Predestination vs. Free Will- Are we chosen by God, or do we choose God?

Theology
1

Predestination vs Free Will Are we chosen by God, or do we choose God
Predestination vs Free Will Are we chosen by God, or do we choose God1200×630 151 KB

As Christians reflect on salvation, sovereignty, and the role of human choice, we invite your voice in Crosswalk Forums.
#Predestination #FreeWill #christianforums #crosswalkforums #forums #crosswalk #faithcommunity #faithforums

This is one of the issues that I have been fighting for long.
@SincereSeeker @KPuff @Johann @TheologyNerd @Bruce_Leiter @Dr_S @Bruce_leiter, @Soul and others are welcome to help me with this problem
Throughout the centuries, Christians have wrestled with a deeply thought-provoking and often divisive question: Are we saved because God chose us before time began, or because we, of our own free will, chose to follow Him? This discussion lies at the heart of the doctrines of predestination and free will, both of which have significant implications for how we view salvation, grace, justice, evangelism, and the character of God.

On one hand, many Christians point to verses such as Ephesians 1:4–5 and Romans 8:29–30, which suggest that God, in His sovereign will, predestined some for salvation. This view is often associated with Calvinism, which teaches that God’s grace is irresistible and that those whom He elects will inevitably come to faith. In this perspective, salvation is entirely God’s work from start to finish, and human choice plays no decisive role.

On the other hand, other believers emphasize human responsibility and the ability to choose or reject God’s grace. Passages such as Joshua 24:15 (“Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve”) and Revelation 3:20 (“I stand at the door and knock…”) seem to imply that people are free to respond to God’s call. Arminianism and other synergistic views uphold that while God’s grace initiates salvation, humans must cooperate with it through free will.

This leads us to pressing theological questions:

  • If God predestines some and not others, is that fair or just?
  • If human beings are completely free, does that undermine God’s sovereignty?
  • Can both predestination and free will be true in some mysterious way known only to God?
  • How does this debate affect the way we evangelize or understand spiritual growth?

The issue becomes even more complex when we consider ideas like Molinism (God’s knowledge of all possible decisions), or the Orthodox and Catholic concept of synergy, where divine grace and human freedom work together in the process of salvation.
The main question is:
What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you lean more toward divine predestination or human free will?
Can both ideas coexist in a consistent theology?
How do you reconcile the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility?

Your answer will be of utmost importance to me, and will be precious as it can help me with this topic.

2

(post deleted by author)

3

no just summarize it, this is like the topic introduction, u can write ur own answer. Because i started a topic independently, i had to write the context..u can give ur own framed answer.
Ur answer will be of utmost importance to me, this also answers the Skeptic’s question as well
Peace
Sam

4

@Samuel_23 What you have stated (above)is accurate and obvious. I’m sure you are about to get answers that do nothing to dispel the above thought. Those who are willing to tackle your question have probably wrestled with this previously, and have no-doubt landed on a personal perspective or satisfactory explanation that their conscious can live with. I appreciate that you too would like to settle this quandary in your own heart, and are seeking counsel to assist you in that endeavor.

My first advice is this: Do not allow this noble pursuit of truth to surreptitiously oppose the stated unifying work of God’s Holy Spirit; do not allow your investigation of reality to assist the enemy of the church in his efforts to disrupt and disunify The Body of Christ. We know we are to walk circumspectly towards those who are “outside” (Eph 5:15, Col. 4:5, 1 Thes. 4:12), but we also remember we are to walk compassionately, patiently, and lovingly towards one another; conducting ourselves

“with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Ephesians 4:2-3.

I respect you for pursuing this understanding, but I likewise caution you as this subject is fraught with potential for division. Tread carefully, and I’m here to offer you assistance in any way I can.

Secondly, I respectfully submit my opinion that as you near answers to your question, your journey will necessarily involve looking at the same phenomenon from two perspectives; from earth-bound looking up, and from a heavenly vantage point, looking down. The two perspectives simply cannot be viewed at the same time by human eyes. The perspective we are most familiar with, earth-bound looking up, is the perspective God knows we are temporarily bound to. We simply must conduct ourselves from our human perspective that is bound to time and space, cause and effect, faith and obedience. From here we know only our present, we remember our past as it fades, and our future is known only by what God has told us. Almost all of our future, tomorrow’s victories, this afternoon’s failures, unforeseen crises, unexpected windfall, is still unknown to us. This is the arena we MUST operate in, this is the arena in which faith and obedience lead the way. God says “Go into all the world and preach the gospel” we do exactly that. Not because we believe God is hamstrung if we don’t, but simply because he said to do it. When the apostle says:

“ For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences. 2 Corinthians 5:10-11”

we know what he means. Not that God does not already know those who are His for eternity, but simply because we don’t. We walk by Faith, not by sight; we blindly obey God’s instructions for us, while experiencing His revealing light, opening our eyes to the knowledge He has gone before and prepared the way.

Blessings in your endeavor.
KP

5

I believe @KPuff spoke truthfully and gave you solid counsel, @Samuel_23.

Thanks.

J.

1 Like
6

@Kpuff, @Johann
I will give u till now what i have learnt, so one can have a better understanding about my position.
My tradition rooted in the patristic synthesis of the Cappadocian Fathers and the dogmatic affirmations of the Chalcedon, approaches the interplay of divine sovereignty and human freedom through the lens of synergia, the cooperative harmony wherein God’s prevenient grace (gratia praeveniens) initiates, sustains and perfects the salvific journey, yet never abrogates the human will’s liberty. St.Gregory of Nyssa, in his Life of Moses, articulates this as a dynamic ascent toward theosis, where divine initiative and human response converge in perichoretic union mirroring hypostatic unity of Christ’s two natures. This theandric paradigm posits that God’s energia empowers human agency without coercion, affirming that the human will, though fallen, retains its auexousion (self-determination) to assent to or resist divine grace.
The divine perspective, veiled in the apophatic mystery of God’s scientia absoluta (absolute knowledge) reveals foreordination that transcends human comprehension. My dilemma is how does God’s predestination, which elects “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4-5), coexist with the scriptural call to choose freely as in Joshua 24:15
Autexousion means self-determination
Proorismos means predestination
The main tension is Proorismos and Autexousion
The heart of my struggle is the apparent antinomy between God’s sovereign proorismos and human autexousion. If, as Calvinistic exegesis of Romans 8:29-30 suggests, God’s election is an irresistibilis gratia that unilaterally determines salvation, does this not impugn divine justice, rendering God the author of some souls’ reprobation?
Conversely, if human freedom is wholly determinative, as pelagian or semi-Pelagian errors might imply, does this not diminish God’s lordship, subordinating His will to human caprice?
The patristic traditions are what i like to go, wary of both extremes, navigate this through synergy. St.John Damascene, in On the Orthodox Faith, asserts that God’s foreknowledge and predestination do not necessitate human choice but enable them, preserving autexousion within the divine economy.
To address this, i find resonance in the concept of scientia media, as posited by Luis de Molina, which bridges divine sovereignty and human freedom. God’s middle knowledge encompasses all conditionals, what each person would freely choose in any possible circumstance, allowing Him to ordain a world where human decisions align with His salvific will without coercion. This harmonizes with the patrisitic notion of prolepsis, where God, in His atemporal eternity, sees the end from the beginning, weaving human choices into His redemptive tapestry. Thus, when I evangelize, as u rightly emphasize, I act in faith, trusting that God’s grace preceeds and perfects my efforts (john 6:44), yet my obedience remains meaningful as a cooperative act within the divine economy.
In closing, I wish to say that to venture into these theological depths is not an act of questioning, but one of reverence. It is not that I question God—far from it—but rather, I long to behold more of His wisdom, to know Him not only devotionally, but intellectually, existentially, and sacramentally. To meditate on mysteries such as predestination and free will is to be drawn into the very heart of divine providence and human purpose.
I affirm the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with full conviction. Yet I believe that wrestling with these doctrines, instead of weakening our faith, refines it, as iron sharpens iron. It strips away superficial certainty and replaces it with wonder, humility, and a deeper grounding. The more I search, the more I am convinced—not because I have all the answers, but because I have seen the majesty of a God who is bigger than my categories, yet intimately present in my questions.
These explorations don’t lead me away from God—they lead me into worship. They anchor me not only in what I believe, but in why I believe, allowing me to stand on firmer ground, even as I gaze upward into mysteries too vast to fully comprehend.

7

This is such a rich and challenging topic—and you’re not alone in wrestling with it. I found this article helpful in laying out the biblical tension between God’s sovereignty and our response. It doesn’t oversimplify, but it does offer clarity grounded in Scripture:

:link: What Does the Bible Really Say about Predestination? | Crosswalk.com

Curious what others think—can God’s choosing and our choosing both be true without contradiction?

1 Like
8

The tension between proorismos and autexousion dissolves not in scholastic theory, but at Calvary. God predestined a crucified Christ. Man crucified Him. God predestined salvation in Him. Man must enter by faith. Grace precedes, but man must respond. The Father draws, the Son atones, the Spirit convicts, and the sinner believes. None of these are illusion. All are real. All are necessary.

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, not to cancel choice, but to purchase a people who would freely love Him. Your evangelism is not mechanical. It is cruciform participation in God’s redemptive pursuit. Your questions do not weaken faith. They awaken reverence. The more you look into the mystery, the more you behold the majesty.

So yes, wrestle. But wrestle with the cross before you, the Word in hand, and the Spirit within. And you will find, not contradiction, but communion.

J.

1 Like
9

Ah, Samuel_23. The classic theological showdown. Predestination or free will? Are we chosen by God or do we choose God? Let’s quit playing ping-pong with the Almighty’s sovereignty and take the gloves off.

Ephesians 1:4 says He chose us before the foundation of the world. Not after your third youth camp altar call. Romans 8:29 rolls in with a freight train of divine action: foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. It’s not a group project. God doesn’t need a co-signer to save a soul.

But now flip the script. Joshua 24:15 says choose this day. Revelation 3:20 has Christ knocking, not kicking down the door. Scripture doesn’t treat you like a robot. You’re called to repent, to believe, to respond. So no, we’re not just cosmic puppets yanked along by invisible strings.

Here’s the truth. Scripture holds both. Fully. Without apology. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. You don’t have to flatten one to make sense of the other. Trying to resolve that tension with tidy labels like Molinism or Arminianism or synergism is like trying to stuff the ocean into a shot glass.

God ordains the end. He also ordains the means. That means He chose, and He also commands. He saves, and He also sends. You’re not excused from the call to faith and repentance just because your name might be in the Book of Life. You’re responsible for how you respond to the gospel.

So where do I stand? I stand with the Word. It says both. It doesn’t apologize. It doesn’t explain it to your comfort. It declares it to your face.

He is the Potter. You are the clay. Don’t argue with the hands that formed you.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

2 Likes
10

I appreciate your theological bio. I think the sophisticated explanation of your personal history is thorough, cogent, and not unexpected. Thanks for sharing.

This may be helpful or this may be obfuscating. Here goes (I just know I’m going to be called on the carpet for sharing this viewpoint, but I’ve been face-down on the carpet so often I can tell you the thread count):

The cosmos in which we experience life is real, dependable, intelligently designed, albeit impermanent (Rev 21:1). We depend on the design features to operate according to fixed rules (miracles notwithstanding) Those rules include time, space, cause & effect, choice, consequences, surprises, etc. God made the environment in which we find ourselves, and He made us to reside within it. I have no problem thinking God fully expects us to operate in synchronistical and symbiotic ways within it, even when it comes to relating to Him. So we obey; we ask, we pray, we choose, we mourn, we plan, we make back-up plans, we suffer the consequences of our choices, etc. And we are right to do so.

Sometimes we may feel our cosmos, in which we reside, is in opposition to the Eternal Kingdom of God; that our up is His down, our in is His out, or that our pleasure is His misery, and our misery is His pleasure. Of course, we are wrong. So, in relation to your topic, we may at times feel an uneasiness that our choices may supersede His predestination, and His choices (if He even has something like we think of as a “choice”) are somehow subject to our approval. This is discomforting, and it really should be. A well-thinking, sober-minded man says in his heart “The last thing I would ever want is for God to do my will”, and he would be right”. Even so, we live our lives within the confines of this cosmos, and all the associated rules and laws of nature. We speak to God as if we can change His mind, or move His hand, and we should; it is good, we’ve been told to do so. We obey because we are “creatures”, citizens of a temporal cosmos, functioning according to all the associated rules and laws of nature, which are intelligently designed features of our itinerant home. God expects no better of us as the psalmist says:

“ The LORD is merciful and gracious, Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him; As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. As a father pities his children, So the LORD pities those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust. Psalm 103:8-14

There is a greater reality outside of our Cosmos, a spiritual, metaphysical, celestial environment which was also created by the same master designer, and has its own rules and laws of supernature. Our cosmos is not separate from this greater environment, it is not in opposition to this supernatural sphere, but our cosmos is a subset of it, a small corner, a reduction, a lesser place with lesser rules and laws. While we are in this subset of reality, we rightly act accordingly. We persuade men, we pray for the lost, we devote ourselves to “making a difference”, we ask God for favors, we choose for ourselves whom we sill serve; we thrive where we have been planted, and our obedience brings Glory to our creator. Even so:

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11

Did we choose God’s plan of Salvation for ourselves? Absolutely, from within our cosmos, we absolutely did.
Did God choose our salvation to demonstrate His glory? Absolutely, from the supernatural realms of Glory, He absolutely did.

Hope this is encouraging, and not befuddling.

KP

1 Like
11

Amazing answer brother @Kpuff and @SincereSeeker, one of the questions my Dad asked me is that “Are we robots, if everything is predestined?”
Your portrayal of the cosmos as an intelligently ordered ktisis, governed by temporality, spatiality and causality, yet eschatologically transient resonates with Irenaeus’ vision in Adversus Haereses, where the creation is a teleological economy ordained for theosis. This cosmos, as u articulate, is divinely appointed arena wherein human agency operates symbiotically engaging in acts of obedience, prayer and persuasion (2 Cor 5:10-11). The theandric paradigm rooted in the Chalcedonian homoousios posits human freedom as a participatory energeia within the divine actus purus, a cooperative mimesis of Christ’s hypostatic union. Yet, my aporetic tension emerges:
how does the human capacity for deliberative choice, as exhorted in Joshua 24:15 cohere with the divine predestination of Eph 1:4-5, which situates election before the foundation of the world?
Does human freedom constitute an autonomous dynamis or a derivative participation in the divine boulē?
Your thesis that our cosmos is a merismos (portion) within a hyperkosmion (supra-cosmic realm) evokes St.Maximus the Confessor’s Ambigua, where the ktisis is eschatologically consummated in God’s recapitulation. God’s predesination and foreknowledge operate within this eternal sphere as u state “God chose our salvation to demonstrate his glory”. Orthodoxy (to which i affirm) interprets proorismos not as a monergistic absolute decree but as a purposeful plan rooted in God’s love for humanity, inviting all to theosis. My disquient centres on reconciling this with autoexousion. Does predestination imply a necessitating determinism, rendering freedom an illusion?
Orthodoxy denies this, with St.John Damascene’s De Fide Orthodox, asserting that prognōsis facilitates proairesis without coercion. Your Ecclesiastes 3:11 unveils an unknowable mystery, affirming the via negativa of orthodox theology.
The main part starts from here:
Orthodox soteriology hinges on cooperation, the mutual indwelling of divine grace and human will, analogus to the anhypostatic union of Christ’s natures. Your dual affirmation
“We chose salvation” in the cosmos
“God chose salvation” in the hyperkosmion
Reflects this theandric divine-human harmony. St.Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses, articulates synergeia as a dynamic ascent toward theosis, when initiating grace empowers autexousion without nullifying it. Orthodoxy eschews Molinistic scientia media (i added it before to give u guys another theory about this topic; otherwise, i have nothing to do with Molinism), favouring pneumatological synergism, God’s activity enables human action, within his saving plan. In evangelism, my efforts are authentically mine yet divinely wroughtas a theandric human-divine operation that refutes both monergistic irresistible grace and pelagian self-sufficiency. Orthodoxy thur preseves the divine sovereignty and human freedom in eschatological harmony.
Your Ecclesiastes 3:11 invokes the unkowable horizon of Orthodox theology, where God’s purpose transcends reason. St.Gregory Palamas’ Triads distinguish God’s essence from His operation situating the proorismos autexousion dialecting within a mystery of faith akin to Trinitarian mutual indwelling or eucharist transformation (tears coming)
Psalm 103:8-14
for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust. (NIV)
reveals God’s love for humanity, accommodating human fraility within His plan.
This unknowable mystery liberates my choice bears end time weight (2 Cor 5:10,) participating in divine purpose without exhausting in the eternal word.
Am i right, @kpuff, @Johann and @SincereSeeker

12

Outside of Christ man is helpless, hopeless, and hapless; and can do nothing.

The term “free will” is itself a loaded term. The general way we think of “free will” is usually in a philosophical and metaphysical sense: The things I do come out of my own volition, and are not the result of cosmic fate. That is to say, “free will” is the opposite of “determinism” or “fatalism”. I woke up and made coffee this morning because I chose to make coffee, not because I was pre-determined by cosmic or super-cosmic forces to have coffee this morning; I could just as well have not had coffee this morning as have coffee. The same then can be said about our moral choices, when I curse at someone because they cut me off in traffic I did that, that was my choice, and therefore I am morally culpable.

But the concept of “free will” can get much more complicated, both philosophically, but more importantly in this conversation, theologically. To wit: How free is free will? Or to what degree is the will free? I would argue that we would all agree that there is no such thing as an absolute free will, where the will is absolutely free. To clarify what I mean by “absolutely free”, I am not, for example, free to become a bird, or a car, or a rock. There is no amount of volitional power within me that can change my being or essence to anything other than what I was created as: I was created a human being, I cannot become something else. Another example, while there may be degrees of ability within any given society for forms of social mobility, I will never–no matter how much I may will it–be the king of Norway. Then there are examples of where systems exist in such a way as to deprive human beings of freedom; for example under the institution of slavery no amount of individual will could liberate one from that wretched institution; there was required liberation by an external help and the abolition of the system itself–Abolitionists such as Harriet Tubman and Josiah Henson were tireless in their efforts to free their black brothers and sisters who were held in the bondage of slavery; contributing actively to the liberation of their enslaved brethren and active in fighting against the very system of slavery itself.

We might, therefore, ask–do human beings have an absolutely free will? And the answer is, of course–and one could even argue that that in some examples I provided above I have merely engaged in argumentum ad absurdum; but the point I wanted to make is that freedom is always conditional. There is always a conditional freedom of the human will, rather than an absolute freedom of the human will.

So, the question that is important when it comes to this theological issue is this: What is the condition of the human will? Or more exact: What is the condition of the human will apart from Christ?

Why do the Scriptures consistently place the locus of the saving choice, not upon sinful men; but rather upon the God who meets sinful men in Jesus? Why does St. Paul speak so strongly against human efforts in attaining a good standing before God, arguing emphatically that we can boast in nothing except for in Jesus Christ and God’s grace? We can take no credit, but rather all credit for our salvation belongs to God.

If salvation can be reduced to an act of human “free will” simply choosing the right path, then we should get some credit, right? Even if I am the one guiding my child, preceding my child’s learning, I still can praise and credit my child when he or she takes their first steps, or says their first words; even if I precede my child, it was still to my child’s credit. Is, likewise, even if God precedes us–a “prevenient grace” we might say–so that in spite of all odds that I would reject God I, instead, choose God and thus enter into a state of grace through my free choice (having therefore made my first steps onto the right path) I should be credited with that tiny act–a very minute, something altogether perhaps not even worth recognizing–but nevertheless, something I can still claim as my own: I did that.

So I suppose that’s the rub: Did I do that? Or did God do that? When faith first sparked within, and the breath of the Holy Spirit began to blow, and the goodness of the Gospel began to sink, is it because of something I did? Or do we go further up the chain: It isn’t where faith first sparked, where the Spirit began to blow, or when the goodness of the Gospel sunk in; instead the moment we must focus on is the moment I made a knowing fully articulate confession of faith, perhaps an articulation of faith accompanied by some other act? If we then go that far, then we are clearly in the territory of human merit. That which I have done is what seals the deal. It is not grace, nor faith, nor Word, nor Spirit–but my own act.

1 Like
13

The question is, just to start this thread and understand what others view about the question, i wrote the question to which i got amazing replies from @kpuff, @johann, @sincereseeker and my dear friend @TheologyNerd
With the help of Kpuff and from what I know about Orthodox theology, I like to think abt this as:
Orthodox cosmology, as articulated by St.Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses envisions creation as intelligible world, teleologically ordered within the divine plan for theosis. Goverened by time, space and causality yet eschatologically evanescent, the ktisis is the crucible where human autexousion engages divine opertions. Joshua 24:15, affirm deliberative choice as an ontological power, not an illusion. The theandric paradisgm rooted in the chalcedonian homoousious reveals autexousion as a participation in the divine pure act, a imitation of Christ’s hypostasis, whose human will freely synergizes with the divine. Orthodoxy repudiates monergistic irresistible grace, which annihilates autexousion and Pelagian self-sufficiency which subvert sovereignty. The Synergia posits (one which i hold) that prevenient grace ontologically vivifies autexousion, enabling humanity to ascend toward the end-time aim of theosis.
The orthodox resolution culiminates in cooperation, the mutual indwelling of divine grace and human will, mirroring anhypostatic (non-personal) union of Christ’s natures. As said earlier, St.Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses portrays synergia as ascent towards theosis, where prevenient grace empowers self-determination without subsuming it. Unlike Molinistic middle knowledge, Orthodox pneumatological synergism emphasises the operations of the Spirit, which divinises human action within the saving plan. In evangelism, worship and ascetic practice, human will synergizes with divine grace, yielding a divine-human operation. This harmony, which exalts will above grace. Synergia ensures that predestination and autexousion co-inhere in end time, the embrace of theosis, where human freedom fulfils its purpose in divine sovereignty.
St.Maximus the Confessor’s Ambigua frames the creation as eschatologically sonsummated in Christ’s recpaitulation, where all is united in the logos. Divine predestination is not a absolute decree, but a purposeful plan, emanating from the love for humanity of the Trinity. Eph 1:4-5 signifies God’s eternal purpose to draw all into communion with His essence through operations. Foreknowledge, as St.John Damascene elucidates in De Fide Orthodoxa is not neceesitating, but according to divine plan, encompassing human choice without coercion. The apoira of justice, whether proorismos implies a cause for reprobation, dissolves in Orthodoxy’s universal soteriological proclamation: God’s will seeks the salvation of all ( 1 Tim 2:4) with reprobation arising from human rebellion, not divine judgement. Proorismos is thus a divinising invitation, preserving autexouion within the eternal divine plan.
Am i right, @kpuff and @Johann.
The Church is the mystical place where cooperation manifests. The apostolic call to walk by faith mandates proclamation, worship and ascetic practice, all empowered by prevenient grace. Orthodoxy resolves the aporia of evangelism: God’s operations precede human work, yet fruitfulness arises through autexousion. The communion of the church (Eph 4:2-3) guards against Schism, ensuring this reflection edifies the Body of Christ. St.Athanasius’ De Incarnatione affirms freedom finds it aim in God’s will, uniting predestination and self-determination in doxologia
At last I would like to say:
The orthodox synthesis transcends the dialectic through cooperation where predestination and self-determination are not antithetical but mutually indwelling within the divinising mystery of theosis. Proorismos is God’s eternal purpose emanating from the love for humanity of the Trinity, to draw all into the communion through operations. Autexousion is the God-given freedom, vivified by prevenient grace, to freely ascend toward the end-time purpose. The unknowable veil of God’s essence preserves this as a mystery, yet cooperation offers a theandric praxis, in proclamation, worship and ascetic practice, human will synergises divine grace, fulfilling theosis. Thus, Orthodoxy unveils a divine culination where sovereignty and freedom co-inhere the mutual indwelling of the Trinity radiating priase unto the ages, Am i right @Kpuff
Thanks @KPuff, although my idea was initially incomplete, ur answers gave me the entire picture, im very thankful for ur help.

14

https://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/special_topics.html#P:~:text=Unlimited%20Yet%20Limited-,Predestination,-Predestination%20(Calvinism)%20vs

https://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/election_and_predestination.html

Utley, a man to whom I’m deeply indebted, as our Lord Christ Jesus is powerfully using his teachings to shape and strengthen my life. Dia the Ruach HaKodesh.

Shalom.

J.

15

Samuel_23, my brother in the brain-scorching deep end of theology—first off, thank you for pulling no punches. That wasn’t a post. That was a theological thunderstorm. You didn’t just bring a question. You brought Irenaeus, Chalcedon, St. Maximus, and Palamas to the table and told them to debate over coffee. Respect.

Now let me do what I do: take that five-layered patristic baklava and slice it with some scriptural steel.

Are we robots if everything is predestined? Only if God’s sovereignty is confused with cosmic programming. But Scripture doesn’t portray the Author of salvation as a divine coder writing scripts. He’s the sovereign Lord, not a system administrator. And His image-bearers aren’t automatons—they’re accountable beings called to love, repent, obey, and believe.

You nailed the tension: how can Joshua say “choose” while Paul says we were “chosen”? Here’s the fireproof answer—your will is real, but it’s not ultimate. It operates within the field of God’s sovereignty, not outside it. Divine foreknowledge isn’t passive observation. It’s active orchestration that still honors human volition. You’re not free because God is absent. You’re free because God is present.

You asked if our capacity to choose is autonomous dynamis or derivative participation in divine boulē. Biblically? It’s both-and, not either-or. Human freedom is real, but it’s derivative—created, contingent, and accountable. We don’t possess autexousion as an independent force. We exercise it within the bounds of God’s sustaining will. Think John 15:5—apart from Christ, you can do nothing. That’s not poetry. That’s ontology.

You reference the Orthodox understanding of synergism. And yes, that gets warmer than the cold monergism of determinism or the Pelagian furnace of self-salvation. But even synergy bows to sovereignty. Romans 9 doesn’t get erased because synergy sounds nicer in Greek. “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” That’s not up for negotiation. That’s the thunder of divine initiative.

You rightly affirm God’s will and ours can operate together—Christ’s hypostatic union proves divine and human can coexist without confusion or collapse. But here’s where Scripture lays down the gauntlet: even that cooperation begins with grace. “It is God who works in you both to will and to act” (Philippians 2:13). The only reason your freedom doesn’t default to rebellion is because grace got there first.

So no, predestination isn’t determinism. It’s divine mercy orchestrating human salvation for His glory. Not by force. Not by fate. But by faith, which itself is a gift (Ephesians 2:8).

Your synergy stands. But it must stand on the rock of God’s prior initiative, not float on the cloud of human effort. As for evangelism—preach like it depends on you. Pray knowing it depends on Him.

Am I tracking with you? Yes. But only if we remember this:

God’s choice doesn’t cancel yours. Yours just wouldn’t happen without His.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
16

ELECTION/PREDESTINATION AND THE NEED FOR A THEOLOGICAL BALANCE

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool, or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. Rom. 10:11,13).

The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths:

  1. Predestination vs. human free will

  2. Security of the believers vs. the need for perseverance

  3. Original sin vs. volitional sin

  4. Sinlessness (perfectionism) vs. sinning less

  5. Initial instantaneous justification and sanctification vs. progressive sanctification

  6. Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility

  7. God’s transcendence vs. God’s immanence

  8. God as ultimately unknowable vs. God as knowable in Scripture

  9. The Kingdom of God as present vs. future consummation

  10. Repentance as a gift of God vs. repentance as a necessary human covenantal response

  11. Jesus as divine vs. Jesus as human

  12. Jesus as equal to the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant faith response from mankind (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).

Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!

http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/

J.

1 Like
17

A point I would like to continue on from my earlier points, is the issue of freedom apart from Christ (and, implied, freedom in Christ). This is, I believe, the appropriate place to speak of monergism and synergism. Coming, again, from a Lutheran perspective, our justification is a monergistic work of God; the righteousness we have before God is a declared, imputed righteousness. What justifies me before God isn’t what originates from myself, but is rather wholly and entirely grace: God proclaims, on Christ’s account, that I am just. It is not myself that is righteous, it is Christ Who is righteous, and it is His righteousness that, imputed to me, that reckons me just before God.

I am a slave to sin and death, and a slave is not free; but it when One comes to liberate the slave, the slave is no longer a slave, but a freeman. Thus while apart from Christ I am not free, in Christ I am now free. And what is the nature of this freedom? It is the freedom to cooperate with God, to partake of God, participate in and with God. The Old Man is a slave, the New Man is free. The Old Man despises the things of God, the New Man loves the things of God. Thus the New Man, made free, regards himself no longer a slave to sin, but God’s possession; and out of this freedom is the freedom of obedience. Lutheran theologians call this “The New Obedience”, it is a new dynamic born of grace, arising from faith, by the power of the Spirit, where we cooperate with God. This new dynamic is Sanctification, it’s Theosis, it can be described in many ways; and it is a living cooperation with God born of love and faith. “We love, because He first loved us.” as St. John reminds us.

Toward that end there is a synergistic activity between the human and divine will; a reflection of in us of the united wills of the Person of Christ; who has both a human will and a Divine Will, but in perfect unity. Therefore, “Have this same mind in you that was in Christ Jesus” is truly a call to unite our will to God’s will, and this happens because of our union to Christ. We are in Christ, and in Christ we are free. And here too, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” and also “He who began the good work in you will continue that work until the Day of the Lord Jesus”; for we are God’s Temple, and He is working to sanctify His Holy Possession; corporately of course as the Church, but also each of us a living stone in the whole edifice, sacred and belonging to the Lord. For we are a kingdom of priests. And so many other ways the Scriptures speak of our being the sacred possession of God in Christ. And here, we are partakers of the Divine Nature (as St. Peter says); or St. John says, “What we will be is not yet revealed, but we shall be like Him.”, or again as St. Irenaeus would say, “The Lord became what we are that we might become what He is”, or as St. Athanasius would say, “The Word became man that man might become God”–none of this meaning the eradication of the distinction between the human and Divine ousia, not an eradication of the radical distinction of Creator and creature–but that through our participation in God, in the Life Divine, in Christ, by the Spirit, by our cooperation with God’s grace we are brought into the depths of God and made like Him by our being conformed to the image of Christ. It is not a transformation from human to divine; but the participation of the human in the Divine in Christ. So that Theosis is a work of Divine Grace drawing us toward the center of God in Christ, by which we are being made holy, and toward which there is, indeed, a glory (what some theologians call Glorification). This is the appropriate space to speak of synergism, not in our Justification (which is monergistic and extra nos); but in our new humanity, our new obedience, our newness and freedom which is found in Christ.

There is sizeable danger in conflating these two. Insofar as conflating these two inevitably results in a confusion of the sharp dichotomy of Law and Gospel. It is not God’s Law that justifies us, our Justification is Gospel, freely given; the Law works, with the new freedom of the new man, to encourage us to good works. Good works which we were created for. Such good works do not attain us the glory of righteousness before God; but rather proclaim the glory of God in whose Image we were created, and to live lives as priests of God offering the sacrifice of praise, and to offer even our bodies as a living sacrifice to God.

1 Like
18

I am a Calvinist, but Calvinism, rightly understood is not “either-or,” that is, predestination or “free” will. Rather, it is “both-and,” that is, predestination and human responsibility. Both are true; God plans everything, and humans are fully responsible for their whole lives.

Strictly speaking, there is no real “free will.” We are born dead to God and choose to ignore him or rebel against him (Ephesians 2:1-3). God raises us up to new life by grace through his gift of new, resurrection life (Ephesians 2:4-9). Then, he enables us to follow his ways (verse 10).

I’m curious. Why do you “fight” this issue? From my viewpoint, it is a biblical mystery how it all works together. It was Joseph’s insight to his brothers in Genesis 50:20. We all need to humble our reason before God to accept his mysteries for which we don’t have all the answers.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Gen 50:19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God?
Gen 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

19

Samuel_23, you just turned the doctrine of synergy into a full-blown theological symphony, and I see what you’re doing. You’re not just dropping names—you’re weaving the Fathers into a living tapestry and asking whether Orthodoxy really threads the needle between divine sovereignty and human freedom. So let’s walk through the fire and test if the gold holds.

Yes, St. Irenaeus saw creation not as random atoms bumping into each other but as a divinely tuned theater for the drama of theosis. The ktisis isn’t just matter—it’s mission. Governed by time, but aimed at eternity. Human autexousion is real, but not rogue. It’s a responsive power, enabled by prevenient grace, not independent of it. Joshua 24:15 doesn’t contradict Ephesians 1:4–5—it reveals the visible echo of an invisible call.

Now you’re absolutely right to root this in Chalcedon’s Christology. The human will of Christ doesn’t resist the divine. It cooperates with it. Not out of necessity, but out of love. That’s not just anthropology—it’s your blueprint. Autexousion isn’t canceled by grace. It’s awakened by it.

The Orthodox pushback against both Calvinistic determinism and Pelagian independence is on point. But let’s be clear. Cooperation doesn’t mean equality of roles. The breath of God raises dry bones—those bones don’t resuscitate themselves and then ask for CPR. Synergy is not a 50-50. It’s a 100-100, where God’s action initiates and sustains, and man’s response is real but always derivative.

You mentioned Molinism to contrast with Orthodox pneumatological synergy—and amen. Orthodox theology doesn’t need philosophical detours to explain God’s omniscience. It rests in the mystery without surrendering coherence. But don’t forget—mystery doesn’t mean murk. It means majesty. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cause your choice, but it fully encompasses it without coercion.

St. John Damascene’s point is crucial. God’s plan includes your choice, but does not manipulate it. Reprobation is not God slamming the door. It’s man walking away from the open gate. 1 Timothy 2:4 is not in conflict with election. It reveals the breadth of divine love—yet also the tragedy of human rebellion. God desires all to be saved, yet not all respond. That is not a failure of divine will. That is a testimony to human responsibility under divine patience.

And your crescendo hits the mark: the Church is where this synergy becomes incarnate. Worship, proclamation, ascetic discipline—they’re not spiritual merit badges. They’re arenas of cooperation. They’re the echo of Christ’s own submission to the Father’s will lived out in us.

So yes, brother. You’re right. If synergy exalts will above grace, it collapses into Pelagian pride. But if it recognizes the Spirit’s primacy and power, then it becomes the divine-human rhythm of theosis. It’s not freedom from God. It’s freedom for God. And that’s a freedom worth using.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

20

Thanks @SincereSeeker for your answer, i enjoyed reading it, Praise be to God
Peace
Sam