Free Will vs. Predestination

[ByFaithAlone]

I've been researching the notion of free will vs. predestination and am getting dragged down in terminology and complex theology.

I was just wondering if it would be possible for someone to explain what they believe about this issue. I have seen scriptural evidence from both sides but would like even more. Thanks

[Slopeshoulder]

I choose free will (no pun intended and with apologies to Rush)

Why?
- common sense
- I believe everything calvin said is wrong and wish he never been born

BTW, why limit yourself to scripture proof texts? I think that complex theology is a better way to go.

[otseng]

I voted both.

I believe that man has free will in almost all cases. But, I also believe that God has the power to override man's free choice and He sometimes does that (eg God hardening pharaoh's heart). I do not believe that most things are predetermined by God.

[ByFaithAlone]

I choose free will (no pun intended and with apologies to Rush)

Why?
- common sense
- I believe everything calvin said is wrong and wish he never been born

BTW, why limit yourself to scripture proof texts? I think that complex theology is a better way to go.

Sorry but just saying Calvin is wrong isn't justification for me. Frankly, I find it uneducational and unhelpful. I'm searching for answers.

I'm fine with Scriptural evidence or complex theology but just playing the advocate of Calvinism, isn't it reasonable to assume that an all-knowing being would know if someone will be entering into the kingdom of God in the future.

Calvinist Point of View
For the logical arguements
Premise 1: God knows all (past, present and future)
Premise 2: Some people will go to heaven in the future
Logical Conclusion: God knows who these people are.

Please respond to these with evidence and not just rhetoric on why Calvin or Luther or any other person should or should not have been born.

Thanks

[Taek]

Unfortunately I do not know of any specific versus to pull out here, and if you could provide the biblical passages you do know I would greatly appreciate it.

Having said that, I will have to keep my discussion to a more philosophical level. I do believe in both free will and predestination (sort of - you'll see). Also, because I have been struggling a lot with the concept of Hell since the release of Rob Bell's book Love Wins, I will not discuss Heaven and Hell but rather the idea of choices we make throughout life.

First, let's establish some ideas:

1. God knows everything.
2. In life, we make decisions.
3. God knows what decisions we will make before we make them, and he ultimately knows the outcome of our lives as though it is written in stone
4. When we make a decision, we do it out of free will, and God is not involved.

Numbers 3 and 4 is where most people get stuck. God knows what choices we will make throughout life and those things will happen as though they are already written in stone. The important part though is that when we make the decisions, WE are making the decisions, and we do not know the outcomes. At the exact moment that we make a choice, we could choose to make any choice. The fact that God knows are decision already does not mean that we were 'forced' or 'predetermined' into making that decision. It was not fate that brought about the choice, it was our own decision making that brought about the choice.

God knows things exactly as they will happen, as though they are set in stone.

But that does not mean that he was the one who set them in stone. The same logic applies to the past. We cannot change the decisions we made in the past, and they are indeed written in stone, but that does not mean that fate caused those decisions to be made. WE ultimately made those decisions, and while we can watch the replay 10,000 times, the outcome will never change (the outcome has been 'predetermined'). But that does not mean that the outcome did not result from choices made through free will.


A lot of times people have a lot of trouble with this concept. I pretty firmly believe that all of the logic is intact and if there is a specific part that is giving you trouble please ask.

[Hobbes]

Why?
- common sense
- I believe everything calvin said is wrong and wish he never been born

BTW, why limit yourself to scripture proof texts? ....

That last bit sounds like it would come from an enemy of God's word... but that can't be true so I guess I'm just taking it wrong.

Anyway, so you think that Augustine and Calvin had no common sense?

Sounds a just a trifle arrogant to me, but that's just me.

Every bible-believing Christian believes in predestination on some level. I'm with otseng, I believe in both.

We have 99% free will but not full autonomy. Folks like slopeshoulder and the non-Theists, they are all for 100% autonomy--it's the "common sense" consensus among them I reckon--especially among many of those 'highly educated' ones... who think people who believe the bible are beneath them.

Adam and Eve had 99% free will, and thanks to the friendly humanist serpent, they were convinced that only full autonomy is tolerable. That advice worked out real well, didn't it.

[Darias]

I believe in neither.

Fee will is just a term for an abstraction. Sure, humans have the ability to act upon any given stimuli from a range of possibilities. That's freedom of action, perhaps freedom of choice, but not free will to do anything and everything.

For example, I cannot will myself to do something that goes against my nature and my rearing, unless severely impaired by a substance or if a situation is dire and calls for an action -- say, if I'm a survivor of a plane crash in the mountains and there's so food to eat but dead passengers.

Even when I was more of a fundamentalist Christian, I never believed that my will or wanting, or love for God could ever make Him save my soul.

However, that doesn't mean I believed in predestination.

In my view such a doctrine within the Christian world-view (including creation, original sin, etc.) completely and utterly takes the human understanding of justice and turns it on its head. I personally feel that it demonizes God. Such a system is believed to be just by Calvinists and others because they believe God created such a system according to their selective readings of the texts.

But in my view, if such a doctrine is "just," then the whole concept of justice becomes completely and utterly empty and meaningless to me.

To think that a God would create the world knowing mankind would fall into sin by his design and testing -- and knowing that He would usher the creation of many souls which He would chose before Creation to either live in eternal bliss with Him, or burn in his eternal torturous merciless torment -- without their say in the matter -- no matter how pious, devout, doctrinally correct, moral, good, humble, prayerful, and loving towards God they may be -- their fate was sealed.

And from the human perspective it would be completely random. Hitler could be saved, and Mother Teresa damned. Right doctrine and love for God are only signs but not promises of salvation.

This is why I believe such a system is morally abhorrent. One would think that the supreme deity of the universe would be more merciful and loving than your average human being, but if such a system appalls human beings and ravishes their sense of justice entirely -- who could imagine that a much more morally superior God would create or enforce such a system?

Such a system is a complete contradiction to this passage here:

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

In the New Testament, God is often equated with love, as shown above. But have you ever noticed in the Old Testament that God is described as being totally opposite?

Impatient, cruel, jealous, proud, arrogant, cutting, resentful, wrathful joyful in the blood of His enemies, temporary favor, etc.



God can't be both.

If God rejoices in the eternal torture of our children, friends, parents, and loved ones -- without them ever having a choice or way out -- such is a cruel fate created by a cruel and sadistic, nay malevolent deity.

While your loved-ones roast in his wrath, you'll be praising his name for eternity -- calling Him just and merciful (only selectively of course) for sparing you when he could just have easily damned you to an eternal punishment -- for your sins, which he gave you through your flawed ancestors which he created.

In other-words, in this system, everyone deserves hell because we're all trash, trash he created. And it is only by his dice roll that some of us don't get to cry and beg for eternity.


So to sum up, the doctrine of predestination makes God nothing short of a monster -- and that's the only thing he could be, under this system -- period. (provided he had free will in the matter) If He is sending people to hell because He has no choice in the matter (aka, His nature compels him to) well, you can't really resent such a being right? If that was the case, you couldn't be no more angry by his actions than being angry at a tiger for killing its prey.

But if God predestined most of humanity to suffer eternally for nothing other than His own borderline-erotic pleasure -- and if he had the option to do otherwise (say, spare most or all of humanity from such a cruel fate), then God is evil, and deserves the praises and faith of no-one.

[Hobbes]

I believe in neither.

Fee will is just a term for an abstraction. Sure, humans have the ability to act upon any given stimuli from a range of possibilities. That's freedom of action, perhaps freedom of choice, but not free will to do anything and everything.

For example, I cannot will myself to do something that goes against my nature and my rearing, unless severely impaired by a substance or if a situation is dire and calls for an action -- say, if I'm a survivor of a plane crash in the mountains and there's so food to eat but dead passengers.

Your every decision is the result of what you desire. You can never make a decision to do something that is against your will.

Even when I was more of a fundamentalist Christian, I never believed that my will or wanting, or love for God could ever make Him save my soul.

Well that stands to reason. Nothing we say or do can make God do anything.

However, that doesn't mean I believed in predestination.

Then you don't believe the bible. BTW that's not an attack, just an observation. No biggie.

In my view such a doctrine within the Christian world-view (including creation, original sin, etc.) completely and utterly takes the human understanding of justice and turns it on its head. I personally feel that it demonizes God. Such a system is believed to be just by Calvinists and others because they believe God created such a system according to their selective readings of the texts.

It's not a select reading, but more so an understanding that is supported by a myriad of verses in Scripture, that isn't refuted elsewhere in Scripture.

But in my view, if such a doctrine is "just," then the whole concept of justice becomes completely and utterly empty and meaningless to me.

I can relate. Predestination, election, all that makes it seem as though God isn't being just. However, if you put all the onus upon God which is where it belongs in my opinion since none of this ever would have happened without Him willing it so, then His justice makes a lot more sense. If requested I'll expand further on that.

To think that a God would create the world knowing mankind would fall into sin by his design and testing -- and knowing that He would usher the creation of many souls which He would chose before Creation to either live in eternal bliss with Him, or burn in his eternal torturous merciless torment -- without their say in the matter -- no matter how pious, devout, doctrinally correct, moral, good, humble, prayerful, and loving towards God they may be -- their fate was sealed.

Whether it is seen as a selfish gesture on God's part or not, we should be prepared to admit that He did this for Him, not for us. It makes far less sense for God to create beings because He felt like He owed it to them. Before we were created, He owed us nothing. He still owes us nothing; other than to fulfill any promises He has made.

And from the human perspective it would be completely random. Hitler could be saved, and Mother Teresa damned. Right doctrine and love for God are only signs but not promises of salvation.

That's true. Again, from the limited human perspective.

If a nest of fire ants builds an ant hill next to the foundation just outside my kitchen and proceeds to march into my house and feast on my food... when I go out there and poison the ant hill, the few survivors wouldn't have a clue why I did what I did and would think of it as a random, hateful, cruel act. However, what I did was fulfill my own desires; their desire for my food was less important to me.

And no. I'm not saying human beings are ants. I'm saying our understanding of God's actions is similarly limited and God does what He wants to fulfill His desires which are primary, and that makes sense to me.

This is why I believe such a system is morally abhorrent. One would think that the supreme deity of the universe would be more merciful and loving than your average human being

The alternative which you recommend is that God be all-loving, all-merciful, and we all live out our lives without the slightest tinge of accountability. It would be Aleister Crowley's Do as ye will, because we'd know in the end we'll be taken care of. I don't like that alternative and the bible sure opposes it from start to finish.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

No, there is no contradiction. The reason you suggest the contradiction is because you suggest God is ALL love; ALL mercy; ZERO justice; ZERO accountability. Your god, whoever he is, does not exist in the bible.

In the New Testament, God is often equated with love, as shown above. But have you ever noticed in the Old Testament that God is described as being totally opposite?

No, I've never noticed that. And Jesus warned of the fiery pits of hell more than He spoke of the bliss of heaven. Also, God showed a vast amount of love and mercy upon countless characters in the Old Testament. So the OT and the NT are on equal footing in their depiction of love/mercy vs justice/wrath, in my opinion. In fact, if pressed I'd probably suggest that God showed more singular acts of love and mercy in the OT than Jesus did in the NT. But then again, Jesus' ministry lasted a relatively short amount of time, I conced that.

Impatient, cruel, jealous, proud, arrogant, cutting, resentful, wrathful joyful in the blood of His enemies, temporary favor, etc.

Ahh, you must be one of those postmodern non-Theist Christians I've recently read about. I'm still trying to get my arms around all this so please understand I'm playing catch up and forgive my ignorance.

I seem to have bitten off more than I could chew as I'm out of time but there's plenty of material there for meaningful repartee. Thanks Darias.

[Darias]

Your every decision is the result of what you desire. You can never make a decision to do something that is against your will.

Never? I think Paul would beg to differ.

For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.... For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

Well that stands to reason. Nothing we say or do can make God do anything.

Except for when God changes his plans according to the laments of certain individuals (I'll spare the city if you find 10 righteous men).

Or when Israel wouldn't let Jesus gather her under his wings...

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

And...

"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people"

So my reaction and your belief may be common sense, no we can't force God to do a thing -- but apparently, according to passages in the Bible, human actions can influences God's decisions.

However, that doesn't mean I believed in predestination.

Then you don't believe the bible. BTW that's not an attack, just an observation. No biggie.

Well, it just means that I don't believe in Paul's particular theology, not that he was Calvinist -- or had a completely Calvinist message. The Bible is not a single text, nor does it have a single author.

It's not a select reading, but more so an understanding that is supported by a myriad of verses in Scripture, that isn't refuted elsewhere in Scripture.

There are many Arminianist who have supporting scripture for their doctrines who would beg to differ. But you see, that's the problem with all doctrine. It relies on a myriad of de-contextualized verses read literally. It excludes or minimizes alternative interpretations and scriptures which fail to line up with said ideology -- which is why I buy neither doctrine.

I can relate. Predestination, election, all that makes it seem as though God isn't being just. However, if you put all the onus upon God which is where it belongs in my opinion since none of this ever would have happened without Him willing it so, then His justice makes a lot more sense. If requested I'll expand further on that.

No, not seems, does -- it does make God unjust, assuming both God and predestination exist respectively. Just because everything exists, assuming God "did it" -- it doesn't justify the system. If you or I owe our existence to an act of barbarism in the past, say, the crusades (which had they not had happened, our ancestors would have been killed by invading Muslim armies [set aside the fact that this is historically inaccurate]) is our existence justified? God's will or not, did thousands of people deserve to die so that we could live? I wouldn't be so quick to answer that...

Whether it is seen as a selfish gesture on God's part or not, we should be prepared to admit that He did this for Him, not for us. It makes far less sense for God to create beings because He felt like He owed it to them. Before we were created, He owed us nothing. He still owes us nothing; other than to fulfill any promises He has made.

That makes as much sense as saying a mother owes her child nothing. Well, provided she intended to have the child, its her responsibility to raise it -- not abandon it before it has a say in the matter. That would be cruel. Trust me, if a mother wants to have a baby, she's not doing it just for her -- she's raising a child and choosing to bare all the responsibilities of such, for the child's sake -- not for her.

So, I guess God, in this system, isn't much of a parent. Creation is less like His children and more like play things -- except they are sentient (it makes it more fun that way). Human history is merely a game of Civilization V.

If God is the very seat of selfishness - why worship this being? Why worship a selfish creature only interested in his own jollies -- jollies which are more important to him than his own love or hatred for his children. Him Him Him, all about Him and His pleasure - screw us, and praise be!

Calvin's doctrine really paints a lovely picture of God -- a God of do as I say, not as I do. If we had the attitude of Calvin's God, we would be horribly selfless, merciless, and arbitrary people. We certainly would not be loving and selfless and unconditional.

Why would God demand higher values of his children than of Himself?

That's true. Again, from the limited human perspective.

From God's perspective, it all makes perfect sense. Eternal torture for the unlucky many is perfectly justified - cause He's the boss and is above the law. He can do whatever the heck he wants and call it good. Crimes that humans couldn't get away with without being labeled as evil, he can do that and more and sill receive praises.

If a nest of fire ants builds an ant hill next to the foundation just outside my kitchen and proceeds to march into my house and feast on my food... when I go out there and poison the ant hill, the few survivors wouldn't have a clue why I did what I did and would think of it as a random, hateful, cruel act. However, what I did was fulfill my own desires; their desire for my food was less important to me.

And no. I'm not saying human beings are ants. I'm saying our understanding of God's actions is similarly limited and God does what He wants to fulfill His desires which are primary, and that makes sense to me.

Yes, yes you are comparing human beings to ants -- and that's exactly what they are to God -- bugs -- nothing more, according to Calvinism.

Except when you poison ant hills, you didn't put them there beside your kitchen or give them desires for food. Except God put them there, and then punished them for doing what they were created to do -- why? For his pleasure. He could have put the ants in a nice place where they could have all the food they wanted and not have to worry about them coming into His kitchen -- but He wanted to kill them. After all, who doesn't like poisoning ants?

The alternative which you recommend is that God be all-loving, all-merciful, and we all live out our lives without the slightest tinge of accountability. It would be Aleister Crowley's Do as ye will, because we'd know in the end we'll be taken care of. I don't like that alternative and the bible sure opposes it from start to finish.

The Bible says that God IS Love, not "all-loving" but love incarnate. This doesn't give with the picture you're giving me.

If God would have just created human beings without the urge to eat apples, we'd all be here and doing God's perfect will every day, because we'd be created to want to do that, and not to want to taste apples. And then God wouldn't have to send billions and billions of children to hell, where his eternal wrath and anger would be upon them --- because they acted as he intended them to act. They must be punished!

No, there is no contradiction. The reason you suggest the contradiction is because you suggest God is ALL love; ALL mercy; ZERO justice; ZERO accountability. Your god, whoever he is, does not exist in the bible.

The Calvinist and Arminianist God does not exist; these are two polar understandings of God. If hell is necessary to punish humans for their finite crimes, the punishment should also be finite, not infinite. If hell is simply a torture house for God's jollies imposed upon unfortunate souls regardless of their beliefs or actions -- well this is the absence of justice. God can call it whatever the hell he wants. I call it evil, because it is.

Predestination means that God is not a good god. He's not even a good person! If a human being was to behave as God does, we'd lock him up for the rest of his life. Why should God be held to a different standard, nay praised, for doing evil -- just because he is a more powerful being than humans? True we can't do anything about it, but at least have the gall to criticize Him. I mean, it's not like that would send you to hell or anything, as He's already predetermined your fate. Why would he care what us ants think anyways?

Ahh, you must be one of those postmodern non-Theist Christians I've recently read about. I'm still trying to get my arms around all this so please understand I'm playing catch up and forgive my ignorance.

I seem to have bitten off more than I could chew as I'm out of time but there's plenty of material there for meaningful repartee. Thanks Darias.

Oh I assure you, I am a Theist, just not a Calvinist. Who knows, I could have the lucky numbers - the one way trip to heaven... But don't worry, if you're right about God, I'll let you have my winning ticket.

[psalm8]

I've been researching the notion of free will vs. predestination and am getting dragged down in terminology and complex theology.

I was just wondering if it would be possible for someone to explain what they believe about this issue. I have seen scriptural evidence from both sides but would like even more. Thanks

I see a good case for both. But I dont see any case for any absolute free will. If there is free will, it is still limited by either Gods decrees or natural law itself. This is one of those subjects that I think is irrelevant to the end game of life. It will not be one of the questions asked at judgement (are you free will or not?). Whatever the answer is, both extremes still have to claim faith in Him and that is the important issue for the end game. IMHO