Free will and Salvation

[liamconnor]

The question posits two premises (within a Christian worldview):

1) Man has freewill and therefore can reject God's grace/call/election.

2) God has (at the very least) called/elected some.


Does it follow that, hypothetically, zero souls could have been saved?

If so, did God take a risk?

If not, does this violate freewill?

[Divine Insight]

If so, did God take a risk?

This God of the Bible necessarily took a risk with every soul he creates. And according to the Bible he loses the vast majority of them. So this is a God who takes risks with far more souls then he supposedly saves.

And I would suggest that this is itself an extreme contradiction in this religion. Why should this creator God continue to create new souls when he can clearly see that the vast majority of souls he creates he will need to damn to everlasting punishment?

If I were a creator with that bad of a track record, I'd stop creating souls until I figured out how to have a far better success rate. And that actually shouldn't be too hard to do. To bad this God won't talk with me, I could give him some really great and free consultation.

If not, does this violate freewill?

I can't imagine why any Christian would think that this God can't violate the free will of men. Paul is a prime example of Jesus appearing before a man who not only totally renounced him but who was even making a living from persecuting Christians. Paul (as Saul) certainly didn't ask Jesus to come into his life, or his heart. Yet Jesus supposedly appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, thus violating Paul's free will choice to believe in Jesus on pure faith.

And Christians tell us continually that Jesus cannot appear before us because that would supposedly violate our free will to be able to believe in him on pure faith.

So this religion is in clear self-contradiction when it has Jesus appear before Paul.

If Jesus can appear before Paul, then there is absolutely no reason why he can't appear before everyone. No one should be denied the direct appearance of Jesus BEFORE they choose to believe in him (just like what happened with Paul)

So the free will argument fails. The New Testament Gospel of Paul proves it.

[ttruscott]

The question posits two premises (within a Christian worldview):

1) Man has freewill and therefore can reject God's grace/call/election.

2) God has (at the very least) called/elected some.


Does it follow that, hypothetically, zero souls could have been saved?

Not after HE elected some. Rejecting to be covered by election would be possible but once elect, election can't be rescinded. Election is a promise of salvation to be fulfilled later in our lives: Matthew 25:34 Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. These people of the kingdom are chosen before they are sown, born, into the world by the Son of Man, the King, Matt 13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom.

Thse outside the Kingdom are condemned already. John 3:18.

If so, did God take a risk?

As far as I can see, giving us a sacrosanct free will to chose our relationship with HIM for ourselves must have included some risk that some or even all may have chosen against HIM.

If not, does this violate freewill?

If not what, and does what violate our free will? Sorry to need a literal explanation...I hate pronouns.

[Divine Insight]

Not after HE elected some. Rejecting to be covered by election would be possible but once elect, election can't be rescinded. Election is a promise of salvation to be fulfilled later in our lives

Your theology the "elect" versus the "non-elect" is a self contradictory theology, especially if you hold your next statement to also be true.

As far as I can see, giving us a sacrosanct free will to chose our relationship with HIM for ourselves must have included some risk that some or even all may have chosen against HIM.

If we have been given the free will to chose our relationship with this God then we are the ones who are doing the electing or non-electing.

You can't have it both ways.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I think you make a good point, DI. I congratulate you on it.

BUT -- there's always one of those, isn't there? --

I don't think your point bears up under further scrutiny.

Jesus appeared to Paul, and Paul believed on Him --

but that doesn't mean Jesus forced Paul to. Paul could have denied Him, despite the dramatic nature of Jesus' appearance to him.

That Paul didn't shows that he was one of the "elect".

Paul was chosen for a very specific, and very special, task and purpose. As he possessed possibly the most brilliant mind of any human who ever lived, it was his task to lay out the case for Christian faith.

Every person who is ever saved by the faith he exposited so brilliantly, is saved for a reason.

It is the entirety the Christian's duty -- and the nature of his adventure -- to discover what that reason is.

And remember:

God's sovereignty is total, infinite.

Man's free will is limited.

[JehovahsWitness]

The question posits two premises (within a Christian worldview):

1) Man has freewill and therefore can reject God's grace/call/election.

2) God has (at the very least) called/elected some.


Does it follow that, hypothetically, zero souls could have been saved?

If so, did God take a risk?

If not, does this violate freewill?

Does it follow that, hypothetically, zero souls could have been saved?

Yes I suppose so.

If so, did God take a risk?

Yes

If not, does this violate freewill?



N/a

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I think you make a good point, DI. I congratulate you on it.

BUT -- there's always one of those, isn't there? --

I don't think your point bears up under further scrutiny.

Jesus appeared to Paul, and Paul believed on Him --

but that doesn't mean Jesus forced Paul to. Paul could have denied Him, despite the dramatic nature of Jesus' appearance to him.

That Paul didn't shows that he was one of the "elect".

But this doesn't help this theological argument at all. To the contrary if God can reveal himself to us and we can still reject him, then by revealing himself to us he wouldn't be violating our free will.

You see, Christians argue that God can't reveal himself to us because this would supposedly violate our free will. But now they are arguing that even if we knew that God existed for certain we could still reject God. If that's the argument then there's no need for his invisible God to be playing hide and seek.

So this is a failed argument.

Once again, just a case of the Christians wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Paul was chosen for a very specific, and very special, task and purpose. As he possessed possibly the most brilliant mind of any human who ever lived, it was his task to lay out the case for Christian faith.

Every person who is ever saved by the faith he exposited so brilliantly, is saved for a reason.

And this is the most absurd claim I've heard in a long time. There is nothing brilliant in anything Paul wrote. To the contrary many things he wrote are extremely ignorant.

And of far more importance why would Jesus NEED Paul to teach people anything? That can only suggest that Jesus necessarily saw his own ministry and teachings as a complete failure.

Why should Jesus need Paul to clear up anything that Jesus taught. Was Jesus so dramatically less intelligent than Paul that he needed Paul's superior mortal mind to communicate clear to humans what Jesus was trying to teach but evidently had failed miserably to do so?

So once again, this is an extremely poor apologetic argument for this religion because it requires that Jesus was a horrible teacher who failed to teach clearly and needed Paul to clarify things.

It's just utterly absurd. It's a very bad argument.

It is the entirety the Christian's duty -- and the nature of his adventure -- to discover what that reason is.

And remember:

God's sovereignty is total, infinite.

Man's free will is limited.

And according to what you've just argued for Jesus' teaching abilities were horrible, and Paul's were supposedly superior to Jesus.

Moreover, if there were any truth to the theology of "elect" and "non-elect" soul, then Christian evangelism, including Paul's evangelism would be totally unnecessary.

Why would the "elect" need to be taught anything? Clearly they are already the elect and therefore will be save no matter what.

On the other hand the so-called "non-elect" could not be saved no matter what. And not only could they not be saved, but any attempt by an evangelist to save the non-elect would be against the will of God since God is the one who chose to not elect those specific people.

So the whole theology crashes and burns. It's an unworkable theology. And certainly one that rapes all humans of having any free will choice in the matter at all when it comes to supposedly being saved. How can a human have a free will choice in something that God himself ELECTS to do or not do?

Also, keep in mind that this particular theology of the "elect and non-elect" is a very minority theology as Christian theologies go. The overwhelming majority of Christian theologies proclaim that it is the choice of the individual whether or not to accept Christ as their savior, and that is based on the idea that this is our free will choice.

The theology that claims that God himself elects or does not elect individuals, refutes the very idea that it's the free will choice of the human to accept Christ as their "savior".

So this is an extremely minority Christian theology in any case. This doesn't represent mainstream Christian theology.

In fact, this is just yet another example of Christians themselves having dramatically different ideas of what this religion should supposedly be about. So even the Christians can't agree with each other on what Christian theology should be.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I think you make a good point, DI. I congratulate you on it.

BUT -- there's always one of those, isn't there? --

I don't think your point bears up under further scrutiny.

Jesus appeared to Paul, and Paul believed on Him --

but that doesn't mean Jesus forced Paul to. Paul could have denied Him, despite the dramatic nature of Jesus' appearance to him.

That Paul didn't shows that he was one of the "elect".

But this doesn't help this theological argument at all. To the contrary if God can reveal himself to us and we can still reject him, then by revealing himself to us he wouldn't be violating our free will.

You see, Christians argue that God can't reveal himself to us because this would supposedly violate our free will. But now they are arguing that even if we knew that God existed for certain we could still reject God. If that's the argument then there's no need for his invisible God to be playing hide and seek.

So this is a failed argument.

Once again, just a case of the Christians wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Not at all.

Remember -- Adam experienced God "directly" (perhaps in "dimensionally different" node of existence?), and chose to "reject" -- that is, disobey -- Him.

Satan was an archangel. He IS in the "direct presence of God".

When God appears directly, what is removed is the option of faith. It is no longer a matter of accepting God's existence, and His promises, on faith alone. The opportunity for faith -- by which we are saved; it is what is "accounted to us as righteousness" -- is over.

The opportunity for "rejection", obviously, isn't.

In colorful, literary terms, there will be people ushered into Hell muttering their dark hatred of the Triune God, and love of themselves, as they go...

Paul was chosen for a very specific, and very special, task and purpose. As he possessed possibly the most brilliant mind of any human who ever lived, it was his task to lay out the case for Christian faith.

Every person who is ever saved by the faith he exposited so brilliantly, is saved for a reason.

And this is the most absurd claim I've heard in a long time. There is nothing brilliant in anything Paul wrote. To the contrary many things he wrote are extremely ignorant.

Nossir.

That is simply not true.

And of far more importance why would Jesus NEED Paul to teach people anything? That can only suggest that Jesus necessarily saw his own ministry and teachings as a complete failure.

Why should Jesus need Paul to clear up anything that Jesus taught. Was Jesus so dramatically less intelligent than Paul that he needed Paul's superior mortal mind to communicate clear to humans what Jesus was trying to teach but evidently had failed miserably to do so?

So once again, this is an extremely poor apologetic argument for this religion because it requires that Jesus was a horrible teacher who failed to teach clearly and needed Paul to clarify things.

It's just utterly absurd. It's a very bad argument.

All due respect, but I could say the same about yours, here.

Jesus was a perfect teacher. But he never wrote a word that we know of, other than what was written in the dirt during the incident of the adulterous woman (very likely, the names of those present who had likewise committed adultery -- possibly even with her).

And you are mistaken, and severely limited in your understanding, if you think that Jesus' mission while incarnate on earth was to TEACH.

That was part of it, yes. As were the miracles. He did those things to demonstrate who He was.

But Jesus came to earth to DIE.

He became our sin on that cross (Numbers 21:4-9), so that we could be redeemed.

"Jesus did not come to make bad men good. He came to bring dead men to life."

It is the entirety the Christian's duty -- and the nature of his adventure -- to discover what that reason is.

And remember:

God's sovereignty is total, infinite.

Man's free will is limited.

And according to what you've just argued for Jesus' teaching abilities were horrible, and Paul's were supposedly superior to Jesus.

Moreover, if there were any truth to the theology of "elect" and "non-elect" soul, then Christian evangelism, including Paul's evangelism would be totally unnecessary.

Why would the "elect" need to be taught anything? Clearly they are already the elect and therefore will be save no matter what.

On the other hand the so-called "non-elect" could not be saved no matter what. And not only could they not be saved, but any attempt by an evangelist to save the non-elect would be against the will of God since God is the one who chose to not elect those specific people.

So the whole theology crashes and burns. It's an unworkable theology. And certainly one that rapes all humans of having any free will choice in the matter at all when it comes to supposedly being saved. How can a human have a free will choice in something that God himself ELECTS to do or not do?

Also, keep in mind that this particular theology of the "elect and non-elect" is a very minority theology as Christian theologies go. The overwhelming majority of Christian theologies proclaim that it is the choice of the individual whether or not to accept Christ as their savior, and that is based on the idea that this is our free will choice.

The theology that claims that God himself elects or does not elect individuals, refutes the very idea that it's the free will choice of the human to accept Christ as their "savior".

So this is an extremely minority Christian theology in any case. This doesn't represent mainstream Christian theology.

In fact, this is just yet another example of Christians themselves having dramatically different ideas of what this religion should supposedly be about. So even the Christians can't agree with each other on what Christian theology should be.

Well, that last part has some merit.

There are, and will be, doctrinal differences and diversion of opinions on various points. And will be, until He returns.

"In essential things, unity.
In doubtful things, liberty.
In all things, charity (love)."

I have had the unpleasant experience of getting entangled in lengthy discourse with a dyed-in-the-wool, 'Replacement Theology' Calvinist.

Not fun.

It was through him that I discovered that I was a (dreaded, endarkened) "Dispensationalist" and heretical "Arminianist".

(an aside -- I enjoy my good friend's take on the Augustine/Calvinist--Arminian divide: "I am a complete, total, 100% Calvinist. With just touch of Arminianist thrown in )

The "onion" of "Election/Predestination vs. Free Will" is one that can never be peeled to its core. It's just layer after layer after layer. Which is precisely what we should expect.

The problems presented resolve themselves when you understand that God is outside of time -- something that He revealed to Paul by inspiration (Ephesians 3:18).

There is no uncertain "future" to God. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows who receives Him, and who doesn't.

He knows that "all those who are of the truth hear (His) voice" (John 18:37). He knew that Paul already believed in YHWH, so his faith could not be compromised by His appearing to Him.

And He knew that Paul was "of the truth", and thus would hear His voice.

I am presuming mightily here, of course.

I should preference those remarks concerning Paul with "I think".

We are deep into the Lord's business here. And while it's perfectly acceptable to speculate and conjecture, it would fraudulent of me to indicate I knew God's thoughts toward Paul with any degree of certainty.

One thing I DO know:

Paul exposited, clarified, expounded and explained a NEW and transformational reality to the world, in immortal and unsurpassed language.

The fundamental nature of our reality was altered at Calvary, 2,000 years ago.

The world has never been the same. Paul explains why. And "Who".

[JP Cusick]

The question posits two premises (within a Christian worldview):

Such limitations are man-made.

The real God is not restricted by human limitations.

1) Man has freewill and therefore can reject God's grace/call/election.

Humans have very little which might be called free-will and the vast majority of humanity does not have free-will.

It is a big mistake to think that we can pick and choice between opinions and that is our free will because it is not.

As like a goldfish in a water tank gets to swim right or left so the fish has freewill choices - and it does not.

Freewill choices are not the same as having a freewill to actually tell God that we choose to defy God - well no.

When God calls a person then they do not have any option of yes or no, just as God said to have light and the light happens and there is no debate.

It is utterly vain to see our worldly optional choices as thereby having a freewill to stand against our Father.

When God commands - "COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE" - then the people will come out. There will be no discussion, no debate, no refusal, no question, no resistance, as God commands and that is that.

2) God has (at the very least) called/elected some.

Everyone / every person has been called and elected and nobody gets left out or lost.

People need to stop following the vanity of our human ego and its superiority complex.

The lowest sinner has the same calling as does the holy Saints.

Does it follow that, hypothetically, zero souls could have been saved?

Yes the situation was that no one (zero souls) would be saved.

It is only because of the sacrifice of Christ that any one gets saved.

Every person falls short.

If so, did God take a risk?

God is still taking a gigantic risk and the risk is very real.

We can have confidence that God will overcome the risk, and that is our hope and it is our only hope for salvation.

If not, does this violate freewill?

Humans have no freewill where it comes to the Father God.

We did not choose to be born = no freewill there.

We do not choose to live or to die = no freewill there.

We can not choose resurrection or not = no freewill there.

The Judgment Day = no freewill there.

Every person gets saved because God wills it = no freewill there.

[onewithhim]

The question posits two premises (within a Christian worldview):

1) Man has freewill and therefore can reject God's grace/call/election.

2) God has (at the very least) called/elected some.


Does it follow that, hypothetically, zero souls could have been saved?

If so, did God take a risk?

If not, does this violate freewill?

I don't understand your question. Why would God, in the first place, create humans that would never be saved? Even after Adam rebelled, Jehovah let his progeny live so that all who wanted to could live forever with a relationship with Him.