Chronology

[Athanasius]

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

It's a forum discussion so it's likely that we don't agree. But, the question isn't whether we agree, but whether your view reads into the text what isn't there -- and it does.

[Athanasius]

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.

Your language is confusing.

"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."

Is the choice determined or are we free spirits?

"God has planted within each individual their own particular interests and inclinations, and thus, will always know what choice we would wish to make."

If this is the case, then God isn't in fact, determining anybody's decisions (typo?) in advance.

"So the *only thing* that would prevent an individual from making the predicted choice would be if an external influence disturbed our natural impulses"

This then means that God predicted wrongly, which, as RK has pointed out, is a feature of Open Theism: God predicts, and gets it wrong, rather than God knows.

"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."

But is God controlling or isn't He controlling? Is He determining, or giving people free spirits? Is He knowing, or is He anticipating?

What you seem to be considering is how foreknowledge, which you're incorrectly viewing as determinative, or foreordination, can coexist alongside human freedom, which you view, correctly, as necessary for authentic choices. The problem is that a God who predicts vis-a-vis his intimate knowledge as creator isn't a God who possesses foreknowledge. And, a God who doesn't determine simply isn't a God who determines. A God who determines choices isn't one that allows free choice, and so on, and so on.

So, this opening salvo addressed at the question "how can God conceivably determine everybody's decision in advance?" is a miss, in my estimation. The issue is how the question is formulated: God can't determine everyone's decisions in advance and for those decisions to be authentically free.

Hence, Open Theism or Molinism or living with the apparent contradiction, etc.

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.

Do I understand correctly that you're suggesting God had a plan, didn't foresee what might happen after He had decided on His plan, and then revised His plan after encountering human choice? God was caught by surprise, in other words?

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.

What does this mean theologically, though? It seems to suggest that there are the elect and then the elect-but-not-originally. Is that attested to anywhere in Scripture?

[Athanasius]

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?"

He doesn't. What you're asking to reconcile is a logical impossibility.

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.

Like? As in, an actual Scriptural example.

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.

'Prediction' is a tricky word. In this example, is Jesus predicting because Jesus foreknows, or is Jesus predicting because Jesus predetermined? Or is Jesus predicting in the truest sense of the word? These meanings are hidden in the word 'prediction' and this example doesn't make clear which is in view.

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.

Scriptural example?

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.

This suggests, then, that God is a God who manipulates and hopes that the object of manipulation acts as intended. How far does this manipulation go?

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.

As a Christian, does God provide you with counsel for every decision in your life? But, I do wonder if self-determination is being confused for the (ongoing) decision to follow God, to not choose sin, etc.

This idea of 'switching natures' is ontologically problematic, unless you mean it technically and not that our natures are actually switched.

The question is raised, though, why God doesn't just make sure His original elect are saved and everyone else is positively damned.

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.

This is confusing. You're now suggesting that God doesn't determine choices, but merely predicts based on His intimate knowledge of creation.

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.

Can God predict wrongly, or does God predict perfectly every time?

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 seems like foreknowledge with infinitely extra steps.

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?

So, eternal security is God predicting who He foreknew would choose salvation vis-a-vis His determination to allow that choice to happen, which is a free choice that He hasn't interfered with except through circumstance? I get what you're trying to say, it's just all sorts of confused.

[RandyPNW]

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.

Interesting. Each moment that we live and experience the outcome of God's creation and our responses there are only so many possibilities, and God knows them all. He put in place the grand circumstance of the existence of the earth and the universe. He put in motion our physical existence, our mind, our capabilities, and our DNA preferences.

So using your example, people gifted with theoretical ideas applied those ideas to science, producing all of the technology we have today, from roads, to cars, to gas stations. They were all built by applying somebody's scientific productions to engineers, builders, and service workers. This could all be laid out in lines in a computer program.

But there is also the either X or Y on every occasion, which is determined by free moral agents. God knows every possible sequence as each moment passes, and provides the boundaries to prevent catastrophe. His plan is overarching, and must fit in to His wider predetermined programs.

I've liked all of the TV/movie programs you listed for this very reason, that I'm intrigued with trying to understand the ways of God. It is not fixed, like determinism. It is predestined in the sense that God has determined a certain outcome. The problem is in deciding how much is determined that limits free agencies from interfering with the good. God has allowed evil and rebellion. But there is a limit to it.

I must add that I had a similar question in my mind back in the early 70s when I took several classes in behaviorism. Skinner seemed to think everybody could be programmed for a certain result, by using positive and negative reinforcers. I was intrigued with the idea, but knew it was a  lie. Free will really exists. We are not purely "programmable."

[Athanasius]

It is not fixed, like determinism. It is predestined in the sense that God has determined a certain outcome.

If God has determined a certain outcome then yes, what you're talking about is determinism. Your DNA example is a flavour of determinism as well (and isn't how 'preference' works).

God knows every possible sequence as each moment passes, and provides the boundaries to prevent catastrophe. His plan is overarching, and must fit in to His wider predetermined programs.

See, determinism. But is it maybe that His 'wider predetermined programs' fit into 'His [overarching] plan' rather than the other way around?

But more problematically for your view: God can't know every possible sequence unless God also knows the outcome of choices.

This also raises questions like, how can God meaningfully provide answer to prayer if He's only a great predictor and manipulator, rather than foreknower? And, what's God's relationship to and position relative to time? Or, why is it still being suggested that foreknowledge is determinative when it's been argued in more than one occasion that it is in fact not.

[RandyPNW]

If God has determined a certain outcome then yes, what you're talking about is determinism. Your DNA example is a flavour of determinism as well (and isn't how 'preference' works).

My argument is for a limited determinism, and certainly not an absolute all-inclusive determinism. Free Choice precludes absolute determinism, in my view.

See, determinism. But is it maybe that His 'wider predetermined programs' fit into 'His [overarching] plan' rather than the other way around?

But more problematically for your view: God can't know every possible sequence unless God also knows the outcome of choices.

I suppose that's the whole argument. Can God indeed know every possible sequence and not know how people will choose in every situation? I do believe God knows all *possible* outcomes, but gives opportunity for human choice.

This also raises questions like, how can God meaningfully provide answer to prayer if He's only a great predictor and manipulator, rather than foreknower? And, what's God's relationship to and position relative to time? Or, why is it still being suggested that foreknowledge is determinative when it's been argued in more than one occasion that it is in fact not.

I believe God purposely gave Himself, in advance, room to allow for human choice so that He can answer prayer, and base His responses on how humans choose to behave. Yes, God is, in my view, a great predictor and manipulator in areas where He meaningfully gives people free choices. But He manages the extent of every choice, and what options truly exist. So nothing takes place outside of the realm of God's afforded opportunities.

[Athanasius]

My argument is for a limited determinism, and certainly not an absolute all-inclusive determinism. Free Choice precludes absolute determinism, in my view.

I'm not sure that it (your argument) actually is, but I haven't made up my mind.

If, in your view, God doesn't know the outcome of choices because this is required (it's not) to ensure free choice, then how reliably can God determine this-or-that outcome? Is it possible, in your view, for God to determine that He wants some thing to happen, but then it doesn't happen as He planned, so He has to determine some more stuff to happen, and so on, until the thing happens? (So God ends up determining and violating free choice on a larger scale than you'd perhaps want?)

I suppose that's the whole argument. Can God indeed know every possible sequence and not know how people will choose in every situation? I do believe God knows all *possible* outcomes, but gives opportunity for human choice.

Why do you think foreknowledge is determinative, or, why are you arguing as if it's determinative? What do you find unconvincing about the earlier examples of foreknowledge not being determinative, or the modal logical problem of reading necessariness into a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises?

I believe God purposely gave Himself, in advance, room to allow for human choice so that He can answer prayer, and base His responses on how humans choose to behave. Yes, God is, in my view, a great predictor and manipulator in areas where He meaningfully gives people free choices. But He manages the extent of every choice, and what options truly exist. So nothing takes place outside of the realm of God's afforded opportunities.

Is it possible, then, for God to answer a prayer with, "do this and your cancer will go into remission", only for a person to do that thing and die, because God didn't foresee something, and got it wrong?

It also sounds like you're saying God determined the course of creation, including giving people more than one choice so that they could freely choose between two predetermined options?

[RandyPNW]

I'm not sure that it (your argument) actually is, but I haven't made up my mind.

If, in your view, God doesn't know the outcome of choices because this is required (it's not) to ensure free choice, then how reliably can God determine this-or-that outcome? Is it possible, in your view, for God to determine that He wants some thing to happen, but then it doesn't happen as He planned, so He has to determine some more stuff to happen, and so on, until the thing happens? (So God ends up determining and violating free choice on a larger scale than you'd perhaps want?)

I'm not really probing very deep--just using common sense. If there is to be something called "free will," and the Bible presupposes it, then everything *cannot* be determined in a fatalistic way. As to God's ability to manage everything, including free will, as a Deity, I don't have a problem with that. If He is able to anticipate any outcome caused by free agents, then He is in effect still determining things as an omnipotent Being. He is, for lack of a better way to put it, determining free choice. I do  realize how contradictory that sounds on the surface!

Why do you think foreknowledge is determinative, or, why are you arguing as if it's determinative? What do you find unconvincing about the earlier examples of foreknowledge not being determinative, or the modal logical problem of reading necessariness into a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises?

God's foreknowledge of something is the same as saying it will happen. It is, by definition, predetermination. But the question is: what is being predetermined? Is it several possible choices, which sounds contradictory, or only one possible choice? I think it is the former. God is big enough to anticipate contingent realities, or alternate realities.

Is it possible, then, for God to answer a prayer with, "do this and your cancer will go into remission", only for a person to do that thing and die, because God didn't foresee something, and got it wrong?

I don't believe we can fully understand a Deity who can anticipate alternate sequences. His foreknowledge is sometimes only one possible outcome, and at other times, it is anticipation of more than one outcome, contingent on human choice.

He is, in effect, foreseeing either our eating of the Tree of Life or our eating of the Tree of Knowledge. But God has also foreseen the eventual outcome of His indestructible word, such that failure to eat of the Tree of Life will, through redemption, achieve Eternal Life regardless. He has anticipated the end of His plan as a successful outcome, still allowing for free will.

It also sounds like you're saying God determined the course of creation, including giving people more than one choice so that they could freely choose between two predetermined options?

Yes, what God predetermined was more than a single option, and yet He has predetermined that His word would eventually result in a successfully carried out plan. I fully realize this is only arguing on the surface, because I cannot conceive of something only God can do. It is the only logical way I can deal with the biblical portrait of a God who has given Man authentic freedom to choose. It's just that the reality of God determines everything continues to happen within bounds.

[Athanasius]

I'm not really probing very deep--just using common sense.

Maybe it's worth probing beyond, uh, 'common sense'?

If there is to be something called "free will," and the Bible presupposes it, then everything *cannot* be determined in a fatalistic way. As to God's ability to manage everything, including free will, as a Deity, I don't have a problem with that. If He is able to anticipate any outcome caused by free agents, then He is in effect still determining things as an omnipotent Being. He is, for lack of a better way to put it, determining free choice. I do  realize how contradictory that sounds on the surface!

Why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?

I'll say more on God's ability in my reply below, but no, I don't think "determining free choice" is contradictory if we mean that God planned - that is, determined - that humanity is to have freedom of will. What is contradictory is the suggestion that a choice is both determined and free at the same time. It cannot be both, and no appeal to limited human intellect will overcome the logical impossibility.

God's foreknowledge of something is the same as saying it will happen. It is, by definition, predetermination.

You keep saying this, but counterarguments and examples have been provided and you haven't addressed those. So, why do you maintain this view in light of those counterarguments? You've also already acknowledged that foreknowledge is not predeterminative, so it's not clear why you're continuing to operate as if it were?

As another example: Bill Murray possessed foreknowledge in Groundhog day, but he didn't determine anything during his "I'm a god" monologue.

Or another example: The Star Trek character Q presumably possess foreknowledge vis-a-vis his ability to travel through time at a whim. But, this isn't determinative either.

So, why would God's foreknowledge be determinative?

But the question is: what is being predetermined? Is it several possible choices, which sounds contradictory, or only one possible choice? I think it is the former. God is big enough to anticipate contingent realities, or alternate realities.

What you're suggesting is that God determines X number of possibilities, which humans are then free to choose between. I don't know why God has to be 'big enough' to have knowledge of counterfactuals or possible worlds, but insofar as what you've written above there's nothing necessarily contradictory.

The question then becomes: is this what we see taught in Scripture? If so, where? If not, then ought we revise the view?

I don't believe we can fully understand a Deity who can anticipate alternate sequences. His foreknowledge is sometimes only one possible outcome, and at other times, it is anticipation of more than one outcome, contingent on human choice.

He is, in effect, foreseeing either our eating of the Tree of Life or our eating of the Tree of Knowledge. But God has also foreseen the eventual outcome of His indestructible word, such that failure to eat of the Tree of Life will, through redemption, achieve Eternal Life regardless. He has anticipated the end of His plan as a successful outcome, still allowing for free will.

Now that's a splendid political answer.

Okay, so you don't want to talk about cancer. How about this: if God is a predictor rather than a foreknower, then how can we reliably differentiate between prophets and false prophets? How can we know the difference between a prophet God misinformed, a prophet not from God?

Yes, what God predetermined was more than a single option, and yet He has predetermined that His word would eventually result in a successfully carried out plan. I fully realize this is only arguing on the surface, because I cannot conceive of something only God can do. It is the only logical way I can deal with the biblical portrait of a God who has given Man authentic freedom to choose. It's just that the reality of God determines everything continues to happen within bounds.

You could, I don't know, engage more with this misunderstanding you hold about foreknowledge?

[RandyPNW]

Maybe it's worth probing beyond, uh, 'common sense'?

There are limits as to how far I can probe without appearing to be too far over my head. I'm trying to stay grounded.

Why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?

I used "fatalistic" in the philosophical sense of being completely determined. I'm not talking about "death," or anything like that! Maybe it was a poor choice of words?

I'll say more on God's ability in my reply below, but no, I don't think "determining free choice" is contradictory if we mean that God planned - that is, determined - that humanity is to have freedom of will. What is contradictory is the suggestion that a choice is both determined and free at the same time. It cannot be both, and no appeal to limited human intellect will overcome the logical impossibility.

I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! But we're talking about Deity here. Freedom allows more than one option. And a God who knows everything from beginning to end must resolve the problem of free choice. I believe He does so by knowing all of the possible outcomes, and not by determining only one possible outcome. This runs the risk of making God look vulnerable to His own creation, but I don't think it does. I don't pretend to comprehend it, though it does sound logical to me.

You've also already acknowledged that foreknowledge is not predeterminative, so it's not clear why you're continuing to operate as if it were?

As I said, I believe in a limited predetermination. God determines all of the possible outcomes, and some of the free choices by "manipulation" or by "persuasiveness." But He cannot, logically, determine free choices themselves, or they are not free at all.

If God foreknows more than one choice, He is determining the solution with respect to each option in the light of His ultimate plan. He wants to go from A to Z, and anything from B to Y may be opted for by free agents. However, God foreknows Z, and He furthermore knows the consequence of any of the options--they will be controlled by the ultimate goal of Z.

Those who wreck God's plan for Man will not stop God from getting a world full of people made in God's image. God knows that the introduction of sin will release the antidote of judgment + redemption. The result will be different than originally wanted, because many will be lost from paradise. But God will still get many into paradise, as well. And the ultimate goal of Z will have been reached.

As another example: Bill Murray possessed foreknowledge in Groundhog day, but he didn't determine anything during his "I'm a god" monologue.

A great comedy, but I forget the part. Sorry.

Or another example: The Star Trek character Q presumably possess foreknowledge vis-a-vis his ability to travel through time at a whim. But, this isn't determinative either.

Movies about time travel and foreknowledge are the most convoluted, inconsistent set of events ever devised by the imaginations of men. Yet I watch them anyway.

So, why would God's foreknowledge be determinative?

As I said, I believe God's foreknowledge is only partly determinative. Free Will renders absolute determination impossible, or God didn't give Man free will at all!

God foreknows the possibilities, as well as the ultimate goal. His word is supreme and cannot be compromised once fixed. The end, therefore, is absolutely determined. How we get there is not, except that the routes to get there are carefully controlled.

What you're suggesting is that God determines X number of possibilities, which humans are then free to choose between. I don't know why God has to be 'big enough' to have knowledge of counterfactuals or possible worlds, but insofar as what you've written above there's nothing necessarily contradictory.

The question then becomes: is this what we see taught in Scripture? If so, where? If not, then ought we revise the view?

I see the Scriptures giving men free will, with the option between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. And I see God's word absolutely determining the goal, which is a world full of people who represent God's image and likeness.

Furthermore, the Scriptures provide God's antidote to human failure, which is Christian redemption. And so, there are alternative routes to get to the goal of filling the world with good people. Obviously, Judgment and Redemption are the cures to misdirections, which God has provided men with the option to do.

Okay, so you don't want to talk about cancer. How about this: if God is a predictor rather than a foreknower, then how can we reliably differentiate between prophets and false prophets? How can we know the difference between a prophet God misinformed, a prophet not from God?

As I said, God only *partly* determines. Those who prophesy what must happen are true Prophets. They are speaking for God. What they are speaking is God's word, which must take place. God's word determines what must take place, and what choices we have. It isn't just a choice between right and wrong, but there are many options for good choices, as well as many options for bad choices.

You could, I don't know, engage more with this misunderstanding you hold about foreknowledge?

So it's only you who give me free choices, and not God?

[RandyPNW]

One of the major problems in my theory involves the question: Can Man's free will prevent God's overarching goals from being reached? Is it really "free will" if Man is unable to choose against making that plan happen?

I do believe God's plan requires Man's free choices. But no, I don't think Man can choose in any way that prevents God's Plan from being carried out.

How can that be? God can produce circumstances that positively predict that Man will make the right choice. It will be like asking you if you want a better or a worse computer for Xmas. You can choose for a worse computer, but you wouldn't.

In theory, you could make the choice to confound God's plan out of a mean spirit. After all, Satan chose to fall to thwart God's plan out of a mean spirit. So can Man, by his own choice,, thwart God's plan simply out of some malicious motive?

I don't think so, because one of the things God determined from the beginning was to have men created in His image. Even if some choose to wander from that plan, God's original call remains until someone makes the right choice. I suppose in theory the process could go on indefinitely. But I think God knows the odds of that happening?

Predestination, for me, is God's ability to establish certainty in the midst of human freedom. Some who choose to wander choose to return. How is it that some choose to return and others don't?

I think  the temptation itself is tempered by God's word, such that it is predictable exactly how deeply Adam and Eve were tempted, and how deeply those who are born in sin are tempted to remain in sin and how likely it is for some to return to their original calling. I just don't know.

It may be that God simply selected X number of people to be His elect, and makes it inherently desirable for them to choose Salvation, even if they also make a number of bad choices. Those who are not among those number of people may naturally select for their fallen nature, since they were produced outside of God's original selection. Again, I don't know.

[Athanasius]

There are limits as to how far I can probe without appearing to be too far over my head. I'm trying to stay grounded.

That's true of all of us, but it does raise the question of why you then think an assessment like 'that view is simplistic' is appropriate unless you think you have limits but that view is well within those limits? But if that's the case then your limits are quite a ways away, and far enough that appealing to 'common sense' isn't necessary. In other words, where is the epistemic responsibility?

I used "fatalistic" in the philosophical sense of being completely determined. I'm not talking about "death," or anything like that! Maybe it was a poor choice of words?

Your use of 'fatalistic' was fine, and I knew what you meant. You argue for partial determinism elsewhere, so that's why I asked: why should anything be determined in a fatalistic way?

I don't know. I also thought that 1+1+1 could not equal 1! But we're talking about Deity here.

1+1+1 does not equal 1, not even for the Godhead. This equation as stated plays on a confusion between nature and hypostasis (or, hypostases). 1 hypostasis + 1 hypostasis + 1 hypostasis = 3 hypostases. In Trinitarian doctrine specifically, God is three persons (hypostases) of one essence or substance (the divine substance). One nature instantiated in three persons.

Freedom allows more than one option. And a God who knows everything from beginning to end must resolve the problem of free choice. I believe He does so by knowing all of the possible outcomes, and not by determining only one possible outcome. This runs the risk of making God look vulnerable to His own creation, but I don't think it does. I don't pretend to comprehend it, though it does sound logical to me.

But you are saying, right, that while God knows all possible outcomes, He doesn't know which choices will actually be made?

As I said, I believe in a limited predetermination. God determines all of the possible outcomes, and some of the free choices by "manipulation" or by "persuasiveness." But He cannot, logically, determine free choices themselves, or they are not free at all.

Wait: does God know all possible outcomes because He's predetermined what those possible outcomes must be, or does He know all possible outcomes that could arise from free creatures acting freely within the context of their circumstances?

Are compelled choices free, though?

If God foreknows more than one choice, He is determining the solution with respect to each option in the light of His ultimate plan. He wants to go from A to Z, and anything from B to Y may be opted for by free agents. However, God foreknows Z, and He furthermore knows the consequence of any of the options--they will be controlled by the ultimate goal of Z.

Those who wreck God's plan for Man will not stop God from getting a world full of people made in God's image. God knows that the introduction of sin will release the antidote of judgment + redemption. The result will be different than originally wanted, because many will be lost from paradise. But God will still get many into paradise, as well. And the ultimate goal of Z will have been reached.

Again, I'm asking why you think foreknowledge is determinative and you're not stating why you think that. You're just writing more replies with this assumption, but why are you assuming it?

A great comedy, but I forget the part. Sorry.

Movies about time travel and foreknowledge are the most convoluted, inconsistent set of events ever devised by the imaginations of men. Yet I watch them anyway.

Which is why I ask you: why is foreknowledge in these instances not determinative, but God's foreknowledge is?

As I said, I believe God's foreknowledge is only partly determinative. Free Will renders absolute determination impossible, or God didn't give Man free will at all!

...why is it determinative at all?

God foreknows the possibilities, as well as the ultimate goal. His word is supreme and cannot be compromised once fixed. The end, therefore, is absolutely determined. How we get there is not, except that the routes to get there are carefully controlled.

But again, how far does God go in His manipulation if He manipulates to ensure X result but ends up with Y, then has to manipulate further to ensure X1, and so forth? You're assuming foreknowledge while denying it.

I see the Scriptures giving men free will, with the option between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. And I see God's word absolutely determining the goal, which is a world full of people who represent God's image and likeness.

Furthermore, the Scriptures provide God's antidote to human failure, which is Christian redemption. And so, there are alternative routes to get to the goal of filling the world with good people. Obviously, Judgment and Redemption are the cures to misdirections, which God has provided men with the option to do.

And this is your example of God determining X number of possibilities? Do you mean by this example that God explicitly set up an either/or, or that God provided a command and let things play out?

As I said, God only *partly* determines. Those who prophesy what must happen are true Prophets. They are speaking for God. What they are speaking is God's word, which must take place. God's word determines what must take place, and what choices we have. It isn't just a choice between right and wrong, but there are many options for good choices, as well as many options for bad choices.

So God doesn't know what choices will be made, and thus He doesn't know the future, except when He does know the future because He's determined some particular outcome (which, as a consequence, determines all sorts of other outcomes)? I'm not sure you appreciate what it means to 'partly' determine some particular outcome, or the complexity of that determination as it pertains to human acts in the world.

It sounds like you're saying God doesn't know what free choices will be made. Except when it's convenient for Him to know the outcome of those choices which now aren't free because He's determined them. Except He hasn't determined the choice itself just the context, so someone's free to choose between X number of choices. God has knowledge of every possibility but doesn't know which possibility will be actualised. Except when He determines which one will be actualised, which He does through context... For some reason, God never guesses wrong, although the argument doesn't justify this conclusion. So maybe God does determine specific choices, but only when it's convenient to the plot.

So like, Open Theism and compatibilism... :thinking: Again, why do you think foreknowledge is determinative and that this is a better theology?

So it's only you who give me free choices, and not God?

Maybe God determined that you'd forever misunderstand foreknowledge. How would you know?

[Athanasius]

One of the major problems in my theory involves the question: Can Man's free will prevent God's overarching goals from being reached? Is it really "free will" if Man is unable to choose against making that plan happen?

I do believe God's plan requires Man's free choices. But no, I don't think Man can choose in any way that prevents God's Plan from being carried out.

How can that be? God can produce circumstances that positively predict that Man will make the right choice. It will be like asking you if you want a better or a worse computer for Xmas. You can choose for a worse computer, but you wouldn't.

In theory, you could make the choice to confound God's plan out of a mean spirit. After all, Satan chose to fall to thwart God's plan out of a mean spirit. So can Man, by his own choice,, thwart God's plan simply out of some malicious motive?

I don't think so, because one of the things God determined from the beginning was to have men created in His image. Even if some choose to wander from that plan, God's original call remains until someone makes the right choice. I suppose in theory the process could go on indefinitely. But I think God knows the odds of that happening?

Predestination, for me, is God's ability to establish certainty in the midst of human freedom. Some who choose to wander choose to return. How is it that some choose to return and others don't?

I think  the temptation itself is tempered by God's word, such that it is predictable exactly how deeply Adam and Eve were tempted, and how deeply those who are born in sin are tempted to remain in sin and how likely it is for some to return to their original calling. I just don't know.

It may be that God simply selected X number of people to be His elect, and makes it inherently desirable for them to choose Salvation, even if they also make a number of bad choices. Those who are not among those number of people may naturally select for their fallen nature, since they were produced outside of God's original selection. Again, I don't know.

The question you've stated is formulated in such a way so as to avoid the problem it seeks to address. It's not an honest formulation.

The view expressed, including the formulation above, seems like a bit of convenient handwaving: can a person make a choice that prevents God's plan? Nahhhhhh, and here are some assertions why: He just gives people false choices, and manipulates circumstances, and determines some but not all choices, etc., etc. Well that was easy!

But that's not the argument anyone reasonably makes. The reasonable argument is: can a person make choices that interfere with God's plans if God does not possess foreknowledge in the classical sense? Well, your view would have to acknowledge that they can, which you in fact acknowledge. God's plan may be executed in the end, but it's possible He stumbled most of the way to get there. So, the major problem is that the view has a major problem, which you must acknowledge, for the sake of consistency, is a feature of the view and not a bug.

Except we simply don't see that kind of God in Scripture.

[RandyPNW]

The question you've stated is formulated in such a way so as to avoid the problem it seeks to address. It's not an honest formulation.

Making moral judgments is a conversation-ender. No, I was not being dishonest. No, I wasn't avoiding anything. I've admitted from the start I'm speculating, don't know it all, and am limited in communicating what I think about it.

But that's not the argument anyone reasonably makes. The reasonable argument is: can a person make choices that interfere with God's plans if God does not possess foreknowledge in the classical sense? Well, your view would have to acknowledge that they can, which you in fact acknowledge. God's plan may be executed in the end, but it's possible He stumbled most of the way to get there. So, the major problem is that the view has a major problem, which you must acknowledge, for the sake of consistency, is a feature of the view and not a bug.

No, I think I framed the problem quite well myself, without your "help." If people have genuinely free will, they may maliciously oppose all "inducements" to fulfill God's irresistible plan. But that would have to be crafted by the Maker, who designed the rules for predicting our behavior. If He couldn't predict our behavior, free or not, then He could not absolutely prophecy what will happen.

So that begs the question: do people in reality will to maliciously oppose something that is in *their* best interest, let alone whether they wish to maliciously disrupt *God's* best interest? The answer is: nobody ever, ever, ever decides against their own best interest unless they are insane, under duress, or pulled away by some temptation. Or, they have shifted in order of creation to a different kind of human being, who like Satan, concocts his own temptations and devises his own rules apart from God's will.

If God in fact removes duress, temptations, and illness from the mind of one He has created to choose for his own good, he will in fact choose for his own good. And I believe God has made that the undeniable, unchangeable reality. God's will *must* take place because even in the event of free will God has set up the circumstances to successfully predict some human choices. This rule applies to people God has predestined to make good choices, to either obey God initially or to return to obedience to God. I call them "children of God."

There is a difference between the choice Adam had and the choice people have after the Fall. Before the Fall, Adam could choose to defy God's word due to the seduction and influence of Satan. It is not what God created him to do as His child, but he was made vulnerable to Satan's influences. Otherwise, Satan would never have been given the option of opposing God's word with real consequences.

After the Fall, Adam could then return to doing what is in his own best interest, after seeing Satan's deception exposed. He would, without exception, return to God's own best interests and his own best interests. This is predictably what *all* children of God do in the long term. They *always* return to the word of God, from which they sprang.

But Satan's children are a different matter. Even after Satan has been exposed, there will be those who choose against God in the same way Satan did, because they are products of Satan's kind of creation. Satan was given the choice to disobey God's word even without temptation and duress. And his children, once produced out of Adam's rebellion, have the same capacity to choose against God's word, and predictably do so, because they are drawn to independent judgment. They were not produced by God's word to be children of God.

[Athanasius]

Making moral judgments is a conversation-ender. No, I was not being dishonest. No, I wasn't avoiding anything. I've admitted from the start I'm speculating, don't know it all, and am limited in communicating what I think about it.

The issue isn't that you're speculating - that much is clear - but that you've posed a problem with your view that no one would seriously raise. There's a world of difference between these two questions:

- "Can Man's free will prevent God's overarching goals from being reached?"
- "Can Man's free will interfere with God's overarching goals and force God to revise His plan?"

One looks like a problem but isn't, while the other looks like a problem and is. In neither of our threads has anyone suggested that choices can prevent God's plan, but rather, that if God doesn't know what choices will be made, then He will at times need to revise His plan in light of unpredicted outcomes.

You say you've been thinking about these kinds of questions since the '70s, so why go for the question-that-isn't instead of the question-that-is? It's not you that is dishonest, it's the formulation of the question that's dishonest (clearly, given the question is the subject). It's dishonest because it takes the easy way out; it's not an objection anyone would seriously make. It's insulating. It's not framed with reference to what's being discussed. It's the sort of formulation people make all the time. It's an easy point on which to pontificate.

No, I think I framed the problem quite well myself, without your "help." If people have genuinely free will, they may maliciously oppose all "inducements" to fulfill God's irresistible plan. But that would have to be crafted by the Maker, who designed the rules for predicting our behavior. If He couldn't predict our behavior, free or not, then He could not absolutely prophecy what will happen.

You haven't, and the way you're phrasing your argument is question beginning. "God's irresistible plan" is assumed, which clearly precludes the prevention of God's plan. No further argument is necessary.

So that begs the question: do people in reality will to maliciously oppose something that is in *their* best interest, let alone whether they wish to maliciously disrupt *God's* best interest? The answer is: nobody ever, ever, ever decides against their own best interest unless they are insane, under duress, or pulled away by some temptation. Or, they have shifted in order of creation to a different kind of human being, who like Satan, concocts his own temptations and devises his own rules apart from God's will.

This assumes that people are always aware of what's in their best interest, which they are not.

If God in fact removes duress, temptations, and illness from the mind of one He has created to choose for his own good, he will in fact choose for his own good. And I believe God has made that the undeniable, unchangeable reality. God's will *must* take place because even in the event of free will God has set up the circumstances to successfully predict some human choices. This rule applies to people God has predestined to make good choices, to either obey God initially or to return to obedience to God. I call them "children of God."

Why hasn't God predestined everyone to make "good choices" (or I don't know, have faith)? Can we even say that a will is truly free if indeed it's subconsciously programmed to act in a certain direction? Why should we think that?

There is a difference between the choice Adam had and the choice people have after the Fall. Before the Fall, Adam could choose to defy God's word due to the seduction and influence of Satan. It is not what God created him to do as His child, but he was made vulnerable to Satan's influences. Otherwise, Satan would never have been given the option of opposing God's word with real consequences.

After the Fall, Adam could then return to doing what is in his own best interest, after seeing Satan's deception exposed. He would, without exception, return to God's own best interests and his own best interests. This is predictably what *all* children of God do in the long term. They *always* return to the word of God, from which they sprang.

But Satan's children are a different matter. Even after Satan has been exposed, there will be those who choose against God in the same way Satan did, because they are products of Satan's kind of creation. Satan was given the choice to disobey God's word even without temptation and duress. And his children, once produced out of Adam's rebellion, have the same capacity to choose against God's word, and predictably do so, because they are drawn to independent judgment. They were not produced by God's word to be children of God.

So no one is actually free, then, as they are bound by their base programming.