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).

[Greatest I Am]

You still have not made your case. Apparently you think that choice and free will are the same things. And that influence can force someone to choose. The fact remains; we have choice and free will.

C-4

Yes we do.

Free will is something that is taken. Free will cannot be given.

To think that our free will was given to us is silly. It is not a commodity that is transferable.

Your God says, do it my way or burn forever.

Is this your idea of the free will that God gave you?

Regards
DL

[SpiritQuickens]

spirit says:

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

Foreknow in this scripture denotes a fore-loving [intimately] by foreunion..God the Father fore-loves all those who sustained a Union with the Lord Jesus Christ before the world began..

The word is two words, to [ ginosko] know and before pro..

The word know denotes an intimacy of oneness as when a couple know one another..

The word is used here with Joseph and Mary in Matt 1 25 we have:


24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

But look how the NIV Translates this verse:

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Here we see how the word know has the connotations of Union, that is intimacy ..

So now we more understand when Jesus tells the reprobates in Judgment, Matt 7, I never knew you..

This does not mean He was not aware of them, did not see all their actions, but He never was intimate with them or in union with them..in essence, He never loved them..

Agreed. It says, "those whom He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son..." It does not make a distinction between those whose acceptance He foreknew, and those whose rejection He foreknew, but those whom He foreknew, as opposed to those whom He did not foreknow.

[SpiritQuickens]

And don't forget that Jesus IS God. lol At least we read your books.

The Son of God is God himself.

The Son of God is comprised of Two Beings, The Begotten Man Jesus christ, who was begotten before all worlds in His Mediatoral Manhood, and He was United to the Eternal Son, which is the Logos or Word of God, which was God Jn 1:1..and He is a different, distinct person within the GodHead, He is not the Father..

Careful! That sounds an awful lot like Nestorianism. Christ is one being, with two natures. But He is still one being. To use Chalcedonian language, the incarnational subject of the hypostatic union (union of the natures) is the Word become flesh. He assumed what He was not (human nature), while remaining what He is (divine). But He is not two natures, like Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, etc. taught.

[SpiritQuickens]

What is this "spirit says" stuff???? LOL

spirit says: For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image ?????????????????

What? Paul said it.

Jesus didn't say it.
Peter didn't say it
James didn't say it.
Matthew, Mark, Luke & John didn't say it.

The math speaks for itself. Paul made up stuff. Unless.........he just borrowed the idea from the Gnostics.

Matthew recorded Jesus saying it (Matt. 11:25-27). So did Luke (10:21-22). You have Christ's divine Sonship and election in one pericope. For the Sonship alone, see Matt. 22:44-46, Mark 12:35-37. Peter also taught election (1 Pet. 1:1-2, 2:9) and Christ's deity (2 Pet. 1:1). James also taught election (James 1:18) and Christ's deity (James 2:1). John also taught election (John 3:8, 6:37-40, 44, 63-65, 10:27-29, 17), and Christ's deity (John 1:1, 1:18, 8:58). I have a feeling you're going to reject the authenticity of at least some of these works though, if not all of them.

[SpiritQuickens]

Does the Bible teach free will?

Hell no.

The Bible teaches that the free will that God offers is --do it my way or burn forever.

In no way can that be construed as free will.

It is a threat and coercion, plain and simple.

God wants sheeple and slaves, not free people.

Regards
DL

I remember your understanding of "free will" to be suspect, to put it nicely.

[Greatest I Am]

Agreed. It says, "those whom He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son..." It does not make a distinction between those whose acceptance He foreknew, and those whose rejection He foreknew, but those whom He foreknew, as opposed to those whom He did not foreknow.

What a game for God to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering.
Then create beings whom you love dearly and watch over.
And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss.
Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Does the Bible teach free will?

Hell no.

The Bible teaches that the free will that God offers is --do it my way or burn forever.

In no way can that be construed as free will.

It is a threat and coercion, plain and simple.

God wants sheeple and slaves, not free people.

Regards
DL

I remember your understanding of "free will" to be suspect, to put it nicely.

How so?

We all have it so I am not sure what you are referring to.

You might remember that freedom is something taken.
No one can give freedom unless they are forcibly holding you.
You are free right now to kill. You do not take that freedom.

Regards
DL