Chronology

[RandyPNW]

I don't doubt that it's your honest assessment (and assessments can be wrong), but what I'm judging is the content of the written message.

None of this has a thing with calling you or RK "simpletons." That would be ludicrous since I've just recently suggested that both of you are very smart and well-informed.

It is *to me* a simplistic approach to say that "God knows everything," and I'm not suggesting that is your exclusive argument, nor am I saying definitively that that is your argument at all. I'm just saying that if I don't hear anything more, then that is all I feel I'm dealing with. You suggest RK has stated a more complex opinion about this. I hadn't gotten that yet, but you have to give it time. Why not let him answer for himself? This isn't a personal attack--it is a request for more information.

It's not obvious that RK's view of God is simplistic, and it's not obvious that the proposition "God knows everything" is simplistic, either. As honest as your sentiment may be, this assessment does not give adequate respect to the complexity of the view RK holds, namely, Molinism, which is the view that God possesses middle knowledge, that is, counter-factual knowledge. This is a view that is anything but simplistic, and it's a view that betrays anything but a simplistic conception of God.

It was not yet clear to me what your view or RK's view was. You provided, as I recall, a more in depth response than RK did.

All I said is that the argument that speaks to my concerns must be *for me* at a higher level than "God knows everything." Since I wasn't clear what your position or RK's position was, I'm not even saying what your position is. I'm just saying what won't work with me. It was an opportunity for RK to clarify--not defend his pride.

I've heard what you said about Middle Knowledge, or whatever you want to call it. And I already acknowledged that, and suggested it sounded similar to my own position. How is this offensive to anybody?

More than that, you've gone a step further. It's not just that RK's view of God vis-a-vis his view of omniscience that is simplistic; according to what you've written, his view of God Himself is simplistic, lacking in sophistication, thought, consideration, and so on.

No, that's not true. On the contrary I have a lot of respect for RK. I do wish to be free to state things without being judged, though.

That is, what you've written is a statement that applies not just to a doctrinal position RK holds but extends to RK's view of God as well. His view is no more simplistic than yours, and I would dare to say that it's probably more sophisticated from what I've read in this thread so far.

I'm not competing with anybody. My concern remains the truth, and I wish to be able to express that without being judged falsely. Your thoughts about my intentions are just that--your thoughts. And they aren't true in the least.

[RandyPNW]

By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness.  Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.

I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.

Alright RK. I just saw this. I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't. I honestly thought that your argument was the "simple" (not a perjorative) approach that "God knows everything." I did not hear anything more, but I do see more here.

I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness." But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that. Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.

I continue to believe that God is prepared for any exigencies. That is what He has fore-ordained, that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome. I could give you biblical examples where God has absolutely determined certain people will make certain choices. And I can also give you biblical examples where God has absolutely not determined the outcome, but has left the choice completely up to people.

Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism" seems to suggest that my view limits God in a way that renders Him less than God. That is the "simplistic" approach I wish to avoid. But if you think I'm calling you a simpleton for even suggesting this, then you're missing the point.

I do not believe God's choice ahead of all human choices, determining in advance everybody's choices, is part and parcel with the definition of "God." That is, for me, the "simplistic" approach. He is to be defined as before all, and thus incapable of not knowing the outcome of every free agent He created.

I don't accept that because truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.

My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you. But I was hoping that over time we could work out exactly what we do believe, as opposed to just claiming "God knows everything" or "free choice implies God doesn't know everything."

[RandyPNW]

How does God predetermine someone's "free choice" to do something? For example, if God pre-planned Paul to go to Jerusalem, how does that include Paul's "free choice?"

Well, there are places in the Bible where it only *seems* that God has determined someone to make a certain choice, and in the end they don't make that choice. And there are places in the Bible where God's word is at stake if someone doesn't make the right choice. That kind of choice I think is determined by God, and cannot result in anything other than what God has determined.

If, for example, Jesus predicts, positively, that little Lazarus will climb a certain tree, then that *must* happen. Either Jesus was really just suggesting what he *wants* to happen, or he is declaring it *will* happen. If the latter, then Lazarus is going to choose to climb that tree, regardless of his own personal motive or wish.

But often God predicts things that really do allow for free will, and it is not really a matter of divine integrity. God just anticipates the nature of certain people and already knows their predilections.

It's going to happen because God will allow nothing to disturb that predilection and anticipated choice. Lazarus will indeed choose to climb the tree because God will allow nothing to come between Lazarus and his natural inclination to want to climb that tree and hear Jesus speak.

It's this way also, I think, with Predestination. At some point in a person's life, they determine by their nature whether they wish to follow God only on occasion or as a rule for their life. They either choose to periodically obey God, or they choose God as their primary and consistent rule for their life.

When they choose God as the rule for their life, they are, in effect, choosing  to switch natures, from an independent attitude to one of exclusive reliance upon God's counsel for every decision. We are choosing to be "born again," to abandon our self-determination to live in partnership with God and in preference for His will.

He is Lord, and we are remade to fit that mold and preference. And in choosing for a *nature* we are choosing to be saved and predictably so, since we choose to adopt a nature that is predictable and fits with Salvation.

Even if God can predict that our choice to be born again is going to result in Salvation, it does not mean anything more than we have chosen to adopt that new nature. God can predict that we will follow Him for the rest of eternity, and thus save us. But it does not mean we don't have free choices.

The choices we make will always be informed by God's counsel and by the character of His Spirit. That is what allows God to predict our Salvation and to predict the choice that brings us to the place of a Salvation.

But we can be informed by God's Spirit and yet be given freedom to choose for a variety of good things. We can freely choose to eat of any fruit tree in the garden of Eden.

That is what I believe we have, a choice for a particular predictable nature and also free choices that are informed by the nature. It is both a predictable Salvation (Eternal Security?) and freedom.

This explains Eternal Security for me. But there is more with respect to Predestination. I just haven't yet addressed that. How does God predict that we will choose for a new nature? Maybe I'll share my thoughts on that later?

[RandyPNW]

There is a way, I think, that God can conceivably determine everybody's decision in advance. He has Himself created our individual DNA, along with our free spirits, such that we naturally incline towards certain things. You may desire the color red to be more abundant in art, or I may desire to see lots of green in remodeling projects. The point is, God has planted within each individual their own particular interests and inclinations, and thus, will always know what choice we would wish to make.

So the *only thing* that would prevent an individual from making the predicted choice would be if an external influence disturbed our natural impulses. And since God controls everything, He can allow it or prevent from happening. As such, God can anticipate things based on what He chooses to allow to happen.

What about Predestination? A set of people were planned by God to reflect His image in creation, throughout the earth. It was to take place progressively, in time. But in the passage of time, God allowed an external influence to disrupt Man's natural inclination towards the good. It was God's intention to give Man a choice, as opposed to a determined outcome.

When Man made the wrong choice, the fact that it was unduly influenced by Satan, as a rebel, gave Man a 2nd opportunity to get it right. Once knowing that the external influence of Satan can be disposed of, or overcome, making the right choice would undo the wrong choice.

However, this development introduced a whole new set of conditions, making the outcome predictable in a different way. God still had in mind the original set of people to comprise his future Kingdom on earth. But the introduction of sin  caused Man to operate under the same natural conditions and yet now with a mixed result. More people would be added than God originally envisioned, and necessarily resulted from Man's aberrant choice--not God's choice.

And so, people born out of the inspiration of human independence produce children who are inclined to live in a spirit of independence from God, instead of incline towards the good nature Man was originally created with. The choice for or against Salvation is predictable in the sense that God knows what children He originally chose and what children resulted from human independence from God.

[Athanasius]

Yes it does, because Christ is how, "Let ys make man in our image", would occur.
As Paul says,

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2Cor.3:18

The creation narrative explains how Genesis 1:26 occurs. What you're referring to with 2 Corinthians 3 is something else, and Genesis 1:26 isn't a prophetic utterance pointing to the (ongoing) event Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 3.

It's obvious that parallels should be drawn, but those parallels aren't prophesy, and 2 Corinthians 3 recalls Exodus 34, not Genesis 1.

Okay what? Do you agree we are made in the image of God and his Son by his Spirit, or not?

Okay... (I'm waiting for more to understand what you're trying to say).

It's clear now that you're attempting to insert a prophetic connection between Genesis 1 and 2 Corinthians 3, but for the reason I noted above this connection doesn't seem prophetic, or appropriate.

The church is one body in Christ, so Sarah is no different than Eve. The "free woman" is the woman who knows the Lord.

Oh okay, so it's not Paul that's using Eve as a symbol of the church, it's journeyman.

Look at what Paul says about the saved woman,

she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1Tim.2:15

Paul isn't teaching that women who have babies will be saved. He's referring to this,

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen.3:16

That's one possible interpretation yes, but in the context of this exchange it's not an example of Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church.

Not that I know of, but Paul has been maligned that way.

It's a terrible shame that they cut out Maximus' tongue.

[Athanasius]

None of this has a thing with calling you or RK "simpletons." That would be ludicrous since I've just recently suggested that both of you are very smart and well-informed.

I agree that you didn't call me or RK 'simpletons'. I'm contending that you expressed yourself poorly enough to warrant me pointing it out, and were honestly mistaken in your assessment of RK's position. Plenty of people express themselves poorly at times or misunderstand an argument, myself included.

It is *to me* a simplistic approach to say that "God knows everything," and I'm not suggesting that is your exclusive argument, nor am I saying definitively that that is your argument at all. I'm just saying that if I don't hear anything more, then that is all I feel I'm dealing with. You suggest RK has stated a more complex opinion about this. I hadn't gotten that yet, but you have to give it time. Why not let him answer for himself? This isn't a personal attack--it is a request for more information.

RK has and will continue to answer for himself. I called out your post exactly for the reason I stated:

"It's a meritless sentence that could be used to write anyone off. And, something similar could be said of the preceding sentence in relation to the scare quoted 'opinion'."

And no, what was said does not come across as a request for more information:

"Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything.""

We can only go by what's written, and can only assume that what's written conveys accurately the meaning of the writer. Clearly, you didn't convey your meaning as well as you would have hoped.

It was an opportunity for RK to clarify--not defend his pride.

My point is all of us should avoid writing what comes across as a summary dismissal, in this case, that which calls into question other people's "view of Deity". This is not how one asks for clarification.

How is this offensive to anybody?

No one is offended that I'm aware of. Are you offended that I've pointed out how what you've written would be taken by others who don't have access to your intentions? You shouldn't be. This is an opportunity to consider the importance of being mindful of how others will interpret the things we write. And, how difficult communication is over a pure text medium.

No, that's not true. On the contrary I have a lot of respect for RK. I do wish to be free to state things without being judged, though.

I know you have respect for RK, which is why I'm contending that you didn't think through how others would take what you wrote. You're free to "state things" and no one is judging you personally, but this is a forum, and the things that you write will absolutely be engaged with. What else would we engage with? Be mindful of others.

I'm not competing with anybody. My concern remains the truth, and I wish to be able to express that without being judged falsely. Your thoughts about my intentions are just that--your thoughts. And they aren't true in the least.

I'm not judging you falsely or giving you my thoughts on what I think your intentions are. If I wanted to act the part of the psychologist you would know. What I am doing, however, is responding to what you wrote, and if what you wrote doesn't convey what you meant then it's time to acknowledge to yourself that you expressed yourself poorly, move on, and try to avoid the same in the future.

That's all that's required. Not an extended discourse beginning with, "You're judging by appearances brother.", but an "Oh yeah, well, what I meant to say was...". If I misunderstood, clarify. You didn't, and "that's my honest assessment too bad for you if you don't like my words" doesn't count. I mean, if you want to dig in you're free to do that, but I can assure you that I'm a whole lot of friendly not fun after a while.

Too many people confuse criticism of words with judgment of their person. No one is judging you. Just, be mindful of how the things you write might come across to people who as far as you're aware only exist on the internet as disembodied, abstracted personalities. We didn't need to write any of this, but at least it contributes to my weekly Grammarly word count stat.

[RabbiKnife]

By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness.  Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.

I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.

Alright RK. I just saw this. I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't. I honestly thought that your argument was the "simple" (not a perjorative) approach that "God knows everything." I did not hear anything more, but I do see more here.

I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness." But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that. Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.

I continue to believe that God is prepared for any exigencies. That is what He has fore-ordained, that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome. I could give you biblical examples where God has absolutely determined certain people will make certain choices. And I can also give you biblical examples where God has absolutely not determined the outcome, but has left the choice completely up to people.

Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism" seems to suggest that my view limits God in a way that renders Him less than God. That is the "simplistic" approach I wish to avoid. But if you think I'm calling you a simpleton for even suggesting this, then you're missing the point.

I do not believe God's choice ahead of all human choices, determining in advance everybody's choices, is part and parcel with the definition of "God." That is, for me, the "simplistic" approach. He is to be defined as before all, and thus incapable of not knowing the outcome of every free agent He created.

I don't accept that because truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.

My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you. But I was hoping that over time we could work out exactly what we do believe, as opposed to just claiming "God knows everything" or "free choice implies God doesn't know everything."

I must confess

Maybe it is my exhaustion at this point in the day, but I really don't understand a word of your post, nor do I have any inkling of what you believe about the omniscience of God, the sovereignty of God, or the foreknowledge of God.  All I see is word soup, and again, that's likely on me, but I just don't track.

I'm headed home for the day, so I'll just bow out.

Carry on.

[IMINXTC]

If, for example, Jesus predicts, positively, that little Lazarus will climb a certain tree, then that *must* happen. Either Jesus was really just suggesting what he *wants* to happen, or he is declaring it *will* happen. If the latter, then Lazarus is going to choose to climb that tree, regardless of his own personal motive or wish.

Friend, you are inventing scripture. Best policy is to quote applicable verses verbatim.

But often God predicts things that really do allow for free will, and it is not really a matter of divine integrity. God just anticipates the nature of certain people and already knows their predilections.

It's going to happen because God will allow nothing to disturb that predilection and anticipated choice. Lazarus will indeed choose to climb the tree because God will allow nothing to come between Lazarus and his natural inclination to want to climb that tree and hear Jesus speak.

Sorry. Nope! Not scriptural. Fanciful speculation at best.

[RandyPNW]

This is meant to be speculative. No, I'm not "inventing Scripture." Farthest thing from my mind.

[RandyPNW]

By definition, "foreknowledge" is simply knowing in advance without any necessity for causation or determinativeness.  Determinativeness is related to causation; knowing is not.

I think Athanasius and I are in sync on this issue; your idea of "God is prepared for any exigency but doesn't know which ones He'll have to address" is not middle knowledge but a variant of open theism.

Alright RK. I just saw this. I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't. I honestly thought that your argument was the "simple" (not a perjorative) approach that "God knows everything." I did not hear anything more, but I do see more here.

I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness." But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that. Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.

I continue to believe that God is prepared for any exigencies. That is what He has fore-ordained, that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome. I could give you biblical examples where God has absolutely determined certain people will make certain choices. And I can also give you biblical examples where God has absolutely not determined the outcome, but has left the choice completely up to people.

Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism" seems to suggest that my view limits God in a way that renders Him less than God. That is the "simplistic" approach I wish to avoid. But if you think I'm calling you a simpleton for even suggesting this, then you're missing the point.

I do not believe God's choice ahead of all human choices, determining in advance everybody's choices, is part and parcel with the definition of "God." That is, for me, the "simplistic" approach. He is to be defined as before all, and thus incapable of not knowing the outcome of every free agent He created.

I don't accept that because truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.

My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you. But I was hoping that over time we could work out exactly what we do believe, as opposed to just claiming "God knows everything" or "free choice implies God doesn't know everything."

I must confess

Maybe it is my exhaustion at this point in the day, but I really don't understand a word of your post, nor do I have any inkling of what you believe about the omniscience of God, the sovereignty of God, or the foreknowledge of God.  All I see is word soup, and again, that's likely on me, but I just don't track.

I'm headed home for the day, so I'll just bow out.

Carry on.

I appreciate the good will. Doesn't matter that you don't understand. It could be you're tired. But it's more likely my problem communicating, as well as the subject matter. This isn't everybody's interest, but it's been mine since about the mid to late 70s.

[RandyPNW]

None of this has a thing with calling you or RK "simpletons." That would be ludicrous since I've just recently suggested that both of you are very smart and well-informed.

I agree that you didn't call me or RK 'simpletons'. I'm contending that you expressed yourself poorly enough to warrant me pointing it out, and were honestly mistaken in your assessment of RK's position. Plenty of people express themselves poorly at times or misunderstand an argument, myself included.

It is *to me* a simplistic approach to say that "God knows everything," and I'm not suggesting that is your exclusive argument, nor am I saying definitively that that is your argument at all. I'm just saying that if I don't hear anything more, then that is all I feel I'm dealing with. You suggest RK has stated a more complex opinion about this. I hadn't gotten that yet, but you have to give it time. Why not let him answer for himself? This isn't a personal attack--it is a request for more information.

RK has and will continue to answer for himself. I called out your post exactly for the reason I stated:

"It's a meritless sentence that could be used to write anyone off. And, something similar could be said of the preceding sentence in relation to the scare quoted 'opinion'."

And no, what was said does not come across as a request for more information:

"Obviously, your view of Deity is a simplistic, "God knows everything.""

We can only go by what's written, and can only assume that what's written conveys accurately the meaning of the writer. Clearly, you didn't convey your meaning as well as you would have hoped.

It was an opportunity for RK to clarify--not defend his pride.

My point is all of us should avoid writing what comes across as a summary dismissal, in this case, that which calls into question other people's "view of Deity". This is not how one asks for clarification.

How is this offensive to anybody?

No one is offended that I'm aware of. Are you offended that I've pointed out how what you've written would be taken by others who don't have access to your intentions? You shouldn't be. This is an opportunity to consider the importance of being mindful of how others will interpret the things we write. And, how difficult communication is over a pure text medium.

No, that's not true. On the contrary I have a lot of respect for RK. I do wish to be free to state things without being judged, though.

I know you have respect for RK, which is why I'm contending that you didn't think through how others would take what you wrote. You're free to "state things" and no one is judging you personally, but this is a forum, and the things that you write will absolutely be engaged with. What else would we engage with? Be mindful of others.

I'm not competing with anybody. My concern remains the truth, and I wish to be able to express that without being judged falsely. Your thoughts about my intentions are just that--your thoughts. And they aren't true in the least.

I'm not judging you falsely or giving you my thoughts on what I think your intentions are. If I wanted to act the part of the psychologist you would know. What I am doing, however, is responding to what you wrote, and if what you wrote doesn't convey what you meant then it's time to acknowledge to yourself that you expressed yourself poorly, move on, and try to avoid the same in the future.

That's all that's required. Not an extended discourse beginning with, "You're judging by appearances brother.", but an "Oh yeah, well, what I meant to say was...". If I misunderstood, clarify. You didn't, and "that's my honest assessment too bad for you if you don't like my words" doesn't count. I mean, if you want to dig in you're free to do that, but I can assure you that I'm a whole lot of friendly not fun after a while.

Too many people confuse criticism of words with judgment of their person. No one is judging you. Just, be mindful of how the things you write might come across to people who as far as you're aware only exist on the internet as disembodied, abstracted personalities. We didn't need to write any of this, but at least it contributes to my weekly Grammarly word count stat.

Since we disagree on your assessment of what I was saying, or even intended to say, it's best to let it lie. I don't agree with you in the least as to what I was doing. I can only say things the best I can *at the moment,* not know in advance how upset what I say will make someone.

The fact is, I meant what I said, based on what I knew at the time. You claim I wasn't properly assessing what RK was saying. Again, my statement was based on what I knew at the time. I can't apologize for answering something honestly, even if it doesn't come across as well as it could. If you're looking for perfection, you're looking for the wrong person.

I'm not interested in wasting any more space on this. I think *you* need to assess yourself as to how you're coming across to me. It's way worse than what you're claiming I did!

[Athanasius]

...I was sidetracked by Athanasius suggesting I was calling you a simpleton--I wasn't.

No, I suggested that you didn't think through the implications of what you wrote. As you can see below, I clearly affirmed that you weren't calling RK or myself 'simpletons'.

You're not saying we're simpletons, no, but consider this: what sort of person would hold a simplistic view of God? We don't mean what Aquinas meant, of course, so I think it's worth thinking about the implications of the statement. Would someone who is sophisticated in her theology hold a simplistic view of God? Or, is it more likely that someone who is simple in his theology holds a simplistic view of God?

We might not get all the way to 'simpleton', but we're heading in that direction.

Here's what's confusing about your latest thoughts:

Foreknowledge is by definition determinative

By definition, "foreknowledge" is determinative.

Foreknowledge is not necessarily determinative:

I understand that foreknowledge does not equal "determinativeness."

In the case of God foreknowledge may actually be determinative

But in the case of God, His foreknowledge may indeed suggest that.

Trading on a confusion between foreknowledge and foreordination/predestination begs the question:

Since He determines everything, what He knows in advance He has already determined.

God doesn't determine choices for us, except when He does:

...that He *not* determine choices for us, except in cases where He *wants* to determine a certain outcome.

Failure to understand how the view presented is a form of Open Theism:

Your suggestion that I believe in "Open Theism"...

Continues to confuse foreknowledge with foreordination/predestination, while committing the fallacy of theological fatalism:

...truly free agents, if created as such by God, *must be* without foreknowledge--otherwise, the choices are pre-determined and not free. You may not agree, but that's my view.

As I attempted to illustrate above, this line of thought commits a logical error:

P1. Necessarily, if God foreknows that I will do x then I will do x
P2. God foreknows that I will do x
C. Therefore, necessarily, I will do X

It does not follow from either premise that I will necessarily do X, only that I will do X. Again, if I had acted differently then God's knowledge would have been different. What you're arguing isn't that foreknowledge is determinative, but that God actively foreordains and predetermines, which is not foreknowledge. You remove the very freedom you wish to maintain.

Attempting to turn the tables with respect to your own poor phrasing:

My own view, as expressed here, may also sound "overly-simplistic" to you.

[Athanasius]

Since we disagree on your assessment of what I was saying, or even intended to say, it's best to let it lie. I don't agree with you in the least as to what I was doing. I can only say things the best I can *at the moment,* not know in advance how upset what I say will make someone.

The fact is, I meant what I said, based on what I knew at the time. You claim I wasn't properly assessing what RK was saying. Again, my statement was based on what I knew at the time. I can't apologize for answering something honestly, even if it doesn't come across as well as it could. If you're looking for perfection, you're looking for the wrong person.

I think *you* need to assess yourself as to how you're coming across to me. It's way worse than what you're claiming I did!

Honesty isn't absolution. None of us is infallible. Poor communication, poor phrasing, are daily realities.

You're free to be you, and to express yourself as you wish -- just be mindful of how that might come across, and that you might receive pushback. There are better ways to say what you were trying to say.

In other words, no more personal assessments unless they're really, very, warranted and you can justify why you made them if asked. (Hint: they'll probably never be really, very, warranted.)

Moving on, then...

[RabbiKnife]

I believe that one of our issues in this thread (and in others) is in our presuppositions, and to a degree, in either our lack of clarity in what those presuppositions are or in our ability (or failure) to adequately communicate those as we write.  We "know" very little about one another in terms of human interaction and life experience.  I "know" Athanasius better than I "know" Randy, but I still do not "know" Athanasius from having a life interpersonal relationship and seeing him in settings with other humans other than by writing, so my knowledge is limited.  That being said, we all come to Scripture and philosophy and logic with certain presuppositions, most of which are inferred and never overtly communicated.

For instance, consider the whole presupposition of "determinism," "determinitive," and its variant "predestined" or "predestinated" or "ordained."  If we throw those words or even the concept of those words around loosely, without clarity, then confusion likely arises when we try to use those ideas in conjunction with the ideas of "free will" or "free moral agency" or "foreknowledge," including "middle knowledge" or "counter-factuals."  The more presuppositions we incorporate into discussion, the greater likelihood of confusion as the variables grow exponentially.

So let's deal first with "predestined" or "determined" and its variants in relation to God and God's actions.

By predestined or determined, etc., many people speak of God as being causal -- that is, that God, by predestinating something, is therefore the agency of cause or the origin of the action or event or outcome. 

Others view predestination as being very limited (based on foreknowledge).

A Deist, for example, would view predestination as "God set the rules and then takes a hands off posture and let's the chips fall where they may."

Let's use an easy example.

This morning, at 5:02 a.m., I stopped on my drive into work and got a cup of coffee.  The gas station was out of half and half, so I ended up with a bizarre combination of a "peppermint mocha creamer" and some milk in my coffee.  (And, I must say, "yuck."  Surely a loving God would not predestine this... but I digress...  )

Clearly, based on my understanding of both foreknowledge and omniscience, God knew from before the beginning of time that this event would occur at precisely this time in precisely this way in precisely this location precisely with me.  So,...

Query:  Is God the cause of me putting a peppermint mocha creamer and some milk in my coffee this morning?

Is this what we mean by "Predestined" or "Ordained?"

If so, in what way and by what mechanism?

If so, did I have anything to do with it?

If not, by what mechanism did the event occur?

or

If so, did all of the other people that used up all the half and half before I got there have anything to do with it?

Said another way, in your mind, does predestination remove free moral agency from the equation?
Is God "Q", simply dictating events and happenings?
Is God a programmer or agent in "The Matrix" or "Tron"?
Is God Dr. Who?

I think before we delve too deeply (or any more deeply) into foreknowledge, we have to determine exactly what it is that we think God is predestinating or preordaining.

 

[journeyman]

That's one possible interpretation yes, but in the context of this exchange it's not an example of Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church.

We don't have to agree on this. Thanks for the discussion.