Predestination vs. Free Will

[Der Alte]

"For as in Adam ALL die -- even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive"

Paul said it - I didn't.

In the first clause -- does ALL really mean ALL?

In the second clause - does ALL really mean ALL?

If so, you have original sin, but you also have universal redemption - universalism.

ALL means ALL.

See it.

Know it.

Live it.

Yes all means all. All mankind is by birth "in Adam" as his physical descendants, and we have his sinful nature.

Is all mankind naturally, automatically "in Christ?" Nothing in scripture says that all mankind is naturally or automatically "in Christ." In fact Jesus says they are already condemned "because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Many who think they are in Christ will say "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Jesus does not say to them "Everybody is naturally or automatically saved," instead He says, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 10,000[sup]100[/sup] times 10,000[sup]100[/sup] eons from now Jesus' unchanging words will still read "I never knew you."

 

[Anto9us]

You are "Qualifying" ALL in one clause

quite differently from how you QUALIFY "all" in the second clause.

When the plain sense of scripture says a thing -- why look for any other sense?

Plain sense says "all = all"

Period.

 

[Albion]

Ask people who have never studied Calvinism or Armininaism at all -- ask 'em "does man have free will? and most will answer YES

All that suggests to me is that these are people who are not well educated in Christian theology. The natural impulse of non-religious people is to insist that men are the masters of their own fates. It takes a knowledge of the Bible to understand that God does not necessarily operate like a mortal might.

 

[OldShepherd]

N.T.

 

[Norah63]

Even though these threads are gone over and over, I learn something new every time.
Insight about posters is just one benefit.

 

[Der Alte]

You are "Qualifying" ALL in one clause

quite differently from how you QUALIFY "all" in the second clause.

When the plain sense of scripture says a thing -- why look for any other sense?

Plain sense says "all = all"

Period.

I am qualifying "all" in both clauses by the context of the preposition "in" which occurs in both clauses. There is a condition "in Adam" and "in Christ" You are taking this verse out-of-context ignoring the context.

Your proof text does not say "all mankind is made alive" but being "made alive" is predicated on being "in Christ" and that is not automatic.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.​

You are trying to twist Paul's words and make them supersede the words of Christ which I quoted before.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

Jesus didn't say that everyone was saved no matter what but that, "he that believeth not is condemned already," Being saved is predicated on believing in the name of the only begotten son of God.

Jesus also said that He would say to many "depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Nothing Paul said contradicts that.

 

[Anto9us]

mmmmm....

pretty good answer, Der Alter.

I am not 'taking a verse out of context' but illustrating a point

there are biblical justifications for universalism - just as there are biblical justifications for annihilationism --

they perhaps do not OUTWEIGH biblical justifications for eternal torment -- but THEY ARE THERE

So -- do you assume that "in Adam" applies to everyone universally -- without qualification?

But that "in Christ" - requires QUALIFICATION from knowledge outside of the immediate passage?

oh well, in an effort to try to get back to the point of the thread -- I will ask this:

Could ADAM (of whom I guess we are ALL "in") -- could ADAM have chosen differently than to eat of the forbidden fruit and so DIE -- if Adam COULD HAVE CHOSEN DIFFERENTLY

then Free Will is established in a slam dunk.

 

[Anto9us]

If EVE had already chosen to eat -- but ADAM said "No - I won't ! "

then what of our "Adamic inheritance" ??

Would we still need redemption, or not?

 

[Anto9us]

If ADAM's say-so in the matter is MOOT -- if the human race is toast because of

"Eve's and Eve's only"

boo-boo -- then ADAM was a joke and a cipher, a zero and a NOTHING from the beginning.

Meaning ADAM, the creation of a supposedly sovereign God -- was just a sick joke that things were going to HAPPEN TO

the sovereign God set him to "have dominion" in all things, but in reality ADAM couldn't affect SQUAT.

 

[Anto9us]

"All that suggests to me is that these are people who are not well educated in Christian theology. The natural impulse of non-religious people is to insist that men are the masters of their own fates. It takes a knowledge of the Bible to understand that God does not necessarily operate like a mortal might. "

But Albion -- your quote kinda proves my point -- is it to be assumed that people who are not up on this "1 quarter of time in Christian history" and "not anywhere near all of Christendom" jazz of free will vs predestination IN CALVINIST TERMS -- is it to be assumed they are

"not well educated in Christian theology?"

The Catholic and Orthodox would laugh that out of the water.

What HUBRIS to suggest that Christians of this other-than-the-small-spinter group of Calvinist/Arminian Protestants are to be classed as "non-religious people" ??

You need to re-think what you are saying.

Calvinists and Arminians are just BABIES -- PUPPIES in the whole history of the Big Dogs of Christianity as a whole

and FREE WILL is the LANDSLIDE WINNER thruout history -- and anyone knows this who looks at history.

How dare it be said that people who are not acquainted with the "accident of history" of a European theology which emerged in the 1500's are to classed as

"non-religious people"

boo.

yuck

you cannot be serious

 

[Albion]

"All that suggests to me is that these are people who are not well educated in Christian theology. The natural impulse of non-religious people is to insist that men are the masters of their own fates. It takes a knowledge of the Bible to understand that God does not necessarily operate like a mortal might. "

But Albion -- your quote kinda proves my point -- is it to be assumed that people who are not up on this "1 quarter of time in Christian history" and "not anywhere near all of Christendom" jazz of free will vs predestination IN CALVINIST TERMS -- is it to be assumed they are

"not well educated in Christian theology?"

I'm sorry, but I don't know what that paragraph is supposed to be saying. My point was merely that this issue is no slam dunk. Anyone who knows the Bible and/or Church history would know that there are strong arguments both for and against both Predestination and Free Will.

But if we consider those who are NOT into either of those sources of information, we're most likely going to find someone who answers the question from a purely rational perspective...which is naturally going to champion self-determination and individual judgment, etc. etc., which in turn is going to make them sympathetic to the idea of Free Will at all times and in all cases.

What HUBRIS to suggest that Christians of this other-than-the-small-spinter group of Calvinist/Arminian Protestants are to be classed as "non-religious people" ??

You need to re-think what you are saying.

Considering that you are on your high horse at this moment, I almost regret having to inform you that you completely misread my post at that point.

Those I referred to as non-religious are those who actually are non-religious. It was not a reference to either the Calvinists or the Catholics, or any other variety of Christian for that matter.

 

[Anto9us]

"these are people who are not well educated in Christian theology"

how in the world did you come up with THAT out of what

I

said

 

[Der Alte]

I am not 'taking a verse out of context' but illustrating a point

Any one verse in the Bible cannot contradict any other verse in the Bible. And most especially Paul's writing in 1 Cor 15:22 cannot contradict the words of Christ in John 3:18. Your interpretation of Paul contradicts Jesus. Therefore you need to revise your interpretation. We interpret the words of the disciples, such as Paul, by Jesus. Not the wrong way round as you are doing.

there are biblical justifications for universalism - just as there are biblical justifications for annihilationism --

Only if you ignore the verses which prove both views wrong. Where did Jesus teach either universalism or annihiilationism? People who believe in either doctrine must either ignore or reinterpret what Jesus said to make it line up with thier assumptions/presuppositions.

They perhaps do not OUTWEIGH biblical justifications for eternal torment -- but THEY ARE THERE

Not when one harmonizes the scripture instead of ignoring what they don't like.

So -- do you assume that "in Adam" applies to everyone universally -- without qualification?

I have explained this twice. What part do you not understand?

But that "in Christ" - requires QUALIFICATION from knowledge outside of the immediate passage?

No scripture can be interpreted in isolation. What you are doing is making Paul superior to and contradicting Jesus. Jesus is our standard not Paul.

oh well, in an effort to try to get back to the point of the thread -- I will ask this:

Could ADAM (of whom I guess we are ALL "in") -- could ADAM have chosen differently than to eat of the forbidden fruit and so DIE -- if Adam COULD HAVE CHOSEN DIFFERENTLY

then Free Will is established in a slam dunk.

Adam most certainly could have chosen not to eat the fruit. I have shown from Jeremiah earlier in thread that man definitely had free will.

 

[Anto9us]

Originally Posted by Anto9us View Post

Anto9us
"Ask people who have never studied Calvinism or Armininaism at all -- ask 'em "does man have free will? and most will answer YES"

Albion:
"All that suggests to me is that these are people who are not well educated in Christian theology. The natural impulse of non-religious people is to insist that men are the masters of their own fates. It takes a knowledge of the Bible to understand that God does not necessarily operate like a mortal might."

Ya know -- I am on a Christian message board - my initial phrase about "people" who hadn't studied Calvinism or Arminianism was indeed referring to OTHER CHRISTIAN people besides Calvinists or Arminianists -- I had nothing in mind about "non-religious people"

and my "High Horse" might be a NON-EXISTENT horse like the one people alege that Paul fell off of on the road to Damascus.

There was no horsey - Bible never said Paul was on a horse.

Calvin did - in a commentary -- but THE BIBLE never said Paul was on a horse.

 

[Anto9us]

okay - DA

so you say I am

"robbin Jesus to pay Paul"

acknowledged, but not agreed with.

 

[Albion]

Originally Posted by Anto9us View Post

Anto9us
"Ask people who have never studied Calvinism or Armininaism at all -- ask 'em "does man have free will? and most will answer YES"

Albion:
"All that suggests to me is that these are people who are not well educated in Christian theology. The natural impulse of non-religious people is to insist that men are the masters of their own fates. It takes a knowledge of the Bible to understand that God does not necessarily operate like a mortal might."

Ya know -- I am on a Christian message board - my initial phrase about "people" who hadn't studied Calvinism or Arminianism was indeed referring to OTHER CHRISTIAN people besides Calvinists or Arminianists -- I had nothing in mind about "non-religious people"

Bully for you. But that doesn't change the fact that I was explaining something to you and it dealt with unchurched, non-religious people.

Your face may be red now, but it's not that big a deal. Just forget it and return to the subject of Free Will and Predestination.

 

[Anto9us]

My face is not red, and I AM on the subject of Free Will vs Predestination, thank you.

And nothing changes the fact that I was NOT talking about 'unchurched, non-religious people.'

That is something YOU are trying to throw in, Albion -- out of nowhere.

I asserted -- and will do so again -- that "churched - religious people" outside the extremely narrow venue of Calvinism/Arminianism believe in Free Will. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestants not involved with the predestination issue as articulated by Calvin/Calvinists

they believe in Free Will - overwhelmingly

they DO, dude!

 

[com7fy8]

What I'm confused about is how Free Will fits into the area of God's omniscience. If God knows everything, he therefore knows everything that everyone is ever going to do, and he has always known it, even before anything except him was in existence. Is it that we have the freedom to choose, but God already knows what is going to happen? It would seem that if he already knows what will be, and he is the only force in existence at that time, is that or isn't that equal to him planning it?

The only way you can know for sure what will happen tomorrow is if you control it, I would say

If there is predestination, I certainly feel more sympathetic for many people throughout history. Take Judas for instance. He is toted as one of the most infamous villains in the Bible, but from the standpoint of predestination, he was only doing the job that God appointed for him to do (I mean, for Jesus to die and fulfill his plan of saving us, someone had to betray him so he could be killed). Then there's Pilate. He had a choice, set free a man and have a war on his hands that would get him executed; or kill the man to save the peace temporarily (you know, I never thought of it in that way, but Jesus's sacrifice also payed the price for stopping/delaying a possible war). Just like Judas, under predestination, Pilate was only playing the role he was scripted.

God will do what is right with each person who dies.

But - - - Judas was an evil person. Pilate was a wrong man who did not know Jesus. And it can happen that if you are a wrong person, this can have you in very unfair situations. Sin is not fair.

However > we see in the Bible how some number of people were in hard situations, but they trusted God and did the right thing and He had things go in ways better than anyone could have expected. So, I'd not be sure there would have been a war, if Pilate had gotten the sense and guts and wisdom to stand with Jesus.

And getting executed for standing with Jesus can be good . . . except you could say what Paul says in Philippians 1:23-24; so you could say trying to get executed in order to be with Jesus could be a selfish thing to desire to do.

I could list countless more, but I think my thoughts have been communicated. I definitely understand the Free Will side in that a world in which we are forced to do something by something outside of our power isn't love and has no meaning.

Even though plenty of people in sin have wills witch are not free, still we need to relate with people as though they have free wills . . . meaning not to try to control them; but trust God to change them the way that would be good for them. Win people by our example > "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

How grace effects us is not forcing us, but transforming our nature so we become submissive in love to our Father. We in selfish ego do not have the nature to make such a choice. The thanks and credit is purely to God > Romans 6:17.

Also, "God resists the proud" (in James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5).

God's resistance against our egos is not what we freely choose. But if we did not have God resisting us in our pride, we would get into much worse evil and suffering and tragedy, than those things which hit selfish people. But the things of God's resistance can help to slow people do from going all the way where Satan is taking them, which is so much worse. So, I can see He is not "loving" people by letting them have their own way.

I also believe that God is in control and it would go against his very nature if he didn't know what was going to happen all along. Could it be that there is a hybridization of sorts between the two that is simply beyond our capabilities of fathoming? How do y'all reconcile this issue?

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21) So, "from the same lump" God has made vessels for honor and for dishonor.

We have all been made "from the same lump" as Saddam Hussein and the Apostle Paul and Mary who sat at Jesus' feet and corrupt politicians and Billy Graham and pedophile predators. All were made "from the same lump".

So, if I have gotten into any good way with God, who am I to boast? I could have become any sort of evil person, at all; if others "from the same lump" have become so evil . . . so could I.

 

[Albion]

My face is not red, and I AM on the subject of Free Will vs Predestination, thank you.

And nothing changes the fact that I was NOT talking about 'unchurched, non-religious people.'

We know that. You were griping because you mistakenly thought that I was referring to Christians when I actually was referring to the non-religious in society. Get it now?

I asserted -- and will do so again -- that "churched - religious people" outside the extremely narrow venue of Calvinism/Arminianism believe in Free Will.

Well, some do and some do not. It's not a lot more complicated than that.

But if you are committed to the proposition that the majority must always be right when it comes to theology, be my guest. I don't think that makes much sense, but you are not the first to suggest such a thing.

 

[single eye]

The bible teaches both, so no clarity will not be found there on this subject. GOD is unconditional love, which means no expectation of receiving anything in return. The devil has no love and will never be satisfied no matter how many hoops we jump through. We have free-will, which means no one ever makes us do anything we do not choose, ever. The straight gate and narrow way do not go through the o.t.