BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: journeyman on December 03, 2021, 09:42:34 AM
-
Predestination is God determining before. What did God determine and before what?
God decided before creation that people who choose to believe in bim would be forgiven of their sins and made in his image,
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Rom.8:29-30
God calls everyone, but only those who believe are chosen.
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Mt.22:14
-
Predestination is God determining before. What did God determine and before what?
God decided before creation that people who choose to believe in bim would be forgiven of their sins and made in his image,
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Rom.8:29-30
God calls everyone, but only those who believe are chosen.
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Mt.22:14
My own view is that God was determined to have X number of children to fill the earth with His own image. Not what we have today, but what He intends for us to be.
Since God's word is true, and cannot be thwarted, God had in mind a fix in the event we, as free moral agents, fail to fulfill our mission properly. And so, redemption was factored into the plan, even before we failed.
I put it this way because I do not believe God is schizophrenic, and determined, in advance that Man fail. He just had a backup plan in the event things did not initially go well.
-
My own view is that God was determined to have X number of children to fill the earth with His own image. Not what we have today, but what He intends for us to be.
Since God's word is true, and cannot be thwarted, God had in mind a fix in the event we, as free moral agents, fail to fulfill our mission properly. And so, redemption was factored into the plan, even before we failed.
I put it this way because I do not believe God is schizophrenic, and determined, in advance that Man fail. He just had a backup plan in the event things did not initially go well.
God wouldn't need a backup plan. God determined that people would be saved by calling to them and justifying any who heed his call. Those who reject his call are destined for damnation. God predetermined the way of salvation.
-
My own view is that God was determined to have X number of children to fill the earth with His own image. Not what we have today, but what He intends for us to be.
Since God's word is true, and cannot be thwarted, God had in mind a fix in the event we, as free moral agents, fail to fulfill our mission properly. And so, redemption was factored into the plan, even before we failed.
I put it this way because I do not believe God is schizophrenic, and determined, in advance that Man fail. He just had a backup plan in the event things did not initially go well.
God wouldn't need a backup plan. God determined that people would be saved by calling to them and justifying any who heed his call. Those who reject his call are destined for damnation. God predetermined the way of salvation.
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would God plan, in advance, to not deal with the eventuality of Man's failure? And why would God plan for Man to fail, in which case He would not be dealing with us in good faith?
-
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would God plan, in advance, to not deal with the eventuality of Man's failure?
I just said God did plan in advance to deal with the eventuality of mans failure. He decided this from before the beginning of creation,
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph.1:4
Paul doesn't mean arbitrarily. He means anyone who comes to faith in Jesus is chosen.
And why would God plan for Man to fail, in which case He would not be dealing with us in good faith?
People who reject the word of God plan for failure,
There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand. Pro.19:21
God's plan for people is to know him,
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Jer.29:11
-
I just said God did plan in advance to deal with the eventuality of mans failure. He decided this from before the beginning of creation,
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph.1:4
You said that God doesn't have a "backup plan." That implies that God planned, in advance, for Man to fall. And that doesn't make sense to me. If He intended for us to fall, why would He advise us *not* to fall? That would make God duplicitous and schizophrenic.
So God had to have had a backup plan, in the event Man chose to fall. And that's what I'm asserting here.
The idea that God planned something *before the foundation of the world* does not imply God planned in advance for Man to fall. He always has, however, a built-in means of enforcing His will, even in the event free agents choose to resist it. Hence, redemption was built into the original plan, not by dictum but rather, by contingency.
We know that God's original plan *before the foundation of the world* was that Jesus be revealed as the "firstborn among many brethren." There is nothing here about the necessity that Jesus comes as Redeemer, but only as the first among equals because of His Divinity.
We were planned before Creation to be made in God's image. And so we were predestinated to live pure lives, like God. There is nothing in this that required that Man fall into sin. Indeed that would be the opposite of God's original plan!
-
You said that God doesn't have a "backup plan." That implies that God planned, in advance, for Man to fall. And that doesn't make sense to me. If He intended for us to fall, why would He advise us *not* to fall? That would make God duplicitous and schizophrenic.
It assumes that God foreknew what would happen, and possessing foreknowledge would not need a backup plan. In other words, God knew that humanity would fall, but didn't foreordain that humanity would fall.
If God had had a backup plan, then we would have to affirm that God didn't have knowledge of what would happen: He would have planned and hoped for one thing, then been surprised and revised His plan as choices are made. This is the view of Open Theists that is rightly rejected.
-
You said that God doesn't have a "backup plan." That implies that God planned, in advance, for Man to fall. And that doesn't make sense to me. If He intended for us to fall, why would He advise us *not* to fall? That would make God duplicitous and schizophrenic.
It assumes that God foreknew what would happen, and possessing foreknowledge would not need a backup plan. In other words, God knew that humanity would fall, but didn't foreordain that humanity would fall.
If God had had a backup plan, then we would have to affirm that God didn't have knowledge of what would happen: He would have planned and hoped for one thing, then been surprised and revised His plan as choices are made. This is the view of Open Theists that is rightly rejected.
Well, that is your opinion. I don't agree that my view is what you call "Open Theism," although I suppose you could call it a form of that, or similar to that. I don't believe that contingent outcomes are an example of a limited Deity. God can foresee more than a single outcome, in my view, and would not be surprised by any outcome.
I used to believe, as you do, that God anticipated, in advance, the Fall of Man. And so I concocted the theory that Satan had already fallen before the Creation of Man, and that God actually created Man to be a victim of a greater being.
Being deceived by an angel, there was left room for human redemption, since he had been deceived. And since Satan abused and deceived a naïve, weaker human being, this led to his eternal judgment.
But I couldn't continue believing this, since it suggests that God deliberately set Man up, asking him to do something he couldn't possibly succeed in doing. And so, I have the belief I have now, and certainly do not limit God. I simply give Him credit for being able to do more than I thought He could.
-
Well, that is your opinion.
That Open Theism ought to be rejected is the opinion of a great many theologians and philosophers, and it should, no matter how gloriously Boyd and others argue for it.
I don't agree that my view is what you call "Open Theism," although I suppose you could call it a form of that, or similar to that. I don't believe that contingent outcomes are an example of a limited Deity. God can foresee more than a single outcome, in my view, and would not be surprised by any outcome.
What you're suggesting is in line with standard Open Theism. If you don't agree, then what do you see in your view that's different enough from Open Theism to disqualify it from the label? Open Theists don't think God is limited by 'contingent outcomes' either (they would argue, as I was suggesting earlier, that this is a more proper understanding of God, rather than a limitation).
I don't think you're being as honest about your view as you could be, though, when you say that God isn't surprised by any outcome. Maybe it's the word 'surprise' that's confusing the argument, but the point is that God is absolutely 'surprised' in that while God can predict more than a single outcome, He doesn't know which of those outcomes will be actualised. Like a chess player, He can predict all the possible moves His opponent could make, but He doesn't know what move will be made until His opponent makes it. Thus, in your view, God is a divine predictor and it's not appropriate to say things like 'God knows...' when talking about which choice will be made. God may be able to predict with 99.999999999999999% accuracy, but that's still not knowledge.
So the point is that God doesn't know what will actually happen, and not that God might fail to predict some eventuality.
I used to believe, as you do, that God anticipated, in advance, the Fall of Man. And so I concocted the theory that Satan had already fallen before the Creation of Man, and that God actually created Man to be a victim of a greater being.
Being deceived by an angel, there was left room for human redemption, since he had been deceived. And since Satan abused and deceived a naïve, weaker human being, this led to his eternal judgment.
But I couldn't continue believing this, since it suggests that God deliberately set Man up, asking him to do something he couldn't possibly succeed in doing. And so, I have the belief I have now, and certainly do not limit God. I simply give Him credit for being able to do more than I thought He could.
I don't understand how your change in perspective resolves this difficulty?
In your view, Adam and Eve would still be naïve and weak. Satan would still be the stronger, fallen angel. The potential for humanity-as-victim is still present. All you've done is determine that God didn't actually know whether Adam and Eve would sin or not, and doesn't that make God's actions worse? It makes Him wreckless (pitting naïve/weak humans against an angel) and irresponsible (not knowing the outcome), doesn't it?
I think it's more appropriate to reject the idea that Adam and Eve were mismatched, that they were naïve and weak, and incapable of rejecting the Satanic temptation. That they were tempted demonstrates that they were, and that this wasn't about their strength or life experience relative to Satan's, but their faith -- in God.
Here too, though, I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that if God foreknew the fall of humanity, He, therefore, set them up. Why would that be the case? Why is it not the case that He foreknew because that's how humanity acted, and He would have foreknown differently had humanity acted differently?
-
What you're suggesting is in line with standard Open Theism. If you don't agree, then what do you see in your view that's different enough from Open Theism to disqualify it from the label? Open Theists don't think God is limited by 'contingent outcomes' either (they would argue, as I was suggesting earlier, that this is a more proper understanding of God, rather than a limitation).
I developed my view with no knowledge of Open Theism, and so I did not, in fact, subscribe to it. Reading about it I have to agree that my view seems to fit as a kind of Open Theism. I think I'm reacting against the *sound* of Open Theism, which seems to weaken God's omniscience and render free choice as something out of His control.
So perhaps the way some are describing Open Theism is intentionally pejorative, implying something that some of us would not subscribe to. For example, some would, as you say, admit to a God of contingent actions. This doesn't at all suggest God is weak or surprised by a free choice, not knowing what will result. But if He truly knows all of the options in detail, then He *cannot* be surprised by any result. And He is the opposite of "weak," since He covers all bases. That's where I protest your insinuation of what you think "Open Theism" to be, regardless of what others may describe it as.
I don't think you're being as honest about your view as you could be, though, when you say that God isn't surprised by any outcome. Maybe it's the word 'surprise' that's confusing the argument, but the point is that God is absolutely 'surprised' in that while God can predict more than a single outcome, He doesn't know which of those outcomes will be actualised. Like a chess player, He can predict all the possible moves His opponent could make, but He doesn't know what move will be made until His opponent makes it. Thus, in your view, God is a divine predictor and it's not appropriate to say things like 'God knows...' when talking about which choice will be made. God may be able to predict with 99.999999999999999% accuracy, but that's still not knowledge.
Can you see the fine line you're drawing? God knows *every possible chess move,* and yet you suggest He cannot let the chess player make his own chosen move without threatening God's control? Can God make Himself vulnerable to free moral agents and their choices? I think so. This vulnerability does nothing to change the outcome, and thus God's circle of invulnerability is never threatened.
I don't understand how your change in perspective resolves this difficulty?
What it does is allow for authentic human choices, rather than pretend Man can do other than Fall.
All you've done is determine that God didn't actually know whether Adam and Eve would sin or not, and doesn't that make God's actions worse? It makes Him wreckless (pitting naïve/weak humans against an angel) and irresponsible (not knowing the outcome), doesn't it?
Not at all. What you're describing is the common "problem of Evil," where unbelievers continually assault God for being omnipotent and yet helpless to see His creation fall into disorder, death, and horror. Free Choice and partial determinism resolves this.
Here too, though, I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that if God foreknew the fall of humanity, He, therefore, set them up. Why would that be the case? Why is it not the case that He foreknew because that's how humanity acted, and He would have foreknown differently had humanity acted differently?
That is the "simplistic" formula that I alluded to before, which got you all stirred up. It is not un-intelligent, but rather, devising a formula, or something like an equation, to resolve a complex problem without actually explaining it in material terms.
I could easily say God foreknows everything as an explanation for anything that may happen. But that doesn't explain why several different things could happen, and the cause and effect that went into determining those outcomes.
I can't say God Himself brought about every choice Man has made. He gave them choices to decide for themselves. That is called "sonship." The alternative is "slavery," which is not what Christ called us to be.
-
I developed my view with no knowledge of Open Theism, and so I did not, in fact, subscribe to it. Reading about it I have to agree that my view seems to fit as a kind of Open Theism. I think I'm reacting against the *sound* of Open Theism, which seems to weaken God's omniscience and render free choice as something out of His control.
So perhaps the way some are describing Open Theism is intentionally pejorative, implying something that some of us would not subscribe to. For example, some would, as you say, admit to a God of contingent actions. This doesn't at all suggest God is weak or surprised by a free choice, not knowing what will result. But if He truly knows all of the options in detail, then He *cannot* be surprised by any result. And He is the opposite of "weak," since He covers all bases. That's where I protest your insinuation of what you think "Open Theism" to be, regardless of what others may describe it as.
What do you think I'm insinuating about Open Theism? I thought I was being clear: the logical consequence of the Open Theist view is that God doesn't know what choices will be made, and He doesn't know the future. He can predict things wrongly, revise His plan, gamble with people, and so on. I don't think there needs to be any insinuation or pejorative about the Open Theist view beyond describing it accurately.
The bigger issue with the view is that while it appeals to some Scripture for support, it does not account for the whole of Scripture. Scripture is clear that God foreknows (i.e. prescience).
But again, the distinction lies between God being able to predict every possible result that could happen, and God knowing exactly the result that will happen. A God who predicts relative to a God who knows is indeed a lesser deity. And indeed, in the Old Testament, we do see God describe Himself as one who knows in contradistinction to false gods who do not know (e.g. Isaiah 40 - 48).
Can you see the fine line you're drawing? God knows *every possible chess move,* and yet you suggest He cannot let the chess player make his own chosen move without threatening God's control? Can God make Himself vulnerable to free moral agents and their choices? I think so. This vulnerability does nothing to change the outcome, and thus God's circle of invulnerability is never threatened.
I may not have been around for Nixon but I'm quite aware of the distinctions I'm drawing, yes.
Where did I suggest that God cannot "let the chess player make his own chosen move" without that move "threatening God's control"? That's not my view at all. I don't think foreknowledge is determinative, and haven't seen a compelling argument to make me think that it is. My view is in line with Molinism, which holds that God possesses middle knowledge. God not only knows the move the chess player will actually make, but also the outcome of every possible world had they chosen differently. The chess player is entirely free to play as she sees fit.
This difficulty is, on the other hand, perhaps troubling for your own view, because you're suggesting that foreknowledge is determinative. Thus, to protect creation from God's foreknowledge God has had to institute controls.
What it does is allow for authentic human choices, rather than pretend Man can do other than Fall.
But why does that fact alone, predicated on a God who doesn't possess foreknowledge, resolve all of the other tensions in the position you outlined? The classical understanding of God-as-possessing-foreknowledge also allows for authentic human choices. You seem to misunderstand foreknowledge, and this is misunderstanding thus acts to misinform. Theological fatalism is a logical fallacy.
Not at all. What you're describing is the common "problem of Evil," where unbelievers continually assault God for being omnipotent and yet helpless to see His creation fall into disorder, death, and horror. Free Choice and partial determinism resolves this.
Again, it's not clear how your revised view resolves the difficulties in your prior opinion. Can you expand on how free choice, predicated on a God who doesn't possess foreknowledge, makes all the difference?
What you're suggesting here doesn't resolve anything as far as I can tell. All it does is confirm that God really doesn't know when evil exists (because He lacks foreknowledge). Thus, God may have the desire to eliminate evil but is unable either because He doesn't know when it will happen, or He's incapable of eliminating without violating free choices.
Partial determinism brings up the larger issue: if God can eliminate some evil through partial determinism, then why not eliminate all evil through partial determinism? Would this be a moral duty for God, who is unable to foreknow when evil will happen?
That is the "simplistic" formula that I alluded to before, which got you all stirred up. It is not un-intelligent, but rather, devising a formula, or something like an equation, to resolve a complex problem without actually explaining it in material terms.
I called you out because you called RK's view of God simplistic, not the theological position. If you're fine with the 'fine line' above you'll surely not have any further issues grasping the distinction here.
But I don't understand why you think this is a 'simplistic formula' in the first place. Your own view can be expressed in modal logic as well (which, in fact, it has been), so what makes one view simplistic but another not? It seems to me that this suggestion of simplicity arises out of a failure to grasp the view fully.
I could easily say God foreknows everything as an explanation for anything that may happen. But that doesn't explain why several different things could happen, and the cause and effect that went into determining those outcomes.
But no one here has suggested that foreknowledge is an explanation for why "anything ... may happen". As has been stated, things happen because people make choices (which are free choices even in light of God's foreknowledge), or certain weather patterns form, or crop rotations were messed up, etc. It reads like you're confusing epistemology and existentialism.
I can't say God Himself brought about every choice Man has made. He gave them choices to decide for themselves. That is called "sonship." The alternative is "slavery," which is not what Christ called us to be.
You didn't actually answer my question with this or the above.
-
What do you think I'm insinuating about Open Theism? I thought I was being clear: the logical consequence of the Open Theist view is that God doesn't know what choices will be made, and He doesn't know the future. He can predict things wrongly, revise His plan, gamble with people, and so on. I don't think there needs to be any insinuation or pejorative about the Open Theist view beyond describing it accurately.
Yes, you were clear about that. But apparently you don't understand my argument? I don't agree that the options you provide are the only options. In other words, I don't believe it's true that free moral agents can stop the irresistible predictions of God.
I explain that in another thread. God creates a tendency which, if all distractions are removed, reliably produce a predictable result. They are inevitable.
Children of God, as I call them, predictably choose for God in the end. They could've begun choosing for the Tree of Life, or now they can go to the Cross and get it right. But they always end up in the same place because they were created to choose for what appears best in their own eyes, which is for God's word, or for the very word that created them.
Just as one can choose how animals will behave, like Pavlov's dog, one can predict how certain people will choose. It is not a lack of freedom, but a matter of how one is created to react under certain conditions.
It reads like you're confusing epistemology and existentialism.
God doesn't have that problem. He doesn't change with time *in His own words.* And so the things that change with time cannot change who He is.
And since He is the First Cause of all that is created, what He knows is what must be. Free moral agents cannot change that, though they are given a circle of influence in which they may make free choices.
God gives men those choices, though they cannot conflict with what He knows about Himself and what He has determined to be beyond that. I see no conflict between God's foreknowledge and limited determinism. God simply limits His foreknowledge to a range of human choices all subordinate to His higher determinations.
I will forego continuing in this thread, because I try to more thoroughly answer it in the other, or at least provide greater detail for my position. At any rate, I find it to be futile to indulge in excessive theory unless it is applicable in the real world. And that's what I'm trying to do.
-
I’m still having difficulties understanding why the presupposition that foreknowledge must be a priori determinitive
-
You said that God doesn't have a "backup plan." That implies that God planned, in advance, for Man to fall.
It shows God planned in advance to give his creation free will. Would you agree with this?
-
Yes, you were clear about that. But apparently you don't understand my argument? I don't agree that the options you provide are the only options. In other words, I don't believe it's true that free moral agents can stop the irresistible predictions of God.
I think I have a good grasp of your view, but it's difficult to fully understand what isn't being explained -- after multiple requests for clarification.
What do you mean by 'irresistible prediction'? If the 'prediction' is determinative, then is it even proper to call it a prediction, rather than a determination?
I explain that in another thread. God creates a tendency which, if all distractions are removed, reliably produce a predictable result. They are inevitable.
You haven't explained. What I've asked for is an explanation of why you think this is the case? People don't exist in the world with 'all distractions removed', and just because someone has a predisposition or proclivity towards some thing doesn't mean that they will inevitably, always, predictably, choose or do that thing. What existential evidence is there for this? And, it's still the case that you're dealing with a God who doesn't know but predicts (apparently, irresistibly?). I see no justification for reducing the complexity of the reality of people to putting someone in a room with two computers and asking them to choose between them. If only that was the choice Sophie had to make.
Children of God, as I call them, predictably choose for God in the end. They could've begun choosing for the Tree of Life, or now they can go to the Cross and get it right. But they always end up in the same place because they were created to choose for what appears best in their own eyes, which is for God's word, or for the very word that created them.
So why hasn't God created everyone this way?
Just as one can choose how animals will behave, like Pavlov's dog, one can predict how certain people will choose. It is not a lack of freedom, but a matter of how one is created to react under certain conditions.
Pavlov trained his dogs cruelly. Is he really the best comparison?
God doesn't have that problem. He doesn't change with time *in His own words.* And so the things that change with time cannot change who He is.
What? I suggested that you're confusing epistemology for existentialism in positing that foreknowledge is an explanation for why 'anything... may happen'.
And since He is the First Cause of all that is created, what He knows is what must be. Free moral agents cannot change that, though they are given a circle of influence in which they may make free choices.
You're not replying to what I said.
God gives men those choices, though they cannot conflict with what He knows about Himself and what He has determined to be beyond that. I see no conflict between God's foreknowledge and limited determinism. God simply limits His foreknowledge to a range of human choices all subordinate to His higher determinations.
What are you talking about? Why couldn't humanity make choices that "conflict with what God knows about Himself"? What do these two things have to do with each other?
I will forego continuing in this thread, because I try to more thoroughly answer it in the other, or at least provide greater detail for my position. At any rate, I find it to be futile to indulge in excessive theory unless it is applicable in the real world. And that's what I'm trying to do.
That's probably best.
-
I think I have a good grasp of your view, but it's difficult to fully understand what isn't being explained -- after multiple requests for clarification.
You may have a good grasp of my view, but obviously only up to a certain point. The reason you keep asking, and not understanding, is, as you suggest, because I'm not saying everything. It is one thing to lay the framework for your belief, and another to apply it with concrete examples. Every time I try to do this I find myself having to go back to explain the original framework. I will try to pin my theory on real world examples, and maybe then you'll understand better all that I'm trying to say?
What do you mean by 'irresistible prediction'? If the 'prediction' is determinative, then is it even proper to call it a prediction, rather than a determination?
Yes, you can't fully appreciate this without applying it to a real world example. In the examples I began with, God's ultimate intention to create a world of people living in His image, I showed how this is absolutely determined, or determined in a fatalistic sense. It cannot be undone without exposing God as a liar. Since He is omnipotent, He cannot be a liar.
So when God has also determined that men should have a free will, then certain things are not "absolutely determined," but are rather, "partly determined," since people can arrange the furniture differently depending on how they design their choices. Even failure is a possible choice which cannot, nonetheless, prevent God from redeeming the situation and returning to the original plan.
In this concrete example, you can see how God determines that the end goal is reached. But understanding the free choices of men are problematic. How is it God can predict that there will be men filling His world with good people if they can choose against it?
Well, as I said, God can manage to predict what people will naturally choose for, based on their compulsions, desires, or even obsessions. God is managing our emotions, and the things we strive to do.
So you ask, why does He not manage to have everybody succeed? Or why does He determine that some will fail? Again, this is problematic, but is something only I seem to be able to explain to my own satisfaction--not to your satisfaction.
I believe God left the door open to choose for or against Him, such as He did with Satan. God did not predispose him to choose properly for Himself, but gave complete freedom of choice without persuasion or manipulation. The choice was based on choosing for righteousness or for pride.
But God did predetermine that His elect will want to choose for Him. Once God achieves His elect number of people to fill His world, those who are produced as the fruit of rebellion against God's will naturally incline to choose with Satan against following God.
They can still choose to cooperate with God on some issues, but on the matter of selling out as a follower of God they don't choose to do that. It can be predicted as such.
People have been given a predisposition to choose for the right, but also the same choice Satan was given, to have free choice. So it can be predicted that some will fulfill what God intended for earth, that a full number of "elect" will choose to do the right thing, even though in need of redemption.
It can also be predicted that like Satan some will choose against God and for independent choice. If they are not the product of God's original will for man, they must be the product of man's rebellion against God's will.
In all of this, all--both elect and the lost, will never lose their independent judgment. But once they give up the inclination to turn to the right course of action, they lose the ability to make the choice for God completely. Their choice is final.
The same with those who choose for God. Once they've chosen to follow the path deemed correct for the elect, their choice is final. And they cannot then be like Satan, choosing possibly against serving God.
I'll have to return to this later...
-
What do you mean by 'irresistible prediction'? If the 'prediction' is determinative, then is it even proper to call it a prediction, rather than a determination?
Yes, a prediction can be a determination when it is a "partial determination." Some aspects are absolutely determined, while others are not absolutely determined, but are partially determined. Even so, what is absolutely determined cannot be violated by what is partially determined. I hate speaking in generalities!
I explain that in another thread. God creates a tendency which, if all distractions are removed, reliably produce a predictable result. They are inevitable.
You haven't explained. What I've asked for is an explanation of why you think this is the case? People don't exist in the world with 'all distractions removed', and just because someone has a predisposition or proclivity towards some thing doesn't mean that they will inevitably, always, predictably, choose or do that thing.
While I say "yes," you say "no." And perhaps we can't get past this? Again, I disagree--I believe what God predisposes He foreknows, as well as predetermines. He pursues an objective through the use of free will. Yes, it is "manipulated" free will, if we use your words. I've already conceded this.
God did differently with Man than He did with Satan. He predetermined a good outcome for Man, even with initial failure. On the same token, those who He did not originally predetermine are left with an inclination in the opposite direction, not by God's wish, but only as a consequence of human liberty running in the wrong direction, and against God's word.
What existential evidence is there for this? And, it's still the case that you're dealing with a God who doesn't know but predicts (apparently, irresistibly?). I see no justification for reducing the complexity of the reality of people to putting someone in a room with two computers and asking them to choose between them. If only that was the choice Sophie had to make.
This is where it goes far beyond my "pay grade!" I don't think Satan's original choice was an "equal choice," whatever that means. We think in terms of computer programs. Can anything be truly "random?" Can any choice be pure and un-manipulated? I don't think so. The programmer has to determine a tendency in one direction or another.
God's original plan produced a tendency in Man to choose for obeying His word. And thus, the outcome is predictable. God will have the elect choosing for Him.
And the inclination for those not so created as part of God's original elect also then incline against God's word by default. They do not lose their free will, but they incline against God's word, and so it can reliably be predictted that they will be lost.
Double Predestination? Perhaps. I just don't like describing it that way, because it tends to depreciate how much the Lost can succeed in doing God's will and thus mitigate their punishment for not following God's word all the way. It also tends to depreciate the freedom of the elect in rebelling against God until they ultimately capitulate to His word.
So why hasn't God created everyone this way?
God chose to give people freedom, including freedom to rebel against His word. This did not stop God from having His world full of people, but it did succeed in allowing free human will to run wild, resulting in the birth of many babies God never planned for. And thus, by nature, they incline against complete servitude to God.
Pavlov trained his dogs cruelly. Is he really the best comparison?
I had some training in behavior modification. It is a good example for those being so trained. I'm also very aware that if I in the slightest insult your reason I will not likely have you agree with me on anything, except with an insult added. ;)
God doesn't have that problem. He doesn't change with time *in His own words.* And so the things that change with time cannot change who He is.
What? I suggested that you're confusing epistemology for existentialism in positing that foreknowledge is an explanation for why 'anything... may happen'.
As I said, God's foreknowledge comes from the intentions of an omnipotent Being. What He determines *must* happen, and thus, is predetermined.
But the scope of what is predetermined is also the product of how God scales what must happen in the light of decisions free moral agents make--agents that He made to be as such.
So what does God "foreknow" about the outcome of choices free moral agents make? He knows His own absolutely determined goals for the universe and for earth and for people. But He does not know which choices they make--only what particular collage will result from any particular set of choices. It will still end up where God wanted it to go.
He didn't know whether human history will end up at a perfect square, or a different kind of rectangle--perhaps even as a parallelogram or some other such geometric figure with different adjustments and degrees of perfection or imperfection. But they will all end up as a geometric figure, since any choice that is made will be reconciled with God's ultimate objective.
And since He is the First Cause of all that is created, what He knows is what must be. Free moral agents cannot change that, though they are given a circle of influence in which they may make free choices.
You're not replying to what I said.
Maybe you're addressing what seems to be a problem for you, but one that isn't a problem for me?
God gives men those choices, though they cannot conflict with what He knows about Himself and what He has determined to be beyond that. I see no conflict between God's foreknowledge and limited determinism. God simply limits His foreknowledge to a range of human choices all subordinate to His higher determinations.
What are you talking about? Why couldn't humanity make choices that "conflict with what God knows about Himself"? What do these two things have to do with each other?
I explain that above. I doubt it's going to be to your satisfaction.
-
The Matrix strong in this one is.
And Tron.
Don't forget Tron. The original, not the 2nd one.
-
You may have a good grasp of my view, but obviously only up to a certain point. The reason you keep asking, and not understanding, is, as you suggest, because I'm not saying everything. It is one thing to lay the framework for your belief, and another to apply it with concrete examples. Every time I try to do this I find myself having to go back to explain the original framework. I will try to pin my theory on real world examples, and maybe then you'll understand better all that I'm trying to say?
Good examples are always helpful.
Yes, you can't fully appreciate this without applying it to a real world example. In the examples I began with, God's ultimate intention to create a world of people living in His image, I showed how this is absolutely determined, or determined in a fatalistic sense. It cannot be undone without exposing God as a liar. Since He is omnipotent, He cannot be a liar.
You did attempt to show this, but two things:
- God's own self-determinations aren't properly described as fatalistic.
- I suspect God's omnibenevolence rather than His omnipotence has more to do with lying.
So when God has also determined that men should have a free will, then certain things are not "absolutely determined," but are rather, "partly determined," since people can arrange the furniture differently depending on how they design their choices. Even failure is a possible choice which cannot, nonetheless, prevent God from redeeming the situation and returning to the original plan.
Yes, this much is clear. What you also seem to be saying is that a person cannot choose to do the dishes when faced with a choice to arrange the furniture. A person is free to choose between the options God has set before them, but they aren't free to choose a different option entirely. How this works in practice is unclear.
In this concrete example, you can see how God determines that the end goal is reached. But understanding the free choices of men are problematic. How is it God can predict that there will be men filling His world with good people if they can choose against it?
You seem to be saying that God's end goal is to arrange the furniture, so He creates creatures tasked with arranging the furniture, and so at least some of them must arrange the furniture.
Well, as I said, God can manage to predict what people will naturally choose for, based on their compulsions, desires, or even obsessions. God is managing our emotions, and the things we strive to do.
You're saying two different things: (1) God is a magnificent predictor and (2) God manages our emotions and the things we strive to do. What do you mean by (2)? And, if you mean by (2) what you seem to be saying by (2), then is God predicting, as (1) suggests, or is God micromanaging? Life is not actually full of choices, but the illusions of choice. It's not open world, but a corridor along which we're led, and all the while we think we're freer than we are. This raises interesting questions about what it means for God to lie.
So you ask, why does He not manage to have everybody succeed? Or why does He determine that some will fail? Again, this is problematic, but is something only I seem to be able to explain to my own satisfaction--not to your satisfaction.
I believe God left the door open to choose for or against Him, such as He did with Satan. God did not predispose him to choose properly for Himself, but gave complete freedom of choice without persuasion or manipulation. The choice was based on choosing for righteousness or for pride.
But God did predetermine that His elect will want to choose for Him. Once God achieves His elect number of people to fill His world, those who are produced as the fruit of rebellion against God's will naturally incline to choose with Satan against following God.
They can still choose to cooperate with God on some issues, but on the matter of selling out as a follower of God they don't choose to do that. It can be predicted as such.
People have been given a predisposition to choose for the right, but also the same choice Satan was given, to have free choice. So it can be predicted that some will fulfill what God intended for earth, that a full number of "elect" will choose to do the right thing, even though in need of redemption.
It can also be predicted that like Satan some will choose against God and for independent choice. If they are not the product of God's original will for man, they must be the product of man's rebellion against God's will.
I'm not asking why God didn't manage to have everyone succeed. I'm asking why God didn't create everyone with the irresistible disposition to do what was right, to choose faith, to do good, etc.
You hold in tension two ideas: (1) that people were created with the absolute freedom to choose God or rebel and (2) that God predetermined His elect will choose for Him. 'Elect' would suggest that the choice isn't absolutely free, and it comes back to my question: if God elects some to salvation, then why not elect all to salvation? Or, do you mean by elect not X number of people (as you suggested previously), but something along the lines of "whoever believes is elect, and it's possible for all to believe, and thus for all to be elect". (This goes back to my question.)
In all of this, all--both elect and the lost, will never lose their independent judgment. But once they give up the inclination to turn to the right course of action, they lose the ability to make the choice for God completely. Their choice is final.
The same with those who choose for God. Once they've chosen to follow the path deemed correct for the elect, their choice is final. And they cannot then be like Satan, choosing possibly against serving God.
You can't have it both ways. Either the choice is lost completely, or independent judgment is preserved. But more importantly, do we see this reflected in Scripture?
-
Yes, a prediction can be a determination when it is a "partial determination." Some aspects are absolutely determined, while others are not absolutely determined, but are partially determined. Even so, what is absolutely determined cannot be violated by what is partially determined. I hate speaking in generalities!
If you mean determination then you should say 'determination'. No one understands "prediction" to mean "partial determination".
While I say "yes," you say "no." And perhaps we can't get past this? Again, I disagree--I believe what God predisposes He foreknows, as well as predetermines. He pursues an objective through the use of free will. Yes, it is "manipulated" free will, if we use your words. I've already conceded this.
It's because your words aren't precise. Foreknowledge is about knowledge, not predisposition or predetermination. Predetermination is related to foreordination, which is not foreknowledge.
God did differently with Man than He did with Satan. He predetermined a good outcome for Man, even with initial failure. On the same token, those who He did not originally predetermine are left with an inclination in the opposite direction, not by God's wish, but only as a consequence of human liberty running in the wrong direction, and against God's word.
What you seem to be saying is that God predetermined a 'good outcome' for some of humanity. The segment of humanity He didn't predetermine a 'good outcome' for are those that you say are inclined to reject God. Apparently not by God's wish, despite God not predetermining a 'good outcome' for them, so clearly God has made a choice. Presumably, all humanity would reject God if not for God's predetermination regarding some of humanity (those lucky few). This description of God's salvific activity seems to entail an inexcusable moral failure.
That's what you're saying, but I'm not sure that's what you mean to say.
This is where it goes far beyond my "pay grade!" I don't think Satan's original choice was an "equal choice," whatever that means. We think in terms of computer programs. Can anything be truly "random?" Can any choice be pure and un-manipulated? I don't think so. The programmer has to determine a tendency in one direction or another.
Shouldn't you have some idea about what that means, given you've introduced the phrase? You would have to say, though, that God determined for Satan to rebel, and Satan had no choice in the matter. This is the same God who could have determined otherwise and saved at least a few billion people a lot of pain and suffering. But you're saying He didn't for dramatic effect?
God's original plan produced a tendency in Man to choose for obeying His word. And thus, the outcome is predictable. God will have the elect choosing for Him.
And the inclination for those not so created as part of God's original elect also then incline against God's word by default. They do not lose their free will, but they incline against God's word, and so it can reliably be predictted that they will be lost.
Double Predestination? Perhaps. I just don't like describing it that way, because it tends to depreciate how much the Lost can succeed in doing God's will and thus mitigate their punishment for not following God's word all the way. It also tends to depreciate the freedom of the elect in rebelling against God until they ultimately capitulate to His word.
You may not like the words 'double predestination' but that's what you're describing. There's nothing glorious in the elect "rebelling against God until they ultimately capitulate". There's something of the deepest regret in resigning everyone else to damnation. The scenario you've outlined is an illusion. It's the appearance of choice, and freedom, in the light of God's determinations. You're describing cruelty worse than any cruelty ever known.
God chose to give people freedom, including freedom to rebel against His word. This did not stop God from having His world full of people, but it did succeed in allowing free human will to run wild, resulting in the birth of many babies God never planned for. And thus, by nature, they incline against complete servitude to God.
So this is an image of God the neglectful parent? The God who will leave the 99 sheep to save the 1 wasn't bothered to save the babies he "never planned for"? That's horrific. I'd expect that from Lovecraft, not Moses.
I had some training in behavior modification. It is a good example for those being so trained. I'm also very aware that if I in the slightest insult your reason I will not likely have you agree with me on anything, except with an insult added. ;)
Trained being the operative word.
You haven't insulted me, and I'm happy to agree on the points we agree on. The view of God that springs from the descriptions above is on the level of eldritch horror.
As I said, God's foreknowledge comes from the intentions of an omnipotent Being. What He determines *must* happen, and thus, is predetermined.
No, it really doesn't. You're confusing foreknowledge, foreordination, determination and predetermination.
But the scope of what is predetermined is also the product of how God scales what must happen in the light of decisions free moral agents make--agents that He made to be as such.
So what does God "foreknow" about the outcome of choices free moral agents make? He knows His own absolutely determined goals for the universe and for earth and for people. But He does not know which choices they make--only what particular collage will result from any particular set of choices. It will still end up where God wanted it to go.
But which is it? Does God 'foreknow' because He's determined the context and set of choices, or does He not foreknow despite you're earlier affirmations that He's not surprised by any outcome because He knows all outcomes? This is the inconsistency I was complaining about. You affirm for yourself what you deny for others.
He didn't know whether human history will end up at a perfect square, or a different kind of rectangle--perhaps even as a parallelogram or some other such geometric figure with different adjustments and degrees of perfection or imperfection. But they will all end up as a geometric figure, since any choice that is made will be reconciled with God's ultimate objective.
But how could He not know if He had a plan in the fatalistic sense from the start, to use your words? Geometry, of all things...
Maybe you're addressing what seems to be a problem for you, but one that isn't a problem for me?
I said that you were confusing epistemology and existentialism. You then wrote a reply about God not changing over time. What do these two things have to do with each other?
I explain that above. I doubt it's going to be to your satisfaction.
You explained why humanity can't make choices that thwart God's plan. You haven't explained why humanity can't make choices that conflict with what God knows about Himself.
-
If you mean determination then you should say 'determination'. No one understands "prediction" to mean "partial determination".
Just answering the questions, brother. If I used "prediction," then that's what I meant. And in a particular context, yes I would understand "prediction" to mean "partial determination."
For example, when God predicts the outcome of the earth to consist of the full number of God's elect, then it is being "partially determined," in my view. It is determined to result as such in the end.
But people also utilize their own free choices to get there by the particular paths they choose to go on. The end is predicted, but not the particular means that is left up to human choice.
It's because your words aren't precise. Foreknowledge is about knowledge, not predisposition or predetermination. Predetermination is related to foreordination, which is not foreknowledge.
Brother, I meant what I said. To me, God's foreknowledge is equal to what He anticipates will happen, as well as what he absolutely determines must happen.
This is a flexible application of "foreknowledge," to include some discretion for human freedom of choice. It is not an "absolute" foreknowledge, although I have to say that God predetermines all of man's possible choices, as well. Nothing novel can be introduced into God's universe that God has not already prepared contingencies for.
God is big enough to allow free will in His universe. But He is too omniscient not to know what will happen, and too omnipotent to allow His promises to go on unfulfilled.
What you seem to be saying is that God predetermined a 'good outcome' for some of humanity. The segment of humanity He didn't predetermine a 'good outcome' for are those that you say are inclined to reject God. Apparently not by God's wish, despite God not predetermining a 'good outcome' for them, so clearly God has made a choice. Presumably, all humanity would reject God if not for God's predetermination regarding some of humanity (those lucky few). This description of God's salvific activity seems to entail an inexcusable moral failure.
That's not my assessment. God laid down the ground rules, and allowed for consequences that lay beyond His original will. Choosing a set number of elect was His original will. Giving Man the capacity with a compromised spiritual life results from Man's bypassing God's word--it was not God's "moral failure."
You would have to say, though, that God determined for Satan to rebel, and Satan had no choice in the matter. This is the same God who could have determined otherwise and saved at least a few billion people a lot of pain and suffering. But you're saying He didn't for dramatic effect?
I'm saying God originated the drama, and Man made it into a tragedy. Giving Satan a choice to follow God or to follow himself, competing with God, was God's idea, yes. But it wasn't, I think, a bad one. We instinctively know it is wrong to manipulate someone to do right and to then give the manipulated person credit for making the right decision.
So God's giving Satan an equal, unmanipulated choice, is different from the creation of Man, who received a determined mission. We were given freedom, but we were also given an inclination. Some must become God's elect.
Man can lose their normal inclination by allowing themselves to be manipulated by Satan. In this case, the children of Man sometimes incline to the right, and others incline to the left.
So Man had the ability to choose to allow himself to go against his normal inclinations. And those who are children of that rebellion naturally incline against following their good inclinations.
God has a way, though, of dealing with all people equitably. Even if people do not want to serve God completely, they can serve Him partially. This will mitigate their sentencing.
All those who get into Heaven will have yielded up all of their old life of sin. And all of those who choose against completely yielding up to God, and so miss Heaven, still have the choice to follow God in part.
Nobody wants to have all their works burned up, including their life in paradise. But we don't know what's beyond the veil in the world of those who choose to only partly serve God. I suspect there will be greater and lesser punishments?
But how could He not know if He had a plan in the fatalistic sense from the start, to use your words? Geometry, of all things...
Yes, I can't think of a better example. No matter how you enclose a space, it's going to be a geometric figure if you use lines. It can be perfect, as in a square. Or it could be partly off, and yet still succeed in being somewhat geometric and enclose a space intended by the artist. Or, it can be a mess of irregular lines, but still being attached to each other, the result is still a geometric figure, enclosing a space, intended by the artist.
Believe it or not, God used squares and rectangles in designing His Tabernacle. It's an interesting study. But I won't indulge in it here and now.
Free will allows for all of the equivalent geometric figures, and still remains true to the artist's predetermined wish to enclose a space using lines. God's goal is to have a world filled with people in His image. When they make imperfect choices, the lines become irregular, but still serve their function. A square may become a double square, or rectangle, and take twice as long to get there. But it still accomplishes its originally-intended goal.
I said that you were confusing epistemology and existentialism. You then wrote a reply about God not changing over time. What do these two things have to do with each other?
I've told you repeatedly that God's foreknowledge is absolute with respect to things He absolutely predetermines must take place. He also foreknows--that is epistemology, that some things allow for changes in the structure, still leading to his absolutely predetermined goal.
There is some freedom here to do a variety of good or bad things, and there is also the freedom to rebel against living under the bondage of God's word. But all of these choices still result in God's end game being fulfilled, to fill the world with good people.
There is no time for God between fashioning His original goal and accomplishing that goal. He ends where He began, only with the finished product He originally envisioned.
He didn't require any media to get there, but determined to use elements in time to get there. And so, time figures into God's foreknowledge and predestination.
You explained why humanity can't make choices that thwart God's plan. You haven't explained why humanity can't make choices that conflict with what God knows about Himself.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What God knows about Himself is His sinless purity. He cannot act out of character with Himself.
So whatever Man chooses to do, to cooperate with God's blueprint of goodness or rebel against it, Man will never be able to spoil God's image of Himself. If they sin, it will be shown as such. If they rebel, it will be shown as such. But God will still arrive at a world filled with good people.
And those who rebel against that will be removed as by fire. It will obviously be a different kind of "fire" that removes rebels from the future world. But to arrive at God's ideal world, His word must, to be true to Himself, remove the ungodly.
-
We keep going around this mountain again and again.
I think the problem is that, as Athanasius and I understand your view, you have a situation in which "Partial Determinism" -- which is a free will construct, is also deemed to be consistent with "full determination" of some things, which is a fatalistic construct.
So you have "A = A(sometimes), but A does not always necessarily = A(other times)"), which unfortunately, just won't work. It creates a logical fallacy.
And you can't blame that on "God is not restricted by time and space" because the arena in which this is alleged to occur is within our time and space.
We agree that free will and God's sovereignty and foreknowledge are absolutely compatible, but disagree with the construct by which you are attempting to state that.
I really think it is an definitional consistency issue.
-
We keep going around this mountain again and again.
I think the problem is that, as Athanasius and I understand your view, you have a situation in which "Partial Determinism" -- which is a free will construct, is also deemed to be consistent with "full determination" of some things, which is a fatalistic construct.
I don't agree. That's like saying A cannot = B, even though it's also true that B = A. Just because things are Determined does not mean they cannot be Partly Determined and Partly Not.
And this is true particularly because the part that is not Determined is still being Partly Determined. A x 0 = B x 0 . Therefore, both A and B = 0, where the value of Infinity = 0 and the value of A and B are both forms of Determinism.
And you can't blame that on "God is not restricted by time and space" because the arena in which this is alleged to occur is within our time and space.
No, I'm saying the Mind of God, which is infinite, can command both absolute determined goals and partly determined goals without contradiction, since in his infinite Mind He controls even the element of free human will. It all ends up at God's determined end, even with human free will.
We agree that free will and God's sovereignty and foreknowledge are absolutely compatible, but disagree with the construct by which you are attempting to state that.
I really think it is an definitional consistency issue.
At least we agree on the real existence of free will. Thanks for that! :)
-
But you don't by definition agree on the reality of free will as you define free will to mean "all those potential choices that are not already fully or partially predetermined."
-
But you don't by definition agree on the reality of free will as you define free will to mean "all those potential choices that are not already fully or partially predetermined."
Right, we likely aren't agreeing on everything. Free Will is something that God both anticipates, manipulates, and thus controls. It would be like creating a bee to like honey, and then expecting, guiding, and ensuring that bees choose to produce honey.
Those bees are choosing to make honey, but God foreknows and predetermines that this will take place. In the same way, God made people to choose to live in the image of God.
But God gave them the capacity to allow deception into their lives so that what they would normally choose for can be temporarily disrupted by deception and duress. God predestinated Man to ultimately prevail in living for God.
But in allowing that deception, children are born who gravitate towards maintaining their choice to live in rebellion. Children would nevertheless be predestinated to complete God's end goal of filling the world with people who succeed in following Him.