predestination vs. free will

[Eternalgrace]

Calvinist,

God's predestinating is due to His foreknowledge, since foreknowledge precedes predestinating in Rom. 8.29.

God did not say He predistinated and also He foreknew. No! God first foreknows all things because He has omniscience, so that which He foreknows to be by His righteousness and holiness He declares it, which is to say, He predestinates it.

God wants to be with those who choose His life; but first you have to choose.

Calvinists are not free agents in their belief because they claim they were saved first which caused them to believe without a preceding choice. This is not free, but is without free agency.

To mean after our likeness is not speaking of physical appearance, but what is inside, our will, for example. God is spirit, not physical. Only God is God, so only God determines all things; obviously being made in God's image does not mean we have infinite foreknowledge.

Verse 4 is dealing, for God will deal with them by His wrath.

I don't understand how you can say this and still utter 'free will?'

I know. The head can't understand what is given in the spirit. This is the essence of the calvinist's problem.

Also, those verses once again says nothing of foreknowlege, it only speaks of ordination.

That which God ordinates, He foreknows first in His all-knowing. Rom. 8.29 says what God ordinates or predestinates He first foreknew.

 

[CalvinistSamurai]

God did not say He predistinated and also He foreknew.

Read it.

Rom. 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed...

It says 'also.'

Calvinists are not free agents in their belief because they claim they were saved first which caused them to believe without a preceding choice. This is not free, but is without free agency.

Free will is not the same as free agency. I strongly suggest that you look up the terms in a theological dictionary. Calvinism is all about free agency!

I know. The head can't understand what is given in the spirit. This is the essence of the calvinist's problem.

Yet scripture is given so we can understand. If we can't understand, what's the point of it? God wrote it so that we might understand. The trinity is quite less illogical compared to what you are stating.


Shalom.

 

[Eternalgrace]

Calvinist,

That the prognosis is all-encompassing is very true in its pescience, so the question is what does God foreknow that He decreed (predestinated)? Since Jesus implores to "whosover believeth" may be saved, it is your choice given to you made in His image that God foreknew.

There is far too much controversy surrounding Granville Sharps Rule, plus he demands this extremely strict rule to reject the Trinity too, which would itself go against the Scriptures.

Here is a good source to show the Sharpe rule is not very sharp at all...
www.biblicalapologetics.net/NTStudies/Sharps_Rule.pdf

What we must do then is look at the context and surrounding passages since Granville's rule is not consistent. What we find is a sequence of events in vv.29-30 of one item after another that follow each other, and since God always works in cause and effect relationships, this stands, and we should expect the same of the whole text, not asking us to guess simultaneious events. God would not be so vague.

So Granville and Wuest were both wrong in demanding this granville rule since it was disproven in various accounts as a consistently dependable rule.

Therefore, prescience in God foreknowing all things is infinite, so He foreknows, then He predestinates or decrees the thing according to His righteousness, that when He created man in His image with a free-will it was sovereign, so that is why God does all He can to convince you to choose the cross. He wants to walk with sovereign beings not machines.

So far what we have seen is you quote some sources, but those sources are proven faulty in their reasoning. As such your position does not stand.

 

[Eternalgrace]

Free-will is free-agency. I suggest you see the mistake in thinking they are not the same since you admit you can't seperate the two by a motion of silence.

It's not logical to derive non-sequential events in two two passages that are full of sequences. It is also illogical to depend on a rule that has been proven false.

 

[Eternalgrace]

Jesusfreak5000,

The difference it would make if God did not predestinate is not to declare what He does is good to give doubt. That would not be good at all because this god could be a false god, since he would have failed to decree His goodness for whatever reason. Satan loves doubt. I could not trust a god like that. But I trust God because He decreed/predestinated.

To yet choose does not suggest your mind is already made up. There is yet a possibility of choosing the cross. The reason God predestines is to declare all is good. To compare, someone who finishes programming a computer game places it into alpha to declare it is ready-it is predestinated!

As was shown both Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism are false since in both cases its god still gives a salvation causing belief rather than saving according to the choice afforded.

You'll need to respond what is said here to move the conversation forward rather than repeat yourself.

 

[Eternalgrace]

What's interesting is that since there is a cause and effect in all things, even in all "and"'s there is something that comes before another.

For example if I say "you are my brother and a servant of the Lord", first you must become a brother before you can be a servant. If you were never a brother, you could never be a servant, but you can be a servant if you were first a brother. A brother is by birth; a servant acts upon brotherly love. A servant serves because he receives a position of a brother. A brother serves, a servant does not then show brotherly love because of being a servant, but because he is a brother first. So we don't usually say "you are a servant of the Lord and my brother" because it doesn't ring well for some reason: the reason was now given!

To be a brother is a free-gift to be a member of the body of Christ. You do not serve to attain brotherhood, but serving is an outcroping of having eternal life at new birth. Someone who only wants to look on the surface will only see simultaneous events, but all it takes is a little look deeper to see cause and effect.

 

[relspace]

Do we then lose this free-will after we are saved?

Of course we do not lose what free will we had before we were saved, but neither is our free will fully restored since receiving Christ does not just make all of our problems vanish. God may give us the grace to make a free choice in the matter of receiving salvation, but I think that for most Christians this freedom only lasts a limited amount of time before they must begin a battle to defeat the bad habits which limit their free will, and this can be long and difficult. After receiving Christ we do not fight alone, and God carries as much of the burden as is required, but I do think that He ultimately desires us to gain some spiritual strength of our own. Many seem to leave much of their worst habits in the dust right away. I do not know, but I suspect that this may only be an extended period of grace which God gives to help them to gain the strength to fight. Everyone's experience and problems are unique.

Can we change our minds years later?

This is certainly an interesting question. The perseverence of the saints was the most difficult point of Calvinism for me to reject. I seemed quite logical to me, but finally it was not the logic but the impropriety of the doctrine that led me to reject it. When I consider that the whole point of receiving Christ is to restore the personal relationship with God that Adam and Eve lost, then it occurs to me that, if by this gift of salvation we truly return to the state of Adam and Eve then perhaps another fall is possible. But then we do not return to that state do we?

There is the rather good argument for "the perseverence of the saints" which observes that if it were possible for us to lose our salvation then we certainly would. When we receive Christ, we give Him leave to interfere with our life as He sees fit in order to redeem us, and since our will and perseverence cannot be counted on, this agreement cannot depend on our continued cooperation. Is this a contract that expires when all vestiges of sin are cleansed from us? Is that even possible in a single lifetime? I really do not know the answer to any of these questions, but suspect that there is a great deal of impropriety in asking such questions at all. Perhaps one answer is that this is not a contract at all but a personal favor and inquiring into the terms as if it were a contract that could bind God is blasphemous.

 

[relspace]

Eternal grace presented a rather common point of view when He said

The correct predestination is where God decrees by foreseeing our free-choice.

The false predestination is where a god degrees by causing our free-choice; so, it is really not free at all.

This seems like an easy way out of the contradictions involved but frankly I think it just pushes the contradictions into the idea of free will, for I do not think it is possible to forsee our free-choice without causing our free choice. If the possibilites exist then only the possibilities can be forseen, and if actualities are forseen then only the actualities exist. I just think that God does not predestine everything and in particular I do not think He predestines any sin for which we are condemned and I do not think He predestines anyone's acceptance of the gift of salvation.

That would seem to me to make God more of a watcher than guiding creation.

YES! YES! YES! YES!

This is exactly why the solution by Eternalgrace does not work! For a God who participates in our lives, absolute forknowledge cannot be anything but absolute control.





PS. In the decimation of this thread resulting from the removal of the posts by EternalGrace and responses to her, I think it particularly tragic that the one agreement between CS and I was wiped out.

 

[Eternalgrace]

Calvinist,

Armenian is people of a nation. I don't live in Armenia.

Free agency is just a fancy phrase for what is free-will. There is no difference. Free will (free agency) is indendent, though it has chosen to be under Satan or God. It requires responsibility synergistically. You are arguing against osas arminian, since Arminius was OSAS. True free will as taught in the Word and by Arminius is a condition to be fulfilled before God give the grace of salvation. If one is saved first before given the choice, then this is not free agency (free will) since no choice was afforded before salvation.

 

[Eternalgrace]

rel,

What God can do, you admit you can't fathom, that He can foresee our free-choice and does not cause our free-choice. He made our free-choice, but He didn't cause us to choose one way or the other. This is the beauty of His creation that this has been done.

What man can only fathom as possibilities, God sees the root causes of all. When you throw a die it seems quite random, but God knows what number is going to come up every time, because He sees what causes the roll of the die.

God predestines everything He first foresees, and He has infinite foreknowledge, because He foresees everything. He sees every roll of the die and knows what choice you are going to make next, yet He did not cause it. He knows every hair on your head that fell out; there was no accident.

God predestines all sin and salvation, not because he causes a person to be sinful or to be saved, but because He foresees our choice to fulfill the condition to qualify something as condemned or saved.

 

[Eternalgrace]

Jesusfreak5000,

Our mind is not made to do a certain something until we decide to do it. Just because God has infinite foreknowledge of our free-choices, does not mean we have made our mind up. The reason God predestines it is because He sees in His infinite foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29) that it was good, that is to say, according to His righteous and holy way of dealing with all things, putting His approval on it to allow it to happen. If He did not do this, then where would our confidence be in His work? Satan would try to bring in doubt.

Predestine in this dictionary I am reading means to "decree". First you foreknow something (Rom. 8:29) and in foreknowing it, agree with its design, including free-choices, so then God decrees that it is good.

How silly it would be if God meant in Rom. 8:29 God foreknows so He foreknows.

No! God first foreknows, then He decrees. That which He foreknows according to His righteousness, naturally He decrees or predestinates. This is the boundary God marks around us.

In God creating us, He created us in His image (Gen. 1.26,27). He created us for to have a free-will, to freely choose as Abel chose in giving a right offering which was a free-will offering. This gives glory to God and is according to His good pleasure. He lets the man sovereignly choose to be under God or Satan so that God can walk with those who love Him who choose Him. He wants to walk with us who are saved, not with those who want to be saved another way.

These truths may be painful to hear. Deliverance is painful because one has deceived oneself fo so long, but the truth shall set you free.

 

[PETE_]

4 Examples How God's Will Rules Man's Will ​

• 1. Inspiration of Scripture
  2. Infallibility of Bible prophecy
  3. Eternal security
  4. Heaven/new earth​

1. Inspiration of Scripture: Do you believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture? If so, then you believe God ruled the wills of the Bible authors. They did not have "free will" to write errors in Scripture. Thankfully, the Lord kept their wills from error.
"All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)
2. Infallibility of Bible Prophecy: Do you believe the Bible prophecies are infallible? If so, then you believe God ruled the wills of the prophets. They did not have "free will" to prophesy errors. God inspired the Old Testament prophets to prophesy accurately about the coming Messiah. During the inspiration process, He influenced and ruled their wills to keep them from error:
"no prophecy of the Scripture came into being of its own private interpretation. For prophecy was not borne at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:2-21)
That's why the test of a true prophet vs. a false prophet is the infallibility of their predictions (Deut. 18:21-22.) If the prophets could have exercised their own wills, free from God's control, then they never could have infallibly predicted Christ's virgin birth, city of birth, suffering death, resurrection, second coming, etc.
3. Eternal Security: Do you believe in "eternal security?" If so, then you believe God rules believers' wills. Most Christians agree they can't fall away finally from Christ. Christians don't have "free will" to become atheists or Satan worshippers. Thankfully, the Lord influences our wills to keep us believing and persevering in Him until the end.
"I will give you a new heart (will) and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart (will) of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:26-27)
"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)
4. Heaven/New Earth: Finally, even if you don't believe in eternal security in this life, still you probably believe Christians can never leave heaven or the new earth. If so, then you believe God rules His peoples' wills. No one in heaven is free to leave and choose Hell. God will keep them willingly in heaven forever.
So, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, prophetic infallibility, or eternal security, then you already believe man doesn't have a 100% "free will." God's will sovereignly rules our wills. And, I'm glad He does, aren't you?​

 

[Eternalgrace]

Pete_You are missing the point. The point is not that the person is under God and not under Satan, but that they have chosen to be under God. It's like someone who chooses to be on a team. By the grace of that team, they remain on the team because the person made a real choice to be on that team. God made nobody saved first before they could believe, for that could never glorify God. And so, calvinist remains as false today as when man invented it.

 

[PETE_]

If I saved a bear dying in my backyard, would it not bring me glory that the bear did not want to be saved. It did not understand me and fought against me. Does it not make the saving more meritable to have to save him while he was fighting me. It would be much easier if I could yell out the back door and tell him to come on up and I fix him.

God looks on man and sees us all dying on our own pride. He chooses to save some of us even though we do not understand or think we need saving. He even gives us the Spirit so we can be comforted and understand him unlike the poor bear.

How great it is that He opens our eyes, shows us our need, and fills it for us. I think it brings more glory to Him, knowing that He saved me in spite of myself instead of because I was one of the ones bright enough to understand.

 

[Eternalgrace]

Pete, it would not bring you glory to save someone who still does not want to be saved after doing all God can to save them. This is like someone who commits suicide after amazing graces came upon them to convince them of salvation, yet they still reject the cross. If the bear was saved anyway with no regard to choice, then this could never be a true salvation, since this god would just be making machines. God wants to be with those who choose His life. Hell is for the others who presume they were saved anyway.

 

[epistemaniac]

it seems to me that Lazarus being called to do something he could not intrinsically do nor refuse to do brought God glory.....

Joh 11:4 ESV But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

Joh 11:14-15 ESV Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died, (15) and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

Joh 11:40-44 ESV Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?" (41) So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. (42) I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me." (43) When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." (44) The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

selah and amen... thus sayeth the word of God on the subject.....

blessings,
Ken

 

[Eternalgrace]

Why did Jesus pick Lazarus? Because of Lazarus as a person who choose God. Amen. God is not a calvinist, he does not save arbitrarily first, but first gives the choice, then saves, because the condition is fulfilled. Amen.

 

[brownie3]

Ok, some more thoughts...
1) The Westminster confession someone posted a while back says, "This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy council, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory." So then God is please with sin? The logical conclusion from this is that if I sin it's ok because it's in God's will and it'll bring Him glory!
2)What I'm about to state is hypothetical so bear with me... If we're supposed to be like Jesus, and Jesus is God, and God made some for destruction and some for salvation, then should I act like God by having children, planning to kill children #1 and 3 but save/keep #2 and 4 to show my own glory/wrath? What's wrong with the picture, other than the obvious like murder and we aren't supposed to try for our own glory/wrath, ...but do you see what I"m getting at?
3)Why the heck would God purposely part with us by allowing all the pain of sin, dying on the cross, etc. when He supposedly loves us so much? What I mean is, if He did all this to show His glory, then He also lost lots of us humans through His wrath by His decision to let evil exist (and reign in small controlled ways) in the world.
4) Is it possible for God to predestine some and give free will to others? Perhaps as a reference to my thought I could use the example of the Israelites in the OT being predestined, but some Gentiles were also excepted into the clan if they were willing to follow the Lord, and maybe those were the free-willers. After all, if He can "randomly" (to us) choose some and not others for the typical predestination view, then can't He also "randomly" (in the same sense) predestine some and give free will to others? I look forward to your replies on this one.

Thanks again to everyone who has posted relevance to this discussion. Obviously I'm not posting much because I'm reading the arguments and trying to figure things out. And yes it does seem like eternalgrace is contradicting herself in every post.
Frankly, I feel as if I'm leaning toward the "side" of predestination, although the evil in the world thing is definitely something I'm still grappling with. I also wonder if I will not "decide" on this until after I've read the whole Bible for myself.

 

[brownie3]

By the way I hope you all enjoyed the can o' worms picture post. ;-) Hasta luego.

 

[Eternalgrace]

brownie,there are two kinds of predestination. One says God arbitarily saves people causing them to believe like robots and others not as robots for hell. The other is God foreknows our free-choice. The latter is righteous. The former is unrighteous. Take a look here at those whom God wants and what he is going to get us to do before He returns, biblocality. com. Do so before the powers that be cut off. But presently, the Holy Spirit has not given you the understanding. Even so, I do not say you were made for hell as you suspect some are.