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).

[McCulloch]

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?

It is so easy! Just one proof text and Calvinism disappears. One does have to wonder why there are any Calvinists left; don't they read and study the Bible?

Those whom God desires to save, He will save. And those whom God saves are all men without distinction from all nations, not all men without exception and all nations.

A SUMMARY PARAPHRASE OF I TIMOTHY 2:4, ACCORDING TO THE THREE THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS.

1. The Arminian Interpretation: "God wants all men without exception by their own free will to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
2. The Modified or 4-Point Calvinist Interpretation: "God desires to save all men without exception and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth upon the condition of faith, since Christ's atonement was universal and placed each and every individual in a savable position."
3. The Historic or 5-Point Calvinist Interpretation: "God desires, in harmony with His eternal decree, to save all men without distinction (i.e., without respect to rank, station, race, or nationality) and bring them to the knowledge of the truth."

I believe 1 Tim 2:4 is speaking of all in this sense of "all types." [...]Who are the "all people" of verse 1? I believe the "all people" of verse 1 are the same "all people" of verse 4, as the subject matter does not change in any way at all in the intervening verses.

See also:

• Reformed Apologetics 1 Timothy 2:4 - An Exegesis - Alan Kurschner
• Section 45—1 Timothy 2:4. Providence Baptist Ministries

[GentleDove]

Those whom God desires to save, He will save. And those whom God saves are all men without distinction from all nations, not all men without exception and all nations.

A SUMMARY PARAPHRASE OF I TIMOTHY 2:4, ACCORDING TO THE THREE THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS.

1. The Arminian Interpretation: "God wants all men without exception by their own free will to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
2. The Modified or 4-Point Calvinist Interpretation: "God desires to save all men without exception and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth upon the condition of faith, since Christ's atonement was universal and placed each and every individual in a savable position."
3. The Historic or 5-Point Calvinist Interpretation: "God desires, in harmony with His eternal decree, to save all men without distinction (i.e., without respect to rank, station, race, or nationality) and bring them to the knowledge of the truth."

I believe 1 Tim 2:4 is speaking of all in this sense of "all types." [...]Who are the "all people" of verse 1? I believe the "all people" of verse 1 are the same "all people" of verse 4, as the subject matter does not change in any way at all in the intervening verses.

See also:

• Reformed Apologetics 1 Timothy 2:4 - An Exegesis - Alan Kurschner
• Section 45—1 Timothy 2:4. Providence Baptist Ministries

Yes, that's why Paul goes on to say "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth."

Paul is teaching that, although salvation is from the Jews (Jn 4:22), now with the coming of Christ even non-Jews (all) may be saved, including pagan kings, etc. This is the context of the word "all men" in this passage.

[myth-one.com]

Yes, that's why Paul goes on to say "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth."

Paul is teaching that, although salvation is from the Jews (Jn 4:22), now with the coming of Christ even non-Jews (all) may be saved, including pagan kings, etc. This is the context of the word "all men" in this passage.

Great Post!

You should be awarded an honorary ThD!

[GentleDove]

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.

Preaching is not for the benefit of those doing the preaching. It is because God has determined the means of his salvation to be through the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Calvinists make no claim to know which unbelievers will be saved by God. Therefore, the gospel must be proclaimed to every creature, in obedience to God.

[McCulloch]

Preaching is not for the benefit of those doing the preaching. It is because God has determined the means of his salvation to be through the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Calvinists make no claim to know which unbelievers will be saved by God. Therefore, the gospel must be proclaimed to every creature, in obedience to God.

But the point is, according to Calvinism, if someone has been chosen by God to be saved, then somehow the gospel will get preached to that person. So, yes, in a sense it benefits the one being preached to, but it matters not from whom the preaching comes, the message will get though, if it is God's will.

[SpiritQuickens]

Preaching is not for the benefit of those doing the preaching. It is because God has determined the means of his salvation to be through the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Calvinists make no claim to know which unbelievers will be saved by God. Therefore, the gospel must be proclaimed to every creature, in obedience to God.

But the point is, according to Calvinism, if someone has been chosen by God to be saved, then somehow the gospel will get preached to that person. So, yes, in a sense it benefits the one being preached to, but it matters not from whom the preaching comes, the message will get though, if it is God's will.

True. We can't believe unless we hear and assent to the message of the Gospel (both intellectually and volitionally - and this comes from God's irresistible drawing).

"How then will they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And hwo are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?"-Romans 10:14-15.

For the benefit of everyone here:

"So I ask, did they [Israel] stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their falure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you as Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"-Romans 11:11-3

"As regards the gospel, they [ethnic Israel] are enemies of God for your sake. but as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobebdience, that He may have mercy on all."-Romans 11:28-32

Both of these passages use "world" and "all" in a sense that clearly limits their universality, and refers specifically to all kinds of ethnicities (Jews and Gentiles).

The two Reformed interpretations of the oft-cited 2 Peter 3:9 are: God's desire for all to be saved is His desired will, and His decreed will is that only some be saved. Those confused by this should refer to Exodus 10:1-4 in my main post. God tells Moses that He will harden Pharaoh's heart beforehand (His decreed will, that Pharaoh should be one of the reprobate) and then commands Pharaoh to submit to Him (His desired will), even after having prevented him from doing so (again, His decreed will).

[myth-one.com]

Man does not have free will as traditionally understood, but God determines who will be saved.

The wages of sin is death and all have sinned. The only path to salvation is accepting Jesus as one's Savior from the wages of sin. But Jesus was born about 2000 years ago.

Since Jesus had not as yet died for their sins, what happened to the likes of Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Solomon, David, and many others? All of them sinned -- but they had no Savior from the wages of their sinning.

How were any of these "predetermined?" Was Jesus' sacrifice retroactive?

[Skyler]

Man does not have free will as traditionally understood, but God determines who will be saved.

The wages of sin is death and all have sinned. The only path to salvation is accepting Jesus as one's Savior from the wages of sin. But Jesus was born about 2000 years ago.

Since Jesus had not as yet died for their sins, what happened to the likes of Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Solomon, David, and many others? All of them sinned -- but they had no Savior from the wages of their sinning.

How were any of these "predetermined?" Was Jesus' sacrifice retroactive?

Doesn't Hebrews teach that these men were saved by faith? Faith in what, then? Clearly, faith in Jesus' sacrifice--even though it had not yet temporally occurred.

So yes, in that sense, Jesus' sacrifice was retroactive.

edit: On the subject of "world" and "all", it's important to read it the way the author wrote it. He wasn't writing to a 21st century American audience, he was writing to a group of people(the Jews) who had a very exclusivistic mindset, that they were the only people who would be saved and the rest of the world(the Gentiles) would not.

In contrast, Paul and the other authors argue that Jesus died for the world--not meaning all without exclusion, but all without distinction. This reading would have been understood by those churches to which he wrote.

This is also why in other places Jesus is said to have died for "the sheep".

Finally, there are some(and I lean this way) who would say that in one sense Jesus did die for every person individually, in that he secured for them "common grace". Meaning, every breath that is granted to a sinful person, every minute of their life, is only given because Jesus purchased it for them on the cross.

However, in another sense, Christ died effectually for the elect--they alone receive the full benefits of His death.

[McCulloch]

The wages of sin is death and all have sinned. The only path to salvation is accepting Jesus as one's Savior from the wages of sin. But Jesus was born about 2000 years ago.

Since Jesus had not as yet died for their sins, what happened to the likes of Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Solomon, David, and many others? All of them sinned -- but they had no Savior from the wages of their sinning.

How were any of these "predetermined?" Was Jesus' sacrifice retroactive?

Doesn't Hebrews teach that these men were saved by faith? Faith in what, then? Clearly, faith in Jesus' sacrifice--even though it had not yet temporally occurred.

Are you claiming that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon all had faith in Jesus' sacrifice even though their writings left no indication that they had any knowledge of it. Does that mean I am saved too? I have about as much demonstrable faith in Jesus' sacrifice as Moses or Isaac.

In contrast, Paul and the other authors argue that Jesus died for the world--not meaning all without exclusion, but all without distinction. This reading would have been understood by those churches to which he wrote.

This is also why in other places Jesus is said to have died for "the sheep".

Finally, there are some(and I lean this way) who would say that in one sense Jesus did die for every person individually, in that he secured for them "common grace". Meaning, every breath that is granted to a sinful person, every minute of their life, is only given because Jesus purchased it for them on the cross.

However, in another sense, Christ died effectually for the elect--they alone receive the full benefits of His death.

Nice dodge!

[Skyler]

The wages of sin is death and all have sinned. The only path to salvation is accepting Jesus as one's Savior from the wages of sin. But Jesus was born about 2000 years ago.

Since Jesus had not as yet died for their sins, what happened to the likes of Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Solomon, David, and many others? All of them sinned -- but they had no Savior from the wages of their sinning.

How were any of these "predetermined?" Was Jesus' sacrifice retroactive?

Doesn't Hebrews teach that these men were saved by faith? Faith in what, then? Clearly, faith in Jesus' sacrifice--even though it had not yet temporally occurred.

Are you claiming that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon all had faith in Jesus' sacrifice even though their writings left no indication that they had any knowledge of it. Does that mean I am saved too? I have about as much demonstrable faith in Jesus' sacrifice as Moses or Isaac.

1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

I think that passage addresses each point you raised. Yes, the people of old could have faith in something they didn't see; and no, if you don't "understand that the universe was created by the word of God" then you don't have faith.

In contrast, Paul and the other authors argue that Jesus died for the world--not meaning all without exclusion, but all without distinction. This reading would have been understood by those churches to which he wrote.

This is also why in other places Jesus is said to have died for "the sheep".

Finally, there are some(and I lean this way) who would say that in one sense Jesus did die for every person individually, in that he secured for them "common grace". Meaning, every breath that is granted to a sinful person, every minute of their life, is only given because Jesus purchased it for them on the cross.

However, in another sense, Christ died effectually for the elect--they alone receive the full benefits of His death.

Nice dodge!

Thank you. I should point out though that that explanation still doesn't help with the exegesis of several key passages, including but not limited to 1 Timothy 2:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:9.

(Just to explain a little: when Paul says "all" in 1 Tim 2:1-6 the context indicates he's speaking of all kinds of men--kings, rulers, etc, and not all men individually. In 2 Peter 3:9, the context clearly indicates that the "any" is the "beloved" or elect.)