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

Theology
105

Hi, in your post you seem to quote everything from everybody. Not to be rude but Im not interested in memorizing terms that people give to ideals.

However you did answer the question. “The Eucharist is not the only means to forgiveness”

As for John 6 we can agree to disagree

Jesus Himself said the words He spoke were Spirit and life. (End of Story)

Then the manna was physical food, but He contrast that with Spiritual food, seeing He came from heaven.

The people left because they may have thought He was talking about cannibalism. But He asked His true disciples are they going to leave?

Their answer says it all you have the words of eternal life *don’t quote off head

Jesus’s words are Spirit and life

He is talking about eating them by living them out.
It is being caught up in what He is doing now on earth that amounts to eternal life.

So it’s the words eaten spiritually that will bring about life.

Jesus said his meat was to do the fathers will..remember that passage?

Jesus said He lived off of every word that proceeded from the father’s mouth..remember?

Jesus said He always did what was pleasing to the father and the father never left him alone. Remember.

And what is eternal life? Answer: that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

No one has to spiritualize what is already spiritual.

106

Welcome @anon3111385, im reading ur answer..im excited to discuss with you.

107

What do you mean by the word “forgiveness,” @anon3111385? God forgives us in at least three ways. First, when we first give our lives to Jesus, our just Judge, the Father, transfers his “guilty” verdict on our lives from us to Jesus on the cross and his “not guilty” verdict from him to us.

Second, he “forgives” us by Jesus’ paying the price to enable us to be free from slavery to sin and Satan and to being God’s adopted children.

Third, to forgive in the Bible means to let go of anger and judgment against someone. We have a need to forgive ourselves, other people, and God in that sense in an ongoing way daily. That’s why Jesus taught us to pray for God’s daily forgiveness as we have forgiven people around us.

Mat 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Mat 6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,
Mat 6:15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

108

I’d like to gently point out a key difference between Orthodox theology and the Protestant Reformation. When someone like St. John Chrysostom or St. Maximus the Confessor authored theological works, their teachings were subject to the discernment of the Church—discussed in synods and measured against Scripture and the apostolic deposit. This ecclesial process safeguards doctrinal integrity. In contrast, figures like Martin Luther advanced theology primarily through personal writings, which often became normative without conciliar vetting or reception by the universal Church. This divergence in ecclesiology is not minor—it reflects fundamentally different views of authority and tradition.
John 6
Your assertion that Christ’s words in John 6:63 indicate a spiritual eating of His teachings is profound, but the Orthodox maintain that this doesn not preclude the Eucharistic sacrament as the literal fulfilment of His command to “eat My flesh and drink My blood”. The stumbling block of John 6:60-66 where many disciples departed, reflects not a misunderstanding of cannibalism, thats shallow way of approaching this, but they rejected the theandric (divine-human) reality of Christ’s self-offering. As St. John Chrysostom elucidates in Homily on John that “The flesh of Christ is not be understood carnally, byt as united to the Word, imparting eternal life through the mystical supper”. The Orthodox affirm that the Eucharist is both spiritual and corporeal, for Christ’s deified Body and Blood, transformed through substantial change in the invocation of the Spirit, convey divine energies that vivify the soul. Thus. “spirit and life” does not negate the real presence but exalts it as a participation in the hypostatic union.
Spiritual interpretation of John 6
What u said that eating Christ’s flesh means living out His words as exemplified by His own food being to do the Father’s will and living by every word from God, is clearly the Reformed emphasis. The Orthodox says that this doesn not exhaust the meaning of John 6, which explicitly ties eternal life to partaking of Christ’s flesh and blood. The patrisitic consensus sees the Bread of Life discourse as a proleptic (anticipatory) reference to the Eucharist, fulfilled in the liturgical assembly of the Church ( 1 Cor 10:16, Acts 2:42). St. Ignatius of Antioch refutes those who deny the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh, linking such vires to a doecetic diminishment of the divine economy. The disciples’ response in John 6:68, “You have the words of eternal life” doesnt negate the Eucharistic mandate but affirms trust in Christ’s entire proclamation, including the scandalous call to eat His flesh. The Orthodox thus hold that living Christ’s words and partaking of His Body are not mutually exclusive but synergistically united in the Eucharistic life.
Mysteries
The Problem of Reformed theology is that it doesnt accept mysteries where its necessary to. U define eternal life as “to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent”. a truth the Orthodox accepts. Yet this knowledge is not merely cognitive or ethical but mystical and sacramental, realised preeminently in the Eucharist. As St. Irenaeus of Lyons states in Against Heresies that “Our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no loger corruptible, having the hope of resurrection.” The Eucharist is the eschatological participation in Christ’s Second Coming, where knowing God becomes a lived reality, through communion with His deified humanity.
Contra the Reformed tendency to spiritualize the Eucharist as a symbolic act of obedience.

109

Let’s move forward @anon3111385 ( I have highlighted some questions for you to give your thoughts on)
Just to clarify, what ur writing, from the Reformed books, is it Zwinglian Reformed?
Then lets talk abt Zwinglian Reformed
Zwingli’s view, articulated in works like On the Lord’s supper, holds that the Eucharist is a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, where “is” in “This is my body” in Luke 22:19 means “signifies” (note this point, @anon3111385). Bread and wine are symbols and the act of communion is a communal remembrance, not participation in Christ’s actual Body and Blood. Now Zwingly’s approach is heavily influenced by a rationalistic hermeneutic and a rejection of sacramental realism.
First Point
Zwingli’s symbolic interpretation hinges on reading “is” as “signifies” in the Words of Institution. However, when we read, we see something else which Zwingli missed
Greek:
The Greek verb estin (“is”) in Luke 22:19 is a straightforward copula, implying identity, not representation. In biblical Greek, when a symbolic meaning is intended, additional qualifiers like “hos” "as, and “eikon” “image” are typically used. Christ’s unqualified “This is my body” suggest a literal ontological reality, @anon3111385 note the Greek grammar and context.
Context of Passover:
The Last Supper occurs in the context of passover, where the lamb was not merely a symbol but a real, efficacious sacrifice as in Exodus 12. Christ, as the true Paschal Lamb in 1 Cor 5:7, institutes a new covenant, where His Body and Blood are the real means of salvation, not mere signs.
John 6: In John 6:53-56, Jesus says “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have not life in you”. The Greek sarx (flesh) and aima (blood) are starkly realisitc terms, and the disciples’ shock indicates they understood Him literally, not symbolically.
If “is” means “signifies”, why does Christ not clarify this when His disciples are scandalised in John 6? A symbolic reading requires imposing an external hermeneutic on the text.
Memorialism
Zwingli’s view reduces the Eucharist to a mental act of remembrance.
Soteriological weakness: If the Eucharist is only a symbol, it lacks the capacity to effect theosis, the Orthodox doctrine of deification. St. Athanasius famously said “God became man so that man might become god”. The Eucharist, as the real Body and Blood, is the primary means of participating in Christ’s deified humanity. A symbolic Eucharist cannot.
Undermining divine grace: Zwingli’s memorialism implies that human recollection, not divine action is the locus of Eucharistic efficacy. This aligns with a Pelagian tendency, where human effort (remembering) overshadows divine grace.
If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, how does it differ from any other act of remebrance, like reading Scripture or praying? Why institute a specific rite if it offers no unique grace?
Metaphysical incoherence
Sacramental Realism: Drawing from St. Maximus the Confessor, Orthodoxy sees the cosmos as permeated by the divine logoi, the principles of God’s creative and redemptive purpose. The Eucharist is the pinnacle of this sacramental reality, where material elements (bread and wine) becomes vehicles of divine presence without ceasing to be material. Zwingli’s dualism, separating sign from reality fails to accut for this integrated worldview. Note this @anon3111385, u can think abt this.
@anon3111385, we come to the most imp point.
Chalcedonian logic: The Real Presence mirrors the hypostatic union. Just as Christ is fully God and fully man without confusion or division, the Eucharist is fully bread and fully Christ’s body. Zwingli’s insistence on a symbolic interpretation implicitly denies the possibility of divine-human synergy, echoing Nestorian tendencies.
Palamite Distinction:
St. Gregory Palamas’ distinction between God’s essence and energies provides a framework for the Real Presence. The Eucharist communicates Christ’s uncreated energies, not His incomprehensible essence, allowing believers to participate in divine life without violating divine transcendence.
If Zwingli rejects the Real Presence due to its metaphysical complexity, does he also reject the Incarnation or the Trinity, which are equally mysterious
Ecclesiastical and Historical Continuity
Liturgical Evidence:
The Earliest Eucharistic liturgies such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Anaphora of St. Basil treat the Eucharist as Christ’s real Body and Blood, with prayers invoking the Holy Spirit to effect transformation.
Conciliar Affirmation:
If Christ’s material presence is real in the Incarnation, it is real in the Eucharist.
Apostolic Sucession:
Orthodoxy maintains the Eucharist’s efficacy depends on the apostolic succession of bishops and priests, who act in persona Christi.
At last I would like to bring this up @anon3111385
How can the Zwinglian view account for the transformative power of the Eucharist in salvation, given that Scripture and tradition link it to eternal life in John 6:54? If it is merely a symbol, why does Paul warn that unworthy reception brings judgement ( 1 Cor 11:27-29) implying a real, objective presence?

110

Never said it was merely a symbol
Just said the mystery is not the wine turning into real blood and bread mere body.

I don’t know why you use labels unless you are practicing your school work

111

Hey @anon3111385, just to clarify — I didn’t mean to imply you said it’s merely symbolic. I was framing traditional distinctions to better understand your perspective. When you said “the mystery is not the wine turning into real blood and bread into mere body”, I’m curious — what then is the mystery, in your view?

Are you holding a sort of middle ground — where there’s a spiritual reality present but not a literal transformation of the elements? I’m asking to better grasp your position.

I’m not trying to corner you — just inviting deeper dialogue, since this topic touches the heart of both our shared faith and historic Christian worship.

Also, you mentioned you are Reformed, and traditionally Reformed theology views the Eucharist more symbolically. How does that fit with what you’re describing here?

112

No, I didn’t say I was Reformed under any theological schooling.. But my ideals change with knowledge and experience. That’s how I’m reformed.

I haven’t been to school with all the theological definitions.

So I don’t hold any middle ground…
From John 6 what I’ve shared is what I believe.

JESUS SAID the words he spoke were spirit and life. That is also interpreted as: full of Spirit and life.

King James Version

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
My interpretation (mi) recall Jesus’s meat was to the will of God…remember

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Hence He that does the will of God dwells in Him

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
recall Jesus is the living word
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Contrasting physical bread with Spiritual life

Recall a feast usually involves the communion with others as well as the head of the table…
I’ll stop here…

2 Likes
113

Oh right — you had mentioned you were learning from Reformed theology, not necessarily identifying fully with it. My mistake there — thanks for the correction!

When I brought up the Reformed position earlier, it was mainly to provide some structure and clarity to the discussion — not to box you into a theological label. Since your responses seemed to engage with ideas common to Reformed thought, I responded as if interacting with that framework, just so the conversation could stay coherent. Hope that makes sense.

I genuinely appreciate the conversation — especially on something as rich and central as the Lord’s Table.

Even though you mentioned you haven’t studied Reformed theology formally, what you said here does resonate quite closely with core Reformed (especially Zwinglian) teachings on John 6. Here’s the quote:

This strongly reflects the Reformed view — particularly that “eating” refers to spiritually receiving Christ by faith, not to the physical elements being changed in substance. So when I addressed the Reformed angle earlier, I was just trying to help clarify that line of thinking.
Peace
Sam

114

Ditto! This is rightly dividing the Scriptures! @anon3111385

J.

117

Let’s get this back on topic, please.

For those interested in discussing the Eucharist, we’ve got a thread for you here:

For those interested in discussing catholicism, we’ve got you covered here:

Please direct any questions, comments or concerns regarding this message to me in a DM or email community@salemwebnetwork.com

1 Like
118

Now moving on to the next section of Predestination vs Free-will, we need to discussion about the popular idea that:
Universalism – All Will Be Saved Eventually

119

I see what ur saying…this is interesting

120

Here ya go:

1 Like
121

Universalism is a dangerous deception.

J.

122

Yes it is, I thought universalism was the answer when i was 15-17, mostly because of emotional reasons

123

How I miss you @Samuel_23 and @SincereSeeker.

I remember the good old days when we would dive into Church history, the Cappadocian Fathers, theology, and doctrine together. You personally played a big role in pushing me deeper into the Scriptures, “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). I also miss SincereSeeker’s witty sarcasm that always kept the conversations lively.

Those truly were good old days. As I reflect with nostalgia on our deep discussions and dialogue, I’m reminded of how sweet fellowship centered on truth can be: “They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

I genuinely cherish those moments and the growth that came from them.

Wherever you brothers are, shalom to you and families.

J.

124

That’s a good question. Since scripture talks about predestination and free will it gets debated a lot because of the uncertainty. I havem’t read the thread yet beyond this post so what I say may or may not have been said already.

The way I understand it, it’s both. We have been predestined to a certain life with the Lord, but that’s “if” we choose wisely and seek Him!

But we can’t drain out freewill with the bathwater and the baby either. We were sent here to make decisions and to learn. Have you ever seen one of those childrens books that has different possible endings? You read some and it tells you to make a choice and then either go to this page number or that page number, so the book isn’t the same all the time. It depends on which page number you choose with your free will.

Now if we live our lives to align with God’s will, we get God’s full destiny for us. But if we backslid at some point in our life and chose a different road than the road God destined for us, then we miss that and God would have to bless someone else and anoint them for that certain task. SOmething that used to be in your destiny but you played a Jonah on them so didn’t do that. And that is how Predestination and Free Will come together and compliment each other. Both are true.

125

The act of coming to Christ is always initiated by the Father: “Everyone the Father gives me will come to me… No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me” (from John 6).

“Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ” (Romans 10:17). Having ears to hear is part of the process of being drawn to Christ by the Father.

I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

1 Like
126

You should post more brother @Stenos, I’m always willing to learn.

image
image1080×1080 114 KB

“…. From the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

Effectual calling is a sixteenth-century English phrase that became the title of chapter X of the 1647 Westminster Confession. The chapter begins thus:

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

What is being spoken of here is the many-sided reality of Christian conversion, involving illumination, regeneration, faith, and repentance. It is being analyzed as a sovereign work of God, “effectually” (i.e., effectively) performed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The concept corresponds to Paul’s use of the verb call (meaning “bring to faith”) and called (meaning “converted”) in Romans 1:6; 8:28, 30; 9:24; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 26; 7:18, 21; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 4:1, 4; and 2 Thessalonians 2:14, and contrasts with the idea of a merely external and ineffective invitation, as found in Matthew 22:14.

Original sin renders all human beings naturally dead (unresponsive) to God, but in effectual calling God quickens the dead. As the outward call of God to faith in Christ is communicated through the reading, preaching, and explaining of the contents of the Bible, the Holy Spirit enlightens and renews the heart of elect sinners so that they understand the gospel and embrace it as truth from God, and God in Christ becomes to them an object of desire and affection. Being now regenerate and able by the use of their freed will to choose God and the good, they turn away from their former pattern of living to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and to start a new life with him.

Shalom to you and family.

J.

1 Like