-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Freewill or Election? Or both?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
preacher4truth
Active Member
Jesus having free will does not retro to humanity as we are not free but enslaved as per John 8:34 and spiritually sick from head to toe Isaiah 1. We are not saved by human decision as per John 1:13, Romans 9:16 and we only believe by Gods power Ephesians 1:19. It is by election, Romans 11:7.
In that context, I don't think there is such a thing as "free-will," either in a divine or a human context. But I do believe that Christ willingly gave himself and at the same time was God's elect for the redemption of man.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Interesting and complex issue. I believe Christ was free in His will but that humanity is not but enslaved as per His words. His willingness was of His free will AND in a divine context of which will lost man is on the outside looking in. To say free will is not (inferred) to a divine context is a misnomer. God is not tied to any of our frailties, Christ is free in His will.
Is this the passage you are referring to?
The KJV renders Isaiah 42:1 this way:
Understand that in Old Testament language the Messiah ("my chosen" or "my elect") is spoken of in future terms; of someone who is yet to be revealed. In the Gospels Jesus said that He came to do His Father's will (c.f. John 6:38).
Jesus acted freely, but always in agreement with the godhead.
The "blood" in verse 8 is the Lamb Of God - Jesus Christ.
It’s hard when we put this into human understanding. I can accept that Christ is “the elect” and at the same time He freely chose to lay down his life. It becomes difficult when that is put in terms of “free will” which would seem to imply Jesus could just as easily have rebelled against God. What we know about God is often defined in the divine nature – I’m not sure that “free-will” can mean that there is a possibility God could act against His nature.
In my understanding, the same applies to man. Man’s “free-will” is constrained by his nature (which some would argue makes his will not free).
I think that this is something that we, at least I, cannot fully understand. It is interesting, though mostly philosophical. So I have to believe that Christ is God’s elect Who freely chose the cross. When one believes in Christ, he does so “willingly against his will.” The sinner repents and believes, but that faith is a work of God.
So my answer to the OP is “both,” because Scripture indicates so. I’ll have to leave the “reasoning it out” to others on the BB – it is beyond me.
The Will of God was that the Second person would some to earth as a man, and die as atonement for sinners to be saved by Him, so Jesus as the One who was elected and freely chose to be such!
God the Son came to Earth and was born as Jesus, so in His deity, elected of the father, as a man, He freelychose to be themessiah,to do His fathers will!
preacher4truth
Active Member
You misunderstand free will then as it concerns Christ when you infer that He, being perfect, could rebel. Being free in will does not include rebellion as an option, but being enslaved does.
Scripture does not indicate human decision and election. Yours is a misnomer which has grown out of a false theological system of 'decisionism' and your conclusions stem from this. Go see John 1:13 and Romans 9:16. It is likely you haven't looked at my first response wherein Scripture refutes the idea of mans choosing/decision in salvation.
It is solely by election and mercy we are saved, not by human desire, choosing, nor seeking, Romans 11:7.
I believe your example gives God half the glory and man the other half. There is no such thing within Scripture.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Couldn't He have rebelled? Isn't this the prevailing attitude toward Christ that He could have rebelled, and as some conclude (in other threads), He could even lie? Is Christ in His office being diminished by human error and logic?
No, for he was/is fully God and man, so in his sinless humanity, could face the temptation to avoid the Cross, see the garden, but He would ALWAYS in the end resist any and all tempatations, for the trinity had decreed from all eternity that God the Son would come to earth and be the sinless lamb of God slain from foundation of the World!
Preacher4truth,
I think you misunderstand my comment (sorry, it was poorly written). I disagree with the idea that free-will means unconstrained will. I don’t think that Jesus could sin because He didn’t/doesn’t have a sin nature. Likewise God cannot do evil because his nature is one definition of who He is. I don’t believe that man can believe apart from God’s grace to believe because it is not in his nature. (I don’t believe in libertarian free will).
What I do believe is that God chose us, not us Him. At the same time, however, I do not believe that man is unwillingly saved. God works within man, but it is entirely the work of God. (I like Spurgeon’s illustration that God touches the mainspring of man’s heart so that it runs in the opposite direction).
Free will and election are not exclusive of one another. God in his foreknowledge knew who would believe in time and chose them.
Jesus chose Judas BECAUSE he knew he would betray him.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Jesus knew "from the beginning" that Judas would not believe, and that Judas would betray him. This does not mean that God caused Judas to betray Jesus, the scriptures say God never tempts any man to sin.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Judas was tempted by his own lust. He loved money. I read once that the 30 pieces of silver would be somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars in today's money. That's a lot, and that's what tempted Judas to betray Jesus.
For some reason, folks cannot seem to grasp that God can know what a person will freely choose to do, but he can. Hundreds of years before Judas was even born the Lord told us he would betray Jesus for these 30 pieces of silver.
Zec 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
This was the prophecy of Judas when he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver.
Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Now, you have two options here, either God caused Judas to sin, or he did not. The scriptures say God never even tempts a man to sin, therefore the only answer is that God can foresee the free choices men will make.
An example that shows men make their own decision, but that God sees it is the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15;
Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
God did not make the prodigal son repent, the scriptures clearly say "he came to himself" and that he said said to himself "I will arise and go to my father". It was his own will and decision to repent.
But note that before he actually came to his father, his father was already looking for him, and saw him coming in repentance when "he was yet a great way off". This is foreknowledge, this is God foreseeing that a man will repent in time. And this is whom God chooses or elects.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you haven't read Grace, Faith & Free Will by Robert Picirilli you should pick up a copy. I think you'd agree with his theology (and it's an interesting book - I thought he argued and wrote well).
I agree that man's will and election are not independent - however I believe that God works in the will of the elect to make it so. You and I will not agree here as we, for one, have a fundamental disagreement regarding "foreknowledge." (No need to post the entire passages - I understand what you are saying).
I've already debated with others here, they call my view of foreknowledge "crystal ball theology". They are correct, I believe God can foresee what men will freely choose to do.
Tell me, which would be more miraculous?
Let's say we went to the horse races, and I correctly picked the win, place, and show for each race that day. That would be pretty miraculous don't you think?
But what if you found out I was with organized crime and that each race was fixed to come out just like I had predicted. Would that seem miraculous to you?
Or would that make me a fake and a cheat?
I ask you then, is God miraculous, or is he a fake and a cheat?
I’m not looking to “debate” you and I don’t worry about changing your mind. I won’t compare life to games because salvation does not have man as its subject but God. It is not ultimately about the redemption of man, but the glorification of God. There is most likely nothing I could contribute to the debate anyway.
While I disagree with your view it does not bother me in the least that you hold it – it makes sense to me. I think that I have stated elsewhere that if I were God that’s exactly how I’d do it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that God is simply a bystander, I believe God is very active in bringing his will to pass. At the same time I believe he allows men to make their own free will decisions.
I have said in the past it is much like a game of chess. A master player can absolutely influence and even control his opponents moves to a great degree. That said, his opponent is always free to move where he may under existing options. He can make a wise move, or a foolish move, but the move is his.
I don’t think that you hold a view that places God as a bystander simply waiting on man to act but unable to bring His will to pass. Although I know that we disagree and I hold to a more Calvinistic view, I do agree with you that the choices man makes are his choices. He owns his decisions and will be held responsible for those decisions.
Last edited by a moderator:
God ordained that Jesus would be the one to betray the Lord, as a direct fulfillment of OT prophecies, but Judas also chose to do that!
Same fashion, God ordained that Jesus would come and MUST die upon the Cross, but evil and wicked sinners like you and me still did what they wanted to nail him there!
Gods foreknowledge NOT in a passive sensem, as just that he foreknows all things to happen, but that He is active in them happening also, as in salvation, knows those who will accept jesus, as His will causes that to happen for them!
preacher4truth
Active Member
Man's will has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, and this fact is proven Biblically, yet we still have several who still want to make it so. They'll preach salvation is all of God though, but will still argue their unscriptural view that it has to do with mans will -- which yet again is proven not to be a part of salvation. It is instead all of God.