Who makes the choice?

[theophilus]

There are many doctrinal divisions among Christians. For example, some believe that human beings repent and believe because God causes them to do so by choosing them to be saved while some believe that people believe and are saved because they choose to do so. What does the Bible say about this?

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.
Deuteronomy 30:19 ESV

Whether we are saved or lost depends on our choice.

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Ephesians 1:4 ESV

Whether we are saved or lost depends on whether we are among those God chose before the foundation of the world.

How can we reconcile these apparently contradictory statements?

Here is one way.

Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:29,30 ESV

God knows who will choose to receive the salvation he offers and on this basis he predestines them to salvation.

Here is another way.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44 ESV

Wave-particle dualityToday, these experiments have been done in so many different ways by so many different people that scientists simply accept that both matter and light are somehow both waves and particles. Scientists generally admit that even they do not fully understand how this can be, but they are quite certain that it must be true. Although it seems impossible to understand how anything can be both a wave and a particle, scientists do have a number of equations for describing these things that have variables for both wavelength (a wave property) and momentum (a particle property). This seeming impossibility is referred to as the wave-particle duality.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

[37818]

Without a doubt God wants man to make right choices. And only by the hearing of God's word can this happen. ". . . So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. . . ." -- Romans 10:17.

But the condition of mankind is such that man on his own accord does not - ". . . There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." -- Romans 3:11.

God's foreknowledge ". . . through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: . . ." -- 1 Peter 1:2.

". . . You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, . . ." -- John 15:16.

". . . We love him, because he first loved us. . . ." -- 1 John 4:19.

Our choice we make toward God is indeed a real choice we make of our own. But it is made with God's help and without any merit on our part.

[shunyadragon]

There are many doctrinal divisions among Christians. For example, some believe that human beings repent and believe because God causes them to do so by choosing them to be saved while some believe that people believe and are saved because they choose to do so. What does the Bible say about this?

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.
Deuteronomy 30:19 ESV

Whether we are saved or lost depends on our choice.

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Ephesians 1:4 ESV

Whether we are saved or lost depends on whether we are among those God chose before the foundation of the world.

How can we reconcile these apparently contradictory statements?

Here is one way.

Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:29,30 ESV

God knows who will choose to receive the salvation he offers and on this basis he predestines them to salvation.

Here is another way.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44 ESV

Wave-particle dualityToday, these experiments have been done in so many different ways by so many different people that scientists simply accept that both matter and light are somehow both waves and particles. Scientists generally admit that even they do not fully understand how this can be, but they are quite certain that it must be true. Although it seems impossible to understand how anything can be both a wave and a particle, scientists do have a number of equations for describing these things that have variables for both wavelength (a wave property) and momentum (a particle property). This seeming impossibility is referred to as the wave-particle duality.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

I do not see the parallel between the physics question of the nature of light and the question of whether humans have the choice of salvation or whether God chooses or knows in advance who will be save and who is not. If you have to use Bible scripture only you have to work out the conflicts yourself there.

[37818]

I do not see the parallel between the physics question of the nature of light and the question of whether humans have the choice of salvation or whether God chooses or knows in advance who will be save and who is not. If you have to use Bible scripture only you have to work out the conflicts yourself there.

Of course you don't. Have you perchance read "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies, an agnostic BTW?

Anyway God is infinite in His omniscience. So there is no conflict between God knowing every outcome and in our finite world our choices being real.

[GoBahnsen]

Without a doubt God wants man to make right choices. And only by the hearing of God's word can this happen. ". . . So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. . . ." -- Romans 10:17.

But the condition of mankind is such that man on his own accord does not - ". . . There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." -- Romans 3:11.

God's foreknowledge ". . . through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: . . ." -- 1 Peter 1:2.

". . . You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, . . ." -- John 15:16.

". . . We love him, because he first loved us. . . ." -- 1 John 4:19.

Our choice we make toward God is indeed a real choice we make of our own. But it is made with God's help and without any merit on our part.

We are on my favorite subject. This is my hobby horse. The underlying question is "who maketh thee to differ?" We are all sinners. Are some better than others and thus find salvation?

[The Remonstrant]

We are on my favorite subject. This is my hobby horse. The underlying question is "who maketh thee to differ?" We are all sinners. Are some better than others and thus find salvation?

[GoBahnsen]

Hey old friend. Good to see ya. I wasn't wanting my "who maketh thee to differ" to refer to any verse, but I can see how it would appear so.

I realize that I can argue for my position till the cows come home and yet by the very nature of the system of theology I hold to, if my position is correct, God must lead and open a person'e eyes to it. You yourself are not new to this debate. We hashed it out quite a while back.

This will probably get me in trouble, and I'm sure it has some debate "no, no" attached to it, but it was Dee Dee Warren who never "saw" the one string guitar I played in here for a long time. Once she became Reformed, she condensed all her arguments down to the same one I used. You either see it or you don't.

The good thing is, I don't think it's a deal breaker in terms of salvation. I do believe more people will be in heaven who thot they chose themselves unto salvation, than those who believe they never would have done so but for electing grace.

[GoBahnsen]

Hey old friend. Good to see ya. I wasn't wanting my "who maketh thee to differ" to refer to any verse, but I can see how it would appear so.

I realize that I can argue for my position till the cows come home and yet by the very nature of the system of theology I hold to, if my position is correct, God must lead and open a person'e eyes to it. You yourself are not new to this debate. We hashed it out quite a while back.

This will probably get me in trouble, and I'm sure it has some debate "no, no" attached to it, but it was Dee Dee Warren who never "saw" the one string guitar I played in here for a long time. Once she became Reformed, she condensed all her arguments down to the same one I used. You either see it or you don't.

The good thing is, I don't think it's a deal breaker in terms of salvation. I do believe more people will be in heaven who thot they chose themselves unto salvation, than those who believe they never would have done so but for electing grace.

And let me add to this that what I'm suggesting is not the same argument I have had certain Christians give me, where they say the Holy Spirit told them they were right. Or that I was wrong.

I could be wrong along with all my Reformed brethren on the topic of election. I do find it very curious tho, that it is even mentioned in Scripture (and quite often in the NT), that we are "elect". Why bother with that piece of info if it's all about God making an offer and people can decide for themselves what they will have?

I'm going to guess that Paul and Peter, the two who seem to remind their readers the most about election, were very aware that if God had not decided (elected) their futures, they would have proceeded on their merry way to hell.

[The Remonstrant]

Hey old friend. Good to see ya. I wasn't wanting my "who maketh thee to differ" to refer to any verse, but I can see how it would appear so.

I realize that I can argue for my position till the cows come home and yet by the very nature of the system of theology I hold to, if my position is correct, God must lead and open a person'e eyes to it. You yourself are not new to this debate. We hashed it out quite a while back.

Many years ago, yes. I believe that you may have been the first Calvinist on TheologyWeb I engaged in a series of posts.

Some level of coherence is required in our God-talk and systematic theology can be helpful towards this end. That said, certain theological or philosophical commitments may prevent us from clearly seeing some truths contained in Scripture. My working assumption is that we are all likely wrong at some point. Some (not all) of our doctrinal views should be open to revision and our theological heroes should not be elevated to the status of near-infallible interpreters of Scripture, regardless of how brilliant they appear to be.

This will probably get me in trouble, and I'm sure it has some debate "no, no" attached to it, but it was Dee Dee Warren who never "saw" the one string guitar I played in here for a long time. Once she became Reformed, she condensed all her arguments down to the same one I used. You either see it or you don't.

The good thing is, I don't think it's a deal breaker in terms of salvation. I do believe more people will be in heaven who thot [sic] they chose themselves unto salvation, than those who believe they never would have done so but for electing grace.

God is the initiator of redemption. God also is the one who has decreed which persons he will save: those who are believing in his Son. Humans make no impositions on God in the realm of salvation. God himself has decreed to grant eternal life to those who receive Jesus Christ in faith, and it is his pleasure to do so. The issue, again, comes down to conditionality. If we follow the Calvinistic route and say that God has exhaustively foreordained all things, neither salvation or damnation are conditional in nature.

Note

1. I.e. unconditional election to salvation and unconditional reprobation. Both saved and lost are believed to be unconditionally predestined by God to their respective fates.

[GoBahnsen]

Many years ago, yes. I believe that you may have been the first Calvinist on TheologyWeb I engaged in a series of posts.

Some level of coherence is required in our God-talk and systematic theology can be helpful towards this end. That said, certain theological or philosophical commitments may prevent us from clearly seeing some truths contained in Scripture. My working assumption is that we are all likely wrong at some point. Some (not all) of our doctrinal views should be open to revision and our theological heroes should not be elevated to the status of near-infallible interpreters of Scripture, regardless of how brilliant they appear to be.



God is the initiator of redemption. God also is the one who has decreed which persons he will save: those who are believing in his Son. Humans make no impositions on God in the realm of salvation. God himself has decreed to grant eternal life to those who receive Jesus Christ in faith, and it is his pleasure to do so. The issue, again, comes down to conditionality. If we follow the Calvinistic route and say that God has exhaustively foreordained all things, neither salvation or damnation are conditional in nature.

Note

1. I.e. unconditional election to salvation and unconditional reprobation. Both saved and lost are believed to be unconditionally predestined by God to their respective fates.

I would begin by reminding us that we all deserve damnation from our mother's womb. At least we are all "lost" at birth, tho children of believing households are sanctified by the believing parent(s).

It would appear on the surface of things that our entry into this fallen world, being represented by the first Adam and thus being unregenerate, is NOT fair. And yet the bible makes no apology for the way God has chosen to operate.

God could have left the world unto it's lost condition, but instead He appeared to an idol worshiping Abram and unconditionally elected him unto salvation and to be the father of God's chosen people. God does this while millions of heathen with their heathen children perish without hope in their pagan religions. No rush on God's part to unfold His story of redemption.

Sure, some would come from other nations to join God's chosen people (Rahab and Ruth come to mind), but for the most part the larger portion of mankind is left in darkness. God is going about saving a people for Himself. None get to decide where they will be born. None get to decide if they will ever hear a stitch of truth about God. None have the power to come to Jesus except the Father draw them.

And if the Father gives them to Christ, Christ won't lose a single one. (John 6). Sure, they will freely believe, because God has made it so for them.

[phat8594]

God could have left the world unto it's lost condition, but instead He appeared to an idol worshiping Abram and unconditionally elected him unto salvation and to be the father of God's chosen people. God does this while millions of heathen with their heathen children perish without hope in their pagan religions. No rush on God's part to unfold His story of redemption.

Sure, some would come from other nations to join God's chosen people (Rahab and Ruth come to mind), but for the most part the larger portion of mankind is left in darkness. God is going about saving a people for Himself. None get to decide where they will be born. None get to decide if they will ever hear a stitch of truth about God. None have the power to come to Jesus except the Father draw them.

And if the Father gives them to Christ, Christ won't lose a single one. (John 6). Sure, they will freely believe, because God has made it so for them.

Why does this always seem to be an issue of Calvinism? -- where 'unconditional election to salvation' is read into EVERYTHING, even where the Bible doesn't even talk about it (e.g. the story of Abraham)

It's simple really:

1. pre-define terms such as 'predestination', 'election', 'choose', outside of their Biblical usage
2. Build a theology around these terms.
3. Show people proof-texts which include these terms (disregard context).
4. Once the terms are defined pre-reading, then the paradigm has already been formed outside of the Bible to hinder any real exegesis.
5. Voila! People will actually believe that Calvinism is Biblical. (although its beliefs were essentially considered heretical during the Early Church) After all, the word predestination and election are in the Bible!!!!!! (sorry for the sarcasm)

but the truth is that even the beginning of Romans says these things:

Romans 1:19-20
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

as opposed to:

God does this while millions of heathen with their heathen children perish without hope in their pagan religions. No rush on God's part to unfold His story of redemption.

Sure, some would come from other nations to join God's chosen people (Rahab and Ruth come to mind), but for the most part the larger portion of mankind is left in darkness

and it also says this:

Romans 2:6-11
He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.


The point is that even Romans (the favorite book of my Calvinist friends [well maybe just a chapter of it]) says the exact opposite - it shows how God's mercy and patience (and justice [they being without excuse..God not being partial...etc.]) have always been a part of the equation. In fact, the argument that Paul lays out in the beginning part of Romans just doesn't make sense when considered under the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

[GoBahnsen]

Hey Phat, thnx for giving me things to think thru.

And this is always the issue of Calvinism -- 'unconditional election to salvation' is read into EVERYTHING, even where the Bible doesn't even talk about it.

It's simple really:

1. pre-define terms such as 'predestination', 'election', 'choose', outside of their Biblical usage
2. Build a theology around these terms.
3. Show people proof-texts which include these terms (disregard context).
4. Once the terms are defined pre-reading, then the paradigm has already been formed outside of the Bible to hinder any real exegesis.
5. Voila! People will actually believe that Calvinism is Biblical. (although its beliefs were essentially considered heretical during the Early Church) After all, the word predestination and election are in the Bible!!!!!!

(sorry for the sarcasm)

No worries, hard not to get sarcastic in here. But can't the objection you raised about Calvinists be said of the Remonstrants as well? You know, the garden variety type, which I think you must be referring to, instead of the more serious Remonstrants who would never level the kind of charges against serious Calvinists the way you have just done.

but the truth is that even the beginning of Romans says these things:

Romans 1:19-20
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

as opposed to this:

I agree that God has left the heathen without excuse. Abram would have been in the same boat had God not appeared to him.

and it also says this:

Romans 2:6-11
He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

The key words here are "who obey not the truth." Otherwise this verse teaches moral-ism. Which neither you nor I hold to, right?

Where did you read that the early church considered the kind of teachings that Augustine and then later Calvin taught, to be heretical?

[GoBahnsen]

The point is that even Romans (the favorite book of my Calvinist friends [well maybe just a chapter of it]) says the exact opposite - it shows how God's mercy and patience (and justice [they being without excuse..God not being partial...etc.]) have always been a part of the equation. In fact, the argument that Paul lays out in the beginning part of Romans just doesn't make sense when considered under the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Nor does it make sense without the gospel included. Because there are none good, none who seek after God.

To raise this text and say "hey look, it's up to people to live a good life and thus gain favor with God or choose to do evil and pay the price", is obviously wrong. This verse isn't meant to demonstrate freedom of choice. Those who are moral versus the immoral. It simply must be a statement of gospel fact.

For those who do not obey the truth, that being an understanding that they are sinners who need God's solution for sin and believe God for it, for those kind of people, the wrath of God abides on them still.

[GoBahnsen]

For those who do not obey the truth, that being an understanding that they are sinners who need God's solution for sin and believe God for it, for those kind of people, the wrath of God abides on them still.

Just realized my sentence structure wasn't very good. Sorry about that. Should say "for those kind of people who do not obey the truth, the wrath of God abides on them still. I never was very good at grammar.

[bling]