Predestination and Foreknowledge

[Iconoclast]

Starting with a wrong view of the fall,wrong understanding of biblical predestination,and a wrong view of biblical foreknowledge ....you will not come to truth as this thread demonstrates.
Now you have the usual suspects offering 2 pet3:9,jh1:12 and other such verses built on a foundation of sand.

 

[Mark Corbett]

In my opinion, the best way to understand God's Foreknowledge and Predestination is to understand it through what is called Molinism.

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.

A modern molinist today is William Lane Craig who teaches this position very well, and in my opinion is the biblical way of explaining God's Foreknowledge.

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

Another guy is is Norman Geisler who wrote the book Chose But Free explaining how God predestined us while not taking away ANY human free will at all.

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).

I personal believe that where the Calvinist fails is on the assumption that God HAS TO predestine something in order for Him to foreknow it. I think that is bad logic not taught in scripture.

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

Molinism is a great way to explain that God knows all possibilities and that He knows what would, could and will be in any universe, time, and circumstance imaginable.

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.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Starting with a wrong view of the fall,wrong understanding of biblical predestination,and a wrong view of biblical foreknowledge ....you will not come to truth as this thread demonstrates.
Now you have the usual suspects offering 2 pet3:9,jh1:12 and other such verses built on a foundation of sand.

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,

 

[Felipe Rios]

Completl

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.

I completely agree with all your statements. Thank for your comments!

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you believe God predestined Adam to and Eve to commit the first sin and fall? This is an honest question. I think (but I'm not sure) that most knowledgeable Calvinists do include Adam and Eve's fall in what is predestined.

God decreed that the fall would occur, and that the Messiah was to fix that Fall, but Adam and Eve were still guilty for their personal sinning!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for sharing some thoughts. This may seem like a minor point, and it is admittedly only tangentially related to our main topic, but is bothers me when people speak of Hell as being something people choose. It's true that their choice to reject God's truth results in their being cast into Hell, but that's not the same thing. A person's choice to smoke may lead to cancer, but no once wants cancer. A person's rejection of the gospel leads to hell, but no one wants hell. The Bible depicts people on judgment day as wanting to receive the gift of eternal life in God's Kingdom, but being rejected. You probably agree with this, and I may just be reacting to a nuance of your wording.



I don't think that it is wrong to say that in some ways God has a special love for His children that goes even beyond the love He has for those who "are yet sinners". But I'm concerned about the love He has for sinners, described here:

NIV Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

God did not wait until I became His child to start loving me. And how much love does He have for sinner? An amazing amount. So much that He sent Christ to die for us.

Also, if God does not sacrificially love those who do not love Him, than His command to us would be strange and even hypocritical:

NIV Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.

In this same context, Jesus tells us that God does in fact have this love even for the ungrateful and wicked.

NIV Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

I don't see how Calvinism can be consistent with God's kind love to the ungrateful and wicked. Can you explain this?

God is just with those that continue to blow Him off, and refuse to receive Jesus to save them, for he causes many of them to prosper in this life, and to have healthy, and the "good things" of just living. correct? he could just sentence all sinners to have heart attacks right now and be just in that!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Big error here is that there exists NO true free will, apart from the One that God alone has!

 

[Yeshua1]

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,

You are mistaken on the effects of the Fall, on what predestination/Foreknowledge means per the scriptures, and especially in areas of God love means no real judgement, and that you assume full free will !

 

[robycop3]

I believe God predestinated certain people for special service to Him, such as Moses, Jeremiah, & Paul. But I do NOT believe He predestinated anyone for hell, with no chance for salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe God predestinated certain people for special service to Him, such as Moses, Jeremiah, & Paul. But I do NOT believe He predestinated anyone for hell, with no chance for salvation.

I hold that predestination refers to just the elect, as the remainder lost sinners God ordained will go to Hell, as he grants them that desire to go there!

 

[Mark Corbett]

You are mistaken on the effects of the Fall, on what predestination/Foreknowledge means per the scriptures, and especially in areas of God love means no real judgement, and that you assume full free will !

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Nor do Calvinists. That is a Hyper-Calvinist position.

 

[Mark Corbett]

God decreed that the fall would occur, and that the Messiah was to fix that Fall, but Adam and Eve were still guilty for their personal sinning!

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.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Nor do Calvinists. That is a Hyper-Calvinist position.

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?

 

[TCassidy]

It seems to me that a number of well-known Calvinists

I don't care what "well-known Calvinists" think.

would view as "mainstream, normal, standard Calvinists"

Not by anyone who actually knows what the Canons of Dordt actually say.

believe that God predestines some to Hell

And wrongly so.

Read the Canons of Dordt.

Article 8 - A Single Decision of Election

There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament, since the scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which he has chosen us from eternity, both to grace and glory, to salvation and the way of salvation, in which he has ordained that we should walk.

 

[Mark Corbett]

You are mistaken. . . you assume full free will !

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

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?

Free will does not exist.You have not understand Calvinism. You have not explained those terms as Calvinists do.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Free will does not exist.You have not understand Calvinism. You have not explained those terms as Calvinists do.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, it does seem arbitrary to me. If one arbitrarily chooses which flavor ice cream to eat, that's just fine. But it's hard for me to understand how anyone who is good could arbitrarily choose to save some if He could have saved all.

Indeed.

In 1 John 2:2 "he is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"
In Rom 2:11 "God is not partial"

Thus as you say - He not only "can" save everyone -- but Christ died on the cross providing the payment of sin-debt for the whole world. And of course "God is not partial". So as you say - why does He not snap the fingers and program all the robots to say "we do accept the Gospel"? Having done everything .. the result is "not everyone saved" -- indeed only the "few" of Matthew 7 and not the "many" of Matthew 7.

Only one reason for that... free will

I can see a good explanation for how God wills that all come to repentance, yet many do not, under a non-Calvinist understanding. Calvinist attempts to reconcile this verse with Calvinism have never seem to succeed to me.

Exactly!

Recall that the Protestant argument against Catholicism's purgatory and indulgences has always been "if the Pope ever had the ability to remit/forgive sins of those in purgatory why does he not do it right now - give them all a plenary indulgence... end the torment and suffering in purgatory for all".

The Calvinist argument is that the saved/not-saved outcome is not based on the sinner who accepts or does not accept the Gospel -- but on God who wills that some get saved and does not so-will for others EVEN though God goes through all the pain and suffering to be the "Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and NOT for OUR sins only - but for the sins of the Whole World"

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, but the problem is that left just our own sinful natures, we would always choose not to come!

How nice for us then that

"If I be lifted up I will DRAW ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32
"The Spirit convicts THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16

How nice that even Calvinists freely admit that the DRAWING of God enables all the "choice" that depravity "disables".