Predestination and foreknowledge

Some would look at the divine attributes and define the type of foreknowledge God has as a form of exhaustive foreknowledge that will lead them to take the extreme view to place that in a box which concludes that if He knew all things then He must have pre-determined all things. This view serves their systematic theology...


To me that is a small and limited view of God’s type of foreknowledge while being problematic in that if God pre-determined all things then that would unavoidably include evil. His attributes of Omnibenevolence, the genuineness of His offer of grace, the truth in His judgment, and many other things then come into question that would/or IMO should challenge the conclusion of this view of Exhaustive Determinism based on that view of Exhaustive Foreknowledge. If they are interested in avoiding Theological Fatalism they will then argue a form of compatibilism but in essence are merely trying to fallaciously claim that two logically mutually exclusive ideas can both true in order to maintain a Determinist Systematic Theology.



Others might agree that if God has that type of Exhaustive Foreknowledge that He would have to also have Exhaustive Pre-Determinism therefore they challenge the divine attribute of Exhaustive Foreknowledge by limiting His Omniscience to avoid the problem with Exhaustive Pre-Determinism that attributes evil to Him. They essentially agree to the box which places a conclusion of EF must = ED.


To me this view is concluding that God did not determine evil by insisting in limiting His knowledge to that He could not have foreknown all things. By doing so they maintain the other divine attributes such as Omnibenevolence but while taking the extreme view of sacrificing His Omniscient nature.


On the other hand, one might/IMO should conclude that God’s foreknowledge cannot be put into that box of EF must = ED by arguing that the “type” of knowledge He has does not limit Him to having to pre-determine all things nor does it prove pre-determinism of all things. The focus should be on the more important and IMO essential values of maintaining ALL the attributes Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence as the truth of God.

If you take this position you are then left with either the easy way out of calling it a mystery of how it works or accepting the challenge of defining the type of knowledge God has as exhaustive yet capable of not pre-determining all things which would logically include evil. IMO the focus turns to the attribute of God's Omnipotence in that God has a type of knowledge that is bigger than that box. Perhaps a middle type knowledge that allows Him to be God and to do all as a truth rather than to try to enforce one attribute in order to hold on to one's systematic theology, such as one centered on Strict Pre-Determinism, over another attribute.

To me letting God be God means arguing for a theology to uphold ALL His attributes and not sacrificing any, logically or otherwise maintaining ALL as truth.

.

 

Brother, I truly appreciate your sincere attempt(s) at trying to understand our position w/o going ad hominem on us. Kudos.

Now, God does save ppl based upon His foreknowledge. Where the lines get blurry in these debates/discussions is what each side believes the word 'foreknowledge' biblically conveys. If it merely means to just know beforehand, then we have God looking down through the corridors of time looking to find those who would receive Him, and He elected them accordingly. First off, this impugns His omniscience. If He had to look down through time to find them who would have faith, He learned something...if He learned something, then He is not omniscient. Now, if He saw they would have faith prior to Him choosing Him, then they possessed a fruit of the Spirit even whilst a sinner. There is not the same faiths. This 'faith is faith' is not correct. One can have faith in their spouse, but that is not the same faith it takes in saving of the soul. One is an innate faith(fallen man possesses this faith), and then there is saving faith, that which is a fruit of the Spirit, bestowed unto the sinner at the point of salvation.

Look at Noah. He found grace in the sight of God. Those who view foreknowledge as just merely God knowing beforehand, see God choosing Noah because he was a preacher of righteousness. They see God choosing Noah based upon the fact he was a righteous man and damning the rest because they weren't. When, in fact, Noah was not a righteous man until God had made him righteous before we even read one word about Noah. If God chose Noah and damned the rest of humanity based solely on the fact he was a preacher of righteousness, it would not be of grace but merit...which is not even remotely close to grace. The only reason why Noah was righteous and the rest were not was not because of anything that Noah did, but what God did unto Noah.

 

Good.

First off, none will ever, of their own will, choose God. Romans 3 plainly lays that out. If God does not take an active role in saving sinners, none would be saved. It all stems from the heart(heart here means the soul, the spirit of man). Man, as a fallen creation, has a heart that hates all things God. They would rather die than bow the knee to Him. I have been a lab tech for almost 16 years now, and I have seen ppl in their last days that never gave God the first thought. Unless God had taken an active role in both of our lives Brother SW, we'd still be lost. God doesn't start saving someone by going so far and then allowing them to choose Him. He goes all the way in saving sinners.

In the free will schema, God does so much and then the lost, fallen creation, does the rest. It this schema, salvation is not all of God, but God doing His part and them doing theirs. It is no more than a 'handshake deal'. In our view, we see man as dead, unable to reach for anything the gospel conveys unto them. It is when God quickens the dead in sins sinner unto life that they can reach out and take hold of the gospel, that which is able to save the soul.

I will let Brother TC answer this for himself.

 

I agree this is a touchy subject and words tend to blur. What I meant was that man, left to himself, would never seek God. It is only after God first draws them that they truly seek Him.

 

I can see this 'to me' belief as a Romans 9:19-21 type o'guy. Sheesh!!

 

I know the thread is a few months old, but I know the answer(s) to SapperWoody's dilemma. There's so much contention because:

1) both "sides" have developed a philosophical viewpoint which trumps scripture. No Sola Scriptura in this debate. That's why there are so many comments like "you want to be in control"..."your god created sin"..."that makes men puppets"..."you hate a sovereign God"

In essence, the whole debate is done in the flesh. By both "sides"

2) both "sides" in the debate are wrong in their paradigm. Election is not in the context of who believes the gospel, who gets saved from hell, or who ends up in heaven. Election and Predestination are related to being the recipients if an inheritance - a possession.

3) both "sides" wrongly think that there's a choice to make. That's why so much of this awful debate also centers around whether or not faith precedes regeneration. One says we have "free will" to believe...? ? ? huh ? ? ?
The other says God superimposes a new heart in us, so that now we can choose Him...? ? ? huh...? ? ?

It's not humanly possible to decide to believe something. Ever..
And faith isn't anywhere related to choosing "Him".

Faith is being fully assured that what God has promised, He is able also to perform. Fully convinced. And no amount of deciding can convince a man of truth. Our eyes are opened and we see.

4) what little scripture is used in this senseless debate, each "side" only uses half of those which are wrongly perceived as pertaining to the issue.