Predestination vs Free Will

[ToBeLoved]

What are your opinions on predestination? Is it Biblical that God chose every single person who would come to faith in Jesus? Or do we all have freewill and every single person alive has the opportunity to find Christ? Needless to say, there are verses in the bible that support both views. So... idk which one to go with... what do you think?

I’m not a Calvinist. Think it’s a terrible doctrine

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think most people just seem terrified that their salvation is in God's Hand alone, and that He picks His people from among mankind.

You have to have perfect trust in something outside of you and outside of your control, and that is a difficult thing.

But as the Bible shows us shadows allow me to show something. Jesus was a Rabbi. All Rabbi' s had people who would disciple with them, to learn under them and emulate a great teacher as rabbi means teacher in Hebrew.

But men who wanted to learn under and disciple with a rabbi chose which rabbi they wanted to disciple with (probably using bad English so forgive me, I'm hoping people understand my point) and applied to do so.. and from among applicants the rabbis picked their disciples.

But Jesus didn't do that ... He was the .1% of Rabbis and chose HIS disciples, picked them out, stopped them from doing what they were doing, fishing, tax collecting, etc. and said come and follow me.

These disciples wanted to study under this great Rabbi.. desired it - but only after they were called.. they never applied, they were called.

God is the same. If you see Me you have seen the Father.

God also picks His people, His disciples from among men, those HE calls Israel are chosen.

You would think Calvinists would be the least certain of their salvation, since it is we who believe God holds us in His Hand and nothing is dependant upon us.. yet somehow we are the most certain and the most trusting of our sovereign Lord, even though we see ourselves as totally depraved and totally powerless in our salvation. .

Maybe there is something there for people to think on..

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think most people just seem terrified that their salvation is in God's Hand alone, and that He picks His people from among mankind.

You have to have perfect trust in something outside of you and outside of your control, and that is a difficult thing.

But as the Bible shows us shadows allow me to show something. Jesus was a Rabbi. All Rabbi' s had people who would disciple with them, to learn under them and emulate a great teacher as rabbi means teacher in Hebrew.

But men who wanted to learn under and disciple with a rabbi chose which rabbi they wanted to disciple with (probably using bad English so forgive me, I'm hoping people understand my point) and applied to do so.. and from among applicants the rabbis picked their disciples.

But Jesus didn't do that ... He was the .1% of Rabbis and chose HIS disciples, picked them out, stopped them from doing what they were doing, fishing, tax collecting, etc. and said come and follow me.

These disciples wanted to study under this great Rabbi.. desired it - but only after they were called.. they never applied, they were called.

God is the same. If you see Me you have seen the Father.

God also picks His people, His disciples from among men, those HE calls Israel are chosen.

You would think Calvinists would be the least certain of their salvation, since it is we who believe God holds us in His Hand and nothing is dependant upon us.. yet somehow we are the most certain and the most trusting of our sovereign Lord, even though we see ourselves as totally depraved and totally powerless in our salvation. .

Maybe there is something there for people to think on..

It has nothing to do with trusting God.

It has to do with who GOD is. That is what the doctrine is about.

Maybe you haven’t thought it through

 

[Oldmantook]

If it is as you say, how then does this lay out?

Rev. 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev. 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Yes, you have pointed out the basic problem with our two main systems of soteriology. In either theological system, God's will and desire for all men is thwarted despite his sovereignty. It is God's will vs. man's will as exemplified in:
Calvinism = God is strong enough to save everyone + God does not want to save everyone = everyone is not saved.
Arminianism = God is not strong enough to save everyone + God does want to save everyone = everyone is not saved.

In either system, God's will is thwarted and his purpose remains unfulfilled. Since you asked, that is one of the reasons that I subscribe to Christian Universalism but I can't elaborate as I might get censored. There is a literal, physical lake of fire but the unsaved don't spend "eternity" there. You may PM me if you wish.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What are your opinions on predestination?

It is found in Scripture, both the words and concept.

Is it Biblical that God chose every single person who would come to faith in Jesus?

Nobody comes unless the Father first draws him, and why would the Father draw those who would not come, against His own will? God is not divided against Himself. He has mercy on whom He wills, from beginning to end, salvation belongs to the Lord, and it is entirely of grace and mercy, entirely to the glory of God.

Or do we all have freewill and every single person alive has the opportunity to find Christ? Needless to say, there are verses in the bible that support both views. So... idk which one to go with... what do you think?

All good questions, and appreciate how you asked them, I sense the friendliness. The freewill debate should be looked at in terms of how it is defined, there is a world of difference between libertarian free will and compatibilitst free will. While it may be said those are philosophical terms, and indeed philosophy is concerned with, and philosophers do attempt at rigid definitions, and work through arguments both for and against, there is value in it, there are things to be learned from them and if all truth is God's truth, we should want to be as close to God's truth as possible, as God allows finite creatures to be. I say all of this because 1.) I once subscribed to libertarian free will, but 2.) I no longer do, because of the Scriptures and harmonizing exactly what you mention "there are verses in the bible that support both views". So compatibilist free will is a view which acknowledges and has a high view of the sovereignty of God and acknowledges "free will" which is defined differently, it is more nuanced, and recognizes the incompatiblism of libertarian free will with reality. If we have to use the phrase "free will", the describer should be limited followed by freedom because to will is nature and all creatures are bound by their nature. To take this even further, God Himself is bound to His nature which is Holy, which is the reason it is impossible for Him to lie, to sin, doing so would be self-contradictory, to go against His own Holy nature. So if God is bound to His nature, it should go without saying that His creatures are likewise bound to theirs. That's a few of my thoughts, let me know what you think.

 

[JIMINZ]

Yes, you have pointed out the basic problem with our two main systems of soteriology. In either theological system, God's will and desire for all men is thwarted despite his sovereignty. It is God's will vs. man's will as exemplified in:
Calvinism = God is strong enough to save everyone + God does not want to save everyone = everyone is not saved.
Arminianism = God is not strong enough to save everyone + God does want to save everyone = everyone is not saved.

In either system, God's will is thwarted and his purpose remains unfulfilled. Since you asked, that is one of the reasons that I subscribe to Christian Universalism but I can't elaborate as I might get censored. There is a literal, physical lake of fire but the unsaved don't spend "eternity" there. You may PM me if you wish.

My opinion is, both Calvinism, and Arminianism are skewed, both being based upon a misunderstanding of what Scripture actually said.

 

[JIMINZ]

It is found in Scripture, both the words and concept.



Nobody comes unless the Father first draws him, and why would the Father draw those who would not come, against His own will? God is not divided against Himself. He has mercy on whom He wills, from beginning to end, salvation belongs to the Lord, and it is entirely of grace and mercy, entirely to the glory of God.



All good questions, and appreciate how you asked them, I sense the friendliness. The freewill debate should be looked at in terms of how it is defined, there is a world of difference between libertarian free will and compatibilitst free will. While it may be said those are philosophical terms, and indeed philosophy is concerned with, and philosophers do attempt at rigid definitions, and work through arguments both for and against, there is value in it, there are things to be learned from them and if all truth is God's truth, we should want to be as close to God's truth as possible, as God allows finite creatures to be. I say all of this because 1.) I once subscribed to libertarian free will, but 2.) I no longer do, because of the Scriptures and harmonizing exactly what you mention "there are verses in the bible that support both views". So compatibilist free will is a view which acknowledges and has a high view of the sovereignty of God and acknowledges "free will" which is defined differently, it is more nuanced, and recognizes the incompatiblism of libertarian free will with reality. If we have to use the phrase "free will", the describer should be limited followed by freedom because to will is nature and all creatures are bound by their nature. To take this even further, God Himself is bound to His nature which is Holy, which is the reason it is impossible for Him to lie, to sin, doing so would be self-contradictory, to go against His own Holy nature. So if God is bound to His nature, it should go without saying that His creatures are likewise bound to theirs. That's a few of my thoughts, let me know what you think.

As far as Free Will is concerned, mankind only has such within the confines of (DOMINION), which was given to mankind by God, in order for him to subdue the earth.

The notion of mankind having Free Will that would allow him the ability to refuse Salvation or even to walk away from it once received is ludicrous.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's a very informative article - I recommended reading it if you have time in full at the link

"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: “Now tell me your theology without the dialectic so 1 can understand it!” Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner’s view of predestination the only way to avoid “double” predestination is with the use of “double-talk.”

Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.

The much greater issue of “double” predestination is the issue over the relationship between election and reprobation with respect to the nature of the decrees and the nature of the divine outworking of the decrees. If “double” predestination means a symmetrical view of predestination, then we must reject the notion. But such a view of “double” predestination would be a caricature and a serious distortion of the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not “work evil in us"

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all—in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy” (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

As far as Free Will is concerned, mankind only has such within the confines of (DOMINION), which was given to mankind by God, in order for him to subdue the earth.

I think we're on the same page here, pre-fallen Adam and Eve were given dominion to subdue the earth, in Christ the will is set free from the bondage of sin in post-fall Adam, it is restored such that we are enabled to please God with the faith He graciously and mercifully awakened...raised to life...and the means by His Spirit. So we are no longer slaves to sin, the will is no longer enslaved, and in Christ we have dominion to subdue the earth for the fame and glory of His mighty name.

The notion of mankind having Free Will that would allow him the ability to refuse Salvation or even to walk away from it once received is ludicrous.

(although I could nitpick the word "received" which it is at a point, prefer to emphasize the sovereignty of God, in the old "golden chain" of redemption)

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

My opinion is, both Calvinism, and Arminianism are skewed, both being based upon a misunderstanding of what Scripture actually said.

Before I embraced Calvinism, and had let loose of Weslyianism, I considered another third alternative view, unfortunately though, there's just not much in Christian history to support alternative views. By not much I mean beyond perhaps a few obscure teachers and such who did not represent the views of entire bodies of believers, meaning if a perspective is worthy of consideration, we should find a reasonable amount of support in Christian history, and if not, it should give us pause. The debate though pre-dates both formal Arminianism and Calvinism, back at least as far as Augustine and I do not think it's a subject where a wheel can be re-invented, in other words, I think Augustine had a firm grasp of the subject. My thoughts anyway for whatever they're worth.

 

[zoidar]

I believe that God predestined those who give their lives to Jesus to be conformed to the image of him. I don't believe God predestined who will give his/her life to Jesus.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I believe that God predestined those who give their lives to Jesus to be conformed to the image of him. I don't believe God predestined who will give his/her life to Jesus.

Does God not know all of earth's past, present, AND future?

 

[zoidar]

Does God not know all of earth's past, present, AND future?

I believe He does.

Knowing is not predestination.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I believe He does.

Knowing is not predestination.

Well I asked because omniscience is all-knowing and your statement "I don't believe God predestined who will give his/her life to Jesus." seems to be in conflict with the omniscience of God as it seems to be a denial that God knows individuals in advance.

Knowing is a component of predestination, the primary component is the will of God in choosing individuals (before the foundation of world), that is electing them to salvation.

 

[JIMINZ]

Well I asked because omniscience is all-knowing and your statement "I don't believe God predestined who will give his/her life to Jesus." seems to be in conflict with the omniscience of God as it seems to be a denial that God knows individuals in advance.

Knowing is a component of predestination, the primary component is the will of God in choosing individuals (before the foundation of world), that is electing them to salvation.

I have reservations about the misuse of the word Elect, Elected, Election as used by Christians today.

This is a subject all by itself.

 

[redleghunter]

I’m not a Calvinist. Think it’s a terrible doctrine

What exactly is their doctrine. No one really quotes from sources.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

If predestination is true, then what does it matter what I do? It was already written.

What you are describing is fatalism, not biblical predestination.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Maybe in the macro it's predestination but in micro we have our free will. In the macro, our history is foretold, and God had a plan for our salvation from the beginning. There are prophesies that have come to pass and some unfolding as we speak, and nothing comes as a surprise to God. But in the micro He assures us as individuals that He wishes all of us to come to repentance, which requires action on our part and implies free will. We can't be forced to repent and to love Him. We rebelled, just like a third of the angels.

This is to disregard the effects of the fall into sin and death. You have no biblical support for your position.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

You are correct. Scripture states both. Our Western Greek linear thought process though does not allow for both - despite what the Bible states. Another example would be that the Hebrews whose thought process differs from the Greek had no problem with whether Pharaoh hardened his own heart or whether God hardened Pharaoh's heart as Scripture states both facts are true. Since the Bible states both, I have to go with predestination AND free will.

Where does the bible teach free will? I do not remember that.

 

[Chris V++]

This is to disregard the effects of the fall into sin and death. You have no biblical support for your position.

God wanting us to come to repentance disregards the effects of the fall into sin and death? The need for repentance is not biblical? Or is God's plan for salvation not biblical? Or prophesy is not biblical? What is not biblical about what I wrote?