Christians... free will? - Page 4

[Purple Sage]

I'm still not following the logic that foreknowledge implies predestination. Because that is saying that it is impossible for God to know what we will freely choose before we choose it, and I can't imagine that this simple task would be impossible for God.

I also do not follow the logic that God is the source and cause of all evil. Because God is light and in him there is no darkness, so either there is no evil in the world or God is not the source of it.

[newcastlemama]

On the mystery thing--

The thing is that I have been a Christian for almost 9 years then I joined a Calvinist church soon after where my best friend, my husband, and his best friend went. I went through all the confessions to be baptized there as well. We knew the doctrines and all the arguments of why we were right. We have tons of books by RC Sproul, Piper, Pink, The Institutes of Religion, the creeds and confessions of the Reformed church, Systematic Theology ect...

Now 3/4 of us are not Calvinists anymore. It is not like non-Calvinist belivers are too dim or are always finding a "cop out". There are intelligent/rational/logical beleivers who love the Lord who have examined the Calvinsistic doctrines and they seem to make sense but then later find scripture that don't support the position.

I was talking to my dh last night (the remaining Calvinist of the bunch ) and he said that the most important thing is to love the Lord and others and hold the basic tenents of the faith. (Like the Nicine and Apostles creeds--We beleive Jesus is the Son of God, He was crucified for our sins and rose on the third day ect).

Yes, I understand this is a discussion about controversial beliefs (and I am choosing to participate!) but after lots of time in this debate in real life it seems that it ends with if you don't believe Calvinism then you are irrational or in denial. There is a website call www.evangelicalarminians.com that has very thoughtful essays on the subject of free-will and they go through all the hard passages like Romans 9 and Proverbs 21 if anyone is interested.

I hope my tone comes across correctly though the internet! I write with the love of Christ and hope to encourage my all Sisters! You know what is pretty cool is that we will all be worshipping TOGETHER around God's throne someday with a better understanding of His glorious ways!
Jen

[oma to 9]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Plenty of doctrines have been constructed with far fewer instances of textual support.

I'm not talking doctrine. I'm talking truth. Like I said, this is what I believe. I don't claim to follow any doctrine. I follow the Word.

As for 1 Peter 2... I'd say that text supports the Calvinistic view.(snip) I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue from here? The text clearly says the unbelievers were destined not to obey God, and then goes on to say the Christians to whom Peter is addressing were chosen for salvation. That sounds pretty pro-predestination to me.

Well, that's not the version I used when I quoted that scripture, was it? The original quote was here, from the King James Version:
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" 1 Peter 2:9

It speaks of a chosen generation. An entire generation. As I asked, if that entire generation was chosen, where did they go wrong? I know of no entire generation that was dedicated to God. If the whole nation or generation was chosen, predestined, why didn't the whole nation serve? It doesn't sound pro-predestination to me.

You've gone from exegesis to simply stating things without arguing them. Where does the Bible say that it's "up to us"?

Again I quote:
Romans 5:18 -
"So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life."

I'll add to that:
Joshua 24:15 -
"And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

How are we given a choice to make if it is not up to us? We are presented with a gift....salvation, free and clear. All we have to do is say yes to the gift. All we have to do is believe, and accept. We have to choose to believe. It is, in effect, up to us whether or not we believe. Again, if we don't have that choice, we are puppets at the hand of a talented puppeteer.


(quoting myself..... "I cannot believe that my God would ever create someone without giving that person at least one chance to come to know Him." )

So how do you deal with the passages I quoted earlier, which state rather emphatically that He does?

I will reiterate what I said earlier. It is my firm belief that everyone has a chance. This most likely negates at least a part of the predestination doctrine, but then again, I never claimed to believe in predestination anyhow. The Scriptures I quoted before say that Jesus died for everyone. All. Whosoever. That means we all have the choice, the chance, the option. Just as some can reason that the implied doesn't need to be stated, I will argue that Jesus died for everyone, and that everyone has a chance.

I believe that those whose hearts are or were hardened chose at some time to put self over God, in whatever form God had or has been presented to them. Greed, if you will....Pride, selfishness, arrogance....original sin, some call it, the feeling or reasoning that we can do without God, that we do not need Him, that we are not miserable, lost, and destined to a life of eternal separation from Him unless we acknowledge His gift to us, the gift of His Son. And again, if perhaps the missionaries have not been to that part of the world, or if by some chance the person has never been exposed to the Christian concept of God, then I believe that the acknowledgment of a power higher and stronger than oneself and a respect and honor of that power would be sufficient. God is not, will not be, limited to humanity's interpretation of Him.

What? No we don't. Atheists and materialists do exist.

My bad. What I meant to say was this....
We all choose whether or not to acknowledge the life force that created this planet."
My brain got ahead of my fingers. It happens sometimes.

Trisha

[oma to 9]

Originally Posted by Shami

Can't find the verse that says He makes me lie down in green pastures.

Psalm 23:2
"He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,"




Trisha

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I'm still not following the logic that foreknowledge implies predestination. Because that is saying that it is impossible for God to know what we will freely choose before we choose it, and I can't imagine that this simple task would be impossible for God.

I also do not follow the logic that God is the source and cause of all evil. Because God is light and in him there is no darkness, so either there is no evil in the world or God is not the source of it.

After rereading my post I felt I needed a disclaimer: All the 'you's in here are general you and not aimed at anyone, not Purple Sage either. I just used her post to go into this topic.

Going to bullet some thought, short on time.
From Romans 7 and 8, maybe 6 too

• 3 lives and 4 laws
• 3 lives are Christ, the self, and Satan (all indwelling us) Christ lives in our spirit, then there is our self, and Satan personifies sin in our flesh (body)
• Which life do you want to live? Christ, self, or Satan? Rhetorical question.
• 4 laws are this
• 1. Ten commandments (law outside of us telling us how to be)
• 2. law of good in our mind (this is our good self trying to fulfill the 10 commandments, trying to work out being good)
• 3. law of sin and of death (in our flesh nothing good dwells)(very powerful law which actually indwells our flesh)
• 4. law of Spirit of life (Rom 8) Most powerful law, God as Spirit dwells in our human spirit which is of life, zoe life, the divine life)

That was background info, now a little explanation. Can't remember where I read this, but it has helped me understand. Hope it helps somebody else.

If you are a believer and Christ lives in your spirit, you also have Satan in your flesh, with you, your self, in between these two powerful people. Of course Christ is more powerful.

Then you have these laws which operate within you all the time, except the 10 commandments are outside of you, but they play a roll in this.
You've got the 10 com. telling you to do this and don't do that...very heavy, right? weighs on you to try and do it. The law of good in your mind is always telling you to be good, do this, stop doing that, I can't believe you did that, why can't you just be a better person! All that self talk that goes on in your mind which makes you feel condemned, yuck! You try harder and harder, but always fall short.

Now, add to that the law of sin and of death which actually dwells in your flesh and is personified as Satan. This law is so strong that it is like the law of gravity.

An example, If I tell you to stand with your arms straight out and hold a book up (10 commandments). You may try and do that with your own strength(the law of good in your mind), but eventually gravity will pull your arms down (law of sin and of death). Do you see how these 3 laws are all working against you? In Romans 7 Paul sounded exasperated by this, saying that which I will to do, I do not do! Wretched man! Paraphrasing, big time here.

Then, in Rom 8, Paul bust out with this verse:
The law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus

We need to activate this law, the law of the Spirit of life which frees us from those other three laws, by turning to our spirit, turning to Christ in our spirit, calling on Him, etc. Then we will walk by the Spirit, live Christ, experience Christ, express Christ to others even our children.
My rhetorical question above:
Do you want to live Christ, or live in your good self trying to work it out, or live Satan in your flesh?

God did create all of His angels even the rebellious one, Lucifer who was cast down to become the god of this age seeking to devour us. There is no darkness in God and no sin, nor is there an unrighteous bone in His body. However, He was the source,in that, He created Lucifer and allowed or possible ordained Him to rebel (this gets into the did Lucifer have the choice to rebel or did God make Lucifer rebellious?) I don't know.

I do know that God blocked the tree of life in the Garden of Eden with a Cheribum and flaming swords. He could not allow, Adam, who had sin dwelling in His flesh to partake of the tree of life (tree of life represents God as our source of life)(tree of knowledge of good and evil represents Satan, or death or sin, or all three because they would die if they ate it). It was Jesus death on the cross that opened the way for us to take God into us as life. Christ can live in us sinners because of Jesus' death/resurrection. God cannot participate in sin because of His righteousness, but He is definitely allowing us to participate in it. Hallelujah, He made a provision for us, which is the precious and efficacious blood of Christ.

And if you're still with me, let me blow your mind a little bit. Did you notice that the "good" is on the same tree as the "evil"...tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did you notice the law of good in our mind operates with the law of sin and death which utterly frustrated Paul enough to call himself a wretched man. So do you try and be a 'good' person? From what source is that good that you are trying to work out in your mind? I offer this as an alternative. Live Christ, rather than live good. Of course if you live Christ, good will issue out of that living.


Again, sorry so long!

[Smokering]

Ok, Im just saying some might assume it equally illogical be even believe those miracles even possible because they break the laws of nature, as it is to believe that God can know our lives from beginning to end and still not interfere with our free will.

Some might assume it, but they'd be wrong. Logical laws and physical laws are fundamentally different. "They" could try to make the case, but without hearing an argument in favour of the virgin birth being illogical I think it's a bit of a silly objection. Like I said, virgin births technically happen in this day and age due to IVF. If such a thing were logically impossible... they wouldn't. They couldn't.

But then God calls us to make a choice. He pleads with Israel to repent and their sins would be forgiven (Is 1 or 2)... In fact over and over again He does this. Jesus weaps over Jerusalem because they reject Him, He wishes how he could take them under his wing as a mother hen. Is it just the emotion of 'acting out' what he already knows will happen that causes Him to grieve? Perhaps it is! Im still on the fence about it all. There's a moment when I think I understand it completely, then I question it again...

I think it's the issue of God's complex will, as I discussed earlier. And again, we do make a choice in Calvinism. Verses that talk about making a choice don't have any impact one way or another on the doctrine of predestination, unless they specifically say that the choice we need to make is metaphysically free... which they don't.

The bible says we are rewarded for our actions, or punished for them. What sense would it make to be rewarded and punished for things that we have no control over. That would not be a just God, and my God is a just god.

Given that God makes the rules, whatever He decides is just is just. What you seem to be saying is that He would be "unfair"... which He answers again quite clearly in Romans 9 and Job 38-42. God doesn't owe us anything. We're His creatures and none of us deserve anything less than hell; nor will any of us end up in hell against the deepest desires of our hearts.

see all the arguments against free will, and they make sense to me. But it doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that the God I believe in can't know something for certain. If we can't choose to not eat the doughnut, then it's also true that we were given the opportunity to choose, and we chose to eat the doughnut.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I agree that a non-omniscient God does not gel with the God revealed in the Bible. So how do you square that with my original objection in this thread to free will? If God does infallibly know that you will eat the doughnut, how are you free not to eat it? Can you go against what He knows you'll do?

I'm still not following the logic that foreknowledge implies predestination. Because that is saying that it is impossible for God to know what we will freely choose before we choose it, and I can't imagine that this simple task would be impossible for God.

It's not simple to do something logically impossible. It's not simple for God to make a square circle, for instance; it's impossible. It's not simple for God to infallibly know a choice that is metaphysically free, because it's likewise impossible; if He knows it, it's fixed and therefore not free. If we are freely choosing then God's knowledge is contingent, and He is (according to most branches of Christian theology) a non-contingent being. I don't know any other ways to rephrase the argument, sorry.

I also do not follow the logic that God is the source and cause of all evil. Because God is light and in him there is no darkness, so either there is no evil in the world or God is not the source of it.

Isaiah 45:7: "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." If God is not in control of evil, He is not sovereign; He is reactive, and helpless against the selfish whims of a petulant two-year-old.

But more to the point, what about the verses I mentioned earlier, in which it is plainly stated that GOD sent the evil spirit to Saul, hardened Pharaoh's heart, etc?

newcastlemama: I'm certainly not trying to say all Arminians are stupid or in denial. I'm just saying that Arminianism needs to have a logical response to problems such as the logical one I posed initially about free will. I have yet to find such a response, despite engaging with a vast number of Arminians for years, and I do believe the principal and "gut" reaction against Calvinism (which most people I debate are unwilling to get beyond) is an emotional rather than logical one, based on living for years in a culture that believes in and almost fetishises free will (not Arminianism - the Western world in general). If the term "free will" didn't come up regularly in secular culture, I suspect a lot of people would find Calvinism a lot less repellent.

Do you have any comments on the "foreknowledge logically collapses into predestination" issue, as an ex-Calvinist?

I'm not talking doctrine. I'm talking truth. Like I said, this is what I believe. I don't claim to follow any doctrine. I follow the Word.

If you follow the Word, then you believe scores of doctrines. The deity of Christ is a doctrine; so is the love of God, and so on. A doctrine is just a description of what the Bible says about a topic.

Well, that's not the version I used when I quoted that scripture, was it? The original quote was here, from the King James Version:
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" 1 Peter 2:9

It speaks of a chosen generation. An entire generation. As I asked, if that entire generation was chosen, where did they go wrong? I know of no entire generation that was dedicated to God. If the whole nation or generation was chosen, predestined, why didn't the whole nation serve? It doesn't sound pro-predestination to me.

I think the ESV is on the whole a better translation than the KJV, but you're welcome to show me otherwise in the Greek if you think it makes a difference. Or are you KJV-only? At any rate, whether the word is "race" or "generation", Peter is speaking to CHRISTIANS. So none of them rejected the Gospel, by definition. He's speaking of the Christians as a "generation" (I think "race" is a less confusing term here), not of a whole physical generation. That's sort of the point of the passage... the chosen ones become the race, nation, people, it no longer depends on being born to Abraham and being physically part of the nation of God.

How are we given a choice to make if it is not up to us? We are presented with a gift....salvation, free and clear. All we have to do is say yes to the gift. All we have to do is believe, and accept. We have to choose to believe. It is, in effect, up to us whether or not we believe. Again, if we don't have that choice, we are puppets at the hand of a talented puppeteer.

The passage you quoted does not state the metaphysical basis of the choice. Please stop using "choice" qua "choice" to imply free will - it's a non sequiter and I've already refuted it ad nauseum in this thread. Same with the puppet analogy. Puppets don't have will. Use the "characters in a book" analogy if you must, it's more accurate.

Why does God operate His will through choice? I don't know. why did He create the universe at all? For His own glory, I suppose. If the Bible says something is so, then figuring out why is less important than trusting that it is true. Whatever God's reasons, He chose to work out His purposes through human actions. He chose to make us real instead of a theoretical experiment.

I believe that those whose hearts are or were hardened chose at some time to put self over God, in whatever form God had or has been presented to them.

So do I. Every human old enough to put on his socks has done that. So what? That's just a previous choice, and therefore subject to the same criteria as the later choice. The verses I quoted hardly give a picture of a God who only intervenes in the occasional choice. There are examples of some specific choices, yes, but also verses which state that God controls and decrees everything. And there are no verses which state that a person hardening his heart does so free from God's control, acting in a non-contingent way and creating a tiny "bubble of sovereignty" in which the power of God does not apply. So arguing that they had is going outside the text. I'm interested in what the Bible says on the matter, not an argument from what it doesn't say.

My bad. What I meant to say was this....
We all choose whether or not to acknowledge the life force that created this planet."
My brain got ahead of my fingers. It happens sometimes.

Ah, OK. Well, I agree with you there... I just believe we don't choose apart from God's sovereignty.

[shanniesue2]

nak-ing a toddler, so I'm sorry if there are typos or words that seem out of place.

Originally Posted by Smokering

Working from the bottom up...


shanniesue2: Yep, seen that movie. But you're forgetting something - the reason he didn't "have to" kill the guy was because the vision that showed him doing it WASN'T infallible. There was a "minority report", a disagreement among the pre-cogs which was discarded for political reasons. Plus, the pre-cogs' visions were a bit dodgy anyway - shady and swirly and glimpsey, and therefore open to interpretation. So it's not a good analogy to God's perfect definite foreknowledge, you know?

I would disagree with that. I think you see will clearly acted out on a daily basis. People making choices. You can't "see" the metaphysical reality behind that, just from the fact that choices are made. I don't know how observation alone could lead you to a conclusion about the freedom or otherwise of the will - it seems to me that'd have to be reasoned philosophically. And, though I've said this till I'm blue in the face and will keep saying it down the long tunnel of years while people politely disbelieve me, Calvinism DOES NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF WILL. Arguments against Calvinism that say "But I chose to do XYZ!" or "But God commands people to repent!" simply don't get it. Calvinists believe people are volitional creatures, with conscious and unconscious decisions behind the choices they make. So I don't cringe inside when I see someone choosing a doughnut; it doesn't rock my theology. I believe that person's choice was ultimately caused by God, yes, but not that they were unaware of it or non-complicit, as it were.

As for the movie, there was no minority report for Tom Cruise. The minority report that was trashed was for the murder of the pre-cog's mother. But anyway, if you remember correctly, Tom Cruise couldn't understand how he was supposed to murder someone he didn't know so he went to the pre-cogs and she told him he had no minority report. So they foresaw him murdering someone, and yet he didn't murder the guy. The guy killed himself after Tom Cruise lowered the gun. Which isn't what the pre-cogs foresaw. Which causes a major breakdown in the system, if the pre-cogs were wrong in what they foresaw then that implies the possibility that they could have been wrong about other murders, which means that it's possible that other people convicted of murder could have made a different choice if they had been given that choice. You are right that there are other issues brought up in other parts of the plot in that movie, but I thought that the incidents surrounding the murder that Tom Cruise was supposed to commit were relevent to the discussion in that I think it illustrates the idea that the concepts of free will and an infallible omniscient god can't coexist... because as you said, they are logical fallacies.

However, this is where you and I diverge and why I see free will as possible, I don't believe in an infallibly omniscient god who created us in the same way that an engineer creates an automobile. I believe in a god who gives us the gift of life much in the same way a mother gives the gift of life to her child through birth. I didn't create my child, but I have given him the opportunity to experience life and follow his own curiosities and I see the gift of life we were given by god in much the same way. And when I say "I see it" I am not using the word see in the strict idea of a visual perception. I am using it to express that this is my point of view. As in "here's how I see it." So I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my expression.
Anyway, when confronted with the logical fallacy btwn free will and and infallible/omniscient god, you broke down the argument about free will and I broke down the argument about god. So because we are coming from two different perspectives on god(which I do believe in, btw) and the nature of our "creation", then I think it's possible to have differing view points on will and whether or not it's free.

Oh and gen, thank you so much for the clarification on your friend's experience. Knowing more of the details, I understand better what you were trying to say. I think that originally, I really just got the wrong idea.

[Smokering]

Clearly I need to watch Minority Report again. I coulda sworn he had a minority report. But yeah, either way, fallible visions. Bit of a dubious justice system all round, really.

I'm not sure I get what you mean about how God created us. Can you clarify? You don't think God's omniscient or infallible? Do you believe He has foreknowledge of any kind? Sovereignty? I'm not quite sure how you conceptualise God. Is it more like an Open Theist view?

[oma to 9]

Originally Posted by Smokering

If you follow the Word, then you believe scores of doctrines. The deity of Christ is a doctrine; so is the love of God, and so on. A doctrine is just a description of what the Bible says about a topic.

Noun

Actually, here is the definition of doctrine:
"Noun

* S: (n) doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school) "
(wordnetweb.princeton.edu)

I think the ESV is on the whole a better translation than the KJV, but you're welcome to show me otherwise in the Greek if you think it makes a difference. Or are you KJV-only?

Actually, arguably, the New American Standard is the closest word-for-word translation, according to my Bible School studies. As for me, I prefer several versions depending on my mood. NAS, Amplified, NKJV, KJV, NIV...I try not to limit myself.

At any rate, whether the word is "race" or "generation", Peter is speaking to CHRISTIANS. So none of them rejected the Gospel, by definition. He's speaking of the Christians as a "generation" (I think "race" is a less confusing term here), not of a whole physical generation. That's sort of the point of the passage... the chosen ones become the race, nation, people, it no longer depends on being born to Abraham and being physically part of the nation of God.

However, if you look at the rest of the scripture, it speaks of being called. Now if you are called, you have the choice whether or not to answer. God may know that, based on the choices you have made so far, you will head in one direction or the other; still, all the choices leading to this one, though cumulative in nature, have been based on the thought that we have options. We can either choose right or wrong, light or dark, heaven or hell. Every day in thousands of ways we make those decisions. Do I swear or do I use civilized words? Am I critical of others, or do I choose to edify them? Do I go to work or call in?
Because of the sinful nature of man, there is no given on how we will make each decision. We can choose to do the right thing one day and then the next day choose to deliberately hurt someone else, or lie, or steal. This is why we need forgiveness. If not for free will, forgiveness would not be necessary. If not for free will, Jesus would not have been destined to die on the Cross for the sins of man. Adam, the first man, was presented with a choice. He could have decided to follow the Word of the Lord and stay away from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't. He chose pride; he chose to exalt his will over God's. In that, he exercised free will. I really, honestly don't think it was God's will for Adam to be so, excuse me, ignorant. He wanted Adam and his offspring to be able to walk with Him in the garden in the cool of the day, to be unashamed and blameless before him. Because He is God, and His Character cannot change, He had to allow that choice....even if, as an all-knowing, all-seeing God, He saw the ending from the beginning. The choice had to be there or He would negate Himself.

The passage you quoted does not state the metaphysical basis of the choice. Please stop using "choice" qua "choice" to imply free will - it's a non sequiter and I've already refuted it ad nauseum in this thread. Same with the puppet analogy. Puppets don't have will. Use the "characters in a book" analogy if you must, it's more accurate.

You could be kinder. I have deliberately not attacked you as a person. I have exercised my free will and taken the time not to use the word "you" in any of my responses. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same respect. Simply because I decide to intermingle the words doesn't mean that I am wrong....it is my way, perhaps the way of an older generation. I don't split hairs. To me, choice and will are interchangeable because without will there is no choice and choice exposes will.


Why does God operate His will through choice? I don't know. why did He create the universe at all? For His own glory, I suppose.

Isaiah 43 says exactly that - we are created for His Glory, and to show forth His Praise. There are doctines that teach that God created us for companionship - that He desired intimacy with us, and they back it with the scriptures that speak of us as His Bride, the one He chose from before the beginning. He operates His will through choice because He wants us to freely choose to come to Him; not because of fear of damnation or because it's what we were taught, but because we have a God-hunger in our inner man, a hunger that can only be satisfied by communion (intimacy, supreme inner communication) with Him through praise, worship and prayer.
Yes, He chose us, but He wants us to choose Him as well. He may know how the book ends, but that does not preclude allowing us the option of serving or not serving, of allowing man in his sinful state to choose to honor His creation or to tarnish it through selfishness and sin. That is a doctrine - a teaching espoused by a school or group of people.

And there are no verses which state that a person hardening his heart does so free from God's control, acting in a non-contingent way and creating a tiny "bubble of sovereignty" in which the power of God does not apply.

Likewise there are none that say we are forced or compelled to obey. And, just as an aside, foreknowledge does not necessarily imply control. It says in Scripture that God does not want any of us to perish, but He knows that there are people who, given the option, will choose the way of evil over the way of good, and in His sovereign knowledge He chooses to allow that to happen so that when mankind seeks Him out, is is as a choice and not as the result of compulsion.

Trisha

[Smokering]

Actually, arguably, the New American Standard is the closest word-for-word translation, according to my Bible School studies. As for me, I prefer several versions depending on my mood. NAS, Amplified, NKJV, KJV, NIV...I try not to limit myself.

Then why did you object to my using a different translation to you? FWIW, the NASB also renders the word as "race", not "generation"; but either way it is translated, the point remains that Peter was addressing Christians, not a mixed group or saved and unsaved individuals.

However, if you look at the rest of the scripture, it speaks of being called. Now if you are called, you have the choice whether or not to answer.

It also speaks of sinners being dead in their trespasses and sins. Can a dead man answer a call? Can a corpse freely choose to love God? No.

And again, you are conflating the concepts of will and free will. As a Calvinist I wholeheartedly affirm that God calls people and they answer; that's not in question here. Never has been. The question is, who is in control of that choice? Saying the Scripture uses the word "called" doesn't prove that it means LFW or predestination - you need to look at passages which specifically discuss the metaphysics of the issue, like Romans 9. The Bible is largely a practical work rather than a theological one, so the mechanisms of causality don't come up all the time (in fact, it's amazing they come up as often as they do).

God may know that, based on the choices you have made so far, you will head in one direction or the other; still, all the choices leading to this one, though cumulative in nature, have been based on the thought that we have options. We can either choose right or wrong, light or dark, heaven or hell. Every day in thousands of ways we make those decisions. Do I swear or do I use civilized words? Am I critical of others, or do I choose to edify them? Do I go to work or call in?

If you want to offer this as an argument, you need to justify it from Scripture. Where does the Bible teach these things?

Because of the sinful nature of man, there is no given on how we will make each decision.

So God doesn't know? So He's not omniscient?

If not for free will, forgiveness would not be necessary.

Why not? We're complicit in sin. It isn't against our will. We are no more or less than what God causes us to be, and if that thing is sinful, then it needs forgiveness.

If not for free will, Jesus would not have been destined to die on the Cross for the sins of man.

If not for predestination, Jesus could not have died on the Cross for the sins of man, because God would have been unable to impact the billions of human choices that resulted in His birth in a specific time and place. Worse, God would not have even known the future, so He would not have known when was the "right" time for Jesus to be born.

Adam, the first man, was presented with a choice. He could have decided to follow the Word of the Lord and stay away from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't. He chose pride; he chose to exalt his will over God's. In that, he exercised free will.

No, he exercised will - volitional capability. You have yet to argue a case that it was free.

I really, honestly don't think it was God's will for Adam to be so, excuse me, ignorant. He wanted Adam and his offspring to be able to walk with Him in the garden in the cool of the day, to be unashamed and blameless before him.

I'm not sure how this is relevant?

Because He is God, and His Character cannot change, He had to allow that choice....even if, as an all-knowing, all-seeing God, He saw the ending from the beginning. The choice had to be there or He would negate Himself.

1. That's assuming that God's character must allow humanity free will, which you have not yet established.
2. He's not an all-knowing God if His knowledge is contingent on human choices.
3. God, knowing that Adam would sin and choosing to create him anyway, is just as responsible for evil as the God of Calvinism who ordained Adam to sin.

You could be kinder. I have deliberately not attacked you as a person. I have exercised my free will and taken the time not to use the word "you" in any of my responses. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same respect. Simply because I decide to intermingle the words doesn't mean that I am wrong....it is my way, perhaps the way of an older generation. I don't split hairs. To me, choice and will are interchangeable because without will there is no choice and choice exposes will.

I haven't attacked you either. I have asked you to respect my arguments enough to either refute them or concede their truth. Libertarian free will and will are two very distinct things; I believe in the latter, but not the former. I have said so repeatedly. I AGREE that choice and will are interchangeable terms, but you have used choice and FREE will as interchangeable CONCEPTS, and that is simply incorrect. The Bible teaching the existence of choice in no way comments on the metaphysical nature of that choice. And I really don't want to spend hours on this thread going over the same ground every time someone says "Ooh, but here's a verse where God tells people to choose, so free will must be true!". I don't have the time or the mental stamina.

the scriptures that speak of us as His Bride, the one He chose from before the beginning. He operates His will through choice because He wants us to freely choose to come to Him

Those two statements are mutually contradictory. If He chose us before the beginning, our reciprocal choice of Him could not be free. "For who can resist His will?"

Yes, He chose us, but He wants us to choose Him as well.

I agree, which is why He causes us to do so, as stated in numerous passages of Scripture which I have already quoted in this thread.

He may know how the book ends

He wrote the book. He's God. If He didn't, who did? If we did, then how is He God and how are we not?

but that does not preclude allowing us the option of serving or not serving, of allowing man in his sinful state to choose to honor His creation or to tarnish it through selfishness and sin. That is a doctrine - a teaching espoused by a school or group of people.

Yes, but it's a doctrine you are simply stating as fact. Can you prove it from Scripture? Where does it say in the Bible that men have a METAPHYSICALLY FREE, uncaused-by-God ability to determine their own fates? (Also, I thought you said you didn't believe in doctrines?)

Likewise there are none that say we are forced or compelled to obey.

There's Romans 9:19.

And, just as an aside, foreknowledge does not necessarily imply control.

Well, that's kind of the issue under discussion. How does it not? Can you explain to me how God's perfect definite foreknowledge does not result in an act which is, logically speaking, fixed and therefore cannot be changed?

It says in Scripture that God does not want any of us to perish, but He knows that there are people who, given the option, will choose the way of evil over the way of good, and in His sovereign knowledge He chooses to allow that to happen so that when mankind seeks Him out, is is as a choice and not as the result of compulsion.

So why does God use the potter/clay analogy in Romans? Does clay have a choice as to how it is fashioned? Is it not compelled to become the vessel into which the potter shapes it? Why, if God is so anti-compulsion, does He speak of choosing His bride before the foundations of the world instead of just foreseeing her? Wouldn't that make the choosing redundant? Why, if God puts such a premium on freedom, is He happy to blatantly interfere with the spiritual lives of Pharaoh, Saul, Paul and so on? And why does He declare Himself to be in charge of all things if He has abdicated responsibility on the rather important front of human decision-making? What, exactly, IS He in charge of if the entirety of human choices are outside His control - Jupiter? History is shaped by human choices - the extinction of entire species is shaped by human choices - the topography of the earth, not to mention the population itself, are crafted by billions and billions of human choices. If God isn't sovereign over those, how can He be said to be shaping history at all?

[Shami]

I went to the link that Newcastle put up and I found it worded in a way the helped me see Smoke-ring's point.

"The compatibilist wants to show that we can still be free and responsible for our own actions and they can be determined. " ....snip

"The incompatibilist thinks this is counterintuitive. It seems to be a logical contradiction to say we are determined yet free."

The bolded part...determined yet free being illogical.

I think my hang up in understanding Smoke-ring is the connection between God having foreknowledge means that He must have predestinated us and determined what we will do. Or I like the word caused. God causes me to do things.

But on our side we have the sensation that we are choosing. I think that we have that sensation that we are choosing because we are so independent of God. If we asked God before we did anything, we would be doing everything He told us to do. Let's say from the time we get up, we ask God, What should I wear? which pants? which socks, etc.? my hair? what to eat? how fast to drive? what radio station? what should I say to my boss? my children? should I stop and talk to that neighbor? should I bring that subject up with my dh? which spices should I use in my sauce? On and on.

If this was the running dialogue we had with God would we have the sensation that we are really freely choosing? In my experience, God does care about all of these things, but I just do it without asking Him. I don't ask Him about all of that, usually. Occasionally, I will, but not that much.

If we are determined, we can't be free. The way that foreknowledge fits in is that being determined necessitates foreknowledge. And we really have to understand that Smoke-ring is saying there is a difference between free will and volitional will. I agree you shouldn't have to explain that again. It seems we are missing something in the terminology. It is obvious that you have been deep into the Calvinist doctrine and know it inside and out, but some of the terminology is 'Greek' to me and I have to google it to get what you are saying. It's not that easy for me. It's like learning a new language while learning new concepts.

I'm still not sure how I feel about all of this. I'm just going to pray and ask for His light and wisdom because it's really beyond my capacity to understand.

Just a side note: the article that I quoted was under the sub heading 'freewill' and the author did a pretty good job refuting the Calvanist stance, but I'm still not convinced either way.

[oma to 9]

This whole thing is giving me a migraine.

Before my disability I'd keep going. I can't do this any more. I believe how I believe and I'm not gonna argue it. You have the right to believe the way you want and obviously you are convinced enough that you are correct, nobody is going to be able to explain to your satisfaction why it might be different. The thinking, the searching, the reading and explaining has the pain in my head twice as bad and the ringing in my ears so loud I can hardly hear. And yes, in case you wondered, I do have a verified condition that justifies these statements.

This is why the church is so divided. Instead of discussing how good God is and how awesome the gift that Jesus gave, we spend hours and hours debating this and that...how many souls could we have led to the knowledge of Jesus in this time? How much did we waste with our pettiness?

I don't need it.

Not bowing out. I just have to stop in order to protect my health and well being.

Bye.

[Shami]

Hope you feel better real soon Oma to 9!

You are so right about the division in the church over doctrines. It's a sad thing and I believe that Satan is behind it.

I like this statement:

The church is an organism, not an organization.

When you feel better come visit the thread in Spirituality entitled Christians help me be a grace filled mama. It's been very encouraging.

How about everybody come on over? I'm not trying to be exclusive. We are speaking Christ to one another for the building up of the body in love.

[Smokering]

oma to 9: I understand. I find theological debates very draining from time to time (and I don't have a medical condition!). I do think there's a place for debating theological issues - free will vs predestination has wide-reaching theological implications, even to things like the nature of God. So in a way I think it's important for Christians to get their theology hammered out before they evangelise. But the world won't end if we don't resolve the Arminian/Calvinist divide singlehandedly on MDC this week, either. Hope you feel better soon!

[genifer]

I do think there's a place for debating theological issues - free will vs predestination has wide-reaching theological implications, even to things like the nature of God. So in a way I think it's important for Christians to get their theology hammered out before they evangelise. But the world won't end if we don't resolve the Arminian/Calvinist divide singlehandedly on MDC this week, either. Hope you feel better soon!

Smokering, I completely agree with you here. I mean, tbh, I think we've all thought long and hard about these sort of things and what I LOVE is to discuss these issues in a grace filled, loving manner, in the Love of Christ. I DO think its important.

free will vs predestination has wide-reaching theological implications, even to things like the nature of God.

I was even thinking this the last few days. In a way I, personally, keep coming back to this issue and the argument you present, this was long before we started this discussion and I came up with every single arguemnt you brought forth, presented it to others just to get it out of my head, bc in a way I can only see it the way you see it, in another way, Ive not 'committed' to it yet, iykwim. I think this is all about spiritual growth.

So my question is, and this one is painful to consider, Did God create some to be the 'objects of His wrath' and others to be recipients of His glory, grace, mercy the way Romans 7-9 describes? Is this what the bible teaches? Is this what Calvinism teaches.

I will say one thing... Ill never call myself a calvinist, an arminian, a messianic, a baptist, or any such thing. I consider myself nothing more and nothing less then a sinner saved by the grace of God alone. I know Im sojourning thru this life, I believe this is a stop over. Ive considered whether we arent a finished creation, that we werent finished 'being created' 'In The Beginning', but that we are a special creation, a fallen one, a redeemed one, and all this so that God can reveal His glory in us. Maybe there's more to it then that, but thats as far as Ive gotten (Id love to hear what others think about it, what I hate is when christians attack one another implying one is thick, unspiritual, lacking in understanding bc they dont read the word enough, dont have enough faith and the like... that sort of talk does NOT belong in the fellowship of true believers in Christ).

Ive considered whether we arent a finished creation, that we werent finished 'being created' 'In The Beginning'

Now, when I say this what I mean is this... Did God actually ordain the fall, cause it to happen when he could have 'done it another way' and if he did, then that implies that he His plan was concieved in eternity, that he mapped out what would happen, who would be born, who he would grant mercy to and who He would subject to His wrath for His perfect purposes...

Now, first of all I have to ask if what Im saying makes sense. Sometimes what I think in my head only makes sense to me! I may just find it hard to communicate and Id be happy to clarify what Im asking...

Secondly, assuming what Im asking makes sense, does anyone get me? Does anyone think this way, is this the Calvinist way of thinking. Has anyone considered any of this, done the studying and come to thier own conclusions?

When I was saved 11/12 years ago, I knew God for the first time, I didnt know there was anything more to know about Him! LOL! Time goes by and I guess I want to know more and more (I reckon Im not alone!).

Smokering, yes, I couldnt agree more that we need to know what we're talking about before we evangelise!! I had never been much of an evangelist in the preaching sense of the word. I had always just tried to live to please Christ, hoping and praying for salvation to come to others, that maybe I could be used to plant seed.

There are so many parables that when you look at it from the 'calvinst' pov, seem to make so much more sense to me right now. I mean before now, they had a different meaning, not any less true, but now there is a deeper meaning, as if my eyes are being opened.

I aint committing to calvinsm tho..., because I think the implications could be dangerous with a puny human mind... I mean, we could go on and say 'Well if Im predestined for heaven then I can live how i want anyway'. The same could be said for someone who is predestined for eternal damnation! I think its better for me to choose to live as if Im just saved, God knows the beginning to the end and I dont, so live like I dont know who's saved and who isnt to be... Love them all the same with the same love given to me in Christ, bc at the end of the day, there IS so much more to all this, like smokering suggested, then calvinsm vs. arminianism...

[Smokering]

So my question is, and this one is painful to consider, Did God create some to be the 'objects of His wrath' and others to be recipients of His glory, grace, mercy the way Romans 7-9 describes? Is this what the bible teaches? Is this what Calvinism teaches.

I believe it is what the Bible teaches. Calvinism is divided on the issue - the doctrine is called double predestination (God actively predestines people to hell and heaven), but some Calvinists believe in single predestination (God actively predestines people to heaven but only "lets" them to go hell). The latter doesn't make sense to me - it has all the problems of full-blown Arminianism in terms of the issues with God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.

As I said before though, Arminianism likewise makes God responsible for people being in hell. If He knew they'd choose hell and chose to create them anyway, when He could have created heaven-bound people instead, He's still creating them for hell in a way.

I can definitely see why double predestination is an unpopular doctrine. But I trust that God knows what He's doing - that He has a plan, and that the existence of the damned is somehow necessary to accomplish His greatest good. And as I said earlier, nobody is damned against his will. It's the flip side of the coin - if they are predestined for hell they don't truly desire heaven, and if they are truly seeking God it's a sign they are predestined for heaven. There's no core of self inside a person which is separated from God's sovereignty over her will, saying "But I really want to seek God, God just won't let me". All that a person is is what God has made her to be, so if God has made her to be deserving of judgment that is just. And given that we cannot know what God has ordained for the future, it would be the height of foolishness for someone to complain "Well, I must be predestined for hell, that's not fair". They should follow the very blatant command of God to repent and believe; and if they do, it will prove that was God's will all along.

Now, when I say this what I mean is this... Did God actually ordain the fall, cause it to happen when he could have 'done it another way' and if he did, then that implies that he His plan was concieved in eternity, that he mapped out what would happen, who would be born, who he would grant mercy to and who He would subject to His wrath for His perfect purposes...

Again, I think so, but not every Calvinist would agree with me. Some believe Adam and Eve had free will, which was lost at the fall when humanity became slaves to sin.

It does clearly say in the Bible that God chose who He would save before the foundation of the world. So assuming a population of 100 people, if God chose to save 40 of them, then doesn't it follow He chose not to save the other 60? Presumably He didn't just say "eh, those ones can do what they want, I'll fill their names in the book of Life later" - because everyone who is saved was chosen before the foundation of the world.

I think a clue as to why God chose to create a universe with evil in it lies in God wanting to fully exercise all His attributes: grace, wrath, mercy and justice. Maybe. I'd have to think that through - certainly I believe God is non-contingent, so I don't think He "needed" creation to be fully Himself; but I think it's plausible to say He required it, logically speaking, to fully express those attributes. But I haven't given this a huge amount of thought, so don't hold me to it.

I aint committing to calvinsm tho..., because I think the implications could be dangerous with a puny human mind... I mean, we could go on and say 'Well if Im predestined for heaven then I can live how i want anyway'.

Except that we don't know God's plan. We don't get a certificate upon conversion saying "predestined". Paul urges Christians to work out their salvation in fear and trembling; elsewhere the Bible talks about people who have deluded themselves into thinking they are saved, or who give the appearance of salvation but later fall away. So I don't think a consistent Calvinist would be blase about it. We do have some assurance of salvation based on Christ's promises, not our own works; but the Bible's very clear that those who rest on their laurels aren't really saved. The works prove the faith. (It's sort of like love and marriage. Just because you had a wedding ceremony doesn't mean you love someone, and if a man tells his wife "Of course I love you, I married you" but never does anything to show that love, she'll eventually figure out that he doesn't really love her at all.)

I think its better for me to choose to live as if Im just saved, God knows the beginning to the end and I dont, so live like I dont know who's saved and who isnt to be... Love them all the same with the same love given to me in Christ

I agree. We really can't know, and in most circumstances it's not our business. (Heck, my old Sunday School teacher recently left his wife and got involved with the occult. So either we were wrong about his salvation then, or he's simply going through a very bad patch now but will come through it in the end. We can't really tell from this side of eternity!)

Also, I agree with you that labels aren't that important. I find Calvinism a useful label in specific contexts as a shorthand for what I believe; but when asked about my religion I just say "Christian", because that's the important thing. There'll be Calvinists and Arminians galore in heaven, and I doubt we'll be colour-coded.

[Kidzaplenty]