Does the Bible teach free will?

[SpiritQuickens]

I personally hate the word "Calvinism." I just find it really ugly. However, as a Bible-believing Christian, I think the predestinarian soteriology rediscovered my the Reformers (having been taught earlier by guys like Augustine, Gottschalk, Wycliffe, Huss) is Biblical. Man does not have free will as traditionally understood, but God determines who will be saved. I'm going to give an account of why I believe this, and I'd like to hear the opinions of Christians who believe in free will, and also non-theists. I'm not going to go into TULIP, but I'd like to simply address the passages which I think explicitly teach unconditional election (God determines who will be saved based on nothing about that person).

"For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image


Shalom M. Paul (a Jewish commentator) writes in the Hermeneia commentary on the Book of Amos 3:2:

“Most significant is the way in which the tie between Israel and the Lord is expressed…The verb…signifies an emotional and experiential relationship between the two and has the meaning “to select, to choose.� Compare, for example, Gen 18:19; Exod 33:12, 17; Deut. 9:24; Jer. 1:5; Hos 13:5. “Only you�…note the placing of the direct object before the verb for emphasis – “have I chosen.�-page 101

One of the passages I find most interesting is Genesis 18:19:

"For I have chosen [known] him, [Abraham] that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to ABraham what He has promised him."

God chooses Abraham so that he can lead a righteous life - the relationship is clearly causal. Abraham's obedience results in rewards, but what results in the ability to obey God, is...well...God. This apparent paradox is found throughout Scripture (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) in the form of God's sovereignty juxtaposed with man's responsibility:

“12 …work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.�-Philippians 2:12-13
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have dealt harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them, that you may know that I am the LORD." So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, the God of the HEbrews, 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if you refuse to let My people go, behold, tomorrow I will bring locusts into your country..."-Exodus 10:1-4

Pharaoh is clearly portrayed as incapable of obeying God's command, even though a divine hardening directly preceded it.

"12 But to all who did receive Him, who believe in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."-John 1:12-13

""Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know - 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."-Acts 2:22-23

Here we once again have God's sovereignty juxtaposed with man's responsibility. And we also have that word "foreknowledge." What does Peter mean here? Does he mean that God not only foreordained what would happen, but also knew what would happen? This seems kind of redundant. Of course God knew what would happen if He foreordained it. Is there a better explanation of what is meant here by foreknowledge?

God's predetermined plan refers to God's plan to have Jesus delivered up and killed. The object of God's foreknowledge is Jesus. As in the Old Testament, for God to (fore)know someone means that He has chosen them for something in such a way that involves having an intimate relationship with them. That Peter should use such language of Jesus is unsurprising, since he does so elsewhere:

"He [Jesus] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times..."-1 Peter 1:20

I don't think that anyone, “Calvinist� or non-, argues that God the Father knew beforehand that Jesus would obey Him and chose Him based on that. As in the Old Testament (and the New) our author is clearly telling us that God the Father chose Jesus. In the beginning of this same letter, Peter similarly associates foreknowledge with election:

"To those who are elect exiles...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..."-1 Peter 1:1-2

We have our answer regarding how Peter uses the word foreknowledge. In Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:20, God's foreknowledge is associated with His election, but there are times, for example, here in 1 Peter 1:20, and elsewhere, when the distinction virtually collapses. To be foreknown IS to be chosen. Notice the striking similarity in the wording between 1 Peter 1:20 and Ephesians 1:4:

"...even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him."-

One is foreknown before the foundation of the world, the other is chosen before the foundation of the world - but both mean the exact same thing. Romans 8:29, which associates foreknowledge with election (the former precedes the latter) seems to be specifying precisely what being chosen by God (read: foreknown) entails for the believer (Paul specifies that it entails being predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son..."). Christians are sons of God (Romans 8:14, 29). Jesus is foreknown (chosen) by God as a sacrifice for us so that we can also become sons of God. He is our firstborn brothers (8:29). 1 Peter 1:20 clearly relates back to 1 Peter 1:1-2. Like our firstborn brother Jesus, the Son of God, we have been foreknown and predestined to glorification (Romans 8:29).

There is another passage regarding the use of foreknowledge and its relation to election that I've noticed is not mentioned very often. Romans 11:1-2:

"I ask, then, has God rejected His people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew."

Paul is addressing the objection that God has forsaken ethnic Israel. When Paul says "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew", He is not saying that, those individuals who are foreknown by God, are not forsaken (this is true of course, but it's not what Paul is saying here). Verse 2 is an unrestrictive clause - it's not specifying a a subgroup to whom God's rejection does not apply, it simply restates that God has not rejected the people Paul had just been talking about (ethnic Israel). This lends us more insight into how Paul uses the word "foreknew." The foreknowledge here is clearly not intellectual knowledge, but a sovereign, unconditional choosing of a people that had nothing to do with anything good in the people as such:

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth"-Amos 3:2

^Here we see the exclusiveness of God's election, as in Romans 8. Those whom God foreknows constitute the elect - as opposed to those whom God does not foreknow.

"For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the Earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set His love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that He swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand..."-Deuteronomy 7:6-8

Was it because of anything good in Israel that God loved them? Far from it. Anyone who's ever read the Old Testament knows that you couldn't bounce a rubber ball past Israel without them committing apostasy and worshipping it as a god. Yet God foreknew them (loved them sovereignly beforehand).

One of the more amusing instances of this is Galatians 4:9:

"But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God..."(Gal. 4:9).

Paul actually seems to be correcting himself when he realizes the theological inaccuracy the idea of us coming to "know God" might foster. That we are "known" by God, again, is a very common Old Testament idea, and implies sovereign selection, not intellectual knowledge about a decision we're going to make (Amos 3:2, Gen 18:19; Exod 33:12, 17; Deut. 9:24; Jer. 1:5; Hos 13:5). The idea that Paul would use such terminology, here and elsewhere, in connection with election, to a largely Jewish audience, and yet mean something completely different by the term and concept "foreknowledge" and its association with election (and furthermore, without telling us of this significant departure from such a traditional understanding) seems a tad farfetched.

John 6 (specifically, 6:37, 44, 63-65) is another nail in the coffin as far as unconditional election goes, but it takes too long to flesh out the context, and I'm sleepy. I hope this is of help to someone. I'd like to hear your feedback.

Also, check out Romans 9. Read through verses 1-23, and refer back to the "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" quote which Paul uses to make his point. It's Malachi 1:2-3. God's sovereign choice is clearly affirmed here as well ("I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert." With the rhetorical question "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" God is clearly affirming that, though by human standards, one had just as much right to anything as the other, God's sovereign choice determined who would receive the blessings, and who would be cursed. The logic of the rest of Romans 9:1-23 is clear).

[myth-one.com]

God determines who will be saved.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life... (Deuteronomy 30:19)

How?

By the grace of God.

1) If someone chooses to accept Jesus as his/her Savior.

2) But God determines not to save that person.

3) Then there is no grace of God for that person!

4) And God has reneged on his following pledge:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

If God bestows everlasting life only on those He determines, then He does not love the world -- He loves those He has determined.

[McCulloch]

1) If someone chooses to accept Jesus as his/her Savior.

2) But God determines not to save that person.

3) Then there is no grace of God for that person!

4) And God has reneged on his following pledge:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The point the Calvin made is that no one can choose to accept Jesus because of their fallen sinful nature, without God's grace to compel him.

If God bestows everlasting life only on those He determines, then He does not love the world -- He loves those He has determined.

That is the major criticism of Calvinism.

[SpiritQuickens]

1) If someone chooses to accept Jesus as his/her Savior.

2) But God determines not to save that person.

3) Then there is no grace of God for that person!

4) And God has reneged on his following pledge:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The point the Calvin made is that no one can choose to accept Jesus because of their fallen sinful nature, without God's grace to compel him.

If God bestows everlasting life only on those He determines, then He does not love the world -- He loves those He has determined.

That is the major criticism of Calvinism.

I don't think John 3:16 is referring to every human without exception, but simply every human without distinction (regardless of sex, ethnicity, social class, etc.). Just two verses later, in John 3:18, we're told that whoever does not believe in Him is "condemned already." You could just as easily argue that those who are condemned already are not objects of God's love, but of His hatred (Psalm 5:5-6, 11:5, Proverbs 6:16, 19, Leviticus 20:23).

[McCulloch]

I don't think John 3:16 is referring to every human without exception, but simply every human without distinction (regardless of sex, ethnicity, social class, etc.). Just two verses later, in John 3:18, we're told that whoever does not believe in Him is "condemned already." You could just as easily argue that those who are condemned already are not objects of God's love, but of His hatred (Psalm 5:5-6, 11:5, Proverbs 6:16, 19, Leviticus 20:23).

But those who do not believe, disbelieve because God has not given them the grace to believe, according to Calvin. The unanswered question of the Calvinists is why God is so stingy with his grace?

[myth-one.com]

The point that Calvin made is that no one can choose to accept Jesus because of their fallen sinful nature, without God's grace to compel him.

Try as hard as I can -- I still do not get Calvin.

If God bestows everlasting life only on those He determines, then He does not love the world -- He loves those He has determined.

That is the major criticism of Calvinism.

That I can understand!

But those who do not believe, disbelieve because God has not given them the grace to believe, according to Calvin. The unanswered question of the Calvinists is why God is so stingy with his grace?

Doesn't belief come first?

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

We seek out the gospel plan of salvation, we believe and ask Jesus to become our Savior, then by the grace of God we are saved.

So Calvin taught that we never even get to the belief part unless we were predetermined to be believers? I guess that's better than accepting Jesus as your Savior only to be disappointed later when told you were not one of the "predetermined."

If salvation is predetermined to that extent, why do we need preachers and missionaries? Those predetermined to become believers could be notified in a dream, a voice from a cloud, whatever.

[SpiritQuickens]

I don't think John 3:16 is referring to every human without exception, but simply every human without distinction (regardless of sex, ethnicity, social class, etc.). Just two verses later, in John 3:18, we're told that whoever does not believe in Him is "condemned already." You could just as easily argue that those who are condemned already are not objects of God's love, but of His hatred (Psalm 5:5-6, 11:5, Proverbs 6:16, 19, Leviticus 20:23).

But those who do not believe, disbelieve because God has not given them the grace to believe, according to Calvin. The unanswered question of the Calvinists is why God is so stingy with his grace?

"What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His poer, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory"-Romans 9:22-23

The ESV study Bible footnote explains it this way:

"God created a world in which both his wrath and his mercy would be displayed. Indeed, his mercy shines against the backdrop of his just wrath, showing thereby that the salvation of any person si due to the marvelous grace and love of God. If this is difficult to understand, it is because people mistakenly think God owes them salvation!"

[SpiritQuickens]

The point that Calvin made is that no one can choose to accept Jesus because of their fallen sinful nature, without God's grace to compel him.

Try as hard as I can -- I still do not get Calvin.

If God bestows everlasting life only on those He determines, then He does not love the world -- He loves those He has determined.

That is the major criticism of Calvinism.

That I can understand!

But those who do not believe, disbelieve because God has not given them the grace to believe, according to Calvin. The unanswered question of the Calvinists is why God is so stingy with his grace?

Doesn't belief come first?

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

We seek out the gospel plan of salvation, we believe and ask Jesus to become our Savior, then by the grace of God we are saved.

So Calvin taught that we never even get to the belief part unless we were predetermined to be believers? I guess that's better than accepting Jesus as your Savior only to be disappointed later when told you were not one of the "predetermined."

If salvation is predetermined to that extent, why do we need preachers and missionaries? Those predetermined to become believers could be notified in a dream, a voice from a cloud, whatever.

Try as hard as I can -- I still do not get Calvin.

Read through my post and visit the passage I've mentioned. Calvin wasn't trying to invent some new theological system. He was simply recovering what the Bible actually taught from the Roman Catholic Church (following the lead of guys like Gottschalk, Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, etc.)

Doesn't belief come first?

"No one can come to Me unless My Father who sent Me draws him"-John 6:44 ("come to Me" is a synonym for "believe in Me" - see John 6:35).

Let's look at John 6:63-65:

"63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life [I'm preaching the Gospel]. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe [I'm preaching the Gospel, but you're not believing]." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was whow oudl betray Him.) 65 and He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unles it is granted him by the Father [He's paraphrasing 6:44 - the implication is, the reason they weren't believing is because they hadn't been drawn by the Father. He's preaching the Gospel, they're not believing the Gospel, and this is why they're not believing].

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

We seek out the gospel plan of salvation, we believe and ask Jesus to become our Savior, then by the grace of God we are saved.

But we only COME to Jesus (believe in Him) because God has drawn us. To call out to Jesus implies we've already believed in Him, which means God has already drawn us:

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed?"-Romans 10:14

Your question about which comes first, belief or regeneration, is largely the point of dispute. Let's take John 1:12-13

"12 But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but God."-John 1:12-13.

Calvinists believe 13 causes 12. Non-Calvinists believe 12 causes 13.

So Calvin taught that we never even get to the belief part unless we were predetermined to be believers?

Correct. "No one is righteous, no, not one. No one understands; no one seeks for God."-Romans 3:10-11

I guess that's better than accepting Jesus as your Savior only to be disappointed later when told you were not one of the "predetermined."

This can happen to anyone who is a merely nominal professor. We have to bear fruit in our lives to make our calling and election sure.

If salvation is predetermined to that extent, why do we need preachers and missionaries? Those predetermined to become believers could be notified in a dream, a voice from a cloud, whatever

This is called "hyper-Calvinism." They more or less say, "well, since everything is determined, why evangelize at all?" Since we're all held responsible for our actions (or lack thereof) even if everything is predetermined, we had better obey God - and preaching the Gospel is one of His commands (Romans 10:14-17, Matthew 28:16-20). God has chosen to regenerate us by the Holy Spirit through the application of the preached Word of the Gospel.

[myth-one.com]

American Standard Version
who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

King James Version
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

New International Version
who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

New King James Version
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God desires all should be saved, and God is omnipotent, wouldn't God predetermine all of us to that end?

Moving on: Let's say Calvin is correct and we individually have no freedom of choice to determine our "eternal" fate.

Question: What awaits the two groups of saved and unsaved?

Added this edit: I just remembered another question I wanted to ask:

If the unsaved were predetermined to be so -- why is it necessary to resurrect them for judgment? Their outcome was already predetermined -- wasn't it?

Thanks again -- your post above was very informative & well done.

[McCulloch]

But those who do not believe, disbelieve because God has not given them the grace to believe, according to Calvin. The unanswered question of the Calvinists is why God is so stingy with his grace?

Doesn't belief come first?

But how can a corrupt evil-natured person come to the point of believing without a divine compulsion? If I am totally depraved, then it is impossible. In my understanding, total depravity is the linchpin of Calvinism. If you believe that humans are totally depraved, the rest follows. If you reject the conclusions of Calvinism, if you claim that we have the free choice to accept or reject God, then you must logically reject total depravity.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

We seek out the gospel plan of salvation, we believe and ask Jesus to become our Savior, then by the grace of God we are saved.

But how is it that depraved humans can ask, seek or believe without god's direct intervention?

If salvation is predetermined to that extent, why do we need preachers and missionaries? Those predetermined to become believers could be notified in a dream, a voice from a cloud, whatever.

This question has been raised before. Calvinists have not ignored it. Preaching, for them, is for the benefit of those doing the preaching, because, as you point out, if God wanted to get his message to any particular person, he would. An omnipotent God is not dependent on the compliance and preaching of a few individuals, as the free-will believers would have you think.

[McCulloch]

The unanswered question of the Calvinists is why God is so stingy with his grace?

"What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory"-Romans 9:22-23

The ESV study Bible footnote explains it this way:

"God created a world in which both his wrath and his mercy would be displayed. Indeed, his mercy shines against the backdrop of his just wrath, showing thereby that the salvation of any person is due to the marvelous grace and love of God. If this is difficult to understand, it is because people mistakenly think God owes them salvation!"

How can you claim that God's wrath is just? No one deserves God's mercy, yet he grants it to some and withholds it from others, all of equal (negligible apparently) merit.