Predestination

[journeyman]

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

[RandyPNW]

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.

[journeyman]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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?

[journeyman]

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

[RandyPNW]

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!

[Athanasius]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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?

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

I’m still having difficulties understanding why the presupposition that foreknowledge must be a priori determinitive

[journeyman]

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?

[Athanasius]

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.