Is The Foreknowledge of God Same As His Fore Causing?

That is what some Calvinists openly assert. Other Calvinists say that is not Calvinism, that is Hype-Calvinism. But the Westminister Confess says God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. So the Hypers read "ordains" as meaning "predestines" which is exhaustive determinism. Other Calvinists say that is not what they believe, but are vague about how they see it, using terms like secondary causes and mumbo jumbo.

Here is how Loraine Boettner described the Calvinist position of some,

"What God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case, be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained; and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is also. Foreordination renders the events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain."

 

Can any Calvinist demostrate why Boettner is wrong?

 

Foreknowledge doesn't equal determination. Given the atemporality of God perspective is what is intended behind the idea of foreknowledge. Simply because God sees all events in history from creation through consummation doesn't require Him to be causing the events to occur.

 

This agrees with Boettner, foreknowledge presupposes the future is certain. My question does any Calvinist have an answer to his position that all Calvinists are exhaustive determinists.

 

The concept of divine omniscience is an infinite characteristic and should not be subject to human finite logic and speculation. For example, some might argue, "if God foreknew everything before creating it, then he MUST have predetermined everything." This argument presupposes a linear concept of time and space by invoking the word "before." This type of speculation leads to gross misinterpretations and misapplications of scripture.

Take for instance the intent in Satan's heart to "become like God." If God always knew of this evil intent then it existed in the mind of God for eternity and thus must have originated there. But, we know from scripture that God is not the origin of evil, nor does he even tempt man to evil. How could one suggest then that evil originated in the mind of God? If it didn't originate in created beings then it must have originated in God, right?

 

No, it is right.

 

Nothing can exist apart from God's power and plan and purpose.

Explain how it can come to pass apart from those things if you think otherwise.

Scripture is clear- BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST, and OF HIM AND THROUGH HIM AND TO HIM ARE ALL THINGS!

 

Based on two responses, can we conclude: (1) all the Calvinists posting on BB are hyper-Calvinists openly asserting exhaustive determinism or (2) the Calvinists posting on BB are unwilling to defend their doctrinal differences with the exhaustive determinists?

 

if God does not set them how does He see them? Is He looking down through history?

 

I would agree in part. Certainly nothing can exist apart from God's power and while everything will be used for his purpose not everything is planned (ordained, predestined) by God.

 

I was just about to write the same thing. :thumbs:

Luke, whether he knows it or admits it or not, is a exhaustive determinist. So is Aaron and a few others, I think. This is why they often accuse me of not understanding Calvinism. I didn't smoke their particular brand.

 

preachinjesus,

re: "Simply because God sees all events in history from creation through consummation doesn't require Him to be causing the events to occur."
　
But even if He doesn’t cause events, if the supreme being has any input into the creation of a person, and if this supreme being knows beforehand that he will eventually be tossing the person into the lake of fire, why create the person in the first place?

 

That is a viable question to ask and one where we can look to places like Romans 9 for answers. But, it is a far DIFFERENT question than whether or not God causes/determines him to be unbelieving. Affirming the difficulty of this question doesn't remove or excuse the much more difficult question put to those who affirm the deterministic position. Make sense?

 

I would like to point out...that you would go crazy had one of us posted something like this about you...like:

"Skandelon, whether he knows it or admits it or not, is a Pelagian (or semi-Pelagian). So is __________ and a few others, I think."

Now, for the record, I am not calling your a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian. I am merely using this as an example. Since you and others so vehemently hate it when we accuse you of something you deny being, you, at the very least, could "do unto others."

The Archangel

 

Yeah, because that isn't true of me. After reading all that Luke and Aaron have argued do you deny that they are hard determinists? I don't see them objecting...and as Van was pointing out, Luke did affirm the claims of a determinists, didn't he?

I totally agree. And if I'm wrong about what they believe then they need to deny it and show how I've misinterpreted what they have said, just as I have had to do countless times when I was accused of being Pelagian. It seems to me however that they are hard determinists and proud of it. Do you think they deny that?

 

We can conclude that you and skandelon do not seem to grasp the meanings of and differences of the following attributes of God;

This is compliments of AW PINK...

 

Yet another evasion, off topic. Unbiblical Omniscience, God knows everything imaginable, supports unbiblical exhaustive determinism.

Proving "A" and asserting "B" has been proved. God knows, or can know, the hearts of those He creates. This supports God knows everything He has chosen to know, not that God has chosen to know everything imaginable.

Next a misrepresentation, not agreeing the the Calvinist view means the alternate view strips God of omniscience. Asserting an unbiblical view as the only view of Omniscience is errant.

Acts 15:18 says God makes things known from long ago. Thus what He declares such as a Prophet saying something will happen in the future, He brings about, He fulfills.

James 1:17 says God keeps His word so what He declares He does not turn away from.

The Bible certainly tells us what God has declared concerning future events such as God wins, and Satan suffers eternal torment. Those God puts in Christ have eternal life, and those whose names are not written in theLamb's book of Lift are tossed into the lake of Fire.

Does God elect because He foreknows them, a conditional election argument by a Calvinist, or does He foreknow those He elects because His redemption plan corporately elected whoever Christ redeems?

The fact is "foreknowledge" is always used to refer to actions and circumstances, and not people. The NASB has "foreknowledge in two verses, Acts 2:23 which refers to Christ being delivered up according to God's predetermined plan and foreknowledge, and 1 Peter 1:2 which indicates that "chosen aliens" who reside throughout the area are in that condition or circumstance "according to the foreknowledge of God."

Final point, Mr. Pink assert position of exhaustive determinism, not one Calvinist posting of BB has indicated where they have an actual difference with exhaustive determinism. Thus all 5 point Calvinists hold the unbiblical view of exhaustive determinism, and support that view avoiding meaning discussion supported from scripture.

 

I haven't read the thread...but that really isn't the point, and I suspect you understood that.

The point is this--you (and many others) bristle strongly at labels being applied to you that you don't specifically claim for yourself. Whether the label is true or not is not the issue.

And, since you don't like certain labels being applied to you--whether you happen to object or not--to apply certain labels to others--whether they happen to object or not--is not "doing unto others..."

Why is the burden of proof on the one denying? You would not accept that burden for yourself if I was to, say, label you as an Open Theist. No, having seen your interaction for a long time, you would put the burden on the one making the charge--as you have done numerous times. (For the record, I am not calling you an Open Theist)

So, it would seem--in the land of Skandelon--that the burden is placed upon anyone who is not you.

Again, with the labels, "do unto others..." If you don't appreciate being labeled a Pelagian, an Open Theist, a Heretic, etc., just assume other people won't appreciate being labeled a Hyper-Calvinist, a Hard-Determinist, etc.

After all, that is the meaning of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is it not? The meaning is not "do unto others until they deny what you call them;" The meaning is not "do unto others as they have done unto you." Therefore, take the text, Christian, and do as the text says--assume since you don't like labels, others won't like them either.

Now, all of us--myself most certainly included and myself most certainly foremost--need this corrective.

Blessings,

The Archangel