What is free will really, what does it mean to have free will?

[Hello Kitty]

I used to believe in Free Will but I don't any longer.  "Free will" means to act without any constraint, to do anything you want at any time you want.  How many people can truly do anything they want any time they want?  Does a child sitting on a trash heap in India have Free Will to do whatever they want or are they trapped by their circumstances?

So everyone is more or less trapped by the circumstances of life.

There is NO Free Will according to Scripture.  The only thing Man has is CHOICE ~ the choice between Good and Evil ~ this is all we are given.  Everything else is determined by God.  This is the conclusion I have reached after being trapped in circumstances beyond my control for most of my life.

[Michael Fernandez]

On 7/10/2017 at 2:43 PM, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Free will. One of the most over stated falsehoods in human consciousness, if someone holds to the scriptures and the qualities of God. 

There is no such thing as free will. God, that is omnipotent and omniscient,  predestined the world, predetermined all things for his glory and according to his will. And in the beginning he set down his laws, starting in the garden with, thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree that would bestow conscious awareness of right and wrong and conscience.  Then he made 613 other laws to be obeyed , while knowing all things to the end of time being he is the alpha and the omega. The darkness and the light. The evil and the good. He is all things. Because in the beginning was The Word, God. 

And then depending on how we comport ourselves in the new testament laws, we shall either enter Heaven or suffer Hell. But all who enter Heaven were foreknown by God and were called by God to his son, whom they cannot come to unless God calls them to be saved from Hell. 

Free will is a myth that we tell ourselves so we think we're responsible for what we do. There is no such thing as free will within the domain of omniscient omnipresence that predetermined all things before he created the world upon which those things would unfold. 

Sis, while I agree with what you wrote in the main, I must dispute or at least question one thing you said.  "And then depending on how we comport ourselves in the new testament laws, we shall either enter Heaven or suffer Hell."  Uhhh, no.  Being saved, "Heaven" as opposed to Hell as our final destination, is not predicated upon "how we comport ourselves in the new testament (sic) laws."  That is works righteousness and we are not saved by works, cf. Eph 2:8-10.  Yes, works have a role in our lives as believers, as Paul makes clear in the aforementioned passage, but Scripture also makes it clear that no 0ne is saved by works, cf. Gal 2:16-21.  

Edited November 28, 2017 by Michael Fernandez
Correct error.

[Michael Fernandez]

On 7/12/2017 at 12:01 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

As I see 2 Pet 3:9 personally, we have two choices. One choice is all means everyone everywhere, the other is that all means all of a limited group.

Solid point.  In my own studies I have come to the same conclusion and probably for the same reasons.  Here is some of my reasoning on that sub-topic.
 

 

Romans 11:26	When All Means – Something Else? ·         There is an old saying that goes, “All means All and that’s All, All means” which is often used to “prove” that all mankind will be saved because of the many uses of the word “all” in connection with passages speaking of God’s offer of salvation being available to all men cf. Romans 5:18 and note to same).  That something is available to all men is not the same as saying that all men will take advantage of or benefit by that something.  Be that as it may be, that is not the case here. ·         In this case, we have a situation where “all” does not necessarily mean “all”; at least not in the universal sense, while at the same time, still meaning “all.”  How so?.  Will “[A]ll Israel” be saved in the end?  Yes, most emphatically yes.  IF God says something will happen, it will happen.  Nevertheless, does that mean Jews can be, will be, saved without acknowledging Christ as Lord and Savior?  No.  He who has the Son has life.  He who does not have the Son is condemned (cf. John 3:18).  So, what does Paul mean by this when he writes, “all Israel will be saved”?  All Israel is a reference to the elect Jews, those who are Israel, those who God chose before the foundation of the world as He did us.  Those who are children of God because they are “children of the promise” (Romans 9:6-9 and note), who are both physical and spiritual Israel. ·         This ties in with the many references to the “remnant” of the Jewish people who should be saved.  Not all physical Jews are true Jews, children of God, just as the eyes of their fellow, after the flesh Jews, Jew’s Jews) of being sons of their father the devil!  Cf. John 8:44.  So, that being understood, the remnant spoken of in other places is in fact, what could be called “True Israel” and as the true Israel, the chosen People of God, they will all be saved by faith in Christ.  In God’s good time, they will have their hearts turned to Christ, just as God has done with us.
10:13	Universality ·         Again, the universal scope of the gospel invitation is made clear here, “Whoever calls…” (cf. v.11 “Whoever believes…”). ·         Notice it says, “whoever calls” meaning it applies to everyone who calls upon the name of the LORD regardless of race, sex, age, nationality, or degree of fallenness.  Cf. Romans 1:16 and note to same. ·         Note also that this passage describes only what happens if anyone calls upon the name of the LORD, but does not address the matter of how one comes to do so, that is, if that calling is something man has the power in himself to do or if it requires a prior act upon him by God.  The matter of man’s inherent ability or lack thereof is addressed in other passages.
1st Corinthians 12:13	When ALL Means – Something Else Yet Again ·                               Compare from Romans 11:26 and Note, “When All Means – Something Else.” ·                               Again we have a case when “all” must be qualified by the context of what has come before.  In 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, we have a clear reference to the fact that not all “members” of the Corinthian church [organization or local body] were, in fact, “Christians.” (See note to 6:9-11 preceding). ·                               See also 1st Corinthians 1:2 and note “Sanctified” (preceding) for a discussion of the related issue of believers v. unbelievers both being sanctified but to different ends. ·
15:22	Universalism – NOT! ·                               “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” This verse is one that has been used to preach universal salvation.  That is, that in the end, everyone, “all” gets saved.  That is a LIE! ·                               The two all’s here are alike only in the sense that “all means all and that’s all, all means.” But they are not alike in their application. ·         “For as in Adam all die.”  All mankind is descended from Adam and so, all mankind is under the penalty of death, cf. Romans 5:12-21.  So, in Adam, all [mankind] die. ·         However, the second half of the verse says, “even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”  Not all of Adam’s descendants, who are all under the curse, are “in Christ.”  Thus, this life, this being “made alive” does not apply to them.  This applies only to those who are “in Christ” of whom, “all shall be made alive. ·                               See also 1st Timothy 2:4 and note.

 

[Michael Fernandez]

On 7/13/2017 at 2:14 PM, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

That verse, John 12:32 (KJV)[32] And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

And 1 Timothy 4:10, That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
 

Seems to speak to what is known as Universal salvation.

While other verses as we've discussed tell us no one is saved unless God calls them to be.

I would not say that it speaks of what is known as "Universal Salvation" but rather to the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's Judgment when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord."  

Rom 14:11-12 NKJV For it is written: "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD." 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.
Php 2:10-11 NKJV that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Rev 20:11-15 NKJV Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
 

[Michael Fernandez]

On 11/13/2017 at 1:43 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Adam and Eve, for a time were sin free, there were not created as sinners by nature. Mankind since, is in a different boat. We are sinners by nature, unable to please God. We are naturally rebellious, so we need a new nature - the the necessity of being born again.

Exactly!  A. W. Pink addresses this using the expression "moral equipoise," in his treatise on "God's Sovereignty and the Human Will," addressing the "Bondage of the Will."  In essence, Adam was created "innocent but not holy" and with an ability to go in the direction of good or evil, he was not predisposed to go in either direction, "moral equipoise."  Since the fall and the corruption of sin, Adam and his posterity have lost that position of moral "equipoise" for one of a natural inclination towards evil (We sin because we are sinners by nature).  Jesus, likewise was not like the rest of mankind being the "Holy One of God," He is also unlike Adam.  Whereas Adam was created in a state of sinlessness, he nonetheless had the ability to sin.  Jesus, when He became incarnate in the Flesh was like Adam in that He was sinless and unlike Adam in that He was/is incapable of sin.  Jesus, the Son of Man "was not in a state of moral equipoise."  

Edited November 28, 2017 by Michael Fernandez

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 7/15/2017 at 9:23 AM, enoob57 said:

yet from that time God has requested in the form of human responsibility choice from that fallen nature through election based on foreknowledge undefined by God in His Word

Was just re-reading this thread, and a lot of good and interesting things we said in it, but I guess I did not notice previously, what is quoted about, and it probably should have been addressed.

The idea that election is based on foreknoweldge, I do not think is a Biblical idea. I know people point to:

   1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
      To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Nothing in that word "according" to, in English or in Greek, supposed that it is the basis of cause of election. According to me, enoob is a nice guy. Does that mean the I caused enoob to be a nice guy, or does it just mean that enoob is a nice guy, a.nd that is consistent with what I said.

There are lots of instances of "according to: in the Bible. When it was said: "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," does that mean that the scriptures caused Jesus to be buried, and to be raised on the third day?

I think there is plenty of wiggle room there to see, that those things happened, just as the scriptures said. Similary, those who were chosen were chosen in agreement with what God foreknew, He knew from before the foundation of the world:

 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 

Not only there do we see that we chose us, long before any of us could have a say in the matter, it also says that we were predestined. By the way, speaking of "according to" we have another one there, which say that we were predestined to adoption according to the kind intention of His will.

Also, why state that foreknowledge is undefined. The Bible is not a dictionary. There is nothing mysterious about the word. Foreknowledge means foreknowledge, do you wish it meant something else?

In Greek it is prognosis, pro before, gnosis knowledge, to have knoweldge before! The question can be asked, what does knowiedge mean, is it intellectual awareness, or is it intimacy? In that case sure, God can choose based in who He knew relationally, before the foundation of the world, but that is just Calvinist/Reformed thought anyway!

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:25 AM, enoob57 said:

You see in this reasoning we either agree with God that his created being was perfect or we call God a liar

That is just bizarre in my opinion. God made things perfect. There is no conflict with the idea that sin now exists. Either God allowed that to happen, or He failed to prevent it, not sure that is even a difference. God gave Adam a command. If Adam did not have free will, to go against God, then Adam could not have rebelled. Adam rebelled, therefore Adam had free will to choose to sin, rather than obey God. That in no way, makes God the author of sin. Indeed, God knew this would happen, that is why He had the substitutionary death of Christ already in mind, from before the foundation of the world. Jesus on the cross, was not 'plan B'.

There is something twisted in the minds of some, who want to make those who believe what the Bible teaches about election, predestination, free will, etc. into a thinking that those who beleive what God has said, are somehow accusing God of being a liar or the Author of sin.

I sure hope that is not what you are implying enoob, I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that I am just misunderstanding what you are try to say.

[Archangel Thyos]

proverbs 16:9

[enoob57]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:25 AM, enoob57 said:

What you think ? I prefer what God says

Isaiah 14:13 (KJV)

[13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.  

[15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

note the self assertion of his will, a will that began by created realities, that he was using over 'The Will' that was never created... this was the first error or begin of lie formed within himself that this could even be possible... this is why God says we are not to give place to him 

John 8:37 (KJV)

[37] I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

Ephesians 4:27 (KJV)

[27] Neither give place to the devil.

Added effort to clarify:
__________________________________________________________________________________________this below trying to further the understanding of what I wrote
This is what I think the pivotal point of the whole discussion rests upon... sin is not necessary or of God's purpose or of value but is essenced in lie and has no part in any form with God … Calvinism is deploying purpose of God toward satan and fall and the fact is it has no created purpose but that of the created trying to forge a way that simply doesn't exist {except} through lie- satan had no other way to be but as he was created to be and thus the first lie was there 'was another way'~ this the begin of lie formed within satan himself by self will! This is further understood below where I am trying to show why Calvinism is error for it demands The Sovereignty of God must implicate in purpose the fall of Lucifer... I contend that what satan chose he had to first form within himself 'the lie that he could be god' and this has no place in the eternities with God thus why God created hell as so stated by God here 

Matt 25:41

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
KJV
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The problem your making is that God could not create such a creature with this ability and not be implicated with it in Sovereign purpose! It is a way the created try to encompass God with their own abilities... Yet God has said it came out of Him by choice of his own will without substance of God through lie

Ezekiel 28:15 (KJV)

[15] Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

[16] By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

[17] Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

[18] Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

[19] All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

As the witness of God stands Lucifer was perfect in all his ways till sin was found within him.... the I wills above...
 

You see in this reasoning we either agree with God that his created being was perfect or we call God a liar...or worse we make sin a necessary thing in God's purposes! And this certainly would be a convoluted reasoning of the creature and not of God...  In Lucifer rebelling against his own perfection he asserted that which cannot be as though it were because he willed not to be as God had created him to be... that which is not and claims to be is what?
Love, Steven 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Was just re-reading this thread, and a lot of good and interesting things we said in it, but I guess I did not notice previously, what is quoted about, and it probably should have been addressed.

The idea that election is based on foreknowledge, I do not think is a Biblical idea. I know people point to:

   1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
      To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Nothing in that word "according" to, in English or in Greek, supposed that it is the basis of cause of election. According to me, enoob is a nice guy. Does that mean the I caused enoob to be a nice guy, or does it just mean that enoob is a nice guy, a.nd that is consistent with what I said.

There are lots of instances of "according to: in the Bible. When it was said: "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," does that mean that the scriptures caused Jesus to be buried, and to be raised on the third day?

I think there is plenty of wiggle room there to see, that those things happened, just as the scriptures said. Similary, those who were chosen were chosen in agreement with what God foreknew, He knew from before the foundation of the world:

 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 

Not only there do we see that we chose us, long before any of us could have a say in the matter, it also says that we were predestined. By the way, speaking of "according to" we have another one there, which say that we were predestined to adoption according to the kind intention of His will.

Also, why state that foreknowledge is undefined. The Bible is not a dictionary. There is nothing mysterious about the word. Foreknowledge means foreknowledge, do you wish it meant something else?

In Greek it is prognosis, pro before, gnosis knowledge, to have knoweldge before! 

The hermeneutic process is completely about taking the objective format of written material and delivering intent of the writ to the mind of the reader...
The scholarship of Calvinist even admits to the fact of predestination/election based off of foreknowledge https://www.gotquestions.org/predestination-foreknowledge.html
Then they try to go on to define foreknowledge to fit within their understandings... I believe what God hasn't revealed should be kept in the tension as it resides in the revealed Word of God... that is why I say The Foreknowledge of God is not defined in Scriptures by Scripture! Whether liked or not it is the hermeneutic fact of The Written Word!

 

 

Quote

You see in this reasoning we either agree with God that his created being was perfect or we call God a liar...

4 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

That is just bizarre in my opinion. God made things perfect. There is no conflict with the idea that sin now exists. Either God allowed that to happen, or He failed to prevent it, not sure that is even a difference. God gave Adam a command. If Adam did not have free will, to go against God, then Adam could not have rebelled. Adam rebelled, therefore Adam had free will to choose to sin, rather than obey God. That in no way, makes God the author of sin. Indeed, God knew this would happen, that is why He had the substitutionary death of Christ already in mind, from before the foundation of the world. Jesus on the cross, was not 'plan B'.

There is something twisted in the minds of some, who want to make those who believe what the Bible teaches about election, predestination, free will, etc. into a thinking that those who beleive what God has said, are somehow accusing God of being a liar or the Author of sin.

I sure hope that is not what you are implying enoob, I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that I am just misunderstanding what you are try to say.

This above generated by the quote statement above it... is saying that Calvinism tries to bind God to the reasoning ability of man in the effort to keep all his theological ducks in a row... however above (first post with further effort to make clear (in red) the place of proper waiting upon God to enlarge us) I am neither Calvinist or Armenian but I am striving to let God's Word be formed within me as God has written it.... 

Calvinism simply cannot stand within the testimony of Scripture itself:

Isa 46:10

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
KJV

This above the commentary of the Sovereign purpose of God from begin to end and all of it that "God does" is according to His pleasure...
 

Ezek 33:11

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
KJV
further reiterated here in the New Testament

2 Peter 3:9

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV

The fact that there is any displeasure at all with God destroys the Calvinistic build...

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by enoob57

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 9/27/2018 at 7:12 PM, enoob57 said:

The scholarship of Calvinist even admits to the fact of predestination/election based off of foreknowledge https://www.gotquestions.org/predestination-foreknowledge.html

Warning, this reply is going to be very long, and I do not expect many will read the whole thing, only those with keen interest will, and that is fine. I understand and cannot blame you. It is not intended for those who are not seriously interesting in these things, but I do not seem to be wired for short responses, for that I apologize ahead of time.

First off, let me say that I am not incline to use the term Calvinism. Calvinism, should be applied to all the works of Calvin, and that is a huge thing to consider. One should remember, that Calvin did not invent the TULIP, or the so call 5 points of Calvinism. Calvin was but one of many of the early reformers. I more readily consider reformation theology, and think that term is somewhat more fitting. The goal of the reformation, was to get back to the theology of the Bible, and to dispense with all of the things that the Roman Catholic church and the Church of England had added to Biblical Christianity.

I agree with that goal, and that is why I prefer the moniker of reformation theology to Calvinism. Same reason I am not a Lutheran. Calvin and Luther both had their flaws, made mistakes, and though I agree with a lot of what both had to say, I am not their disciple. My theology comes from the Bible. With regard to things like free will, predestination, election etc, the things that the "TULIP" address, I get my understanding from Jesus (as he is quoted in the gospels), John, Paul (in the book of Acts and in His epistles).

Because of this, there is really no reason to be discussing Calvinism here, Calvinism is not the topic of the thread. Interestingly though, you took it upon yourself to make that the topic, and as you see from what I quoted about, you then go on to cite a source, (not the Bible) to demonstrate that the scholarship of Calvinists, admits that predestination and election are based on foreknowledge. Got Questions is a fine site, but it is not an authority, it is just sort of a Wikipedia of Christians though, except that it is more selective about whose articles they publish. In their selectivity, the somewhat apply their own biases, and it just becomes a commentary with an agenda. I hate to say that about them, because they really are a good site and do great work. However, honesty dictates recognizing it for what it is. We could do the same thing using posts from Worthy, and just eliminate most of the posts we do not agree with, but then it would lose objectivity, and people could be mislead by our biases. I would also suggest by the way, that hermeneutics and exegesis, are lofty and useful fields, but be careful about thinking that they will necessarily lead you to a proper understanding. They are a science, as set of principles that help us to more consistently understand the Bible. However, the "rules" of these disciplines are not universal, and well intended people of God selectively choose to apply and ignore these rules as it suits their prejudices, just as people selectively choose certain passages of scripture while more or less ignoring others. You are guilty of it, and so am I, let's not fool ourselves. I have the principle I try to adhere to, and I think I am more or less successful at that, you and I might have different hermeneutic and exegetical notion that we think are useful. Some of mine are listed here.

What is more interesting though, is that you suggest that Got Questions shows that even Calvinists admit that these things are based in foreknowledge. It is possible that many Calvinists believe that. That does not mean that all do, that Calvin did, or that we should. The strange thing is though, that the article you cited says this in part:

Quote

Answer: Certainly, since God knows everything, it would have been possible for God to base His predestination and election of individuals upon His foreknowledge of the future. In fact, that is the exact position that many Christians believe, as it is the Arminian view of predestination. The problem is that it really is not what the Bible teaches about predestination, election, and foreknowledge. In order to understand why the view that “God made His choice based on merely knowing the future” is not what the Bible teaches, let’s first consider a couple of verses that speak to the reason God elected or predestined people to salvation.

That is the first paragraph of the article. it make these points:

• God COULD have based election on foreknowledge
• That is what many Christians believe and is what Arminians (not Calvinists) believe
• It is not what the Bible teaches

Oddly, those things are things I would agree with, but they contradict the very point you tried to make. Additionally, it goes on to point out that foreknowledge can mean that God knew us, and that is the basis, not that He knew what we would do in the future, as if that was the basis. One is based on God, the other is based on us. God is the one wholly in control of who will be saved, and does not consult us about it, are get our permission. We respond to Him if He has chosen us, hard to believe maybe, but I am glad He does choose some, since I perceive myself to be among than number. I love grace, but my appreciation and gratitude, is only all the more magnified now that I have come to understand that it was all His doing, not 99.9% with .1% from me, but 100% Him, thank you Jesus!

Now, pardon me Stephen, that I am saying a lot of things you no doubt already know, but much of what I write in my posts, are for the benefit of others who will come to read this post in the future, perhaps for years. So, I want to return for a moment to a bit of the history of the TULIP, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc, as not everyone knows what these things even are. Those of you who are not interested in knowing about, or already know about the origins of Calvinism, etc. may skip all this. It is off the the actual topic (free will).

Basically, from the time of the apostles, to the early 1500s, much of the church had lost her way. Martin Luther, was a Roman Catholic monk/scholar who was particularly grieved byt the churchs' practice of raising money,  buy selling 'indulgences'. The idea was that if you donated to the church, you could ransom your loved ones out of purgatory ( a sort of holding tank for sinners to be punished to pay for their own sins, who were not quite bad enough t go to Hell). One could even buy indulgences for oneself, to prepay your early release and get to heaven sooner after death.

Luther protested this practice and encouraged a return to the Bible as a source of doctrine and practice instead of the Bible and Papal decrees (things the Popes declare) and traditions of the church, as sources of authority about belief and practice.

Because this was a calling to reform the church, through protest, this started a movement we call the Protestant Reformation. Luther did not intend to create a rift in the church, he hope that the leadership of the church would repent, and get back on track, back to the Bible.

This was a thorn in the paw of the church, and it began to persecute those who agreed with Luthers' thinking. In spite of, and perhaps partially because of this persecution, the idea of reformation spread, as people ran to safer places. Luther himself, was branded a heretic, however, his ideas gained momentum, and spread across Europe. This is just a really quick summary, not at all exhaustive.

One of the places where this reformation was taking hold, was the Netherland. I left out details about a split withing this movement between those who were followers of Luther, and other protestants, as they are not important to what I am trying to work toward, and that is the origins of Calvinism and the T.U.L.I.P.

John Calvin was a Frenchman, he was sort of hiding out in Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva became a center of the protestant reformation. You might have heard of the Geneva Bible. A snippet from Wikipedis says of it:

Quote

The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years. It was the primary Bible of 16th-century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan, author of The Pilgrim's Progress (1678). It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower (Pilgrim Hall Museum has collected several Bibles of Mayflower passengers). 

It is also significant to note, that it was not just scripture, it was a study Bible, having notes and helps, very advanced in it's day. It was also, I think, the first book mass produced on a printing press, and that made it accessible to normal people, not just the rich or churches. Before that, Bibles were expensive, because they were copied by hand.

Getting this Bible into the hands of the common man, was important, as it allowed for ordinary people to serve as a check against the things taught in churches and by 'people of authority'.  Some of the notes in the Bible, were not friendly to certain ideas about church leadership and rule, that King James (you may have heard of him) did not like. As the "leader of the church" James authorized the creation of a version of the Bible for use in the churches under his realm, the so called authorized version. Nowadays, people usually call it the King James Version or the King James Bible.

Anyway, followers of John Calvin brought their beliefs to the Netherlands. There, after a time, it became the official releigion, so to speak, of that land. There was also a man named Jacobus Arminius. He was also there in the Netherlands and as a theologian, had his own thoughts, writings and teachings. There came to be a number of followers of his, who took exception to the teaching of John Calvin.

These followers of Arminius and those who now hold to what they believed, we call Arminians. Therefore, there are these two camps within protestant thought known as Calvinism and Arminianism. Some people, might for example, refer to themselves as 4 point Calvinists, if they agree with with 4 of the 5 points, they call Calvinism. To be accurate though, if one is 80% a Calvinist, one is not a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, but something else. Well get to the 5 points next.

As I said earlier, Calvin did not come up with the 5 points. To get to that topic, we need to look at what was going on in th Netherlands. Those who followed were the followers of the teaching of Arminius, came up with 5 things the objected to in the teaching of john Calvin. I should probably note that this occurred after the death of Arminius in the early 1600s,  and therefore the 5 objections are not the work of Arminius, but of some of his followers. they published what is know as the Five Articles of Remonstrance. 

Being that the teachings of Calvin were the basis of the majority of protestant thought and the official religion of the Netherlands, they were met with resistance. Eventually this lead to an international gathering of clergy (the Synod of Dort) to discuss and resolve the controversy. The ultimate result of this was that Arminianism was declared to be a heresy.

Meanwhile, certain followers of the thought of John Calvin, published their response to the 5 objections raised by the Arminian faction. It is a response to the 5 articles raised by the followers, of Arminius, that the certain counterpoints were written, later to be known by the acronym  T.U.L.I.P. that many now associate with Calvinism. That will be the subject of my next post here.