Is Everything Predestined?

[Michael Wrenn]

Which in other words means "Did God create Lucifer and Adam to sin?"

I say a resounding no!!!!

God created man with the intent of having fellowship with man. Man messed thast up, not God.

Did God know beforehand that man would mess up? Absolutely.

God created time, so I am sure He is not confined by time.

In the end, when lucifer is locked up in Hell forever, and the New Jeruselum descends from heaven, God's will will finally come to pass, and He will dwell on Earth with fellowship with man.

And God knows this because God is here now, He is in the past, and He is in the future

John

I agree with you.

If that is true, then God gives his sentient beings free will. Now I know that Calvinists will say man's free will was lost in The Fall, but I see no evidence of that. Weakened yes, but not lost. Man thus needs help in coming to God, and that's where I believe in what Wesley called prevenient grace, and the Quakers called the Light of Christ. In no way does God predestine, compel or force people to come to Him or stay faithful to Him; it is not His nature. God's nature is freedom, and he endowed his sentient creatures with freedom.

Calvinism casts a dark shadow over the character of God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with you.

If that is true, then God gives his sentient beings free will. Now I know that Calvinists will say man's free will was lost in The Fall, but I see no evidence of that. Weakened yes, but not lost. Man thus needs help in coming to God, and that's where I believe in what Wesley called prevenient grace, and the Quakers called the Light of Christ. In no way does God predestine, compel or force people to come to Him or stay faithful to Him; it is not His nature. God's nature is freedom, and he endowed his sentient creatures with freedom.

Calvinism casts a dark shadow over the character of God.

REALLY? You feel that way from your lofty vantage point do you? :laugh: Of course , your wrong & all you do is cast your own gloomy pale over Christian brethren all over the world ....but then again....ahhh forget it

 

[Michael Wrenn]

[/COLOR][/B]

REALLY? You feel that way from your lofty vantage point do you? :laugh: Of course , your wrong & all you do is cast your own gloomy pale over Christian brethren all over the world ....but then again....ahhh forget it

Of course, I am right; Stevie Wonder could see that.

Freedom is not gloomy; it is glorious and a glorious reflection of the character of God.

Calvinist fatalistic determinism is what's gloomy. It makes humans puppets and God a puppetmaster.

God's character did not change after The Fall from what it was before The Fall. And God did not perform a spiritual lobotomy on man after The Fall and remove man's will.

 

[12strings]

Well, I havent read everything that every Christian wrote down.

Forgive me for not being a "wise" Christian

John

John,

I apologize for the jab. It was uncalled for.

I was simply trying to respond to your post in which you seemed to be saying that since John Owen was not a biblical writer, then we have nothing to learn from him. If that was not was not the intent of your post, then I misread it.

If that is what you were saying, however... the point of my response is that it would be, in my opinion, an error to disregard the teaching or writing of all men other than Paul or Jesus.

However, I did intentionally word my post in such a way as to call your wisdom into question, which was mean-spirited. I hope you can forgive me.

-andy

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course, I am right; Stevie Wonder could see that.

Freedom is not gloomy; it is glorious and a glorious reflection of the character of God.

Calvinist fatalistic determinism is what's gloomy. It makes humans puppets and God a puppetmaster.

God's character did not change after The Fall from what it was before The Fall. And God did not perform a spiritual lobotomy on man after The Fall and remove man's will.

Then your completely ignorant of it....sorry if that appears like a jab, it isn't. Personally, you really need to go back & study it because you are missing soooo much....may I suggest the book, "The Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice. Its a good read & will explain much. You should seek to understand instead of criticize.

 

[Van]

Everything is Not Predestined

"The Arminian objection against foreordination bears with equal force against the foreknowledge of God.
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." Chapter 6, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

"Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His
knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a
locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago. The Arminian doctrine, in rejecting
foreordination, rejects the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be
foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined."

The Reformed view, the Calvinistic view, as held by Boettner is that everything is predestined, thus making God the author of sin.

But since God is not the author of sin, the Bible teaches open theism to a limited degree.

The issue is not that God doesn't predestined future events, He does, the issue is the extrapolation that says God predestines everything. The issue is not that God doesn't know the future. He does, the issue is the extrapolation that says God has chosen to know the future exhaustively, making him, according to finite reasoning, the author of sin, which He is not.

But we do know, from John 3:11 that the gospel is understandable to our finite minds, and the Bible points to a way out, as unorthodox as it may be.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Then your completely ignorant of it....sorry if that appears like a jab, it isn't. Personally, you really need to go back & study it because you are missing soooo much....may I suggest the book, "The Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice. Its a good read & will explain much. You should seek to understand instead of criticize.

Oh, I do understand -- perfectly. And that's why I criticize.

 

[12strings]

His view is God has exhaustive knowledge of a future that he claims exists, but cannot support this view from scripture. He says God can know the future but that does not fix the future. He does not explain how anything other than what God knows will happen, can happen, and therefore the future is exhaustively predestined, making God the author of sin.

Bottom line, logical necessity requires that both Calvinisms incomprehensible doctrine, everything is predestined but God is not the author of sin, and the Arminianisms incomprehensible doctrine, God's exhaustive knowledge of the future does not predestine the future be dismissed.

Van, you have yet to show WHY it is logically necessary that if God knows something will happen in the future, then he has necessarily CAUSED it to happen. You have not proven that Foreknowledge necessarily equates to Predestination. You have stated that one means the other, but you have not proven your statement.

 

[Skandelon]

Van, you have yet to show WHY it is logically necessary that if God knows something will happen in the future, then he has necessarily CAUSED it to happen. You have not proven that Foreknowledge necessarily equates to Predestination. You have stated that one means the other, but you have not proven your statement.

:applause:

Van wrote, "He [Skandelon] says God can know the future but that does not fix the future."

Van ASSUMES that foreknowledge = predestination which begs the question. If this is the case why does scripture employee both words? If there is no distinction in God foreknowing something and His predetermination of something (which is what he is claiming) then why even mention God's foreknowledge? Is there ANYTHING God merely foreknows in a world where everything is actually predestined? Of course not.

Why not just say that God knows everything and has actively predetermined some things and leave the rest to mystery? Why must we assume from our finite perspective that God's full knowledge MUST equal a 'fixed' or 'predestined' worldview? As explained in another post I think the 'eternal now' view of God's knowledge is a better theory than the linear concept of God looking down the corridors of time like a fortune teller. There are too many causal finite logical constructs hindering us from fully comprehending how God knows and creates. Why speculate?

 

[Van]

Care for a game of dodge ball?

Here is what I wrote:The Reformed view, the Calvinistic view, as held by Boettner is that everything is predestined, thus making God the author of sin.

But since God is not the author of sin, the Bible teaches open theism to a limited degree.

The issue is not that God doesn't predestined future events, He does, the issue is the extrapolation that says God predestines everything. The issue is not that God doesn't know the future. He does, the issue is the extrapolation that says God has chosen to know the future exhaustively, making him, according to finite reasoning, the author of sin, which He is not.

But we do know, from John 3:11 that the gospel is understandable to our finite minds, and the Bible points to a way out, as unorthodox as it may be.

Now rather than addressing the issue, I get more questions, shifting the topic from the viewpoint of Arminianism and Calvinism to my views.

 

[Van]

Hi 12 Strings, did you read what Boettner wrote, we are not talking about my view, but about the view of Calvinism. He addressed why he believes knowing what will happen in the future puts it on rails that only go one place called predestination.

 

[12strings]

Hi 12 Strings, did you read what Boettner wrote, we are not talking about my view, but about the view of Calvinism. He addressed why he believes knowing what will happen in the future puts it on rails that only go one place called predestination.

I did read your quotes from Boettner, and while I concede that to be a common Calvinistic view, it is not the ONLY calvinistic view. The other would be that God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and knew I would sin, but did not predestine us to sin. Based on the knowledge that every person would turn away from him and that none would choose him, He Chose some to overcome their rebellious wills and turn them back to himself.

Niether Boettner nor you explains why foreknowledge must equal Predestining. He seems to take it as a given, just as you do.

 

[12strings]

Here is what I wrote:The Reformed view, the Calvinistic view, as held by Boettner is that everything is predestined, thus making God the author of sin.

-It seems the point of this is to avoid blaming God for sin...But what about God planning the murder of his own son? were those men sinning...was God the "author" of that sin? It certainly was his idea. If God ordains some great evil in order to bring greater good from it, then we as his created beings with limited understanding cannot say he has sinned.

But since God is not the author of sin, the Bible teaches open theism to a limited degree.

- It only teaches Open theism if we accept: (1) your original premise that foreknowledge equals Predestining & (2) that everything is NOT foreordained. Neither of these has yet been proven.

The issue is not that God doesn't predestined future events, He does, the issue is the extrapolation that says God predestines everything. The issue is not that God doesn't know the future. He does, the issue is the extrapolation that says God has chosen to know the future exhaustively, making him, according to finite reasoning, the author of sin, which He is not.

-Here you have effectively saved God from being the determining factor for sin, but instead made him out to be something of a willfully ignorant Father who refuses to investigate suspicious behavior of his children: If God CAN know the future, but has not "chosen to know the future exhaustivly"...then he could have known about Adam's sin, and the child molestations, and the murders...but CHOSE not to know about them, and therefore not to prevent them. Then he is more like a Dad who knows his 14-yr old daughter MIGHT go to bed with her boyfriend tonight, probably even has the desire to and is very likely to, but since he is not sure does nothing to stop it.
-I fail to see how this solves any of the problems surrounding the existance of evil. Why is this option better than saying God knew about everything we would do, and "worked it together for good"?

But we do know, from John 3:11 that the gospel is understandable to our finite minds, and the Bible points to a way out, as unorthodox as it may be.

John3:11 - Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
(Jesus is speaking here)

-I don't see how this verse says what you say it says, or how it is pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Amy.G]

Like I keep saying, you can't figure out God.

 

[seekingthetruth]

[/COLOR][/B]

REALLY? You feel that way from your lofty vantage point do you? :laugh: Of course , your wrong & all you do is cast your own gloomy pale over Christian brethren all over the world ....but then again....ahhh forget it

Sometimes, you are so nasty

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

John,

I apologize for the jab. It was uncalled for.

I was simply trying to respond to your post in which you seemed to be saying that since John Owen was not a biblical writer, then we have nothing to learn from him. If that was not was not the intent of your post, then I misread it.

If that is what you were saying, however... the point of my response is that it would be, in my opinion, an error to disregard the teaching or writing of all men other than Paul or Jesus.

However, I did intentionally word my post in such a way as to call your wisdom into question, which was mean-spirited. I hope you can forgive me.

-andy

I am sorry that i am not famliar with the book of "John Owen"

Is it really necessary to read other books by modern authors to understand the Bible?

John

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sometimes, you are so nasty

John

John....must be my free will acting out! raying:

 

[seekingthetruth]

John....must be my free will acting out! raying:

Also, you really need to study the difference between "your" and "you're"

It is quite different.

As is the phrase "I couln't care less" and "I could care less"

Look them up, it will help you not look so stupid.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

John....must be my free will acting out! raying:

And yes, you are nasty because you choose to be, not because God predestined it

John

 

[12strings]

I am sorry that i am not famliar with the book of "John Owen"

Is it really necessary to read other books by modern authors to understand the Bible?

John

You don't have to be familiar with him or any other particular person, but Sometimes modern and not-so modern writers can give us insight into scriptures by pointing out things we might have missed, or by drawing our attention to things we may have overlooked, or reminding us of things we had not thought of in a while...all things preachers also do.