Do you believe in predestination ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Did I misspell something? :noid:This understanding is born of the Calvinist worldview. I do not hold that view, so it is not a challenge to me.
The "free" part is a redundant addition to what men have: A "will."
It does not mean the ability to do anything. It just means the ability to choose.
I can appreciate you wanting to protect the meaning of the word "free" and "freedom." I applaud and join the effort — but in a realm separated from this discussion (if only to make my point).
When I use the term "will," it does not infringe on the concept of "freedom." That men have a will does not mean they are "free." Even if an openist were to say "men have free will," that would be a tautology; the "free" could be deleted with no harm done. And the "free" in "freewill" is different from the freedom we have in Christ.
Wiki says: "Monergism holds that God works through the Holy Spirit to bring about the salvation of an individual through spiritual regeneration, regardless of the individual's cooperation."
Is that not what you hold?
I don't really care who I disagree with, as long as it's not scripture.
Romans 8:2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
In following God, I have been set free.
This question presumes the truth of your theology.
They do? I've said that the "free" part is redundant. That would make the two concepts equivalent.
Can you be specific about what I've said that leads you to believe this?
To be explicit: I do not hold that there is any change to man's ability to choose with acceptance of Christ, or indeed at the fall.
1 Corinthians 2:14: But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This says nothing about a man's ability to choose.
I don't use it when talking about a will. It's redundant and adds confusion. If it's not free, it's not a will, but that "free" doesn't mean "the ability to do anything."
This means that He has determined everything.
Are you addressing that to me?
No. [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] edited something in my post.
This:
| 1 Corinthians 2:14: But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. This says nothing about a man's ability to choose. |
The INDENT tags apparently make it so that tapatalk can't detect the next line break.
I was just adding an extra line break between the verse and your comment.
Oh. Ok. I thought maybe you had misinterpreted my scripture in support of your position as saying you had said something wrong.
Lon
Well-known member
In the spectrum of Christendom, then, if not for you. This discussion of 'free-will' is rather a discussion of what we have and when we have it. Further? How it specifically is different scripturally. If the Son has to set you 'free indeed' then you nor your will were before that. That's not Calvinism. It is wrestling biblically. Not your challenge? Okay. That's understood BUT it seems to me this is another wave at Calvinism rather than substantial dialogue. Not necessarily you but by inference, but I've seen this tack from Open Theists from time to time: Just Calvinism so I don't have to deal with this idea. Sometimes I also wonder how well read Open Theists are of their bibles. "Whom the Son sets free" is scripture John 8:36 (again not directed exclusively or necessarily collectively to you, just a pattern that disturbs me).
NOT if John 8:36 is true, it cannot be.
I disagree. "Free" means 'without restraints.' Because of that 1) Not redundant and 2) not a very good description either.
Only the Calvinist? No, at least I believe linguistics steers clear as well.
Look here: Will definition
Spoiler
Notice several things: 1) Will is sometimes described as a choice, sometimes as a 'desire'
2) 'free' is not only unecessary, it changes the meaning (is against the definition) of what will means in several of these contexts
Because of this, I maintain 'free' and 'will' are sometimes redundant but other times confuse what is being described or defined as it is when "the Son sets free." It is the will and all of a man that is truly set 'free' thus he/she is not, prior to being set so.
When I use the term "will," it does not infringe on the concept of "freedom." That men have a will does not mean they are "free." Even if an openist were to say "men have free will," that would be a tautology; the "free" could be deleted with no harm done. And the "free" in "freewill" is different from the freedom we have in Christ.[/QUOTE]
Its good and thank you. It will continue to be a hurdle with other Open Theists, but I appreciate your seeing this.
Sort of. The 'regardless' is important here. It means that God saves completely as you agree. Rather it means that God will and can change men as He did with the Saul/Paul. So this would be the statement: God saved Paul without regard (regardless) of Paul's predisposition. Against his will? Sure, to a degree because Saul was killing the saints. The question: Did Saul have a choice? The answer for even a thoughtful Calvinist is "I don't know, either way I look at it, favoritism of one sort or another crosses my logical mind." Rather "you have not chosen me" is a difficulty to me, for certainly a few disciples chose to follow. In what way is "you have not chosen me" true? We both, I think, are close to the same page here. Whatever that makes us, it certainly makes us a bit Calvinistic "if" you can see tenants of Calvinism in Scripture.
And your's, same scriptures.I don't really care who I disagree with, as long as it's not scripture.Romans 8:2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
In following God, I have been set free.
This question presumes the truth of your theology.
Yet even again in this post, you've said "I applaud and join the effort." Such does distinguish. Also, I believe the definitions above help clarify that they are not always the same. I can, for instance, talk of a 'restrained' and a 'bound' will. Romans 7:15 I honestly cannot fathom, when Paul is talking about a bound will here, that one would or could insist Paul was expressing a freewill. He was expressing a bound-will. Romans 7:15-30
The most recent:
See above? You first said you've no problem embracing a 'limited' will. I suppose you can get away with 'limited freedom' as such, but that's why it becomes too broad to be meaningful and why the problem: a will and 'free will' clearly are different in such an admission. Further, you recognize in your own use of scripture here, (I'd hope) that there definitely is a difference in freedoms prior and post Christ's liberation. Finally, I want to reiterate that I believe we have a will, but not a 'free' will. It is important because we just aren't seeing 'will' the same way. Romans 7:15 clearly is talking about a will that is not free. You clearly and certainly talk of a limited and restricted will here as well. :. "IF" a will is limited and/or restricted, then 'free' is meaningless because it is not a will with no strings attached. Finally then, there can and is, even to you, times where free and will are certainly not synonymous (and not only a Calvinist distinction/discussion).
If he CANNOT choose (what is spiritual)? :think:
Again, to me, Romans 7 completely disagrees with you. Paul mentions and is talking about his will here, and says plainly he cannot do it (thus is not/cannot be free). To me? Clear as daylight.
As I've argued, such doesn't matter at all. It is simply a desire to not be abandoned or not be insignificant that is bothered by such. It is an identity crisis and seen as an attack BUT nothing One who loves each of us could or would do, could possibly amount to any kind of ego threat or identity. It really doesn't matter if you choose vanilla or chocolate, JUST that you enjoy and experience it. There are certainly consequences to our every choice. Ever choice by a man in Christ is free. Every choice by a man without God is not. He cannot do anything but choose according to his/her own inclinations of the flesh and masters of.
Last edited:
Ha ha. I saw that at work and was going to fix it when I got home.
This is not an evasion tactic, it's an attempt to keep the issue on a rational keel. We cannot answer challenges that do not apply to us as if they did.
It is encumbent on the challenger to ask questions according to what he seeks to overthrow, not according to what he assumes is true.
Again, this passage does not deal with man's ability to choose.
Lon
Well-known member
*(hard to quote a post with all quotes! :noway: )
Does being drawn make a freewill choice? If I draw my child to me while watching tv, does the child really 'choose' anything? Next, does he/she have to? Isn't the child just happy to be loved?
This isn't about 'choosing salvation and I/we aren't arguing against a will. It is rather that we are arguing against an 'entirely free' will. I don't believe such exists except for God and those the Son sets free. You can 'choose' but that doesn't mean free, it means within a restricted number of parameters and sometimes not at all (no choice) though you 'will' otherwise. Because I believe these scriptures distinguish between free prior and post salvation, I believe we have to do the same. Man has no freewill (as I understand "will" ) until after his/her salvation.
It'll go without saying at this point that nobody is arguing against choice but rather how open and free it is.
Also the same: Calvin believed man had a will. We are rather arguing that 'free' is not synonymous with 'will.'
Lon
Well-known member
That's understood, but understand that ALL (not just Calvinists) the rest of us see this as applying to Open Theists as well. It is only the Open Theist that seems to think he/she avoids it.
Agreed, this is a predestination thread
opcorn: (I've been trying to explain why it applies to the Open Theist these many posts, successful or not, such is yet the attempt even in this post in question)
John 8:36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. I think it does. Romans 7:15
Again, because of Romans 7:15-30 as well as dictionary definitions, it is important for even the Open Theist to understand a need for distinguishing will from 'freewill.' Another example of this is just above with Ffreeloader arguing for a 'will' which is not the problem. He too sees will and 'free will' as exactly the same (it seems) else we'd not be doing all this. The problem is that Calvinists, but a great many other Christians also see the will and free will as distinct and only applying in specific situations. IOW, the nuance, in this case, is, I believe necessary, especially when I also see it in your own writings and expressions as well. -Lon
LOL. Sorry about that. I didn't think you'd respond as I didn't address it to anyone. I just wanted to add some scriptures showing that the Bible teaches us that choice is possible and that part of what influences our choices is that God reasons with us and that part of our response to Him comes from our ability to reason. He doesn't use compulsion. He allows the individual to either accept or reject Him. Which is truly love on His part.
Your example of being drawn doesn't apply as it is physical, or at least that is how I read your "drawing" of your child. God's drawing is different than that. It is purely the drawing power of His love that reaches out to us and influences our choice. Real love draws, it does not compel, and what I see from modern day Calvinism it teaches a compulsion on the part of God. I say modern day Calvinism because what I have read from Calvin himself he doesn't believe in the "absolute" sovereignty of God like modern day Calvinists do.
In your example your child would come to you naturally and need no physical "drawing". It would be his inner response to the love he feels coming to him from his knowledge of you that makes him want to be near you. It's the same with God's drawing because even as sinful beings we respond positively to love. It's why love between husband and wife is a matter of both individuals being drawn to each other's love, care, compassion, common values, etc.... If both did not feel that drawing they would not marry, or at least would not marry for because of love, but that's a different issue altogether. It's that part of human nature that hyper Calvinism denies when it says man must do as God ordains. That's why the text saying that God has loved us with an everlasting love and therefore with lovingkindness has he drawn us is so important. The job of the Holy Spirit is to reveal that love to us. It's how He convinces us of sin and the love and goodness of God. We become convinced of sin because we recognize the superiority of God's love as it is shown to us by the Spirit. We see it is far superior to any kind of love we know as human beings. We see ours is always mixed with selfishness and what WE want. God's love is purely unselfish for He doesn't need us in the slightest. He just desires to know and to be truly known by us. It's why Jesus said that to know God is eternal life. Because the more we get to know God the more powerfully His love draws us as we begin to comprehend the height, depth, and breadth of His love. No compulsion is needed nor desired on either side of the equation. God doesn't desire to compel for the power His love to draw us is both, in terms of logic, sufficient and necessary. And human beings do not respond well to compulsion.
Here I will go on a little side track demonstrating my last sentence. In the army some officers get shot by their own men and others will have their lives saved by their men freely sacrificing their lives to save the life of that officer. It's the difference in the response to compulsion vs love. The officer who can inspire men to both love him and to follow him no matter what the cost is the good leader and successful leader. His men know he will not sacrifice their lives needlessly. They trust him.
The good officer is a type of Jesus. Take a look at how His disciples and His early followers willingly and cheerfully sacrificed their lives for His cause. The only thing that can inspire that kind of trust and love is a freely given, freely received love that draws instead of compelling. The leaders of the Protest Reformation were very much the same. They were willing to cheerfully risk their lives because of the love they recognized coming from God.
If we did not have the ability to choose, then we could not have a will. Period. The ability to choose is the will, as I demonstrated with the dictionary definition of will. The making of choices is the will in action. For all intents and purposes your brand of Calvinism denies that because it says the only choice anyone has is the one preordained by God thus leaving the individual without a real choice. He just must do what God "ordained".
Predestination is a mistranslation. It fails to convey the sense of eternal power exerted in the will and the ultimate action. The correct translation is predetermination.
Why do you always insist on teaching about that which you clearly don't comprehend?
Lon
Well-known member
Right, you've got a mindset that is blocking the point but the 'rest of us' see it as a problem Open theism just doesn't want to address OR doesn't see (your blind spots).Depends what the challenge is. :idunno:
The challenges we issue each other will not be the same.
I don't think you've made a compelling case. But that's just me.
I believe 'everyone else' being the rest of the Christians of the world has weight and alone is compelling. They and I disagree.
Scriptures are certainly compelling for argument, hence the 'I think it does.'
This is why and where I think blinders are on, Scriptures, definitions, as well as you making these distinctions between will and free will yourself, must, I believe it simply is compelling, despite cognitive dissonance, it just is. :e4e:
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
There is some agreement with a few of your points here, but I've had to express clearly where we disagree and give scriptures for the disagreement. Please read these scriptures with me:
Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition (narcissism self-centered-ness) or conceit, but in humility (other-centered, God-centered) count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Ric Cua echos Philippians with For the Love of God
"...Some days he might not like it, but he does it any way, for the love of God...."
So love can be 'compelling, influencing, pressing, instructive, constraining.'
:nono: This is reactionary and again self-centered in focus. This example rather shows what is in a man already. He isn't made to make a choice, nor is the comparison between mean and loving. I've been under both in school. How "I" responded had nothing to do with either teacher.
That simply must and has to be the first thing any future Calvinist will have to wrestle with: Carrying a cross of self. 2 Corinthians 5:17
I disagree that such is 'true' love. Love? Whatever one does intending the well-being of another is love. The 'ability' to choose isn't anything really. Cognition is simply an appreciation, thus "we love, because He first loved us." It has every indication that He taught us how. This doesn't require nor need me to 'make a decision' as much as simply doing the thing required. It is a form of narcissism to think that God has to defer anything to you in order to 'be loved' or to 'love you.' It really and only strokes the ego but worse? Is describing the only way some of you understand love (with strings attached and not as purely as Agape' insists). You've a few scriptural directives to 'deny self' and to 'take up your cross and follow.' As such, this narcissistic reflection on self for choice and reciprocation makes us entirely too self-interested and self-focused for it to be any kind of Godly love. I'm convinced of this and have to say this strongly because it is immensely important:
Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition (narcissism self-centered-ness) or conceit, but in humility (other-centered, God-centered) count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
I don't believe you are correct here. Love does indeed compel (compulsion). Luke 14:23 The word is 'compel, no choice.' More scriptures to follow...
:nono: 1 John 4:19 Love isn't the exception, its the rule. It is expected. John continues simply to say, if you don't, you don't belong to God. Philippians 2 went as far as to say to esteem others better, more important, more significant. My kids are loved. I cannot demand love of them, BUT they do love because they were loved and this specifically taught them how. The choice stuff? :nono: Proverbs 22:6 Kids will love because 1) they were trained to do so and 2) because it is right. The 'choice' imho is self-serving and self-interested. It does bother me that Open Theists equate 'choice' as love. There is little truth to that statement and it is egocentric in conveyance. I wholly disagree that God had to give 'choice' and 'free will' in order for man to 'learn to love.' Adam and Eve loved well and beyond before their fall because they were made by a Loving Being "in His image." Love itself is lessened because of choice, not enhanced by any means. It is only when we lose ourselves that we find ourselves. Matthew 16:25 Luke 9:4 Love isn't found by 'choice' but by Love Himself. John 15:5
Imho, this also is why marriages fail for 1 in every 2 among Christians. Love is sacrifice.
"...Some days he might not like it, but he does it any way, for the love of God...."
I don't know what the hyper Calvinist believes concerning this :idunno:
Except one thing: Love is indeed power, it changes men and it is also compulsive. RATHER what I use to 'compel' my kids is on the table. What 'makes' us love is what is on the table. I totally argue: by love, I've been made to love. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15
So love can be 'compelling, influencing, pressing, instructive, constraining.'
:nono: This is reactionary and again self-centered in focus. This example rather shows what is in a man already. He isn't made to make a choice, nor is the comparison between mean and loving. I've been under both in school. How "I" responded had nothing to do with either teacher.
But you contrasted this with an example that talks of love as a response to two different stimuli. Such is simply rewarding good behavior, NOT teaching love. The Lord Jesus Christ told Peter "Satan, get behind me!" Harshness from God is 1) necessary and 2) coming from the definition of Love 1 John 4:8 We love and are loved so frailly, that we 1) don't grasp the height dept and breadth and 2) that we think God's love is the same way.
Luke 22:42 John 6:38 :think: A bad thing?
Agree. Philippians 2:4
It doesn't matter what kind of Calvinist or brand I am. All I'm interested in is what is biblical. The VERY first thing Calvinism affronted me with was 'dying to self' and me being 'less that I thought myself to be.' It was, indeed, an affront to self.
That simply must and has to be the first thing any future Calvinist will have to wrestle with: Carrying a cross of self. 2 Corinthians 5:17
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Thank you. Done (double-check for me please?).