Welcome to Gaia! ::

What is "free will"?



Obviously. So, why not thirst for Christ's salvation?

This is indeed, amazing, Jedediah Smith. It is, really. I recall the time I had argued against a person here at Fire Fall named SaintXenos, and she said that we all have free will, but we do not have the freedom to choose to be saved. Her stance was Calvinistic in nature, and at that time, I had objected towards it. In my past time as I struggled with the issue of whether or not it is our decision to be saved, I came across a person named John Hendryx, who, when asking him, What if I don't believe in neither Calvinism or Arminianism? - told me, "It doesn't matter if you're neither a Calvinist or an Arminian. What matters is if you believe in monergism or synergism." From there, my beliefs were dramatically changed forever, and I could not help but preach the "doctrines of grace," as I would call it. I see that you do not believe that God predestines some to hell. That's fine. This is the Lutheran stance (though Martin Luther didn't believe in what you know as "single predestination"). All that matters to me, Jedediah, is that you hold onto the teachings that the Reformation taught five-hundred years ago, back in the sixteenth century. Truly again, I am most amazed, and I do apologize for coming at you as I did before when I discovered this thread.

I could, by the way, present you with some verses that would support "double-predestination." mrgreen

I am not sure what position Walter Martin holds, but if he has helped in this part of theology, I am then curious to think that Walter Martin is a Calvinist, or someone who holds a predestinarian view.

We first must remember that predestination is not the same as election. According to double-predestination, as Calvinist would call it, God predestined some to heaven, and others to hell. He did not, however, elect sinners to hell, like He elected sinners to heaven. In other words, God elects some to heaven, but to what the Calvinst would call "reprobate," He passes by, leaving them in their sins and unbelief. He does not monergistically cause the sinner to disbelieve by placing a fresh sin into the sinner. I'm not sure if you have ever come across the word "monergism," and so I'll provide the definition. Monergism comes from the two Greek words μονο (mono) and εργον (ergon). From Monergism.com, Monergism is:



So, while God does monergistically save and cause the sinner to believe and be holy, He does not do the same for the reprobate, as what the hyper-Calvinists would teach, concerning double-predestination. He does not need to cause them to be in disbelief, because they already do that themselves. Now, there are some implicit verses concerning the belief of double-predestination. I first point to Proverbs 16:4, which says, "The LORD works out everything for his own ends - even the wicked for a day of disaster." There is also Romans 9:22: "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction?" And there is Jude 4, "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (emphasis mine)

You don't have to believe in double-predestination like I do, but I just wanted to place in some verses. Also, in Calvinism, there are two thoughts of predestination, which aren't mentioned really: infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. Infralapsarianism was held by Francis Turretin, a Calvinist. Supralapsarianism was helded by Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza. Infralapsarianism is where God decreed election to those after the Fall (held by most Calvinists/Reformers), while supralapsarianism (held by the Puritans, I believe) holds the thought that God decreed election prior to the Fall.

Hey theopneustos, I have a question for you.


You say that God only elects the saved and not the damned. However, since there are only two catagories for the state of one's soul, doesn't that mean that, logically, God is also electing the others to damnation?

As an example, I don't shoot people, I just don't choose to let them live.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

I think Cometh's point is that the supposed difference between supralapsarian and infralapsarian theology is largely semantical rather than substantive. It doesn't matter whether God actively picks whom He wants to damn (supra) or if he instead allows people to be damned through His own inaction (infra); in the end those people still wind up damned, and largely through no fault of their own.

I suppose a better example of his point would be this:

'I didn't stab that man; someone else did. I just watched him bleed to death.'

Good thesis Theopneustos but before I make my comments about double-predestination, I want to ask a question.

Q: On Judgment Day, do you believe that it is possible for an unsaved man who was never been exposed to the Gospel and the Law has a possible chance to enter into the Kingdom of God?