Predestination and Foreknowledge

Felipe, thank you so much for pointing people to Molinism. Of the various explanations of God's foreknowledge, I think that Molinism, or something close to it, is the one most likely to be true. Because the Bible does not give much detail about God's foreknowledge, I think that any explanation of it should be given humbly. But for those interested in studying this topic, I agree with your advice that they would benefit by studying Molinism.

For those not familiar with it, here is my own very brief and simple (perhaps almost overly simple) explanation of Molinism:

God created people with true free will (sometimes called libertarian free will).

However, God can see into the future and He knows what we will freely choose to do. Not only that, but God can see what we would freely choose to do in any possible scenario or in any world He might create. God then uses this knowledge to create the best possible world, the world where His loving plans are achieved in the best possible way.

If this is true, than predestination is based on this foreknowledge. God knows who would accept Him under certain circumstances and God makes a plan to make sure those people do experience those circumstances and actually are saved.

I've read some of Craig's material on Molinism, and I agree that it is very helpful.

I haven't read Geisler's book, but I just added it to my Amazon wish list (which is quite long, so many books, so little time.)

I agree that Molinism is a way to explain predestination while not taking away human free will, including specifically libertarian free will (which is a fancy name for what most people think of when they think of free will).

Yes, I agree that it one of several common logical errors I see among Calvinists.

Yes, but let's stay humble. I think Molinism is a very good explanation, but I don't think there is enough evidence in Scripture to treat it as a certain truth.

 

It might help contribute to this discussion if you can explain a little bit more what you mean.

What specific views do you believe are wrong and why?

It's easy to just assert that a view is wrong, but I hope that in this discussion people will be willing to reason with us from the Scriptures, following the example of the Apostle Paul:

ESV Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

 

Whoa . . . we can continue to discuss the effects of the fall, the meaning of predestination and foreknowledge, and free will, but I feel like you have (unintentionally) misrepresented me when you imply I believe "God's love means no real judgment".

I believe the unrighteous will be resurrected to face judgment. They will be judged and paid back fully for all their sins. And the result will finally be their "eternal destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9). It is a very real and terrifying judgment.

 

Thanks for clarifying your view on this issue. I believe that you have expressed a common view among Calvinists (at least among those who have studied these issues).

First, notice that the Bible does not explicitly state anywhere that "God decreed that the fall would occur." If the Bible did explicitly state that I would believe it despite the very difficult questions it raises. And it does raise difficult questions!

It seems to me that, according to normal Calvinist teaching, God ordained the fall to occur in such a way that Adam and Even had not ability to avoid it. Yet they are held responsible.

Not only that, as a result of the fall, which neither they nor their descendants had any power to prevent, all people are born in sin and are completely helpless to change their situation. Some of these people God chooses to save by giving them faith in a way that they cannot resist. The rest of the people, who did not choose to exist and could not help sinning and who had absolutely no ability whatsoever to accept God's salvation, God then judges for their sin. Most Calvinists believe that judgment will involve these people, who never had a chance, being tortured forever.

Can you see why many people, including myself, feel that Calvinist teaching wrongly gives God a bad name. The Bible says:

NIV 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

I believe that this verse, and many others that teach the same truth, means that God is completely separate from all evil. But it appears to me that Calvinist teaching logically leads to the conclusion that God planned evil, caused evil to happen that people had no ability to prevent, and then tortures them forever for the evil that He, who had the power to stop it, ordained.

That doesn't sound anything at all like the God of the Bible.

 

You are referring here to robocop3's statement:

"But I do NOT believe He predestinated anyone for hell, with no chance for salvation."

It seems to me that a number of well-known Calvinists that most would view as "mainstream, normal, standard Calvinists" believe that God predestines some to Hell, a doctrine called "double predestination" or "reprobation" (I'm sure you know what it's called, I share this for others who may be reading).

For example Wayne Grudem defends reprobation on pages 684-687 of his Systematic Theology book.

The Desiring God website explains the John Piper, perhaps the most well-known Calvinist on the planet today, believes in double predestination:

The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. (from What Does Piper Mean when He Says He's a Seven Point Calvinist).
​

The website which represents the "teaching ministry of R.C. Sproul" also has an article explaining and defending reprobation.

It seems to me that "double predestination" is actually a normal, common, teaching among popular, top Calvinist teachers.

But even if this wasn't true, what real difference is there between God predestining some people to go to Hell, and God only predestining some to go receive eternal life knowing that the others will certainly, without any doubt at all, go to Hell?

 

The Bible does not explicitly teach either what you call "full free will" (also called libertarian free will), nor does it explicitly teach the Calvinist version of "free will" (which is also called "compatibilist free will"). However, I believe there are is evidence from both the Bible and reason that God gave us "full free will" so that we could love in the way He wants us to love. I explain this in this post:

Does Love Require Free Will?

 

What "terms" are you referring to? What are my specific errors concerning my understanding of Calvinism?