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]

A child askes why forever. A man knows why.
Asking why is free will.

Is that in the Bible? If not, why is it relevant to the question being debated?

[Christanity4ever]

What's wrong with it is that it is all dogma and thus B S speculation.

I don't think you have the ability to make that decision. I doubt that you even know what dogma is. Lastly that is your opinion. You should be attempting to be a good representative of the atheist movement. Instead you fulfill the bad things that many non atheists believe about atheists. You as an Evangelical atheist in my opinion are not a good representative of your atheist brothers and sisters who are for the most part good and moral people. So that willful meanness of yours places you are in a woefully small minority, smaller than even the 'good atheists' that I have the pleasure of knowing. I thank god that all atheists aren't as uncivil and abrasive as you are.

The analogy is perfect. A perfect watch would likely always insure that time is under it’s control regardless of conditions.

The analogy is worthless. There is no perfect anything in this universe. So your analogy is not only bad its silly.

Oh my, God does not own a watch.
I digress.

He owns your soul.

Better death, than life without a moral sense.

Religion gives us a moral sense so I will live now and forever.

The only thing that places us above the other animals right now is our moral sense.

Speak for yourself

[Christanity4ever]

[...] Freewill. You have no case because you have complete free will.

[...]
God could [strike]of[/strike] [have] created beings without free will and the ability to make choices. However the entire reason for our existence is to have the choice to choose.
[...]

It appears as if you are begging the question. We are debating whether or not the Bible teaches that we have free will. You are basing your arguments on the premise that we have free will.

Please don't correct my grammar this isn't school. If I correct every grammatical error I noticed here it would be a full time job.

We do have free will. I have described why we have free will many times. I will refresh every ones memory. God may be perfect in his realm however he created our universe to run on uncertainty and probabilities. That gives us room for free will. As I said God gave us a choice in the garden of Eden and we went against his advice and choose to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is a free will choice, a bad one but a choice nevertheless. Anyway the bible is full of examples of free will choices. I hope that clarifies my position.

C4

[McCulloch]

We do have free will. I have described why we have free will many times.

But the debate is not whether we have free will. Scroll up to the top and read. The topic being debated is
Does the Bible teach free will?

So, even if your assertion were correct, that we really do have free will, it is still off topic.

[Christanity4ever]

the bible isn't a text book does the bible teach anything? No not like a text book. However if you read the bible it will be obvious that we have free will, so as I said (and it went right over your head several times) the bible does teach free will. I didn't know I had to spell it out.

So now you know that, my reply was indeedy on topic...

C4

[McCulloch]

the bible isn't a text book does the bible teach anything? No not like a text book. However if you read the bible it will be obvious that we have free will, so as I said (and it went right over your head several times) the bible does teach free will. I didn't know I had to spell it out.

Forgive the rhetorical short-cut. No, the Bible does not teach anything. However, individual writers of the various documents included in the Bible very definitely intended to use their writings to teach various things.

I have read the Bible. It is not obvious to me, nor is it obvious to well-read Biblical theologians known to some as Calvinists that the concept of free will is either implicitly or explicitly taught by the writers of the Bible.

[otseng]

B S speculation.

If your wish is to see the world from behind the eyes of a dumb animal, you---oh wait.

You do.

Moderator formal warning.

Usage of the term BS is inappropriate on this forum. Also, the dumb animal remark would be considered a personal attack. Please avoid such terms and comments.

[Greatest I Am]

A child askes why forever. A man knows why.
Asking why is free will.

Is that in the Bible? If not, why is it relevant to the question being debated?

It just came to mind as I was reading here.
I went with the instinct.

If a man of your caliber thought that my words came from a Bible, perhaps my instincts were right and this statement is a logical and true saying.

I hope so.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

We do have free will. I have described why we have free will many times.

But the debate is not whether we have free will. Scroll up to the top and read. The topic being debated is
Does the Bible teach free will?

So, even if your assertion were correct, that we really do have free will, it is still off topic.

The Bible teaches---

Do it my/God's way or burn forever.

This cannot be construed as free will.

It is a threat and coercion.

Regards
DL

[Christanity4ever]

the bible isn't a text book>>>>Brevity snip<<<<does the bible teach anything?[/size][/color][/b] No not like a text book. However if you read the bible it will be obvious that we have free will, so as I said (and it went right over your head several times) the bible does teach free will. I didn't know I had to spell it out.

Forgive the rhetorical short-cut. No, the Bible does not teach anything. However, individual writers of the various documents included in the Bible very definitely intended to use their writings to teach various things.

I have read the Bible. It is not obvious to me, nor is it obvious to well-read Biblical theologians known to some as Calvinists that the concept of free will is either implicitly or explicitly taught by the writers of the Bible.

Sorry for my short temper. I agree and the debate rages at least in the local churches and in bible study. Even in seminary it was sidestepped. Jesus didn't mention it and as you say its not clear if its taught at all. Some passages say God is perfect even knowing the hairs on our heads! But then as we read scripture it seems obvious that God does not know either by choice or some other mechanism we are going to do in the future. So my mind isn't made up on the subject and I enjoy speculating what the truth may be.

C-4