Calvinism is antithetical to Christology in multiple ways. For example, a book can be written on how Calvinism misrepresent what is Biblically encapsulated for one to be positioned "in Christ" and therefore to be justified, predestined, known by God, elected onto salvation, etc... In this thread, I'd like to concentrate on the popular question concerning man's "free will". Calvinists adamantly scream that there is no such thing as free will. Let's take a moment here and ask ourselves how should we best approach this subject? Should we do what Calvinists do which is to bypass Christology and focus in on their philosophical and rational opinions? Or should we appeal to Christ's Life and see how He handled his human and divine wills? Obviously let's appeal to Christology, which is an afterthought in Calvinist apologetics.
Let's start with Jesus' declaration of freedom that awaits all believers:
John 8:36 Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
So since each and everyone of us are composed of mind, heart, and will then all of those components will be set free by the Son of God.
But free in what sense and how does that fit in with the fact that Christ has both a human will and a divine will? In John 6:38, Christ exhibits what it truly means to possess a human free will through the many times he synergistically aligned his human will with his divine will. In similar fashion, we need to align our will to God's will, through God's Grace of course, for us to truly possess the free will to do good.
John 6:38 For I came down from Heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me.
Calvinists, on the other hand disregard Christology and attempt to philosophically reduce man down from human beings to human wills. Our human will is one of many faculties that God has graced us with as humans. We possess faculties of mind, heart, conscience, volition, etc... and each one has its own unquestionable importance. We are human beings, not human willings. As such our will should be placed alongside everything else that makes us human and not to overwhelm what it means to be human.
Ah- but you sit with a problem now
Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh_6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Freewill?
6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him" God always takes the initiative (cf. John 6:65 and 15:16).
All spiritual decisions are the result of the wooing of the Spirit, not mankind's religiosity (cf. Isa. 53:6). God's sovereignty and a mandated human response are inseparably linked together by the will and mercy of God. This is the OT concept of covenant.
The balance to this "drawing of God" is found in John 12:32 where Jesus "draws all men to Himself." This drawing reverses the OT pattern of God's people not responding to His prophetic word (examples: Isa. 6:9-13; 29:13; Jeremiah). God now speaks, not through prophets to Israel, but through His Son to all mankind (cf. Heb. 1:1-3).
PREDESTINATION (CALVINISM) VS. HUMAN FREE WILL (ARMINIANISM)
Titus 2:11 is a balance to other NT passages on election. I thought it might be theologically helpful to provide my commentary notes from Romans 8:29 and chapter 9, as well as Ephesians 1.
I. Romans 8:29 – Paul uses "foreknew" (proginōskō, "to know before") twice, here and 11:2. In 11:2 it refers to God's covenant love for Israel before time began. Remember that the term "know" in Hebrew related to intimate, personal relationship, not to facts about someone (cf. Gen. 4:1; Jer. 1:5). Here it was included in a chain of eternal events (cf. Rom. 8:29-30). This term was linked with predestination. However, it must be stated that God's foreknowledge is not the basis of election because if that were so, then election would be based on fallen humanity's future response, which would be human performance. This term is also found in Acts 26:5; 1 Pet. 1:2,20 and 2 Pet. 3:17.
A. "foreknew" (proginōskō, "to know before")
The terms "foreknow" and "predestine" are both compounds with the preposition "before" and, therefore, should be translated "to know before," "to set bounds before," or "mark off before." The definitive passages on predestination in the NT are Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:13-14; and Romans 9. These texts obviously stress that God is sovereign. He is in total control of all things. There is a preset divine plan being worked out in time. However, this plan is not arbitrary or selective. It is based, not only on God's sovereignty and foreknowledge, but on His unchanging character of love, mercy, and undeserved grace. See Special Topic: YHWH's Eternal Redemptive Plan.
We must be careful of our western (American) individualism or our evangelical zeal coloring this wonderful truth. We must also guard against being polarized into the historical, theological conflicts between Augustine versus Pelegius or Calvinism versus Arminianism.
B. "predestined" (proorizō, "to set the bounds before")
Predestination is not a doctrine meant to limit God's love, grace, and mercy nor to exclude some from the gospel. It is meant to strengthen believers by molding their worldview. God is for all mankind (cf. John 1:12; 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2; 4:14). God is in control of all things. Who or what can separate us from Him (cf. Rom. 8:31-39)? God views all history as present; humans are time bound. Our perspective and mental abilities are limited. There is no contradiction between God's sovereignty and mankind's free will. It is a covenantal structure. This is another example of truth given in dialectical tension. Biblical doctrines are presented from different perspectives. They often appear paradoxical. The truth is a balance between the seemingly opposite pairs. We must not remove the tension by picking one of the truths. We must not isolate any biblical truth into a compartment by itself.
It is also important to add that the goal of election is not only heaven when we die, but Christlikeness now (cf. Rom. 8:29-30; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:4; 2:10; 4:13; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:3; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:15). We were chosen to be "holy and blameless." God chooses to change us so that others may see the change and respond by faith to God in Christ. Predestination is not a personal privilege, but a covenantal responsibility. This is the major truth of the passage. This is the goal of Christianity. Holiness is God's will for every believer. God's election is to Christlikeness (cf. Eph. 1:4), not a special standing. The image of God, which was given to man in creation (cf. Gen. 1:26; 5:1,3; 9:6), is to be restored.
C. "conformed to the image of His Son"—God's ultimate goal is the restoration of the image lost in the Fall. Believers are foreordained to Christlikeness (cf. Eph. 1:4).
II. Romans 9
A. Romans 9 is one of the strongest NT passages on God's sovereignty (the other being Eph. 1:3-14), while chapter 10 states humans' free will clearly and repeatedly (cf. "everyone" Rom. 9:4; "whosoever" 9:11,13; "all" 9:12 [twice]). Paul never tries to reconcile this theological tension. They are both true! Most Bible doctrines are presented in paradoxical or dialectical pairs. Most systems of theology are logical half-truths. Augustinianism and Calvinism versus semi-Pelegianism and Arminianism have elements of truth and error. Biblical tension between doctrines is preferable to a proof-texted, dogmatic, rational, theological system that forces the Bible onto a preconceived interpretive grid.
B. This same truth (found in Rom. 9:23) is stated in Rom. 8:29-30 and Eph. 1:4,11. This chapter is the strongest expression of God's sovereignty in the NT. There can be no dispute that God is in total charge of creation and redemption. This great truth should never be softened or diminished. However, it must be balanced with God's choice of covenant as a means of relating to human creation, made in His image. It is surely true that some OT covenants, like Genesis 15, are unconditional and do not relate at all to human response, but other covenants are conditioned on human response (e.g., Eden, Noah, Moses, David). God has a plan of redemption for His creation; no human can affect this plan. God has chosen to allow individuals to participate in His plans. This opportunity for participation is a theological tension between sovereignty (Romans 9) and human free will (Romans 10).
It is not appropriate to select one biblical emphasis and ignore another. There is tension between doctrines because eastern people present truth in dialectical or tension-filled pairs. Doctrines must be held in relationship to other doctrines. Truth is a mosaic of truths.