Free will vs Predestination
- Thread starter Semiazas
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Snail, here's why I have a problem with this. It's inconsistent with what you've said elsewhere on this site.
For example, the thread "how is this wrong?" On page 6, you said, "God is always right, I thought that was an obvious realisation if we're talking about an all-powerful being who is God." Yet, in this thread, you say that if He were to predestine people, He would be sadistic. The two statements, "G-d is always right" and "G-d would be sadistic if He did this..." are incompatible.
You also said in "Do the ends justify the means?", on the first page, "The one who makes the rules can also break them." Yet on this thread you say it would be a bad thing for G-d to predestine and it would make Him sadistic.
For example, the thread "how is this wrong?" On page 6, you said, "God is always right, I thought that was an obvious realisation if we're talking about an all-powerful being who is God." Yet, in this thread, you say that if He were to predestine people, He would be sadistic. The two statements, "G-d is always right" and "G-d would be sadistic if He did this..." are incompatible.
You also said in "Do the ends justify the means?", on the first page, "The one who makes the rules can also break them." Yet on this thread you say it would be a bad thing for G-d to predestine and it would make Him sadistic.
re: "God being right"
Two separate issues. Being sadistic is incompatible with His nature of love. "God is love". God sending people to hell apart from their own individual choice and will is not loving.
re " the one who makes the rules can break them"
That is true because He is God. He can make a rule for humans that they cannot murder, but He himself can take a life whenever He wants to. But this does not go against His nature of love. We know that He only takes the lives of those who displease Him. Not those whom He has created for the sole purpose of showing cruelty to them.
I would even go so far to say, that if you don't believe that God wants all to be saved, then you DO NOT KNOW GOD.
Two separate issues. Being sadistic is incompatible with His nature of love. "God is love". God sending people to hell apart from their own individual choice and will is not loving.
re " the one who makes the rules can break them"
That is true because He is God. He can make a rule for humans that they cannot murder, but He himself can take a life whenever He wants to. But this does not go against His nature of love. We know that He only takes the lives of those who displease Him. Not those whom He has created for the sole purpose of showing cruelty to them.
I would even go so far to say, that if you don't believe that God wants all to be saved, then you DO NOT KNOW GOD.
Few things. I'm going to list them rather than quote the individual parts of your post, because I have a bad headache.
1) It may not be loving, but it IS just. You cannot take one part of the nature of G-d and judge everything He does on that one part. You have to look at G-d's nature as a WHOLE. It's not loving to send people to hell, at least by our standards, but it IS just, and G-d is the righteous Judge.
2) G-d may want all people to be saved, but that obviously doesn't mean all people WILL be saved. Again, you have to look at the full nature of G-d. Because He is just, people WILL go to hell.
1) It may not be loving, but it IS just. You cannot take one part of the nature of G-d and judge everything He does on that one part. You have to look at G-d's nature as a WHOLE. It's not loving to send people to hell, at least by our standards, but it IS just, and G-d is the righteous Judge.
2) G-d may want all people to be saved, but that obviously doesn't mean all people WILL be saved. Again, you have to look at the full nature of G-d. Because He is just, people WILL go to hell.
It's not just to send people to hell for crimes they have no chance of committing or repenting from. That's equivalent to a judge sentencing a person to death whether they are proven innocent or not.
That's right, because of free will. It doesn't change God's desire however:
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Because He is loving, God will give every person a chance to be saved. And will not send a person to hell who hasn't chosen to go there.
That's right, because of free will. It doesn't change God's desire however:
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Because He is loving, God will give every person a chance to be saved. And will not send a person to hell who hasn't chosen to go there.
Except G-d is omniscient, and knows who will and will not repent. Thus, from the beginning of time, a person's eternal destination will already be decided by G-d. In fact, Paul even says this in Ephesians 1:3-6.
Revelation 13:8
Everyone living on earth will worship it except those whose names are written in the Book of Life belonging to the Lamb slaughtered before the world was founded.
If the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, and our names were written in the book before the foundation of the world, that means that the Fall was part of G-d's plan before the foundation of the world. Scripture never says your name can be stricken from the Book of Life, which means that from before the foundation o the world G-d wrote all the names of the saved in the Book of Life.
Revelation 13:8
Everyone living on earth will worship it except those whose names are written in the Book of Life belonging to the Lamb slaughtered before the world was founded.
If the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, and our names were written in the book before the foundation of the world, that means that the Fall was part of G-d's plan before the foundation of the world. Scripture never says your name can be stricken from the Book of Life, which means that from before the foundation o the world G-d wrote all the names of the saved in the Book of Life.
N
There are no innocents. God is in no way unfair. God is just in condemning everyone and not obligated to save anyone. That He, being Holy, saves anyone is the (or should be) shocking and amazing thing.
As to 1 Tim 2:4 - "All men" is in reference to diversity or station, not the universality of all individual people everywhere. The context is Paul commending Timothy (and his people) to pray for leaders. Forcing a reading of universality upon "all" (pas) creates significant problems in that text which are not necessary. A perfectly natural reading could simply be reading "all" as "all kinds," since the context is Paul calling upon Timothy to pray even for their unregenerate leaders (kings, etc).
Bear:
I am so glad you asked! This word you're making so much of in Jn 3:16 actually doesn't appear in the Greek text. You're hanging on your traditional in-reading of a word in one verse which isn't even a word that appears in the Greek text. Do you see how that kind of argument is problematic?
Here is John 3:16
ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον.
I have highlighted what some translations take as "whosoever" in red. This is, literally, "all the believing ones." There's no mention or issue of amount, capacity, particularness (limited quality) or anything packed into this verse. "Whosoever" according to a study of what John is actually saying, is a reference to those who believe in Christ and an assurance that "all the believing ones" would not perish and would indeed have eternal life. It says nothing about the narrowness of election or the extent of the atonement. It's just not a great piece of evidence.
That is truly a strange reading of redemptive history and of the following text in Romans 11. Romans 11 is Paul proving that God's faithfulness towards Israel has not failed or become obsolete, and how the Gospel is going to work through the Gentiles to bring about the fulfillment of His promises towards them in Christ. It's not talking about the issue of conditional/unconditional election. You should probably pick up a commentary or ask your pastor about how Romans 9-11 relate together. I don't mean to be smug or anything, but your reading there is pretty deficient if you think it pertains to the subject we're discussing as a primary argument in favor of a conditional election.
Short answer is: The Calvinist believes The Elect are those who believe in Christ. Belief (faith) is a Gift of sovereign grace, not by works or anything a person can merit on his own behalf. God accomplishes this through means like the working of the Spirit, the preaching of the Gospel, and the living out of a Christ exalting life. (not an extensive list - just examples)
Bears, you really should respond to my posting concerning Romans 9. If you're going to just ignore the bulk of content I post, this is a futile discussion. You can repeat free will in bold a thousand times and it proves nothing and is simply wrangling with words which is to the ruin of its hearers.
As to 1 Tim 2:4 - "All men" is in reference to diversity or station, not the universality of all individual people everywhere. The context is Paul commending Timothy (and his people) to pray for leaders. Forcing a reading of universality upon "all" (pas) creates significant problems in that text which are not necessary. A perfectly natural reading could simply be reading "all" as "all kinds," since the context is Paul calling upon Timothy to pray even for their unregenerate leaders (kings, etc).
Bear:
I am so glad you asked! This word you're making so much of in Jn 3:16 actually doesn't appear in the Greek text. You're hanging on your traditional in-reading of a word in one verse which isn't even a word that appears in the Greek text. Do you see how that kind of argument is problematic?
Here is John 3:16
ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον.
I have highlighted what some translations take as "whosoever" in red. This is, literally, "all the believing ones." There's no mention or issue of amount, capacity, particularness (limited quality) or anything packed into this verse. "Whosoever" according to a study of what John is actually saying, is a reference to those who believe in Christ and an assurance that "all the believing ones" would not perish and would indeed have eternal life. It says nothing about the narrowness of election or the extent of the atonement. It's just not a great piece of evidence.
That is truly a strange reading of redemptive history and of the following text in Romans 11. Romans 11 is Paul proving that God's faithfulness towards Israel has not failed or become obsolete, and how the Gospel is going to work through the Gentiles to bring about the fulfillment of His promises towards them in Christ. It's not talking about the issue of conditional/unconditional election. You should probably pick up a commentary or ask your pastor about how Romans 9-11 relate together. I don't mean to be smug or anything, but your reading there is pretty deficient if you think it pertains to the subject we're discussing as a primary argument in favor of a conditional election.
Short answer is: The Calvinist believes The Elect are those who believe in Christ. Belief (faith) is a Gift of sovereign grace, not by works or anything a person can merit on his own behalf. God accomplishes this through means like the working of the Spirit, the preaching of the Gospel, and the living out of a Christ exalting life. (not an extensive list - just examples)
Bears, you really should respond to my posting concerning Romans 9. If you're going to just ignore the bulk of content I post, this is a futile discussion. You can repeat free will in bold a thousand times and it proves nothing and is simply wrangling with words which is to the ruin of its hearers.
You've made the first but easiest mistake of the Calvinist - confusing foreknowledge with predestination. Foreknowledge is knowing something before it occurs. Predestination is making or forcing something to happen before it occurs. One does not imply the other.
First let's interpret the verse right. Barnes says:
Slain from the foundation of the world - See the notes on Rev_5:6. Compare the notes on Rev_3:5. The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death "from the foundation of the world," but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring. See Rom_4:17. The purpose was so certain, it was so constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was "slain from the foundation of the world." Prof. Stuart, however (Com. in loco), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the former member of the sentence, "whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain." Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that what is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.
Regarding when a persons name is written in the book , this passage indicates it is taken out whenever a person sins:
Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Isn't this proof enough that God adds and removes names from the book of life depending upon what they do? The Calvinist who believes in predestination believes God never takes a person out of his book and they are in it for life, no matter what they do. But these scriptures plainly show God does change a person's destiny based upon that person's righteousness. The other examples are the passages in Revelation which detail warnings of having a persons name removed from the book. In fact, because of this a Calvinist who believes in predestination might be tempted to tamper with Revelation, despite its warning that a person will have their name taken from the book of life.
So I hold to the view that a person is taken out of God's book of life from the moment they commit their first sin. Which is why I believe babies who die can go to heaven. So the general state of every person before coming to Christ is that there name is not in the book of life...until they actually receive eternal life. Because there name is not in the book of life as long as they are in a state of unrighteousness.
First let's interpret the verse right. Barnes says:
Slain from the foundation of the world - See the notes on Rev_5:6. Compare the notes on Rev_3:5. The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death "from the foundation of the world," but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring. See Rom_4:17. The purpose was so certain, it was so constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was "slain from the foundation of the world." Prof. Stuart, however (Com. in loco), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the former member of the sentence, "whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain." Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that what is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.
Regarding when a persons name is written in the book , this passage indicates it is taken out whenever a person sins:
Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Isn't this proof enough that God adds and removes names from the book of life depending upon what they do? The Calvinist who believes in predestination believes God never takes a person out of his book and they are in it for life, no matter what they do. But these scriptures plainly show God does change a person's destiny based upon that person's righteousness. The other examples are the passages in Revelation which detail warnings of having a persons name removed from the book. In fact, because of this a Calvinist who believes in predestination might be tempted to tamper with Revelation, despite its warning that a person will have their name taken from the book of life.
So I hold to the view that a person is taken out of God's book of life from the moment they commit their first sin. Which is why I believe babies who die can go to heaven. So the general state of every person before coming to Christ is that there name is not in the book of life...until they actually receive eternal life. Because there name is not in the book of life as long as they are in a state of unrighteousness.
Last edited:
G
Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
you are half right
everyone born is written in the lamb's book of life
if they end their life never having accepted God's way of salvation(or to put it a different way - having ALWAYS rejected the gospel), this is the ultimate sin, and their lives are blotted out
this also shows how tribal natives may be saved never having met a missionary
I did not confuse the two, nor did I say foreknowledge implies predestination. What I said was that G-d is omniscient, and because of this He knows who will and will not repent. You cannot pull the wool over G-d's eyes. He can't see you as not repenting ever in your life and then suddenly you repent. He sees all things, past present and future. He sees what every single person who has ever and will ever live will do, including whether or not they repent and follow Him.
Thus, with this foreknowledge, He decides the eternal fate of every single person before they are even created.
Which means before the world was even created G-d knew about the sin of Adam and Eve.
No. You assume that the books spoken of are the same as the Book of Life. That's a problem, because neither verse says that.
Thus, with this foreknowledge, He decides the eternal fate of every single person before they are even created.
Which means before the world was even created G-d knew about the sin of Adam and Eve.
No. You assume that the books spoken of are the same as the Book of Life. That's a problem, because neither verse says that.
You disagree with the timing of it being blotted out. But I don't agree with your view. I think scripture shows it is from the moment that a soul sins against God. God doesn't have to wait until the end. God can take out and write back in a name as many times as He wishes. Native tribes cannot be saved on that basis, because that is the very reason why we have missionaries.
No you are confusing foreknowledge with predestination. You cannot have predestination, if God decides the fate of every person based on His foreknowledge of what that person will do. If anything is based upon what a person will do, then it is not predestination in the Calvinistic sense nor their understanding of grace. These kind of mental gymnastics you are pulling are classic Calvinist beliefs or excuses rather. But they don't make sense. It's unnatural to say, a person is saved because God knew that they would be. It's back to front mental gymnastics.
Using the excuse that "the bible doesn't say it" can be used to prove anything. not good scriptural interpretation. Put it this way, there's NO GOOD REASON to believe there are two books. The book of the living or God's book was a record of God's people in the old testament, and it's the same in the new. God has this book, call it whatever you like, where God records the names of people who are righteous and these people have eternal life. You of all people, being a Jew, should understand the continuation from the old to the new testament. Only Calvinist christians really believe in a distinct separation between old and new testament and I must add any "two book" views are related to the doctrines of replacement theology. I believe the one book of the living, contains both old testament righteous and the names of new testament righteous and those who are righteous today. In other words, there's no book just for old testament saints who kept the Law, and another book just for christians who don't need to keep the Law and are saved by grace through faith alone. It's the one book, and from both old to new testament it has only been through faith that a person is declared righteous.
Using the excuse that "the bible doesn't say it" can be used to prove anything. not good scriptural interpretation. Put it this way, there's NO GOOD REASON to believe there are two books. The book of the living or God's book was a record of God's people in the old testament, and it's the same in the new. God has this book, call it whatever you like, where God records the names of people who are righteous and these people have eternal life. You of all people, being a Jew, should understand the continuation from the old to the new testament. Only Calvinist christians really believe in a distinct separation between old and new testament and I must add any "two book" views are related to the doctrines of replacement theology. I believe the one book of the living, contains both old testament righteous and the names of new testament righteous and those who are righteous today. In other words, there's no book just for old testament saints who kept the Law, and another book just for christians who don't need to keep the Law and are saved by grace through faith alone. It's the one book, and from both old to new testament it has only been through faith that a person is declared righteous.
Last edited:
Oi. How many times do I have to say that I know foreknowledge and predestination are two different things before you stop accusing me of confusing the two? What I'm saying is that He predestines with His foreknowledge.
I didn't say it wasn't in the bible. I just said those two verses don't specify the book it is talking about.
I didn't say it wasn't in the bible. I just said those two verses don't specify the book it is talking about.
I know that but predesination is God deciding something APART FROM WHAT ANYONE DOES. And on that basis, it doesn't matter whether the person chooses or rejects God in the future or the past or the present it is still not predestination. If God knows that a person will decide one way or another in the future, and makes a decision based upon that foreknowledge, it is still that person choosing whether they go to heaven or hell, and not God. Therefore it is not predestination.
Psalm 69 calls it book of the living. New testament - book of life. Living, life, what's the big difference?
Psalm 69 calls it book of the living. New testament - book of life. Living, life, what's the big difference?
First of all, don't ever edit my quotes to suit your argument again. It's immature and dishonest. I've never done that to you, so you can show common courtesy and a bit more of a Christ-like attitude and not do it to me. But if you want to tick me off further, by all means, continue doing so.
Second, I guess I didn't articulate my views clear enough, but I don't believe it is a person's choice at all.
Remind me to get back to this later when I'm not fostering a pounding headache.
Second, I guess I didn't articulate my views clear enough, but I don't believe it is a person's choice at all.
Remind me to get back to this later when I'm not fostering a pounding headache.
How did my editing change the meaning of what you said? It's normal practice to quote only the particular part that a person is addressing. I wasn't interested in quoting or addressing your exaggerations.. "accusing" lol, is that what you call anyone who corrects you? It's quite obvious to me you don't understand the two concepts, because you are using one to prove the other, and mixing them up in such a way, then claiming you are not lol. But foreknowledge and predestination are two separate things really.
Last edited: