Is predestination about the destination or about the path to it?

[Clare73]

Just as people can attract others through advertising, God could theoretically draw a person with similar methods. Advertising is not coercive; it simply presents a message. If an individual accepts an advertisement's message, they may freely choose to purchase the product if they decide to do so.

If individuals are morally autonomous, then the act of giving, as implied by your post, cannot occur in the literal sense. God may guide a person towards His Son, allowing them to freely decide to unite with Jesus (in a spiritual sense) by willingly acknowledging Him as their Lord. This process is devoid of any coercion.

Indeed, coercion is doing what one does not prefer to do.

However, God gives them to prefer his Son and, therefore, they freely choose him.

No one (unregenerate) can come to Jesus* unless the Father enables (gives them to prefer Jesus) them. (Jn 6:65)

* Ro 8:7-8

 

[RandyPNW]

The debate between Protestants regarding predestination has persisted for nearly five centuries, with neither side conceding. Each believes they have scriptural backing. This dichotomy likely extends to Christian forums, where some argue for free will while others argue for the bondage of the will, each supported by numerous scriptural verses and interpretations. The question remains: Is it the final destination that is predestined, leaving the path open to free will choices, or is the path itself predestined, allowing no deviation by free will until the final destination is reached?

I think God foreknows the choice people will make for or against Christ. But it doesn't take place without free choice--even though God foreknows it.

Is everything foreknown and thus predetermined? Of course not. But in matters of who will be saved, God absolutely knows who are part of His original blueprint before Man messed it up.

Satan is a different matter. God did not predetermine him to remain. And this has impacted the failures of men, some of who repent and some of who will not repent. Men are a mystery to angels.

How do I know that God has predetermined the outcome of men with respect to Salvation? God has revealed that some will be saved and some will be lost. How would He be able to say that if it was possible that all get saved or that all get lost? Clearly, God knew that some would be saved and some would be lost. I just go farther and say that God knows *who* will be saved, and *who* will be lost. But that is not saying that men don't make a free choice.

If anything I ever learned in behaviorism it's that it can be predetermined how someone will act. For example, Pavlov's Dog will clearly salivate when he hears the food bell.

So also, those planned by God will respond when they hear God's voice calling them to repentance. Those born outside of the domain of God's plans will not respond simply because they did not originate by God's original plan and do not respond to the word of repentance.

 

[bling]

No text states that everyone is drawn.

Where does the Master tell the servant to not look for guests? It appears the servants were going everywhere looking and the Master is only saying look harder.

The texts state that:
none come to Jesus unless the Father enables/draws them (Jn 6:65),
all (Jew and Gentile alike) whom the Father enables/draws will come (Jn 6:37).

Clare73, you are reading into scripture something that is not there:

John 6:65mHe went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
This does not say: "All God enables come", so "some" God does enables may still choose of their own free will not to come, but all that do come were enabled. In fact other scripture shows, like the parable of the banquet, show even though invited some will not come.

John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
This is not addressing at all those the father invited and chose not to come, but only those who the father invited and decided to go.

Therefore, those who do not come have not been drawn.

That is not being said at all! There are those who never had the drawing opportunity, but their are also those enabled who chose not to go.
With the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and the gift of Godly type Love, you are enabled not to sin, so why do you sin?

 

[Clare73]

Where does the Master tell the servant to not look for guests? It appears the servants were going everywhere looking and the Master is only saying look harder.

Clare73, you are reading into scripture something that is not there:

Hardly, that is the sheer logic of Jesus' statements.

John 6:65mHe went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
This does not say: "All God enables come",

And that is where you misunderstand the operation of God. . .your God is too small.

so "some" God does enables may still choose of their own free will not to come, but all that do come were enabled. In fact other scripture shows, like the parable of the banquet, show even though invited some will not come.

John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
This is not addressing at all those the father invited and chose not to come, but only those who the father invited and decided to go.

It is Jesus who is inviting.
No one comes to Jesus unless the Father enables him.
The call is to those who are enabled.
The text does not state that all are enabled.
Nor does the text state that any who are enabled do not come.

You do not understand the operation of God. . .your God is too small. . .too subject to human notions.

That is not being said at all! There are those who never had the drawing opportunity, but their are also those enabled who chose not to go.
With the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and the gift of Godly type Love, you are enabled not to sin, so why do you sin?

My sin is not a choice to reject God, for by the power of the Holy Spirit I prefer God.

Their's is a choice to reject God because they have not been given to prefer God, for by their nature (unregenerate) they are hostile to God (Ro 8:7-8), objects of his wrath (Eph 2:3) and it is all foolishness to them which they cannot understand (1 Co 2:14).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Hardly, that is the sheer logic of Jesus' statements.

The issue with your assertion is that what you've written represents "the sheer logic of Jesus' statements" is that the logic appears to be your own interpretation, rather than Jesus' direct words. It's challenging to ascertain the correctness of your logic without claiming divine inspiration, which would imply the infallible truth of your statement as being "the logic of Jesus' statements."

 

[bling]

Hardly, that is the sheer logic of Jesus' statements.

Yes, it is very logical for a Loving God to invite everyone and leave it up to them if they go or no.

And that is where you misunderstand the operation of God. . .your God is too small.

My God’s Love is so great, that He would be compelled to invite everyone, but also not force them to come (no kidnapping), while you seem to be saying, your God’s Love is not that great?

It is Jesus who is inviting.
No one comes to Jesus unless the Father enables him.
The call is to those who are enabled.
The text does not state that all are enabled.
Nor does the text state that any who are enabled do not come.

I know, and it also does not say, “All those invited/enabled went”. What we have to do is look at other places in the Bible which is what I am doing with the parables of the banquets.

You do not understand the operation of God. . .your God is too small. . .too subject to human notions.

My God’s Love is so great that, He would be compelled to invite everyone, but also not force them to come (no kidnapping), while you seem to be saying, your God’s Love is not that great?

My sin is not a choice to reject God, for by the power of the Holy Spirit I prefer God.

Their's is a choice to reject God because they have not been given to prefer God, for by their nature (unregenerate) they are hostile to God (Ro 8:7-8), objects of his wrath (Eph 2:3) and it is all foolishness to them which they cannot understand (1 Co 2:14).

Are you not saying this: God who is the epitome of Love and the power to easily provide all people with the ability to prefer God (what ever that means) only provide a few people with this ability, for no apparent reason? Does that sound fair and just to you?
Your sins are a sign of selfishness and not an all out rejection of God.

 

[Clare73]

The issue with your assertion is that what you've written represents "the sheer logic of Jesus' statements" is that the logic appears to be your own interpretation, rather than Jesus' direct words. It's challenging to ascertain the correctness of your logic without claiming divine inspiration, which would imply the infallible truth of your statement as being "the logic of Jesus' statements."

1) No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them (Jn 6:65), (no choosing out of the blue sky on your own).
2) All whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus (Jn 6:37), (will choose, no autonomous free-will-choice rejecting).
3) and all who come to Jesus will never perish (Jn 6:39), (no falling away).

You do the math. . .

 

[Clare73]

Yes, it is very logical for a Loving God to invite everyone and leave it up to them if they go or no.
My God’s Love is so great, that He would be compelled to invite everyone, but also not force them to come (no kidnapping), while you seem to be saying, your God’s Love is not that great?
I know, and it also does not say, “All those invited/enabled went”. What we have to do is look at other places in the Bible which is what I am doing with the parables of the banquets.

My God’s Love is so great that, He would be compelled to invite everyone, but also not force them to come (no kidnapping), while you seem to be saying, your God’s Love is not that great?
Are you not saying this: God who is the epitome of Love and the power to easily provide all people with the ability to prefer God (what ever that means) only provide a few people with this ability, for no apparent reason? Does that sound fair and just to you?
Your sins are a sign of selfishness and not an all out rejection of God.

Therein is your fatal flaw. . .judging God by human standards, rather than by his word written.

 

[bling]

Therein is your fatal flaw. . .judging God by human standards, rather than by his word written.

God is perfectly fantastic by my human judgement of Him. God only looks really bad by anyone's standards if you have Him helping some and nt helping others when He could just as easily and safely helped everyone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1) No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them (Jn 6:65), (no choosing out of the blue sky on your own).
2) All whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus (Jn 6:37), (will choose, no autonomous free-will-choice rejecting).
3) and all who come to Jesus will never perish (Jn 6:39), (no falling away).

You do the math. . .

The English language is not akin to Mathematics. The logic behind statements relies on the framework of interpretation. Over time, your posts have toyed with the meaning of "all," oscillating between "all kinds [of people]" and "each and every individual." I find your usage of "no," "unless," "will," and "never" untrustworthy. Thus, the issue boils down to your interpretation, rather than the words of Jesus.

 

[trophy33]

The English language is not akin to Mathematics. The logic behind statements relies on the framework of interpretation. Over time, your posts have toyed with the meaning of "all," oscillating between "all kinds [of people]" and "each and every individual." I find your usage of "no," "unless," "will," and "never" untrustworthy. Thus, the issue boils down to your interpretation, rather than the words of Jesus.

Can it be that also biblical authors use these terms in various meanings, non-systematically? For example Paul seems to like to use terms like "all" or "nobody" etc even though the common sense or even the context says its not the case.

 

[Clare73]

God is perfectly fantastic by my human judgement of Him. God only looks really bad by anyone's standards if you have Him helping some and nt helping others when He could just as easily and safely helped everyone.

Human reasoning again. . .

 

[Clare73]

The English language is not akin to Mathematics. The logic behind statements relies on the framework of interpretation. Over time, your posts have toyed with the meaning of "all," oscillating between "all kinds [of people]" and "each and every individual." I find your usage of "no," "unless," "will," and "never" untrustworthy. Thus, the issue boils down to your interpretation, rather than the words of Jesus.

Generalizations are not demonstrated refutations

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Generalizations are not demonstrated refutations

Broad assertions do not constitute evidence of truth.

 

[Clare73]

Broad assertions do not constitute evidence of truth.

It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate those assertions are not true.

 

[com7fy8]

The debate between Protestants regarding predestination has persisted for nearly five centuries, with neither side conceding.

Yeah, but certain ones might concede, even though their whole "side" doesn't. And the ones taking sides can all be mistaken, somehow. Some might not even be Christians, but making God mainly or only theoretical, not personally sharing with Him in His love and submitting to how He rules us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15.

Each believes they have scriptural backing.

I would say we have people who do not take some side, but they see what the Bible says, and keep learning as they do this.

In my case, I have read Romans 9:21, and I think this goes beyond what a lot of free will and predestination people are saying and talking about. And we have Ephesians 1:11 and Romans 8:29. Rarely have I been told about Romans 8:29 as being part of what is involved in predestination.

This dichotomy likely extends to Christian forums, where some argue for free will while others argue for the bondage of the will, each supported by numerous scriptural verses and interpretations.

Well, if I am totally free to make my own choices, I would think this means I am totally separate from God. And making choices totally in my own human ability would be a problem, I would think.

Plus, I suppose some people can have a motive which affects what they are willing to believe.

Control freaks might be fine with God absolutely controlling everything. But they might then try to be the dictators of what God will control you to do if you are "saved".

Meanwhile, others can make control an idol, and therefore free will is an idol for them.

So, if someone tells me they believe whatever view, I am interested in seeing how they therefore are and live because of what they believe.

The question remains: Is it the final destination that is predestined, leaving the path open to free will choices, or is the path itself predestined, allowing no deviation by free will until the final destination is reached?

My summary is > whether or not we really have free will, we will reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7-8), and we will be judged. If we make the choices, we get judged. If God chooses how we become, He then judges what He has made. So, no excuses and arguments are going to help anybody, whatever is true.

If it's all about free will, then it is our responsibility to actively choose to submit to God, all the time, to be ruled by His own peace in our hearts > as we are "called" and commanded to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate those assertions are not true.

The principle is that the party making an assertion is responsible for providing evidence to support it. Since you've made the assertion, it follows that you should provide the proof.

 

[trophy33]

Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God at the expanse of His love. Arminians emphasize the love of God at the expanse of His sovereignty.

As in the most of cases, the truth is in the middle, in the perfect balance between the two qualities of God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God at the expanse of His love. Arminians emphasize the love of God at the expanse of His sovereignty.

As in the most of cases, the truth is in the middle, in the perfect balance between the two qualities of God.

Catholics rejoice in both the sovereignty of God and in God's gift of free will because both are constant reminders that God is love.

 

[trophy33]

Catholics rejoice in both the sovereignty of God and in God's gift of free will because both are constant reminders that God is love.

I am not too familiar with the Catholic explanation, I would call myself Leibnizian in this regard. It also depends on the definitions (like what exactly is free will)... I have been a Calvinist for quite a long time so this is something I am quite familiar with, though.