]

I'm not sure it's off-topic either, but I'm still trying to figure out your point in the OP. You believe in naturalism which you believe precludes free will.

Go back and read post #28. I said there is no absolute free will. But because of how the brain works, we have relative free will. It's free will for practical intents and purposes.

As to the OP, obviously you are saying that the absence of free will is bad, and therefore divine sovereignty is bad. Or, more precisely, that any Christian decision, such as accepting Christ, is pre-determined by God and not under the influence of the one "making" the choice, and hence there is some form of logical inconsistency.

I made a value judgement that a naturalistic worldview is superior to, and more useful than believing in supernatural entities. But I did not make any such judgement about the presence or absence of free will. What I said in the OP was that there are Bible passages stating that God is all-sovereign and that those who come to Jesus have been selected by God. And I quoted verses to support that. To save time, I'll repeat 2 passages from John:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65

How else would you interpret this language? These and other verses imply that God decides who will accept Jesus as savior. This makes sense if God is indeed sovereign in all things. What would not make sense is if such an all-sovereign God allowed everyone to decide completely on their own whether to follow Jesus.

But this is a strange argument given your own beliefs about naturalism and free will. Is it some form of tu quoque? where you are saying, "Christians can save free will no more than I can"?

This isn't applicable. As I said, I believe we have the relatively free will to make decisions. Limited only by the physiologic conditions of our brains.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Go back and read post #28. I said there is no absolute free will. But because of how the brain works, we have relative free will. It's free will for practical intents and purposes.



I made a value judgement that a naturalistic worldview is superior to, and more useful than believing in supernatural entities. But I did not make any such judgement about the presence or absence of free will. What I said in the OP was that there are Bible passages stating that God is all-sovereign and that those who come to Jesus have been selected by God. And I quoted verses to support that. To save time, I'll repeat 2 passages from John:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65

How else would you interpret this language? These and other verses imply that God decides who will accept Jesus as savior. This makes sense if God is indeed sovereign in all things. What would not make sense is if such an all-sovereign God allowed everyone to decide completely on their own whether to follow Jesus.



This isn't applicable. As I said, I believe we have the relatively free will to make decisions. Limited only by the physiologic conditions of our brains.

I agree that total sovereignty is incompatible with free will. I'd probably go further and say that perfect knowledge of the future is incompatible with free will.

I think your point about total depravity has sidetracked the thread a bit.

I think a simpler question is this....

If god knows that tomorrow I'll have a chicken burrito for lunch....can I possibly choose to not have a chicken burrito for lunch?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The idea of perfect knowledge even renders a lot of biblical stories and concepts....absurd.

The story of Abraham and Isaac becomes absurd. The story of Job. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ itself becomes less a sacrifice than a self congratulatory pat on the back.