Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you believe in predestination ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    There are no E's in Clavan.
    There are 3 in "Ratzenberger?" (not sure if that counts)
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    ? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Lon View Post
      2 Corinthians 5:14 Hebrews 12:6 Coercion and force are difficult to distinguish, however. Certainly there is power behind God's movements
      I maintain that there is neither coercion nor force in God working His plan sovereignly, for the reason I set out previously, because it is not needed. There is no contradiction necessary between His complete exhaustive sovereignty and our true freedom.
      Originally posted by Lon View Post
      and Romans 9:19 for your inspection...
      And Romans 9:17 KJV---did God need to coerce Pharaoh, in order that, in His words, "I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth?" He did not, and imo this glorifies His power even more than had He employed coercion or force in bringing about His plan. But I'm biased, being theologically Catholic.
      Originally posted by Lon View Post
      With the Cliff Clavin rub attached, even --> Romans 8:28

      It'd 'appear' that 'Clavinism' also carries a decent answer (not to exclude your exclusive "Catholic exclusive" claim )
      'Trouble with it is twofold. One is that it doesn't come more directly from the Apostles than does Catholicism. The Protestant process of determining what God wants us to know, excludes Apostolic tradition originating from words spoken but not written by the Apostles. As such the record from which Protestant theologians draw their facts is limited to just what happens to be captured in the Scripture, and for Catholics it includes the whole Scripture plus what is known to have originated with the Apostles but was never written down.

      And the other is that, Who is John (Cliff) Clavin anyway, that we should listen to him? He was a Lawyer. He wasn't a priest like Martin Luther, he wasn't authorized to celebrate Mass like Luther was, nor was he ever under the authority of authentic Church bishops like Luther was---even though Luther did rebel against his bishop, bringing about the Reformation.

      His area of credentialed expertise was the law, and the law only. He studied the Scripture for sure, and he shared what he thought of them, and of what they say, and of what he thought that God wants us to know, but still, he was no authority in theology like every single bishop at the time was.

      So there isn't any reason that any Christian should feel compelled to believe what he said about matters of faith and morals, since he was no authority in these matters. If he were teaching something about the law, then fine, he was a lawyer, and we can trust his expertise in teaching about law, but not about theology.

      And before you remind me that he didn't originate what we today know as the theology attached to his name, then even moreso, these unnamed and uncredentialed people also do not deserve our submission to their teachings. If Clavin himself wasn't an authority then surely none of his followers are either, or any of those influenced by him.

      But besides that this theological school can possibility provide a way through the horns of this apparent dilemma, it is widely easily misunderstood to be saying that God's sovereignty actually does exclude the possibility of true human freedom, and many of this school of theology spend a lot of time defending against this charge, largely unsuccessfully imo.

      And meanwhile Catholicism's teaching on divine providence explicitly proclaims that we are free in every way, while at the same time God is sovereignly working out His plan for the world, and it provides the explanation for how this can be.
      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Sure.

        However, if A brings about B's circumstances, and if A knows B really well, then A tells B what B will do, B still has a choice.
        That's literally what I said, and it was also my whole point. Regardless of whether A tells B what B will do, too. B remains free.
        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

        @Nee_Nihilo

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Idolater View Post
          That's literally what I said.
          Are you sure?

          This would imply that God does not necessarily know for sure what we will do.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Are you sure?

            This would imply that God does not necessarily know for sure what we will do.
            My argument is that there is no necessary contradiction between God knowing what we're going to do, and us nonetheless being truly free to choose what we want to do. God can know what we want to do, and what we're going to do, both, with us still being completely free to choose.
            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

            @Nee_Nihilo

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Idolater View Post
              My argument is that there is no necessary contradiction between God knowing what we're going to do, and us nonetheless being truly free to choose what we want to do. God can know what we want to do, and what we're going to do, both, with us still being completely free to choose.
              God chooses to know every details of His sheep. However it's not a necessity for God to know those not of His Elect.

              God can actually choose not to know at all all those put in a permanent separation from God.

              Matthew 7:23 (NIV2011)
              Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                I maintain that there is neither coercion nor force in God working His plan sovereignly, for the reason I set out previously, because it is not needed. There is no contradiction necessary between His complete exhaustive sovereignty and our true freedom.
                And Romans 9:17 KJV---did God need to coerce Pharaoh, in order that, in His words, "I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth?" He did not, and imo this glorifies His power even more than had He employed coercion or force in bringing about His plan. But I'm biased, being theologically Catholic.
                'Trouble with it is twofold. One is that it doesn't come more directly from the Apostles than does Catholicism. The Protestant process of determining what God wants us to know, excludes Apostolic tradition originating from words spoken but not written by the Apostles. As such the record from which Protestant theologians draw their facts is limited to just what happens to be captured in the Scripture, and for Catholics it includes the whole Scripture plus what is known to have originated with the Apostles but was never written down.
                It's a Catholic hanging point with a long tradition.

                Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                And the other is that, Who is John (Cliff) Clavin anyway, that we should listen to him? He was a Lawyer. He wasn't a priest like Martin Luther, he wasn't authorized to celebrate Mass like Luther was, nor was he ever under the authority of authentic Church bishops like Luther was---even though Luther did rebel against his bishop, bringing about the Reformation.

                His area of credentialed expertise was the law, and the law only. He studied the Scripture for sure, and he shared what he thought of them, and of what they say, and of what he thought that God wants us to know, but still, he was no authority in theology like every single bishop at the time was.

                So there isn't any reason that any Christian should feel compelled to believe what he said about matters of faith and morals, since he was no authority in these matters. If he were teaching something about the law, then fine, he was a lawyer, and we can trust his expertise in teaching about law, but not about theology.

                And before you remind me that he didn't originate what we today know as the theology attached to his name, then even moreso, these unnamed and uncredentialed people also do not deserve our submission to their teachings. If Clavin himself wasn't an authority then surely none of his followers are either, or any of those influenced by him.

                But besides that this theological school can possibility provide a way through the horns of this apparent dilemma, it is widely easily misunderstood to be saying that God's sovereignty actually does exclude the possibility of true human freedom, and many of this school of theology spend a lot of time defending against this charge, largely unsuccessfully imo.

                And meanwhile Catholicism's teaching on divine providence explicitly proclaims that we are free in every way, while at the same time God is sovereignly working out His plan for the world, and it provides the explanation for how this can be.
                Its a house of cards, if one doesn't accept one tenent of the Catholic tradition, it doesn't the other either. On this, for a Prostestant, it doesn't matter if he is a theologian (he was, though ALSO a lawyer), it rather matters if one aligns with him by their own studies (not really available to the Catholic, but the only way an non-Catholic could become Catholic is either 1) as one naive of theology or 2) one who through their own studies, aligns theologically with Catholicism.
                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                ? Yep

                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Mans religion teaches contrary to scripture, that Gods predestination is premised on Gods foresight of mans doing something, his works or believing etc, but its not true. Gods predestination is conditioned upon His own Eternal Purpose, the good pleasure of His Will Eph 1:5

                  5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
                  "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
                  preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
                  called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
                  a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

                  Charles Spurgeon !

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                    Mans religion teaches contrary to scripture, that Gods predestination is premised on Gods foresight of mans doing something, his works or believing etc, but its not true. Gods predestination is conditioned upon His own Eternal Purpose, the good pleasure of His Will Eph 1:5
                    Is God Himself predestined? Can he change the outcome of a sequence of events by intervening?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                      My argument is that there is no necessary contradiction between God knowing what we're going to do, and us nonetheless being truly free to choose what we want to do. God can know what we want to do, and what we're going to do, both, with us still being completely free to choose.
                      This would be true if there were not a relationship involved. Given that there is a relationship, we can invoke the thought experiment I proposed: A knows all. A tells B what he will choose. Does B have a choice?

                      I think that God is interested in a genuine relationship with people who can think for themselves. That means He has either given up exhaustive foreknowledge, or it was never possible in the first place.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        Is God Himself predestined? Can he change the outcome of a sequence of events by intervening?
                        An excellent point. Those who propose a God who knows everything are logically tied to a God who has no ability to choose.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          This would be true if there were not a relationship involved. Given that there is a relationship, we can invoke the thought experiment I proposed: A knows all. A tells B what he will choose. Does B have a choice?
                          I struggle with the thought experiment because I know of no examples where God actually told anybody within the past say 2000 years what they were going to do. My argument doesn't mention or depend upon whether God tells someone what they're going to do in advance.

                          But first off, of course, is that once you or anybody tells another person 'what they're going to do,' that right there becomes part of that other person's circumstance, and they are going to proceed to make their choice in the light of that or in the context of that circumstance. It still goes to knowing the other person really well. As in, knowing how the person will process being told 'what they're going to do.' What they're going to do with that.
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          I think that God is interested in a genuine relationship with people who can think for themselves.
                          I agree, and so does Catholicism.
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          That means He has either given up exhaustive foreknowledge, or it was never possible in the first place.
                          Well I definitely don't agree with the latter (based on my argument), and wrt the former, I don't see His 'giving up' exhaustive foreknowledge as being necessarily exclusive with Him having a genuine relationship with us.

                          E.g. with our children while we don't have His same power to control their circumstances, we do have power to control them somewhat, and we do know them well enough to know what they'll do when faced with certain circumstances, and just like adults, they don't always do what they're supposed to do either. Our relationship with them is still genuine though.
                          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                          @Nee_Nihilo

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                            I struggle with the thought experiment because I know of no examples where God actually told anybody within the past say 2000 years what they were going to do. My argument doesn't mention or depend upon whether God tells someone what they're going to do in advance.

                            But first off, of course, is that once you or anybody tells another person 'what they're going to do,' that right there becomes part of that other person's circumstance, and they are going to proceed to make their choice in the light of that or in the context of that circumstance. It still goes to knowing the other person really well. As in, knowing how the person will process being told 'what they're going to do.' What they're going to do with that.
                            I agree, and so does Catholicism.
                            Well I definitely don't agree with the latter (based on my argument), and wrt the former, I don't see His 'giving up' exhaustive foreknowledge as being necessarily exclusive with Him having a genuine relationship with us.

                            E.g. with our children while we don't have His same power to control their circumstances, we do have power to control them somewhat, and we do know them well enough to know what they'll do when faced with certain circumstances, and just like adults, they don't always do what they're supposed to do either. Our relationship with them is still genuine though.
                            I think this question might help a bit:

                            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                            Did God decree from before the foundation of the earth that Jesus would come to die on the cross in the exact manner that the Bible describes?
                            For example, would it have been possible for Judas to not have sold Jesus to the authorities?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                              I struggle with the thought experiment because I know of no examples where God actually told anybody within the past say 2000 years what they were going to do.
                              It's called a thought experiment because we can't set it up.

                              I think it works regardless. Can you answer the question? Does B have a choice?

                              My argument doesn't mention or depend upon whether God tells someone what they're going to do in advance.
                              Sure. However, these discussions over God's nature are generally conducted in the abstract. So my challenge of what you believe also being in the abstract is to be expected.

                              But first off, of course, is that once you or anybody tells another person 'what they're going to do,' that right there becomes part of that other person's circumstance, and they are going to proceed to make their choice in the light of that or in the context of that circumstance. It still goes to knowing the other person really well. As in, knowing how the person will process being told 'what they're going to do.' What they're going to do with that.
                              You're thought experimenting my thought experiment.

                              I don't think what you raise here matters. Say God does this with someone who loves Him. Tells them: You're going to buy the blue car. Do they have a choice? Yes. Will they choose blue? One would imagine so. What would happen if they were to chose red? Probably not much.

                              Now go through it with a Darwinist. Likely they will choose blue. Is that going to matter? Not really.

                              Switch the scenario to a morality situation:

                              God tells B: You're going to steal that apple given the chance.

                              The key to the thought experiment is always the choice B has. God knowing is rather irrelevant.

                              I don't see His 'giving up' exhaustive foreknowledge as being necessarily exclusive with Him having a genuine relationship with us.
                              Hopefully those test cases I just ran through make it more clear where I'm coming from.

                              E.g. with our children while we don't have His same power to control their circumstances, we do have power to control them somewhat, and we do know them well enough to know what they'll do when faced with certain circumstances, and just like adults, they don't always do what they're supposed to do either. Our relationship with them is still genuine though.
                              This is a great analogy. I think it most closely portrays our relationship with God.

                              And I think that as parents, we need to seek to be more like God by improving our conduct, not by trying to know everything our kids might do.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                It's called a thought experiment because we can't set it up.

                                I think it works regardless. Can you answer the question? Does B have a choice?
                                So to clarify, the thought experiment is:
                                A possesses the power to exhaustively control B's circumstances.
                                A reserves their power to do so.
                                A informs B accurately what they'll freely choose to do within a specific circumstance that A arranges.
                                Does B have a choice?

                                In this case then the answer if it's sensible (i.e., if this doesn't somehow constitute a 'have you stopped beating your wife?' type question) is no. Because if B's choice is between, for simplicity, choice 1 and choice 2, and A accurately informs B that they'll choose choice 1, then B is not free to choose choice 2. So no, because otherwise A did not accurately inform B of their future choice.
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Sure. However, these discussions over God's nature are generally conducted in the abstract. So my challenge of what you believe also being in the abstract is to be expected.
                                Sure. Although it's not just abstract here, but hypothetical, which is fine, so long as we 'discharge' any assumptions we use to construct and analyze the argument.
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                You're thought experimenting my thought experiment.

                                I don't think what you raise here matters. Say God does this with someone who loves Him. Tells them: You're going to buy the blue car. Do they have a choice? Yes. Will they choose blue? One would imagine so. What would happen if they were to chose red? Probably not much.
                                It goes to my inclusion above of the word 'accurate.' God can tell someone anything, but the real question is if what He says is accurate about what we'll do, then do we have a real choice in the matter?
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Now go through it with a Darwinist. Likely they will choose blue. Is that going to matter? Not really.

                                Switch the scenario to a morality situation:

                                God tells B: You're going to steal that apple given the chance.

                                The key to the thought experiment is always the choice B has. God knowing is rather irrelevant.
                                It's not irrelevant when you use the result to inform as to whether God can or does know in advance what we'll do though.
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Hopefully those test cases I just ran through make it more clear where I'm coming from.



                                This is a great analogy. I think it most closely portrays our relationship with God.

                                And I think that as parents, we need to seek to be more like God by improving our conduct, not by trying to know everything our kids might do.
                                I don't have any problem with that, and that's outside of our discussion anyway, which concerns divine exhaustive foreknowledge and human freedom, and whether or not they can or do happily coexist.

                                If we take this analogy where the parent knows the child well enough to know what the child will do given particular circumstances, and extend it out (abstractly) to God's superior knowledge of us, and the parent's limited power to arrange the child's circumstances to God's superior power to do so, then again I see where both that God can be limitlessly sovereign, and us be limitlessly free, at the same time, is possible.
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X