Predestination: Meaning and Application

[Jarthur001]

Now you sound more open theistic. I'm sorry...I'm having a hard time grasping exactly what you believe.

It seems to me He is saying....

1) Going by This statement..."God elects because He knows who will believe."
Then this means God also knows who will not.

2) God knows the very names of those that Believe.
God also knows the very names of those who do not believe.

3) God Knows at creation the elect
God Knew at creation the damned.

4) God made the elect.
God made the damn.


Why did God make the damn if He knew they would not believe?


One way or another it goes back to God.

One way we give God the glory for electing.
The other way we deny God the glory by saying He did not have control.

Both ways..God does it.

 

[npetreley]

I don't believe I am interpreting it any different. The phrase "God meant it" in light of God's omniscience makes perfect sense to me. He already knew the sin man commits...and uses it for His glory. This is what I believe "I meant it" means.

Okay, maybe we're seeing it pretty much the same way, then. I think you're simply looking at it as God's permissive will, which is the same way I see it, too. I dont' want to bicker about words, but it still means "planned". God knows how to communicate. If God wanted to communicate to us that He only permits sin, then surely He would have had Joseph say, "You meant it for evil, but God permitted it for good", or even "You meant it for evil, but God used it for good". But those two phrases would have communicated that God did not have complete control over the situation. He simply saw what might happen and approved of this and that.

I don't think it's an accident that the verse says "God meant it for good". I think that verse is worded specifically to communicate that God means things like this to happen according to His good purpose. This is the same as when God says that He works all things together (including the evil that people do) for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. Is He using the evil? Yes. Is it because He permits it? Yes. But He couldn't work it together for good unless it happens -- which means God must also plan to permit it. I think that's what you're saying when you refer to His omniscience. But it is no less of a plan just because He PLANS to permit it.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

It seems you and I agree on more than I do with any of the other Calvinist. I thank you for your answers on the questions also for your answers confirm what I believe. Now we do differ whether man has the choice or God chooses for him [This is a point I have repeatedly tried to make: I do not differ with you on the freewill of man to make choices]. I believe in a God that give all men the same choice and if someone goes to hell it is at his own hands [This pertains to the nature of how God condemns not how he elects]. That is why I believe God gave man a choice of good or evil and God knows that choice before we are born or even before the world [With that knowledge God not chance sets into motion the eventual outcome]. The belief does not come before the conditions God set out for Salvation. What I believe about God going ahead and creating even though He knew before hand that some are lost is no different than what the Calvinist believe in that God chooses to change some so they have faith and chooses not to change the others so then they go to hell and God knows they are going there [At least we agree on this]. This discussion has been most civil and I thank you.

I don't understand the part of having it both ways [You cannot have God knowing and decreeing alongside God knowing and but not decreeing. He either knows prior to creation and sets in motion the outcome or he is like the rest of us and waiting to see who does and does not make it]. Those going to hell are going at their own disbelief [That pertains to how they are condemned and I am not in disagreement] and not God being partial and choosing some to be the elect and letting the others not have a chance [This is where there is an apparent inconsistency with your view. God is also partial in your view if he knew the ones who would believe and still created with the knowledge that not everyone would believe]. At least the way I believe they all had the same chance [Bob even you do not believe all have a chance. Does everyone hear the gospel? How do the ones who never heard the gospel have a chance?].

There is a great difference in God creating man and giving all a choice know some would choose evil and be lost than a God creating man to go to hell without ever having a choice not to go [Yes, there is a great difference in the two God's you suggest: One knows the future and set into motion the events that lead to that future and the other is dependent on man for his outcome and therefore attributes a meritorious role in salvation over which he certainly is not sovereign]. amen,

We are making progress even if we do not agree, because at least we better understand one another...

 

[Benjamin]

Is there a serious Bible student who will disagree that this explicitly teaches that God is directing or decreeing his will in calling the elect?

Depends on the bases of what one considers His will.

IN OTHER WORDS, by having knowledge prior to creation God is effectively decreeing the elect according to his will if he has foreknowledge.

This would depend on what God’s knowledge consists of within the truth of His nature as revealed in the Word.

If God had so chosen he could have set up a created order with or without baptisttheologian altogether, much less with or without a saved one, but for reasons that are beyond me…

How could good exist if there were nothing in comparison? If God had only created a world of one that creature could have easily been only good but I’m glad He did make Eve considering the alternative.

Correct me where I am wrong about your view, but if I have it correct then let me make ask you a few questions? If God knew prior to setting the created order into motion who would and would not believe and yet he still set the world into motion, did he not allow that those who would not believe would be destroyed?

I think the truth is that God allowed evil to exist as a truth of the very nature that He created in a purpose for us to have been created in His likeness and image with a free will.

Now the only legitimate question that is in play here in my estimation pertains to the nature of freewill. As I have stated I do not believe that God violates human freewill in accomplishing his decrees.

I would agree God does not violate free will, so I guess we have a major dilemma when simple math seems to not logically add up.

The point I am making is that Bob does not want to sign off on predestination because he believes that it is not true to who God is, inasmuch as he does not believe that God would create someone to destroy them for his pleasure.

I think Bob has the right idea about the truth of God’s nature:
(Eze 33:11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Let me offer you this, either God has foreknowledge and the distinction is his or he is waiting to find out who will and will not be saved just like the rest of us, but you cannot have it both ways. Bob I do not doubt your sincerity, but you can be sincere and be sincerely wrong.

How confusing of a concept is that while being honest when the Word reveals God’s knowledge in the way it does.

An open theist would not allow that God has foreknowledge. Try to read what I have written and think about it for a period of time before you respond. That may help some because these concepts are not easily understood nor do I claim to have perfect understanding. But if you have an uncertainty then ask away and I will do my best to expound the truth as I see it...

I don’t think you’re an open theist. Although I’m not necessarily sure they all hold to not allowing foreknowledge or I should say at least in part theorizing a “dynamic omniscience”.

Bet you're a good chess player, eh?

 

[Brother Bob]

There is a great difference in God creating man and giving all a choice know some would choose evil and be lost than a God creating man to go to hell without ever having a choice not to go [Yes, there is a great difference in the two God's you suggest: One knows the future and set into motion the events that lead to that future and the other is dependent on man for his outcome and therefore attributes a meritorious role in salvation over which he certainly is not sovereign]. amen,

If God chose to make man that way, He is Sovereign

 

[Skandelon]

It says "God meant it". How can you possibly interpret that to mean anything other than the fact that God planned it?

I think you need to better define your terms. Even Calvinists wouldn't say God "authored" or "forced" sin, but some would take "planning" as the same meaning. It seems you two are debating about phrases you have yet to define making this discussion even more difficult.

I think the problem you're having with this concept is that you can't see how God can plan for men to sin of their own will.

Maybe you can't see how God can plan out His will without having to cause, create, make or in any other way determine man's sinful choices. I believe God is big enough to bring about his purposes without in anyway being associated with the cause of the sin used in bringing those purposes to pass, don't you?

It says that Joseph's brothers MEANT IT FOR EVIL. They did it of their own will, and they are 100% responsible for doing it. But they didn't do it in a vacuum. They did it according to God's plan, which He laid out before the beginning of time.

You say "they did it of their own will," but once again you fail to define what you mean by "will." If you are like most compatiblists you believe that a choice to act is free if it is made based on what an agent desires to do, but an indeterminists believes a choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom). That is the real point of contention here.

 

[Brother Bob]

and not God being partial and choosing some to be the elect and letting the others not have a chance [This is where there is an apparent inconsistency with your view. God is also partial in your view if he knew the ones who would believe and still created with the knowledge that not everyone would believe]. At least the way I believe they all had the same chance [Bob even you do not believe all have a chance. Does everyone hear the gospel? How do the ones who never heard the gospel have a chance?].

The difference between Calvinism and what I believe is that Man either chose good or he chose evil and God didn't do it for him.

Have all heared the Gospel?
What is the Gospel, its the Power of God unto Salvation.
Scripture says "go ye not from house to house saying know ye the Lord for they shall all know me from the least unto the greatest".

We are no longer under the Law and the natural "High Preist", but we have an angel flying in Heaven having the everylasting Gospel to preach to them that do dwell upon the earth, amen,

Do you think for one minute that God does not touch the heart of every man that has ever been born, even Jezebell.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Depends on the bases of what one considers His will.



This would depend on what God’s knowledge consists of within the truth of His nature as revealed in the Word.



How could good exist if there were nothing in comparison? If God had only created a world of one that creature could have easily been only good but I’m glad He did make Eve considering the alternative.



I think the truth is that God allowed evil to exist as a truth of the very nature that He created in a purpose for us to have been created in His likeness and image with a free will.



I would agree God does not violate free will, so I guess we have a major dilemma when simple math seems to not logically add up.



I think Bob has the right idea about the truth of God’s nature:
(Eze 33:11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?



How confusing of a concept is that while being honest when the Word reveals God’s knowledge in the way it does.



I don’t think you’re an open theist. Although I’m not necessarily sure they all hold to not allowing foreknowledge or I should say at least in part theorizing a “dynamic omniscience”.

Bet you're a good chess player, eh?

Welcome aboard! After reading your comments, I have to tell you that I am still wanting to hear more from your point of view. Actually the "dynamic omnisciences" of the open theist is nothing more than a bipolar view of God's foreknowledge. Much of what free will theists teach smacks of a type of Panentheism.

Whether or not I am good in chess is certainly debatable, but I can tell you that on an international level I would be nothing more than a rank amateur.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

The difference between Calvinism and what I believe is that Man either chose good or he chose evil and God didn't do it for him.

Have all heared the Gospel?
What is the Gospel, its the Power of God unto Salvation.
Scripture says "go ye not from house to house saying know ye the Lord for they shall all know me from the least unto the greatest".

We are no longer under the Law and the natural "High Preist", but we have an angel flying in Heaven having the everylasting Gospel to preach to them that do dwell upon the earth, amen,

Do you think for one minute that God does not touch the heart of every man that has ever been born, even Jezebell.

Bob,

You really did not answer the question: "Does everyone hear the gospel? How do the ones who never heard the gospel have a chance?"

Are you suggesting that everyone on the face of the earth has heard the gospel? What about everyone prior to Jesus?

If it is as you suggest that God touches the hearts of individuals mystically without human preaching, that is a whole different deck of cards. Wow! Are you sure you want to go there? So why are you a preacher and why send missionaries to China? I thought that we actually needed to preach the gospel in order for the new birth to occur?

I view the gospel of Jesus Christ, see John 3:16, as indispensable for conversion to Christ. Evidently you do not....

 

[Brother Bob]

Salvation is between man and God. I can't save anyone and neither can you.
Why? Does He say, I stand at the door and knock and if any man will hear my voice I will come in and sup with him and he with me.

You fail to give God credit for the power He actually does have. According to Calvinist, and I think that is what you profess to be, the "elect" is chosen by God before the world began so you have less meaning in the two legged preacher than I do.

There is a purpose in the preacher but it is not essential for Salvation. Don't you know that in the jungles of Africa and other places they know there is a higher being, they know not to take you brother's wife, they know not to steal. I know they don't do it all the time but something has taught these people something and even so before the coming of Christ the Scripture says their conscious is a law unto them. God is amazing when it comes to His creation. You know Adam ran and hid after he had sinned. It was something inside telling him he was in trouble. There is a Spirit in man the inspiration of God Almighty that teacheth him right from wrong. Also, The Grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching them to deny ungodliness and worldly lust. I think it would have to teach man what those things were in order to teach him not to do them don't you? You don't believe man is just turned free without a conscious do you?

The conscious worked in olden times why not now?

 

[epistemaniac]

Bob, I will try and rephrase the issue in different ways, I know I and several others have had trouble getting this point across and it seems as if progress may have been made in this thread in this regard….. the question for you and all Arminians (or just plain `ole Bible believing Christians or whatever you want to call yourself) is simple:

Does God know the future exhaustively (EF) or not?

Put simply, the EF view says (and the majority of all Christians has always said), that God perfectly knew all that would ever happen in this world before it was ever created, every last detail of it….. thus, if God knows ever single detail of what would ever happen, among those “details” God also knew who would place their trust in Him for salvation before the foundation of the world, before any one or anything was ever created......

Further, since (if) God is omniscient, EF or not, He would also know what sets of circumstances would need to entail in order for any one single person to place their faith in Him for salvation. So a person's salvation has to always be traced back to the will of God. And since He is also omnipotent, He could bring/have brought the set of circumstances necessary for any one single individual to believe to pass, if He so willed. Yet, as we see, God has apparently decided to create a world where some will be saved and others will not. So apparently in one sense God wills the salvation of all, yet, in another sense, He must not, because if He really "willed" something to happen, it would in fact happen. The only way around this is to say that something in the universe can thwart God's ultimate will.

(to the Open Theists: God must also be “clever” enough to do this without violating their free will).

Historically both Calvinists and classic Arminianism have affirmed EF.... and if this is the case concerning the extent of God's knowledge, then manifestly it is also the case that God allows human beings to come into existence that He knew full well would never believe, IOW, even though He knew they would suffer an eternity in hell.

If indeed God has EF and all of the events that would ever take place are known to God, that if all of reality is “fixed” or “settled”, Open Theists say that man cannot be free. For instance, if God knew from all of eternity that I would be writing this post right now, then how could I have ever been free to either write this post or not write it? It seems, according to Open Theists anyway, that I must not be free if God knew in the EF sense that I would be writing this post right now.

Much more seriously then the issue of writing this post, God also knew from before all creation that I would exist and whether or not I (or anyone else) would savingly believe. Since I have placed my faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation, and God knew this from before the foundation of the world, how could I have ever been free to have done otherwise?

Open Theists answer these sorts of questions by saying that in order to preserve (libertarian) free will, (which is, according to them a priori, the only definition of free will that they will allow), God must not…. cannot…. know what the future holds in every detail, and, most importantly, He cannot know specifically who would ever place their faith in Him. As a matter of fact,if the Open Theist view is correct, the number of things God does nto know is incredibly high, for how many outcomes are the result of what humans do with their "free will"? And really, what is the most important aspect of this creation? It's the relationship between God and man. Yet if God does not know the details of this interaction until after it occurs, it is easy to see that God is ignorant of a great many things, and all the most important things.

As an aside, if God did/does not possess EF, it must also be the case that it was possible that no one would have ever believed savingly, ie Christ’s death on the Cross would not have ever actually saved anyone. Thus JI Packer quipped “Christ died for everyone in general and no one in particular.” Sad.

Anyways…. So Bob, the question is this: If it is the case that from all eternity God knew (EF) that I would write this post at exactly this time, could I have ever done otherwise? Please answer yes or no.

So too, if it is the case that God knew from all eternity that I would place my faith in Him for salvation, could I have ever done otherwise? Please answer yes or no.

Now, ask the same question of yourself, did God know from before the foundation of the world that you would be saved? If so, then was it possible for you to have not ever believed savingly? Yes or no.....

(Remember now, in the ordinary course of events, of course faith needs to be exercised, individuals must believe, no one is denying that, and that is not the issue here Bob. Try and limit the discussion just to what it is that God knows or doesn’t know.)

I (and Open Theists) believe that Classic Arminianism is wrong/logically inconsistent in saying that "God looks into the future and sees who will believe, and based on that knowledge, that is who He elects". God, if He has EF, does not need to "look into the future" as if He is some crystal ball gazer, if EF is true God has always known the future exhaustively and perfectly in every detail. Arminianism tries to have their cake and eat it too by trying to affirm EF and yet that man is free in the libertarian sense. If EF is true, then the specific individuals who would eventually make up the company of heaven was settled prior to creation. God would have always known exactly who would and who would not be saved. If EF is true, then some type of determinism in regard to predestination must follow. The only way around this is to deny EF.

If God does not know the future EF, you will have to close rank and agree with the Open Theists and say that God has voluntarily limited His omniscience to only include the present and past (though supposedly God does know some things He will do no matter what) due to His wanting to have a creation with individuals with (libertarian) free will. Thus, He decided to not know the future exhaustively and He has to wait and see what His creatures will do as far as their salvation is concerned, He never knows who will be saved until they are saved. This view maintains that God is really surprised at what actually happens and even that He is mistaken at times.

In the end Bob (and for everyone else), your/our options are really just 2, either God knows the future perfectly EF, or He does not. What do you say? Which one is true?

So once again:

Does God know the future exhaustively or not? How you answer this question will lead to what you must believe about predestination.

blessings

 

[saturneptune]

Ken,
Hope that is the right name. Agree with your post except for one point. Asking the question "does God know the future?" is kind of a mute point since God is outside time. The future is His creation, so not sure He looks at it in that context. However, God of course knows all that there is or ever will be, since He created it all.

Good ole Jarthur,
See you managed to get another thread closed. Have you ever considered going over to the Arminian side?

 

[Brother Bob]

Anyways…. So Bob, the question is this: If it is the case that from all eternity God knew (EF) that I would write this post at exactly this time, could I have ever done otherwise? Please answer yes or no.

Let me try to take these one at a time. I don't like long posts for you lose your sense of what is being said.
My belief is not that God knew before anything existed that you would write this post. My veiw is that God sees all at once with out the restraints of time and sees you write it before the foundation of the world, He sees you write it now, He even sees you write it in the end of time for He is all in all and looks and sees all. You keep getting hung up on me believing that God looks forward in time and sees these things but that is not my belief. I believe He just looks and sees you do it without the restraints of time. Do you understand what I am saying or not?

In the end Bob (and for everyone else), your/our options are really just 2, either God knows the future perfectly EF, or He does not. What do you say? Which one is true?

So once again:

Does God know the future exhaustively or not? How you answer this question will lead to what you must believe about predestination.

I saw this and will try to answer it also and then go back and look at the rest of your post.
Does God know the future. The future is for man and when God interacts with man then the future means something to Him but God sees all at once. There is no future when he is "timeless". All he has to do is see. That is why when you ask your question of predestination you are looking at the answer now. I hope I am clear for some say I am being dishonest and my life is serving the Lord and if I did something dishonest I would cry all night long to the Lord to forgive me. My whole being is for the Lord. He has brought me through 2 open heart surgeries, 2 corotery surgeries, double hyneria surgeries. I been cut all too pieces and still praise my Lord for what I have left so please don’t accuse me of being dishonest for it hurts me to the core. Bless,raying:

Yes, God knows all. He is everlasting to everlasting.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Salvation is between man and God. I can't save anyone and neither can you.
Why? Does He say, I stand at the door and knock and if any man will hear my voice I will come in and sup with him and he with me.

You fail to give God credit for the power He actually does have. According to Calvinist, and I think that is what you profess to be, the "elect" is chosen by God before the world began so you have less meaning in the two legged preacher than I do.

There is a purpose in the preacher but it is not essential for Salvation. Don't you know that in the jungles of Africa and other places they know there is a higher being, they know not to take you brother's wife, they know not to steal. I know they don't do it all the time but something has taught these people something and even so before the coming of Christ the Scripture says their conscious is a law unto them. God is amazing when it comes to His creation. You know Adam ran and hid after he had sinned. It was something inside telling him he was in trouble. There is a Spirit in man the inspiration of God Almighty that teacheth him right from wrong. Also, The Grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching them to deny ungodliness and worldly lust. I think it would have to teach man what those things were in order to teach him not to do them don't you? You don't believe man is just turned free without a conscious do you?

The conscious worked in olden times why not now?

What you are referring to is called general revelation. General revelation is enough to convict the conscious but it not enough to offer salvation. Special revelation is what is necessary in order to come to faith in Christ.

READ ROMANS 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

[Skandelon]

Epistemanic,

I affirm EF but deny Calvinistic doctrine and the compatabilistic (soft deterministic) views you have expressed for a number of reasons.

First, your logic is flawed. You have taken two independent truths that we know about God (that he foreknows all choices and that he has created all matter) and have used your own finite logic to draw a conclusion that scripture itself never draws about an infinite matter.

Our human understanding of what is logical does not necessarily define, prove or validate infinite matters. For example, there are many mysterious concepts in scripture which stir up questions about how God deals with men within time and space (i.e. Immanence) yet exists separate from and not limited by time and space (i.e. Transcendence).

Can we draw concrete logical conclusions about how an infinite God governs a finite world? I ask because when doing so I notice how your logical contructs uses words which necessitate sequencing of events or thoughts and thus imply causality. But can we really sequence the infinite? How do you put a linear, causal order to a timeless concept?

For example, you have argued that if God foreknows something "PRIOR" to creating it then He must have determined it do be. But this logic is based upon sequencing God's knowing, God's determinations and God's act of creating thus attempting to remove the mysterious nature of infinite transcendent realm. Can we really draw hard conclusions based upon our linear way of thinking? Aren't there some things that must be left to mystery?

Second, what point is there in scripture revealing God's simple foreknowledge of an event if in fact God has actually determined that event?

Your arguments seem to assume that God's simple foreknowledge of an event is equal to his determiniation of it, and if that is so why would scripture bother even speaking of God's simple foreknowledge of such things? If you were writing a report in the newspaper about a car accident and you knew that someone had determined to cause that accident prior to its happening wouldn't you report it as being "determined" by that individual and not merely "foreknown" by him? Knowing something is going to happen before it happens is much different from determining something to happen before it happens, so why would an author of scripture reveal that God has done the former while believing that the latter was actually the case? If the scripture wanted us to believe God has determined all things rather than merely knowing all things then I believe it would have said so plain and simple. The fact that God is revealed has having simple EF proves that EF of a choice or event is possible without ED (eternal determiniation) of that choice or event. Make sense?

 

[Brother Bob]

What you are referring to is called general revelation. General revelation is enough to convict the conscious but it not enough to offer salvation. Special revelation is what is necessary in order to come to faith in Christ.

Those who live by the Law shall perish by the Law if they perish. The same is true of the conscious.
Of course if people have what we do then they need to hear the Gospel but there are places where if they were trying to get somewhere to hear the Gospel they would be put to death. I truly believe that God is able to reach anyone He wants. I used to wrestle with the question of no preachers in the jungles but now I leave it in the hands of God and try to reach the ones I can. I think when the Bible says Judge not lest ye be judge and another, who art thou oh man that judge another man's servant tells me I can't judge anyone worthy or unworthy of eternal life. I can judge the fruits but can't see the inside and know for sure why the fruits are what they are but I know someone who can.

I always try to remember "who am I?"

What you are referring to is called general revelation. General revelation is enough to convict the conscious but it not enough to offer salvation. Special revelation is what is necessary in order to come to faith in Christ.

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Don't belong to me.

 

[Brother Bob]

Your arguments seem to assume that God's simple foreknowledge of an event is equal to his determiniation of it, and if that is so why would scripture bother even speaking of God's simple foreknowledge of such things? If you were writing a report in the newspaper about a car accident and you knew that someone had determined to cause that accident prior to its happening wouldn't you report it as being "determined" by that individual and not merely "foreknown" by him? Knowing something is going to happen before it happens is much different from determining something to happen before it happens, so why would an author of scripture reveal that God has done the former while believing that the latter was actually the case? If the scripture wanted us to believe God has determined all things rather than merely knowing all things then I believe it would have said so plain and simple. The fact that God is revealed has having simple EF proves that EF of a choice or event is possible without ED (eternal determiniation) of that choice or event. Make sense?

Makes good sense to me Skandelon;

 

[Jarthur001]

Good ole Jarthur,
See you managed to get another thread closed. Have you ever considered going over to the Arminian side?

?? What is the meaning of this post?

The 1st of its kind on this thread​

 

[Benjamin]

The Calvinist view wants to trace back a person’s salvation to the will of God while thwarting His Word of His will when He declares that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So what does one conclude that God created something against His Own will; I think not, He allowed it just as He allowed free will. The order of predestination comes after foreknowledge as written in the Word, to change the order is a false doctrine.

Always wanting a yes or no attempting to put God in a theoretical box of EF while still declaring compatibility with free will and at the same time hypocritically trying to brand others as Open theist for maintaining free will. Nothing but rhetoric!

Calvinists want to limit options using EF not realizing the options they have put on their selves that they then must deny God’s true nature, contend with the POE, disregard God’s instructions pertaining to the Gospel, and distort creation as God designed it all for the sake of proclaiming a false doctrine with a thwarted view of predestination.

Part of God’s creation was time which is a tool for Him to interact with His creatures; time does exist as a truth of His creation. Yes, finite logic fails against the truths in God’s Word and it is hard for some to admit that.

The understanding of time pertaining to God is beyond man’s comprehension yet we are being told to try to limit the discussion to what God knows. GIVE ME A BREAK!

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Epistemanic,

I affirm EF but deny Calvinistic doctrine and the compatabilistic (soft deterministic) views you have expressed for a number of reasons.

First, your logic is flawed. You have taken two independent truths that we know about God (that he foreknows all choices and that he has created all matter) and have used your own finite logic to draw a conclusion that scripture itself never draws about an infinite matter.

Our human understanding of what is logical does not necessarily define, prove or validate infinite matters. For example, there are many mysterious concepts in scripture which stir up questions about how God deals with men within time and space (i.e. Immanence) yet exists separate from and not limited by time and space (i.e. Transcendence).

Can we draw concrete logical conclusions about how an infinite God governs a finite world? I ask because when doing so I notice how your logical contructs uses words which necessitate sequencing of events or thoughts and thus imply causality. But can we really sequence the infinite? How do you put a linear, causal order to a timeless concept?

For example, you have argued that if God foreknows something "PRIOR" to creating it then He must have determined it do be. But this logic is based upon sequencing God's knowing, God's determinations and God's act of creating thus attempting to remove the mysterious nature of infinite transcendent realm. Can we really draw hard conclusions based upon our linear way of thinking? Aren't there some things that must be left to mystery?

Second, what point is there in scripture revealing God's simple foreknowledge of an event if in fact God has actually determined that event?

Your arguments seem to assume that God's simple foreknowledge of an event is equal to his determiniation of it, and if that is so why would scripture bother even speaking of God's simple foreknowledge of such things? If you were writing a report in the newspaper about a car accident and you knew that someone had determined to cause that accident prior to its happening wouldn't you report it as being "determined" by that individual and not merely "foreknown" by him? Knowing something is going to happen before it happens is much different from determining something to happen before it happens, so why would an author of scripture reveal that God has done the former while believing that the latter was actually the case? If the scripture wanted us to believe God has determined all things rather than merely knowing all things then I believe it would have said so plain and simple. The fact that God is revealed has having simple EF proves that EF of a choice or event is possible without ED (eternal determiniation) of that choice or event. Make sense?

Welcome to the discussion. Let me ask you a few questions in order to better understand what you are saying. How could God have created a world with foreknowledge and done so in such a manner than he does not have determination in the outcome of the created order? It is as if you want to say that God initially created the world without an eventual outcome at its outset and only knows the outcome due to his omnisciences and omnipresences. So for what you and Bob espouse to be truth God would have had to place a self imposed neutrality to his work of creation. He must have uniquely created each individual with the same potential and the same opportunity only to say, "Hey I really hope it works out for you and I am going to save as many of you as I can..." That is what the open theist call the God who risks. Your view of God places God in a position as reactive and not proactive to creation. In other words like with Bob your view of God has God dependent on man for salvation. So when it is all said and done, is God going to wish more people got saved than actually did? Will there be some people in hell that God will say they could have been here with us in heaven? More importantly what determines how someone is conditioned to hear the gospel? Genetics? Circumstances? Geography? Chance? Or even worse having to rely on the good nature of others to share the gospel with them?

I would submit to you that God is not reactive but proactive in accomplishing the salvation of the elect. Why? because God is sovereign and not dependent on man to do anything. We are saved by grace through faith and not of yourself, ie not a work. If salvation is open and available to a universal group of unknown individuals and if God elects based on the response of the individuals then those individuals merit salvation for having believed. That would be a works based salvation or a meritorious system.

That is why in 1 John 4:19 states: "19 We love because he first loved us."
John 6:44 states it another way: "44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

God is author and originator of salvation and not man.

Acts 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

What does it mean to author life?

He created each individual that exists. For your view to hold true God would have had to done that without having any effect on their predisposition to the gospel and without having any bearing on their proximity in time and space in order to hear the gospel. You're asking God to basically take himself out of the equation altogether and trust in the ability of man to do it for him. God does not violate human freewill but recognizes the limitation of humanity and he has mercy on humanity. If it were not for the work of Jesus on behalf of man no one would be saved. Therefore the fact that anyone comes to salvation at all is an outright miracle to be solely attributed to God.