Destiny Or Free Will?

[Mitspa]

Seems to me that this is all about "words". We are saying the same thing just calling it by a different name.

They confessed, they gave the credit to God and asked for Christ to forgive them of their sin. If we choose to call that "surrendered will", I have no problem at all with that name.

IF it means saying the name is ......"Jump to Cuba", to get one saved.....I'm in!

Words have meaning and can mislead or guide? Some may take a term such as "Free-will" and be able to put it a good biblical context? But most are just trying to defend this term, and are not willing to see how this very term is contrary to the Cross. We do not serve God based upon our own will, we are not saved by our own will. We are saved when the our will is surrendered to a greater Will, that being Gods Will. Now we can not "choose" to be saved or forgiven, these things are in Gods power alone. We are "saved" and forgiven because we agree and surrender to His Will. I did not choose God, He chose me and I surrendered (my will) to His calling and grace.

By the way..not trying to preach at you brother..sorry if it sounds that way

 

[Mitspa]

You are very correct an I am in agreement with you. Most call what you are saying "Predestination". Some call it "Election". You are calling it "Surrendered will".
I like them all and am just glad that God included me in His will!

Rom. 8:29, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;

Rom. 8:30, "and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

The word "election," or "elect," comes from the Greek word eklectos and occurs about 25 times in the New Testament. It signifies "to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one's self, a choosing one out of many." The one who does the choosing, the electing, is God.

John 13:18, "I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ˜He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me."

Eph. 1:4,"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him."

1 Tim. 5:21, "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality."

Also my point is that these terms "predestination" and "election" have been perverted by some of these Calvinist doctrines, these are very real biblical terms that have great importance, but should not be dragged into this Calvinist box. They should be considered apart from these doctrines and in the context of the gospel as a whole.

 

[Big Moose]

I think both can be right.
God does not have 1 plan, but many for our lives.
There is the ultimate plan, where you are now, to where God called you to be. Many ways lead to Rome.
Most of the time, we choose.
Sin makes us deviate from that path.
Redemption reconnects us to it.
Sometimes God chooses for us. In those situations we don't have much of a choice.
But most of the time God always gives us a choice, even if it's a sly or ridiculous one.
Like, we're drowning, and have the option to either swim upwards, towards a solid object, or let go and die.
Not even God will force your decision there. He will try to convince you to live on, but ultimately it will be your choice.
If God called you to bring a certain person to salvation, but you choose to let go and die, that thread of life, that path will cross with the next best solution. The man shall be saved, through you, or another person.

So, predestined or free will?
Both!
But there is not one predestination, but as many as there are possible outcomes. An infinite amount.
There are outcomes and futurez that are better than others. And if we walk in the path of God, and seek His will, and work our way towards the highest goal, then we can be sure that we will be most blessed.
If God does something, He does it perfectly. So aim to choose the most perfect choice you can make, at all times.

For me this endless debate has ended. This is the answer the Father gave me, and it satisfies me.
I hope it has blessed you as well.

Amen brother! A great scripture which reenforces this inspired idea is John 6:
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

This has both the predestined and election combined. Much like the example of Jack and Joe. Jack wants to be friends with Joe. Joe does not want to be friends with Jack. Are they friends? No. But if Joe wants to be friends also, then they are friends.

Question becomes, Why preach the gospel to the lost if they are predetermined to be saved anyway? Obviously, there is a reason and it must have something to do with a free will choice to surrender to God's will.

 

[Mitspa]

Amen brother! A great scripture which reenforces this inspired idea is John 6:
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

This has both the predestined and election combined. Much like the example of Jack and Joe. Jack wants to be friends with Joe. Joe does not want to be friends with Jack. Are they friends? No. But if Joe wants to be friends also, then they are friends.

Question becomes, Why preach the gospel to the lost if they are predetermined to be saved anyway? Obviously, there is a reason and it must have something to do with a free will choice to surrender to God's will.

I can go along with that...lol.."a free-will choice to surrender to GODS WILL"

 

[Major]

Also my point is that these terms "predestination" and "election" have been perverted by some of these Calvinist doctrines, these are very real biblical terms that have great importance, but should not be dragged into this Calvinist box. They should be considered apart from these doctrines and in the context of the gospel as a whole.

Again, I agree completly.

Salvation by grace, eternal salvation, without works, is the Bible doctrine. I believe hyper-Calvinism is not a Bible doctrine but is a perversion by proud intellectuals who thus may try to excuse themselves from any spiritual accountability for winning souls.

In other words, instead of being busy for God in getting out the Word of God, they believe that they do not have to do anything for God in service because those who will be saved are going to come to Christ one way or another.

For that very reason, Calvinst churches do not extend an invitation at the end of the presentation of the gospel message.

 

[Major]

Words have meaning and can mislead or guide? Some may take a term such as "Free-will" and be able to put it a good biblical context? But most are just trying to defend this term, and are not willing to see how this very term is contrary to the Cross. We do not serve God based upon our own will, we are not saved by our own will. We are saved when the our will is surrendered to a greater Will, that being Gods Will. Now we can not "choose" to be saved or forgiven, these things are in Gods power alone. We are "saved" and forgiven because we agree and surrender to His Will. I did not choose God, He chose me and I surrendered (my will) to His calling and grace.

By the way..not trying to preach at you brother..sorry if it sounds that way

No problem. I understand what you are saying.

 

[Ravindran]

Also my point is that these terms "predestination" and "election" have been perverted by some of these Calvinist doctrines, these are very real biblical terms that have great importance, but should not be dragged into this Calvinist box. They should be considered apart from these doctrines and in the context of the gospel as a whole.

Looks like I have missed a lot of good discussion! Anyways, I don't think we can clearly explain how predestination and free will works together.. They certainly go hand in hand.. How they operate together, probably is a little far away for human understanding.. We are trying to define God's nature with human understanding and wisdom.. That is the problem.. What God has revealed clearly is the path to salvation.. God has clearly revealed He has to call a person to salvation.. God has clearly defined man has personal responsibility.. A person goes to hell, because the person has rejected the call of God.. Does it mean every person in this world can accept Jesus and get saved? Does God do not even know who will get saved? No, God certainly knows the path of every person and has predestined everyone's life.. Does it mean we are living lifes or robot? Again, no! How all these work together? That I don't know

 

[Where is the Messiah]

Looks like I have missed a lot of good discussion! Anyways, I don't think we can clearly explain how predestination and free will works together.. They certainly go hand in hand.. How they operate together, probably is a little far away for human understanding.. We are trying to define God's nature with human understanding and wisdom.. That is the problem.. What God has revealed clearly is the path to salvation.. God has clearly revealed He has to call a person to salvation.. God has clearly defined man has personal responsibility.. A person goes to hell, because the person has rejected the call of God.. Does it mean every person in this world can accept Jesus and get saved? Does God do not even know who will get saved? No, God certainly knows the path of every person and has predestined everyone's life.. Does it mean we are living lifes or robot? Again, no! How all these work together? That I don't know

You are correct.

 

[Intojoy]

It's both.

 

[SergioL]

Arminians say that God wants to save absolutely everyone. That's certainly stated in the Bible. For example, in 1 Timothy 2:3-4. However, if God wanted to saved all mankind he could have chosen to create only those who would use their free will to surrender to God and be saved. Hence, the ultimate logical conclusion of Arminianism seems to be exactly the same as that of Calvinism: God chose to create people who were destined to damnation from the very beginning. If I am right in this then Arminianism and Calvinism are actually the exact same thing. In other words, there is free will, but God already knew from the start who would choose him and who wouldn't choose him. So it is also correct to say that he created those who would reject him on purpose (i.e., he destined them to damnation, although they are still endowed with free will). At the same time, he still wished these damned ones to be saved, but he can't save them because their rebellion is necessary for the completion of the whole divine plan. Do you agree with this? Does it make sense to you?

 

[Brother Paul]

You are incorrect in this. I am neither....but God requiring a response from man to receive or reject negates the double predestination of the pure Calvinist....they are clearly NOT saying the same thing at all...

God created mankind so their love or obedience for or of Him would be genuine...irresistible compulsion is mutually exclusive to this notion.

 

[Glomung]

Arminians say that God wants to save absolutely everyone. That's certainly stated in the Bible. For example, in 1 Timothy 2:3-4.

God "would that all be saved". God makes the offer to all and we can accept or reject that offer. For free will to have any meaning at all God cannot force us to make any choice.

[QUOTE="However, if God wanted to saved all mankind he could have chosen to create only those who would use their free will to surrender to God and be saved. Hence, the ultimate logical conclusion of Arminianism seems to be exactly the same as that of Calvinism: God chose to create people who were destined to damnation from the very beginning. If I am right in this then Arminianism and Calvinism are actually the exact same thing. In other words, there is free will, but God already knew from the start who would choose him and who wouldn't choose him. So it is also correct to say that he created those who would reject him on purpose (i.e., he destined them to damnation, although they are still endowed with free will). At the same time, he still wished these damned ones to be saved, but he can't save them because their rebellion is necessary for the completion of the whole divine plan. Do you agree with this? Does it make sense to you?[/QUOTE]

None whatsoever. (sorry, just joking)
I wouldn't equate Arminianism with Calvinism at all.
Free will is absolute, it cannot be any other way. There are some that are "predestined to have or do certain tasks, i.e John the Baptist, but the vast majority of us have no such mandate and are free to do as we please. All are created with the opportunity to choose or reject God at some point. The choice is ours, and so is the responsibility for the choice made.

God has not created anything or anyone for the purpose of being damned. That would be truly evil.

 

[SergioL]

You are incorrect in this. I am neither....but God requiring a response from man to receive or reject negates the double predestination of the pure Calvinist....they are clearly NOT saying the same thing at all...

God created mankind so their love or obedience for or of Him would be genuine...irresistible compulsion is mutually exclusive to this notion.

I am a Calvinist and my love for God is genuine. So, predetermination and genuine love for God are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SergioL]

God "would that all be saved". God makes the offer to all and we can accept or reject that offer. For free will to have any meaning at all God cannot force us to make any choice.

"However, if God wanted to saved all mankind he could have chosen to create only those who would use their free will to surrender to God and be saved. Hence, the ultimate logical conclusion of Arminianism seems to be exactly the same as that of Calvinism: God chose to create people who were destined to damnation from the very beginning. If I am right in this then Arminianism and Calvinism are actually the exact same thing. In other words, there is free will, but God already knew from the start who would choose him and who wouldn't choose him. So it is also correct to say that he created those who would reject him on purpose (i.e., he destined them to damnation, although they are still endowed with free will). At the same time, he still wished these damned ones to be saved, but he can't save them because their rebellion is necessary for the completion of the whole divine plan. Do you agree with this? Does it make sense to you?

None whatsoever. (sorry, just joking)
I wouldn't equate Arminianism with Calvinism at all.
Free will is absolute, it cannot be any other way. There are some that are "predestined to have or do certain tasks, i.e John the Baptist, but the vast majority of us have no such mandate and are free to do as we please. All are created with the opportunity to choose or reject God at some point. The choice is ours, and so is the responsibility for the choice made.

God has not created anything or anyone for the purpose of being damned. That would be truly evil.

But God chose to create those that would reject him. Maybe he wants them to be saved, but he knew from the very beginning that such a thing would not happen. So, why is it wrong to say that these people are destined to damnation (even if they have free will)?

 

[MichaelH]

There is no such thing as armanisim .... they believe that God has some foreknowledge but man has free will, despite the foreknowledge. Like saying I know my car will run out of gas, and since I did not stop to get any, then my foreknowledge is correct, and not my fault I am stranded.

Also those scriptures about election is concerning Israel.

 

[SergioL]

There is no such thing as armanisim .... they believe that God has some foreknowledge but man has free will, despite the foreknowledge. Like saying I know my car will run out of gas, and since I did not stop to get any, then my foreknowledge is correct, and not my fault I am stranded.

Yes, my contention is that Aminianism is ultimately another kind of determinism, since God could have chosen NOT to create those who would reject him.

 

[Roads]

For some interesting reading, google two-time physics.

Both philosophy and science have suggested that we need multiple dimensions of time to explain the universe we observe, and mathematics is now actually being used to attempt to demonstrate that "free will" and "destiny" could potentially coexist.

Physicist Itzhak Bars, a major contributor to 2-time physics, uses this analogy: a hand, lit from multiple points, will produce many shadows on the surface of the wall. In the analogy, the shadows are the dimension of time we perceive, and the hand is the dimension of time we cannot perceive: we experience time as a sequence of distinct events, but what we cannot perceive is that they are being projected from a single point of eternal timelessness.

So this theory would allow for multiple dimensions of time to exist where in one, we do have real free will to make real choices, and in the other, everything has already happened, and nothing has ever stopped happening: "destiny." People, right now, are trying to demonstrate this with math.

 

[MichaelH]

For some interesting reading, google two-time physics.

Both philosophy and science have suggested that we need multiple dimensions of time to explain the universe we observe, and mathematics is now actually being used to attempt to demonstrate that "free will" and "destiny" could potentially coexist.

Physicist Itzhak Bars, a major contributor to 2-time physics, uses this analogy: a hand, lit from multiple points, will produce many shadows on the surface of the wall. In the analogy, the shadows are the dimension of time we perceive, and the hand is the dimension of time we cannot perceive: we experience time as a sequence of distinct events, but what we cannot perceive is that they are being projected from a single point of eternal timelessness.

So this theory would allow for multiple dimensions of time to exist where in one, we do have real free will to make real choices, and in the other, everything has already happened, and nothing has ever stopped happening: "destiny." People, right now, are trying to demonstrate this with math.

That is a old doctrine. God knows each possible outcome of things and only gets involed in man's will if the new reality does not match what he wants. God knows all the different realities. I forgot the name of the doctrine.


It's called Molinism.

 

[Roads]

That is a old doctrine. God knows each possible outcome of things and only gets involed in man's will if the new reality does not match what he wants. God knows all the different realities. I forgot the name of the doctrine.

I don't think that's exactly what Bars' 2-T physics theory suggests, so much as simply laying a framework for the possible coexistence of eternity/timelessness and chronological time from a mathematical perspective.

For a Christian, it wouldn't necessarily suggest a particular way that God interacts with us, but offers an explanation from physics for how God could have foreknowledge of everything, and we can still be held accountable for our choices.

 

[SergioL]

Today I was watching a nice debate between Michael Brown (Arminian) and James White (Calvinist). Brown stated that God wants to save all mankind, but he can't do it because men have free will. However, that's a fallacy, since God could have created only those men and women who would use their free will to repent and choose God. Hence, God could have endowed mankind with free will and saved all mankind at the same time. These two things are not incompatible. Hence, it is nonsensical to say that God cannot save all mankind because of free will.