What Would Martin Luther Say to “Free Will”?

Theology
81

rt. XIV. As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the Prophets, by Christ himself, and by the Apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for enlivening and comforting his people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High.

As we have already seen, Moses (after whom the later prophets were patterned; Deut 18:15), who was the paradigmatic prophet, had already declared the Yahweh’s Word to the Israelites (Deut 7). They were not elected as a nation because of anything in them or done by them. Though the national election was temporary and typological (anticipating future realities) it is true of the election of individuals. Jacob was not elected because God foresaw anything in him (Rom 9:11–13). Isaiah 14:1 uses the same verb as Moses used in Deuteronomy 7 to describe God’s free election. In Isaiah 41:8, Israel (Jacob) is said to have been unconditionally chosen by the Lord (Isa 41:8–10; See also 44:1–3; 49:7). We see the same sort of language in Ezekiel 20:5 and New 9:7. Indeed, the prophets are replete with the doctrine of God’s unconditional election. In the parable of the wedding feast (Matt 22:1–14) our Lord himself expressly said, “For many are called but few are elect” (πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί). He intentionally distinguished between the external call and the divine decree of election. In the Olivet Discourse, he warned that false prophets and false messiahs will arise in an attempt to deceive the elect (Matt 24:24). The elect shall be gathered at the last day (Matt 24:31). In the gospel of John 10 he described the efficacious call by the Spirit of the elect, those for whom he was to lay down his life. In his high priestly prayer (John 17) he declared that the time had come to give eternal life to all whom the Father had given to him (John 17:2). Paul’s doctrine of unconditional election in Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and 2 seems quite clear to the Reformed.

In all these places (and in many others) Scripture explicitly teaches the doctrine of unconditional election and conditional reprobation, i.e., that God has chosen, in Christ, to save his elect out of the fallen mass of humanity and to allow the rest to remain their fallen state. Yet, Synod wisely cautioned that this doctrine should be taught carefully, “with a spirit of discretion” and in “godly and holy manner,” at the “appropriate time and place.” This is in contrast to the way the doctrine is sometimes handled by new converts to the great Augustinian consensus. When evangelical Christians first discover these doctrines, it can be liberating and also frustrating. Many have said to me, “Why did not anyone tell me this earlier?” That is a fair question and the sense of frustration is understandable. It does sometime seem as if some have deliberately put a veil over portions of Scripture with which they simply disagree. Yet, just at the moment of discovery is perhaps not the best time for every lay person to go about declaring his new-found treasure. Some have called this period, “the cage phase,” because the newcomer should be put into a cage until he settles down a bit. The truth is the we came into possession of this glorious truth in God’s providence. When we rage against providence are we not contradicting our new-found confession?

Synod was calling for wisdom in the teaching of this doctrine. Its opposite here would be carelessness. When we are thoughtless or careless with this doctrine unnecessary doubts, fears, and confusion may arise. That is unfortunate and should be avoided by the careful handling of it. For example, Twitter (and other social media platforms) might not be the best place to hammer out the logical order of the decrees (e.g., Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism) or other intricate questions related to the doctrine of predestination. Wisdom may suggest that these doctrines be handled publicly by those who have been called and prepared to handle them, who have experience and preparation. Access to a keyboard and to the internet are not qualifications to teach the doctrine of predestination.

Synod itself illustrated how the doctrine should be explained:

Art. XV. What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture, that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of his sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but permitting them in his just judgment to follow their own way; at last, for the declaration of his justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger.
https://heidelblog.net/2018/12/canons-of-dort-11-the-doctrine-of-predestination-is-edifying-and-should-be-taught-wisely/#:~:text=Canons%20Of%20Dort%20(11)%3A%20The%20Doctrine%20Of%20Predestination%20Is%20Edifying%20And%20Should%20Be%20Taught%20Wisely

J.

82

As I have already said, these doctrines must be handled with reverence, humility, and great care. When they are treated carelessly or superficially, they can create unnecessary doubt, fear, and confusion among believers. That is both unfortunate and avoidable if we approach these truths responsibly.

For that reason, social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) or Facebook are often the worst places to debate complex doctrines like predestination, the logical order of God’s decrees (Supralapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism), or other intricate theological questions. These subjects require careful exegesis, historical awareness, and thoughtful discussion, not sound bites or character-limited exchanges.

“Whom he Foreknew”
Finally, we should also note that the object of God’s foreknowledge here is his people themselves, not their behavior or actions – “whom [not what] he foreknew he predestinated.” The notions of divine favor and initiative, electing love, remain evident.

Summary Reflections
Election is God’s sovereign choice of whom he would save, a choice grounded in himself alone apart from considerations of anything in us. God’s foreknowledge is a causative concept closely related to the doctrine of predestination. In those passages that speak of his foreknowledge of his elect (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1Pet. 1:2) it further connotes divine favor – God’s electing love and saving purpose. Romans 8:29 – “whom he foreknew he predestined” – is therefore an assuring reminder to us, believers, that our salvation is a divine work from beginning to end.

Soli Deo gloria!

There is also wisdom in recognizing that such doctrines are best taught publicly by those whom God has called, equipped, and trained to handle His Word faithfully (2 Timothy 2:15; James 3:1). Simply having a keyboard, an internet connection, and a social media account does not qualify someone to teach the doctrine of predestination, or any doctrine of Scripture. The standard is not confidence or popularity, but faithfulness to the text of God’s Word.

J.

83

And wise words from brother @KPuff

Is it wrong to pray for repentance and faith then?

No it is not wrong to ask for this at all.

While God grants that faith as a gift, once born again, as mentioned above, it is truly the new heart that believes. What that amounts to is that there is no conflict between God’s job description (regenerating us by his sovereign grace) and our job description (believing in response to his command and gospel promise). If and when a sinner comes to faith, he or she will find out some day soon enough that God was the giver of that new heart. It may turn out that he did so before we ever prayed the prayer in question (see Jam. 1:17-18, 1 Cor. 4:7).

The Bible speaks in the imperative and the indicative, and never confuses the two. In the imperative, he says things like, “Come to me” (Matthew 11:27) and “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31). And in the indicative, he says things like: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). One tells us what to do, and the other tells us how it happened. Where he commands and invites, we should respond right away, and the doctrinal understanding will follow in due time.

J.

84

What is the Will and in What Sense is it Free?

Jonathan Edwards wrote that the will “is the mind choosing.”2 Another word that the older thinkers would use for this aspect of the soul is inclination, because in a choice, the soul “inclined” or bent or tended toward one object as opposed to another. To be a rational being is also to be a volitional (willing) being in this sense. We would call such a motion “free” to the extent that it is uncoerced or unfrustrated by some force alien to itself.

That is a very crucial distinction to observe because it is only something extraneous or alien or contrary to the will that we could pit against the freedom of that will. It would be quite a confusion to suppose that the limitations of the essential nature of that will itself are opposed to freedom of choice.

With that important distinction understood, one is ready for a working definition.

The freedom of the will means (1) the ability to do what one most desires, (2) given all relevant natural limitations, including (a) limitations on one’s own psychological or genetic capacity, and (b) limitations of available options [known or unknown] external to one’s choice.

There are other understandings of free will. Determinism denies it altogether. Libertarianism (not to be confused with the political philosophy) affirms it without any sense of limitations of the will’s nature. Compatibilism affirms it within both the efficient causality of God and the limitations of the will’s nature. A serious analysis of these three would require a separate writing. For our purposes, it is enough to affirm a “free will” that simply means the ability to do what one desires according to all natural limitations, whether internal or external.

What is the Will in the Fall?

Contrary to what has long been the slander toward Calvinists, the Reformed doctrine does not deny the freedom of the will per se in the unregenerate, but rather the soundness of that will. When the unregenerate chooses to have a burger for dinner rather than a pizza, he does so as freely as does the regenerate. What an unregenerate will cannot do is to raise itself from the dead to perform truly spiritual works unto God (Rom. 8:7-8).

Now I do not mean to minimize the relationship between this bare volitional aspect of man and more morally serious choices. While the unregenerate may be just as free with the menu, he may be less free with respect to his vocation, his relationships, and his vote in the next election. That is because the heart that is set on the flesh is hostile to God everywhere it moves. Our focus is on the will’s role in coming to salvation.

A crucial set of texts to relate to each other are Genesis 2:17, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Ephesians 2:1. Here, we want to ask: What kind of death is being talked about and does the original explain all of those deaths that follow?

“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17).

“For as in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22).

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1).

I will not labor to argue how these three verses are connected. I leave it to the honest reader to simply read them in order. The burden is on the critic of the doctrine to make them mean something other than what they obviously do. To be born in sin is to be born spiritually dead. It is to be spiritually cut off from the life of God from birth. This death was affected by Adam’s sin, as Romans 5:12 also teaches. Psalm 51:5 speaks on this in terms of causing us to sin from the start. While this does not make for the same degree of actual sins in infants as it does in adults, it is still of the same basic essence of self-centeredness that only becomes more skilled. Two places from Jeremiah are instructive:

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil” (13:23).

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (17:9)

In view here is a kind of total inability, one that blinds the mind from properly assessing spiritual things. Paul says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Once again, the language of “inability” is biblical language. This is really what is meant by total depravity. Does the will still choose what it most consciously wants? It certainly does. But what does it want left in sin? As Genesis 6:5 depicts what God saw in mankind, namely, “that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Such a bondage of the will to sin can only be overcome by the new birth, that is, by a free action of the Holy Spirit (see Ezk. 36:26-27; Jn. 3:3-8).

J.

85

Lastly, but not “leastly”…

The Will and its Freedom Per Se

The answer here affirms that our first parents truly possessed THE FREEDOM OF THEIR OWN WILL. But what is the free will? And here we are not yet asking the question that Luther pressed upon Erasmus, namely that of what the will can do to assent to God now that it is in bondage to sin. Here we are first asking a question that is actually not abstract at all: Does the human will have a nature and what is that nature?

The freedom of the will consists in the ability to do what one most desires. A serious definition of the freedom of the will would have to include (1) the ability to do what one most desires, (2) given all relevant natural limitations, including (a) limitations on one’s own psychological or genetic capacity, (b) limitations of available options [known or unknown] external to one’s choice. Since every predicate or property in (1) and (2) are effects, it follows that each must have a cause, and that cause in turn caused by another. But this process cannot go on ad infinitum, and thus one arrives at the First Cause for all effects. So we must circle back to our account of dual agency and apply it to finite free wills as much as to anything else.

Unfortunately, when we skip the definition work up front, conversations about free will conflate different kinds of liberty and become very superficial. Such shallow treatments poison conversations not only in theology but in moral and political philosophy. Turretin sets us on the right path here:

“Liberty is fourfold: (1) the liberty of independence which belongs to God as the first being; this is opposed to the necessity of dependence which belongs to all creatures. (2) Liberty from coaction by which man acts spontaneously and with freedom; this is opposed to the necessity of coaction seen in those who act through force. (3) Rational liberty from brute and physical necessity by which man acts from choice (ek proaireseos) and not by a brute instinct and blind impulse; this is opposed to the physical necessity of inanimates and brutes. (4) Liberty from slavery by which man is subject to the yoke of no slavery, either of sin or of misery; this is opposed to the necessity of slavery in sinners.”1

What this amounts to is a Compatibilist framework for the free will, rather than the extreme errors of either Occasionalist Determinism, on the one hand, or Libertarian Free Will on the other. Neither extreme error properly accounts for primary and secondary cause. But if God was the primary cause and Adam’s faculties, interacting with his field of options and experiences, comprised the matrix of secondary causes, then Adam’s will was compatibilistically free. Turretin expresses this in terms of his fourfold description of liberty: “The liberty of Adam was not the liberty of independence … But there was in him another threefold liberty: (1) from coaction; (2) from physical necessity; (3) from slavery (both of sin and of misery).”2 Chapter IX, Article 1 of the Confession says it in this way:

“God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.”

So what Westminster means by “natural liberty” is just that original liberty, but what Turretin does (and it just anticipates where the Confession goes next) is that, within that threefold liberty of Adam in the original, he makes one more fine distinction, and it’s important. Of those three, the first two—freedom from coaction and from physical necessity—constitute essential liberty. In other words, whatever can be spoken of as a “free will” at all must possess these two. But Turretin continues about the third (freedom from slavery) is accidental. Now the word “accidental” does not mean, in classical thought, what we think of today, We commonly use the word “accident” to mean that which is not done “on purpose.” But for 2500 years, across the span of Western thought, to speak of what is accidental in relation to what it essential is just to speak of what is not essential. In other words, it is a real predicate or property of a thing, but it isn’t essential to that thing being what it is. If you took it away, that being would still be as far as it is.

The doctrine should be established from the passages that explicitly teach it. Anyone who wishes to overturn this doctrine bears the burden of showing, from those same texts, that the historic Reformed interpretation is exegetically wrong, not merely offering alternative readings of unrelated passages.

J.

86

@TCC
I hope this thread isn’t getting too complicated to follow. We do tend to reiterate sometimes.
You said:

My tongue-in-cheek response to your metaphor was not inspired by either Biblical or Systematic approaches to Bible study, (as far as I am aware). Neither have I ever considered this topic from any similar framework to that which you are professing. I cannot find a way to view human history simply like a great novel, one in which God has used His elevated privilege to peek at the last chapter and so now knows how it will all turn out; His scriptures then merely being a cryptic spoiler to a dramatic ending.

From my desk, I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that the term “election”, to a logical mind, could reject the obvious meaning of “choosing” (selection), in favor of a contrary meaning of “foreknowledge”, or as you say, election is simply “based on who “would” choose Him later”. This redefinition, to me, means almost the polar opposite. The word “elect”, deriving from the Greek, eklego, ek= “out” + -lego, “to choose” is not obscure. When our English translators elected to use the word “elect” for Heb. Bāḥiyr, (Isa. 42:1) or Gk. elkego, (Matt. 24:22) they used the English word with the closest possible meaning to the intent of the original writer, and I believe the intent of The Holy Spirit, and did not impose upon the reader a puzzle to be deciphered by using a word nearly opposite in meaning.

The second bewilderment I come to when considering this subject from your peculiar perspective is how the Bible using this term “elect” 22 times, could grammatically attribute to God “knowing the future” without also attributing to God “causing the future”. Whereas, every prophetic announcement of future events we read in our Scriptures are attributed to God causing them to happen; often God personally claims to be the sole cause as a revelation so men will know that He is God (Isa. 45:1-3). I’m not sure how this could be different. I find no logical way that the Omniscient One could know the future without being its author and creator. There is no way, in my feeble mind, to maintain the idea that God is subject to randomness and chance, waiting at the fork-in-the-road for the decisions of mans “free-will”, while at the same time, knows the outcome of every proverbial fork-in-the-road even before the fork appears in history. It is true there is much we don’t know, or understand, but even so, God is always logical, and His ways make perfect sense when we take Him at His word (faith). It is not enough to simply label a logical contradiction a “mystery” and go on our merry way. The ways of God are mysterious, but they are not illogical.

I personally agree with the masses of Christians that God has imbued His “image” (mankind) with an autonomy we call “free-will”. This special characteristic of God’s image was to be found in its perfect form in “The Son of Man”, His “Servant whom HE upholds”, “God’s Elect One in whom His soul delights!” (Isaiah 42:1). The free-will of man was displayed in Jesus, “…a High Priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15 (NKJV). In His perfect execution of free-will, Jesus freely and willingly gave Himself to die at the hands of sinners, in propitiation for the sins of mankind. Every other being created in God’s image employed his gift of free-will in acts of rebellion, self-interest, and doubt, bringing about his own suicidal spiritual death. The gift of free-will seems to have become cancerous, an unstoppable fatal infection that occurred on the day mankind ate from the forbidden tree, and has infected every person since. The bible maintains there are none righteous, none uninfected, all have died. None among the dead would, or could now use their free-will to choose their own resurrection.

This is enough, for now.
KP

2 Likes
87

My sincere apologies brother. That was enough, from me, for now.

The problem, as I see it, is that Scripture never presents Jesus as the model of libertarian autonomy. Rather, Jesus repeatedly says things like:

“I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 6:38)

“I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” (John 8:29)

“Not My will, but Yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

Christ certainly exercised His will freely, but His will was never independent of the Father’s will. His freedom was the freedom of perfect holiness, not autonomous self-determination.

Johann.

88

Thanks for the reply KP. To be clear, where I am coming from does seem foreign. It was to me for a quarter of a century. My take on election is not that God looked into the future and knew who would choose Him. To the best i can tell, this is I believe somewhat the leaning of Arminianism. I am not Arminian. I would fall categorically closest to the provisionist stance. In that view election is not about God choosing people for salvation. But election to service. This may sound shocking but the 200 and some odd verses detailed in the use of chosen excel sheet demonstrate this. In any event, that is my position. That election is unto service. Not salvation. We can disagree. But just wanted to clarify i am not Arminian. Arminians view election in similar argumental structure as Calvinists. I don’t follow that school of prescription.

GOD KNOWING THE FUTURE

One take (you may not hold) that has gained some steam in the reformed camp through James White is his view that God knows the future because He makes it. That sounds ok. But from the side its a bit awkward for me. James believes the only way God could know the future is if He ordained it. Or that at least He knows it because He ordained it. Which to me puts limits on God.

So just to be clear I am not an open theologist. I believe God has ordained many things. Including that mankind should have free will (since Augustine in his earlier years also believed this). I believe God knows the future because He is God. Because He knows, to me, does not mean He has to have ordained it. That position wherever held to me places limits on God.

On this note I would just say that I believe God can know the future (having also purposed many ordainings) but also interact with His creation without those outcomes necessarily effecting His contemporary dealings. That might sound strange…lol. But in my reformed Christian rearing it was told me that God see all time at the same time. This was pretty pronounced in my reformed circles. Yet there is no verse for that. You may not hold such a view. But I just thought to point it out on the theme of perspectives seemingly to be somewhat oddball. When i finally sat down and unpacked that view of God seeing all time at the same time, it did help me in one way. And that was to know that the only time that exists is the hear and now. I don’t believe in time travel. So I don’t think there would be a need to see the past at the same time as the present and future. Because only the present exists.

For future conversations it might be helpful to note that we are likely of different ideological universes and may see things extremely differently. Because the way i would look at this sort of historic frame is: God created man with free will because God is love. And He was willing to weather the damage. I don’t view Adams use of free will to be God’s claim as to why free will is overrated. But rather, its because He is free to choose and create. And He created us in His image. I would not think creating us in His image would be opportunity to downplay Him in so doing. Lest He created us in that part of His image to scold us from ever wanting that. Which would be an act of free will…ironically should we notice. But rather that God desires real fellowship. And creating beings to love Him from that place created is not a cancer as much an honor to go for the cross for. The honor of that which is of God. His creating us in His image. i believe to tend to categorize that as cancerous tends to fatigue an attribute of God that transcends opinion on it though. Just saying. Blessings.

89
Passage Greek Word(s) Greek Form Salvation Context
Ephesians 1:4 ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai) Verb Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world unto holiness.
Ephesians 1:5 προορίζω (proorizō) Verb Predestined unto adoption according to God’s will.
Ephesians 1:11 προορίζω (proorizō) Verb Predestined according to God’s purpose.
Romans 8:29 προγινώσκω (proginōskō) Verb Foreknew, predestined to conformity to Christ.
Romans 8:29 προορίζω (proorizō) Verb Predestined.
Romans 8:30 καλέω (kaleō) Verb Effectual calling leading to justification and glorification.
Romans 8:30 δικαιόω (dikaioō) Verb Justified.
Romans 8:30 δοξάζω (doxazō) Verb Glorified.
Romans 9:11 ἐκλογή (eklogē) Noun God’s purpose according to election.
Romans 9:15-18 ἐλεέω (eleeō) Verb Mercy grounded in God’s sovereign will.
Romans 9:23-24 καλέω (kaleō) Verb Called as vessels of mercy prepared for glory.
Romans 11:5 ἐκλογή (eklogē) Noun Election according to grace.
Romans 11:7 ἐκλογή (eklogē) Noun The elect obtained salvation.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 αἱρέομαι (haireomai) Verb God chose you for salvation.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 καλέω (kaleō) Verb Called through the gospel unto glory.
2 Timothy 1:9 καλέω (kaleō) Verb Saved and called according to His purpose and grace before time.
1 Peter 1:1-2 ἐκλεκτός (eklektos) Adjective Elect according to the foreknowledge of God unto sanctification and obedience.
1 Peter 2:9 ἐκλεκτός (eklektos) Adjective A chosen people called out of darkness into light.
John 6:37 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb Those given by the Father come to Christ.
John 6:39 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb Christ loses none of those given to Him.
John 6:44 ἕλκω (helkō) Verb Drawn by the Father unto resurrection.
John 6:65 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb Coming granted by the Father.
John 10:26-29 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb The sheep are given by the Father and receive eternal life.
John 15:16 ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai) Verb Chosen by Christ. Immediate context is apostolic office, but the broader discourse includes union with Christ and fruit.
John 17:2 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb Given authority to give eternal life to those given Him.
John 17:6 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb The Father’s gift to the Son.
John 17:9 δίδωμι (didōmi) Verb Christ intercedes for those given Him.
Acts 13:48 τάσσω (tassō) Verb Appointed to eternal life believed.
Acts 16:14 — — The Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond.
Philippians 1:29 χαρίζομαι (charizomai) Verb It has been granted to believe.
Philippians 2:13 ἐνεργέω (energeō) Verb God works in believers to will and to act.
James 2:5 ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai) Verb God chose the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom.
Jude 1 κλητός (klētos) Adjective Called, beloved, kept.
Revelation 13:8 — — Names written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 17:8 — — Names not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 17:14 ἐκλεκτός (eklektos) Adjective Called, chosen, faithful.

ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai) - to choose, select.
ἐκλογή (eklogē) - election, choosing.
ἐκλεκτός (eklektos) - chosen, elect.
προορίζω (proorizō) - to predestine.
πρόγνωσις (prognōsis) - foreknowledge (noun).
προγινώσκω (proginōskō) - to foreknow (verb).
καλέω (kaleō) - to call.
κλητός (klētos) - called.
τάσσω (tassō) - to appoint, ordain.
δίδωμι (didōmi) - to give (especially the Father’s giving of a people to the Son).
ἕλκω (helkō) - to draw.
χαρίζομαι (charizomai) - to graciously grant.

What is striking here @TCC …

There is not one unequivocal text that says:

“God elected individuals unto service but not unto salvation.”

There are certainly passages where individuals are chosen for a specific task or office. For example:

John 15:16 (the apostles)
Acts 9:15 (Paul as a chosen instrument)
Isaiah 42:1 (the Servant, the Messiah)
1 Samuel 16:1 (David as king)
Exodus 28:1 (Aaron to the priesthood)

But those texts do not establish that all election language is vocational.

Conversely, the passages listed above explicitly connect God’s choosing, predestining, calling, appointing, and giving with salvation, adoption, justification, glorification, eternal life, sanctification, and inheritance.

That is why, exegetically, your claim “election is unto service only” is extraordinarily difficult to sustain. The passages that explicitly teach election overwhelmingly place it within the context of God’s saving purpose, not merely vocational appointment. The burden of proof therefore rests on anyone, and you, who wishes to argue that these texts are really speaking only of service rather than salvation.

I read these verses, context and believe every word as it stands written in Scripture. These are God-Breathed words and accept them, believe them…and thank our Lord Christ Jesus and ABBA for them, thanking the Holy Spirit for illuminating and casting Phos on His D’varim!

Correct brother?

J.

90

Thanks Johann. And I don’t take it personal brother. We go way back :slight_smile: So when I say gnostic it is not meant as some kind of jab. It probably sounds like that. I understand. But i’ll explain below. But first about Chatgpt. So I just used it to show an outline. In other words i was using it to show you how the verses on suffering lined up. And were part of the actual backbone of the book. I cited chatgpt. I could have left it out and just went with the work it did. Not trying to cheat. Just trying to stay on conversational point. So i just confessed to using it. Meaning it at least was not my own sense of perhaps forcing verses or themes into play. But something universal like chatgpt acknowledging it. Like, “Even chatgpt knows…kind of thing.” But even so, it does not take away from the fact that Phil is hugely about suffer as a book, no?

. . . . .

To answer your questions about Gnosticism, i will provide this reference for the technical answer.
The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism: Wilson, Ken: 9781082800351: Amazon.com: Books

But the conclusion i come to in using “gnostic” is not a pejorative. It’s a genuine perspective. Is it loaded? lol. I guess. But to me its not a war term. For whatever shock value it may present it is not meant as a zinger or something. It is meant to consider, from shock is all. On that too i would say (not related to my core point) but reformeds believe we know the secret will of God…or that He has one. That could be rather dangerous. Maybe not. But certainly, could be a carryover gnostic leaning conceptual approach to scripture itself. Secret meanings and such. Just sayin.

So my view on that is this. Gnostics believe that everything in the flesh is evil. And everything in the spirit is good. Or something close to that. We will differ over biblical passages that demonstrate the flesh as not able to please God. I agree it can’t follow the law of God in its fallen state. Where we differ is “ability to respond.” To me, this is an entirely different issue. And at the core of the gnostic concern.

Which is closer to Gnosticism:

  • We still have free will even since the fall
  • We don’t have free will because we are holistically evil

Now just because the reformed position leans closer to the gnostic view of all flesh is evil, does not mean it is not biblically accurate. It means that it on its face if closer is all. I totally believe we are fallen. And in our fallen state we cannot please God. I do believe though we can respond to Him because the flesh fallen has not become a mere evil pod person unable to respond. That would be where i would see the reformed position to see humanity erode such from being created in His image to an evil pod lump of flesh. In that sense under that condition we would become something less than created in the image of God. And it is there I sense the reformed camp buys too easily the notion of a stump of lump of human sinful flesh is all there is in our personhood. I believe that demeans what God has created in us. And beleivng it sees God more sovereign actually limits His sovereign creative imprint to be subject to the universe of the fall to quench. That the fall could change mankind from a creature created in God’s image to an only lump of sinful clay. To me that view is far more gnostic. Not because of just the flesh/evil mirror it does, but also how it teases out and away the majestic imprint of God upon our human souls for the sake of obtaining a cleaner systematic theology. Well that is what i would see to be at stake. In saying this i am not trying to start a fight. I am just wanting to be clear. My best friend is a Calvinist. And as you have seen I have been known to use Calvin to correct Calvinism because we are fallen. I mean this in good faith though. I’ve lived through 25 years of reformed theology. My perspective is not personal. Its deeply theological. I hope this helps to demonstrate some of that?

. . . . .

I noticed some other posts recently on election or chosen etc. it may be for me or for Peter. Not sure. But brother please keep in mind you are talking with someone who has searched extremely deeply into the differences of Reformed thought for a decade now–after being neck deep in it for 25 years. I was super shocked to realized there was a world outside of the reformed perspective that had clout. I don’t think that is your experience. You come across as much more learned and informed. So i would though just ask that you might consider that much of the arguments you may tend to bring up I’ve deeply had to research in my own. When it comes to chosen, if you are interested in my view I’m happy to provide the excel list of chosen verses in the bible to demonstrate. But i am just not as interested in going down too many rabbit holes. The Lydia thing is great though, if we stay on point its a great target to be over, amen. Like certain places in scripture like that we can look at. But i personally don’t have time to go to too many rabbit holes. Not because i don’t have answers. I just am limited on focus.

. . . . .

On the note concering Lydia I am more interested in context. I hear what you are saying to a degree about a word or grammar. But context is king in exegesis. And the in the context i am just saying that Lydia is not about reformed pulling people out of unbelief. That to me is not at all the context. So because that is not the context it would seem that grammar would not fix that. If it could, by all means, how does that change though the context? I’d be interested. Blessings.

91

Some observations here brother…

you repeatedly say the Reformed position is “closer to Gnosticism.”

Historically, that’s a category error.

Classical Gnosticism taught things such as:

Matter is inherently evil.
The material world was created by an inferior deity (the Demiurge).
Salvation comes through secret knowledge (γνῶσις).
Christ did not truly assume human flesh (many Gnostics were Docetic).

The Reformed faith affirms the exact opposite.

God created matter and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).
The eternal Son assumed true human flesh (John 1:14).
The resurrection is bodily (1 Corinthians 15).
The new creation is physical (Romans 8:18–23; Revelation 21–22).

So saying the Reformed view is “closer to Gnosticism” because it teaches total depravity is simply not how historians define Gnosticism.

You repeatedly say that context is king. I agree. So let’s stay with one passage.

Acts 16:14 says, “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”

My question is not what Calvin says, nor what Reformed theology says.

My question is simply this.

What, according to Luke, was the significance of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart?

Was that divine action merely incidental, or was it the reason she responded to Paul’s message?

Moreover, Romans 8:7–8 and Ephesians 2:1–3 are not Gnostic texts.

They are Pauline texts.

If Paul teaches inability, then the issue is with Paul, not with Calvin.

Correct?

J.

1 Like
92

Then the burden of proof rests with you to pierce Calvin’s armour with a butter knife. Now is your opportunity brother.

J.

1 Like
93

Yes Bro @Johann. You make a fine point, (as always).

But He also said this:

Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17-18)

Here he claims His actions are most definately His own free will. So, while mankind abuses his free-will, Jesus weilded it perfectly (IMHO).

I’m willing to be taught better.
KP
KP

1 Like
94

TCC
You said:

Maybe here?

Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ (Isaiah 46:9-10)

KP

1 Like
95

I hear you KP, and in full agreement with you. Remember Echad.

Passage Greek Meaning Observation
John 4:34 θέλημα (thelēma) will, desire, purpose Jesus’ food is to do the Father’s will.
John 5:30 θέλημα (thelēma) will “I seek not My own will but the will of Him who sent Me.”
John 6:38-40 θέλημα (thelēma) will The Son came to accomplish the Father’s will exactly.
John 8:29 ἀρεστά (things pleasing) what pleases the Father Jesus always does what pleases the Father.
John 10:17-18 ἐντολή (entolē) command Jesus freely lays down His life according to the Father’s command.
John 14:31 ἐντολή (entolē) command The Son acts exactly as the Father commanded.

Luke 22:42 θέλημα (thelēma) will “Not My will, but Yours be done.” This expresses distinction of persons, not conflict of divine purpose.

Hebrews 10:7-10 θέλημα (thelēma) will Christ came to do God’s will, accomplishing redemption.

θέλημα (thelēma) - will, purpose, desire.
θέλω (thelō) - to will, desire.
βούλομαι (boulomai) - to purpose, intend, deliberate.
βουλή (boulē) - counsel, decree, determined purpose.
ἐντολή (entolē) - command.
Theological observation here…The New Testament consistently distinguishes the Father and the Son as distinct Persons while presenting their will as perfectly united (echad). Jesus never acts independently of the Father. His human will is in perfect submission to the Father’s will, and His divine will is one with the Father because They share the one divine essence.

There’s no need for you to be “taught better.” You have been well taught by the Holy Spirit.

J.

1 Like
96

Yes Bro. @Johann.
H:ehad surely means one (usually), and supplies depth of meaning to the oneness expressed the trinity, and also to oneness like it is used here:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (eḥād̠ bāśār.)(Genesis 2:24)

and takes on a different meaning here:

Now therefore, my son, obey my voice: arise, flee to my brother Laban in Haran. And stay with him a few (eḥād̠) days, until your brother’s fury turns away, (Genesis 27:43-44)

I’m not arguing your point, you are correct of course, IMHO about the will of The Trinity being one. Scripture leaves us no wiggle room on that point. Even though the Hebrews passage you chose to illustrate that point:

Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.’ " (Hebrews 10:7)

is a reference to Psalm 40, where it is translated:

I delight (ḥāp̠ēṣ) to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart." (Psalm 40:8)

So where Hebrews illuminates the will of the Son is the will of the Father, the passage the writer took it from illustrates the will of the son is “his delight” which sounds more submissive than synchronous. Just an observation for your edification. I’m not belaboring the point.

KP

1 Like
97

The Son’s human obedience manifests His eternal unity with the Father rather than standing in contrast to it.
I once read that the believer’s will is wholly swallowed up in the sweet will of Christ Jesus.

Thank you KP. You have to teach me how to post the verses like this. [Grey]

On second thought brother…
Are you distinguishing:

synchronicity (same willing)
submission (one willingly yielding)

The text never contrasts those ideas.
In fact, Scripture joins them together.
Because Christ delights to do the Father’s will, His will is perfectly united with the Father’s.
Delight is evidence of unity.
It isn’t evidence against unity.
For example,

John 4:34
“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me.”

That isn’t reluctant submission.
It’s joyful obedience.

Likewise,

John 8:29
“I always do the things that please Him.”

Again…
Perfect Harmony.

… I’m not convinced ‘synchronous’ is the appropriate category. The Greek roots refer to simultaneity (σύν + χρόνος), whereas the issue in Hebrews 10 and Psalm 40 concerns θέλημα (will), not χρόνος (time). The question is not whether the Father’s and the Son’s wills operate simultaneously, but whether they are one in divine purpose. Scripture affirms both the Son’s voluntary obedience as Mediator and the eternal unity of the divine will

KJV Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Quoting Psalm 40:6-8 (LXX 39:7-9). The Greek sōma katērtisō moi (‘a body you have prepared for me’) differs from the Hebrew ‘ears you have dug/opened for me.’ The Septuagint translators apparently interpreted the Hebrew idiom (ears opened = readiness to hear and obey) with a broader reference to the whole body given for obedience. The author of Hebrews depends on this Septuagint reading, the ‘body prepared’ becomes the body Christ offered on the cross. The author places these words on Christ’s lips as he enters the world (eiserchamenos eis ton kosmon), making the incarnation itself a priestly act of willing obedience.

זֶ֤בַח וּמִנְחָ֨ה ׀ לֹ֘א חָ֤פַ֗צְתָּ אׇ֭זְנַיִם כָּרִ֣יתָ לִּ֑י עוֹלָ֥ה וַ֝חֲטָאָ֗ה לֹ֣א שָׁאָֽלְתָּ׃

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire ears you dug for me. Burnt offering and sin offering you did not require.

Still on the same page? My apologies for the late edit.

J.

98

Guess not. It wasn’t for lack of trying, though.

J.

99

Ok I read the whole thread this time. Both @Johann and @KPuff make great points. I’m starting to see the issue. I think I have, but let me try to explain it this way. You said,

This is 100 percent true. We agree. Then you said, “To deny that “Whosoever will may come,” is to deny the clear teaching of God’s Word.” Absolutely. We agree. “The real issue, however, is whether any will desire salvation (in God’s way and on God’s terms) unless God gives him that desire.” No. Of course not. But here lies the difference. BEFORE the calling. BEFORE the calling, no one “will desire salvation (in God’s way and on God’s terms) unless God gives him that desire.”

Let me try this. Hi, my name is Peter. I have come for you. I went to the impossible area and received the gift only I could receive. I want you to have this gift. I got it for you. Come to 123 Right Here Blvd, knock 3 times, and you can have the gift. Now, of course, no one is going to come. It is not possible for anyone to come. No one will knock. It is not possible. They will simply be born, live, and die.

Now Joe goes out and starts to tell people. Hey, there is a man named Peter. He came, went to the impossible place, and got the gift only he could receive. If you go to 123 Right Here Blvd, knock 3 times, and you can have the gift.

If they believe? They can receive the Gift. They have the ability now that they have heard.

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” Romans 10:14-15

Before hearing, it is not possible. No one is going to believe in Peter, or rather Jesus, if they never hear of Him or what He did for them. Now that they have heard, they can choose. Now, some will still not believe, even after hearing. But those who do will then be given to Christ. He will keep them, and,

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

"For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:35-39

Now that they have heard, they can choose to come to 123 Right Here Blvd, knock 3 times, and you can have the gift. They cannot go somewhere else. They cannot knock twice or ten times. And they have to receive the gift.

“Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

Not Muhammad, not Buddha, not Brahman, you cannot get there any other way. Before people here. YES. It is impossible. They CANNOT. They will live in their sinful nature and die. God did not tell John, come and tell Bill, Jason, and Jennifer. He said Go, prepare a way for the Lord. Jesus did not tell His disciples, following the rejection, to go to only specific people. He said,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20

There is no caveat. There is no specificity. “Make disciples of all nations.” Again, any, all, whomever. Whoever believes, whoever does not. There is no caveat. There is no specificity.

You read

To say that without God electing the people, they cannot be given. I ready those that accept the calling, are given by the Father.

On the surface, the phrasing “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” looks like a textbook proof text for the doctrine of unconditional election, or the idea that God chooses who will believe before time began. However, Greek grammar and context open up a massive counter-perspective to show that this verse doesn’t eliminate human choice.

Continues…

100

Greek word used for “appointed” (tetagmenoi). You claim God did the appointing first, and the natural byproduct of that appointment was their belief. I say the Greek verb can also be understood in the “middle voice” or as a description of a person’s readiness. In this light, the verse can be translated to mean “as many as were disposed toward eternal life believed,” or those who had set themselves in alignment to receive it.

If you look just a few verses earlier, Acts 13:46, Paul tells the Jewish leaders who rejected the message that they “judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life.” Luke is drawing a deliberate contrast. The religious leaders actively rejected the message, whereas these Gentiles were receptive, open-hearted, and ready for it.

So, rather than describing an absolute, cosmic decree that bypasses human will, the verse can easily be read as a description of the responsiveness of the people gathered that day. Those who were ready and open to the message of eternal life put their faith in it.

You say that I and others who believe in free Will, add to meaning and allege what the Word does not specifically say. Yet, you do the same, unless you can show the verse that says man has no choice and no free will. You may read into a verse what you believe, as I do as well. But just because a verse does not say Free Will does not mean we do not have a choice. Like here.

“If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” John 7:17

Does not " if " mean maybe, maybe not? Not those who God wills will do God’s will.

As for Reformed, Arminian, Calvinist, or otherwise. I am a child of God. If one of my views sounds like Reformed, Arminian, Calvinist, or otherwise, it is a coincidence. I believe the Word speaks for itself, and that it means what it says. I do suppose that this is an interesting study of how two people can read a verse and take away two different meanings. Well, maybe not a different meaning, but different avenues for getting there.

Shalom brother.
Peter

1 Like