Do you believe in predestination ?

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Well of course the threads still here to read, what, was it gonna go somewhere else? Got a quote of mine that says that God needs to know the future in order to say something yet? I would wish you good luck on the score but you'd need more than that.

Supra.

They're only mutually exclusive to those who conflate foreknowledge with determinism.

No, they're not.

Knowing the future infallibly is mutually exclusive to a man having a will.

They aren't the same thing but you've had this explained enough times already.

Yes, we've already agreed on that.

But you've had this explained enough times already.


Wrong.

You can use your plethora of tedious soundbites all you want, it sure ain't me that places limitations on what God can do, it's you.

This coming from the guy who says God didn't just use a rooster to crow after Peter denied Him three times because it doesn't fit his position.

All you've done is come up with some feeble bunk that God could have made a bird chirp after Peter's third denial

Could God not have? Why not?

and that God likely knew what he was going to do.

Not just likely. Probable.

God is able to make predictions FAR BEYOND what we men can do.

The verse is absolutely specific, no alternative "understanding" required.

It's specific enough to know that God knew what Peter would do before a rooster crowed.

It is NOT specific enough to be able to claim that therefore God knows the future infallibly.

Is it "magical" to you if a thousand years is like a day to God and the same in reverse?

There's nothing magical about that.

It's simply a figure of speech talking about God's patience. He is so patient that a thousand years to him is LIKE a day. It's not a literal statement, Arthur, and you should recognize that.

Maybe Jesus feeding the five thousand with some bread and fish was metaphor perhaps?

Nope, He literally fed five thousand people with some bread and fish.

Changing water into wine etc?

Nope. He literally changed water into wine, and it was the good stuff too.

God isn't limited to a human perspective or understanding where it comes to time.

Well, your sense of what's "rational" for God is hardly the yardstick for Him, so any limitations you decide to place are pretty much yours and yours alone.

Knowing what choices people have/will make is not setting 'anything in stone'.

Knowing it infallibly is, because there is literally no other possibility than what is known to be true (definition of infallible).

Take that up with those who actually believe in a determined universe where everything's programmed and there is no such thing as choice.

If any entity has infallible knowledge of the future, then to the extent of their knowledge of the future, the future IS determined, and there is alternate possible future possible.

Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference is stupid but have at it as you will.

I have acknowledged the difference already. Please catch up to the conversation.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Newsflash: You don't get to determine what is actually determined through a narrow frame of reference.

Neither do you.

Or maybe God is a magician when He does anything outside of your limited scope? Turning water into wine? Wow, that's magic and then some, right?

Straw man. Neither of us believe God is a magician. Miracles aren't magic. Knowing the future is mutually exclusive to freedom.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
There is no foreknowledge for the Creator without determinism.

Take that up with those who actually believe in a determined universe where everything's programmed and there is no such thing as choice.

Let me ask this another way:

If God had some ice cream in front of him, and God knew that He would choose chocolate instead of the vanilla, could God change His mind and choose vanilla instead?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Supra.



No, they're not.

Knowing the future infallibly is mutually exclusive to a man having a will.



Yes, we've already agreed on that.

But you've had this explained enough times already.



Wrong.



This coming from the guy who says God didn't just use a rooster to crow after Peter denied Him three times because it doesn't fit his position.



Could God not have? Why not?



Not just likely. Probable.

God is able to make predictions FAR BEYOND what we men can do.



It's specific enough to know that God knew what Peter would do before a rooster crowed.

It is NOT specific enough to be able to claim that therefore God knows the future infallibly.



There's nothing magical about that.

It's simply a figure of speech talking about God's patience. He is so patient that a thousand years to him is LIKE a day. It's not a literal statement, Arthur, and you should recognize that.



Nope, He literally fed five thousand people with some bread and fish.



Nope. He literally changed water into wine, and it was the good stuff too.



Well, your sense of what's "rational" for God is hardly the yardstick for Him, so any limitations you decide to place are pretty much yours and yours alone.



Knowing it infallibly is, because there is literally no other possibility than what is known to be true (definition of infallible).



If any entity has infallible knowledge of the future, then to the extent of their knowledge of the future, the future IS determined, and there is alternate possible future possible.



I have acknowledged the difference already. Please catch up to the conversation.
So, you haven't got a quote of mine that says any such thing as you've accused me of then have you? Else, where is it? Misrepresenting people is hardly edifying JR and you should either acknowledge that you've nowt on the score or retract.

Exhaustive foreknowledge isn't remotely the same thing as usurping will but if you're so mired in a position of your own making then it's little wonder you apply such limitations to God.

This next bit is completely dishonest on your part and attributed to me:

"This coming from the guy who says God didn't just use a rooster to crow after Peter denied Him three times because it doesn't fit his position."

Where the heck have I said anything like that?!

Then again, you've already stated that I consider that God needs to know the future in order to say something with zero in support so eh, shouldn't be that surprised I guess.

Hey, if you want to limit God to your own limited human parameters of what's "rational" to you then you crack on.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Neither do you.



Straw man. Neither of us believe God is a magician. Miracles aren't magic. Knowing the future is mutually exclusive to freedom.
Garbage. Your freedom isn't affected whether God knows the future or not unless you're programmed to act via the hyper Calvinist route or some such. You carry on declaring what God can and can't know though.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Let me ask this another way:

If God had some ice cream in front of him, and God knew that He would choose chocolate instead of the vanilla, could God change His mind and choose vanilla instead?
God can do whatever He wants JR, figure that one out. He could likely choose both simultaneously while making a tutti frutti and feeding 4 billion people with a carton of eggs and 17 muffins. When are you gonna get that your - and my - human understanding of time does not remotely apply to God?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So, you haven't got a quote of mine that says any such thing as you've accused me of then have you? Else, where is it? Misrepresenting people is hardly edifying JR and you should either acknowledge that you've nowt on the score or retract.

Where have I misrepresented you?

Do you or do you not defend the idea that God must know the future based on what He said to Peter

Exhaustive foreknowledge isn't remotely the same thing as usurping will

Not what's being discussed.

We're talking about whether people have wills or not, not whether their will is being usurped.

Do try to keep up, Arty.

but if you're so mired in a position of your own making then it's little wonder you apply such limitations to God.

Supra.

This next bit is completely dishonest on your part and attributed to me:

"This coming from the guy who says God didn't just use a rooster to crow after Peter denied Him three times because it doesn't fit his position."

Where the heck have I said anything like that?!

So God could have commanded a rooster to crow at that time?

Then again, you've already stated that I consider that God needs to know the future in order to say something with zero in support so eh, shouldn't be that surprised I guess.

You seem to be basing your entire position on what He said to Peter.

Does what God said to Peter REQUIRE God to infallibly know the future? In other words: Is it a logical necessity?

OR

Could something else explain what happened after He said that?

Hey, if you want to limit God to your own limited human parameters of what's "rational" to you then you crack on.

The only one limiting God here is you, Arty.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Then prove me wrong instead of making baseless claims.


Appeal to the stone.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Try engaging for once.

Your freedom isn't affected

We're not talking about whether my freedom is affected. We're talking about whether man has freedom to begin with.

Do try to pay attention.

whether God knows the future or not

Man doesn't have a will if God infallibly knows the future.

unless you're programmed to act via the hyper Calvinist route or some such.

We're not talking about Calvinism.

We're talking about determinism.

Don't get them confused.

You carry on declaring what God can and can't know though.

What I'm declaring comes from the Bible.

What YOU'RE declaring comes from Greek philosophy. Ever heard of the Fates?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Let me ask this another way:

If God had some ice cream in front of him, and God knew that He would choose chocolate instead of the vanilla, could God change His mind and choose vanilla instead?
no
Matt 5:37 But let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no. For whatever is more than these comes from evil.
 

Idolater

"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
If Peter had a choice
What I'm suggesting is that he had the choice.
, he might have chosen otherwise.
He didn't (choose otherwise), but he had the choice. He just did not choose it. He himself freely (although we can debate just how free he was; but that would have more to do with ethics or sin, than with metaphysics or ontology) did not choose otherwise.
This means it was possible that Jesus' knowledge would fail.
No, that doesn't follow at all. Why could not Jesus see what Peter freely was going to choose to do? I understand where you're coming from I think, so my challenge to you is the timing of choices that we make. And I'm suggesting there's a distinction in time between when we make or determine to make a decision, and when that decision or free choice is materialized in the world. I choose today to eat chocolate ice cream the very next time that the opportunity to eat chocolate ice cream presents itself to me; but I also choose today to never pursue chocolate ice cream for its own sake. In other words I trust that at some point before I die, chocolate ice cream is going to present itself to me without me having to try, either a birthday party, or a friend suggesting let's go out for ice cream tonight, or a church social----I have faith it's going to happen without any effort on my part. But I determine now, to partake of that chocolate ice cream whenever it does present itself to me.

If Jesus knows this, then why couldn't He look ahead and see the next time chocolate ice cream heads my way (which is being able to see my future circumstances, not necessarily to see my future choices), and know that I will be eating it then?
Infallible foreknowledge and wills are mutually exclusive.
I again demonstrated that this is untrue. Unless you're willing to admit that I myself in determining now, to eat chocolate ice cream in the future, whenever it presents itself to me in the future, if I am physically capable of eating it then: that I have simultaneously rendered my future choice capable of foreknowledge, and nullified my will.

If you can't agree to this, then I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the terms you're using. If I have chosen to eat ice cream, then am I no longer free anymore, because I have actually made a choice? That makes zero sense. That necessitates that freedom is just a constant state of indecision, and that once you make a choice, you are no longer free.

This is the opposite of what Jesus said about knowing the truth. We're going to be set free. So making a choice cannot equal losing our freedom; we will gain our freedom when we make the right choice.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
arthur brain

I'm not arguing that God has 'set it in stone' anyway as foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as predetermining it.

It is with God Acts 2:23

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Gods foreknowledge is grounded by His determinate counsel.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, that doesn't follow at all. Why could not Jesus see what Peter freely was going to choose to do?

He could and did.

Why could Peter not have chosen to honor Him?

I understand where you're coming from I think, so my challenge to you is the timing of choices that we make. And I'm suggesting there's a distinction in time between when we make or determine to make a decision, and when that decision or free choice is materialized in the world. I choose today to eat chocolate ice cream the very next time that the opportunity to eat chocolate ice cream presents itself to me; but I also choose today to never pursue chocolate ice cream for its own sake. In other words I trust that at some point before I die, chocolate ice cream is going to present itself to me without me having to try, either a birthday party, or a friend suggesting let's go out for ice cream tonight, or a church social----I have faith it's going to happen without any effort on my part. But I determine now, to partake of that chocolate ice cream whenever it does present itself to me.

If Jesus knows this, then why couldn't He look ahead and see the next time chocolate ice cream heads my way (which is being able to see my future circumstances, not necessarily to see my future choices), and know that I will be eating it then?
Because if He were to tell you that decision, you could change it.

If you can't agree to this, then I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the terms you're using.

I will admit that I have probably used terms in a contradictory manner.

But I blame the people who demand that determinism and wills can coexist. ;)

If I have chosen to eat ice cream, then am I no longer free anymore, because I have actually made a choice?

For the sake of this argument, call the act of eating the decision. The decision can always change before the act.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
arthur brain



It is with God Acts 2:23

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Gods foreknowledge is grounded by His determinate counsel.
Gee, what Brain wouldn't pay to know how to respond to a Calvinist.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
He didn't (choose otherwise),

When we're discussing wills, whether someone follows through with their will is largely irrelevant.

but he had the choice. He just did not choose it. He himself freely (although we can debate just how free he was; but that would have more to do with ethics or sin, than with metaphysics or ontology) did not choose otherwise.

Which means that God did not infallibly know the future.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Why could not Jesus see what Peter freely was going to choose to do?

I recommend reading this article on the overall subject. It presents the logical reasoning for why Peter could not have had a choice if Jesus infallibly knew what Peter would do (or, vice versa, why Jesus could not have known infallibly what Peter would do if Peter had/has a will.


I understand where you're coming from I think, so my challenge to you is the timing of choices that we make.

I think it's pretty cut and dried.

For example, if God says "I will without fail do X" (and in scripture, He did that at least a few times), and then later repents (turns away from) of doing that very thing, then there's only two possibilities, as far as I can tell (feel free to present a third):

Either

God never actually intended to do that which He said He did, because He knew that He was never going to do it (the "infallible foreknowledge" bit), which makes Him a liar.

OR

God fully intended to do that which He said He would do, and would have done it, but for the fact that something else is in play, namely, what He says in Jeremiah 18, that if circumstances change, He can no longer do that which He said He would do for whatever the reason may be. This makes God out to be not only just, but also capable, not a liar, but honest and righteous, and more importantly, depending on the situation, merciful and gracious!

And I'm suggesting there's a distinction in time between when we make or determine to make a decision, and when that decision or free choice is materialized in the world.

The ENTIRE BOOK of Jonah speaks to the irrelevance of this distinction.

God said to Nineveh, "In forty days you will be destroyed."

As @Arthur Brain keeps pointing out with the passage regarding Peter, that is an extremely specific prophecy, with, like with Peter, NO conditions set as to negating what will happen. God fully intended to destroy them.

But guess what happened forty days later.

At the end of the forty days, Jonah went up on a hill to watch them burn, but the fire never fell from heaven, and so He got mad at God for not following through with what He said He would do.

The entire book of Jonah shows that the nation repented, even the king put on sackcloth and sat in ashes! The entire nation repented towards God! Here's the result, as it relates to this topic:

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. - Jonah 3:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah3:10&version=NKJV

GOD IS MERCIFUL, is He not?

He explains to Jonah:

But the Lord said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night.And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?” - Jonah 4:10-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah4:10-11&version=NKJV

God is saying that if circumstances change, then He no longer has to follow through with what He said He would do.

That means God is free!

And if God is free, and we are made in the image of our Creator, then we are also free!

And if we are free, then the future is not set in stone, not all of it, at least.

I choose today to eat chocolate ice cream the very next time that the opportunity to eat chocolate ice cream presents itself to me; but I also choose today to never pursue chocolate ice cream for its own sake. In other words I trust that at some point before I die, chocolate ice cream is going to present itself to me without me having to try, either a birthday party, or a friend suggesting let's go out for ice cream tonight, or a church social----I have faith it's going to happen without any effort on my part. But I determine now, to partake of that chocolate ice cream whenever it does present itself to me.

This is the same sort of reasoning used by those who say "Nineveh wasn't destroyed at the end of Jonah, but it was destroyed later, and so that's what God really meant," ignoring that God intended to destroy Nineveh at the end of the forty days when Jonah preached, not in the future.

If Jesus knows this, then why couldn't He look ahead and see the next time chocolate ice cream heads my way (which is being able to see my future circumstances, not necessarily to see my future choices), and know that I will be eating it then?

Because of this (change out "answering the phone" with "eating ice cream"):
Screenshot_20220726-122530.png

I again demonstrated that this is untrue. Unless you're willing to admit that I myself in determining now, to eat chocolate ice cream in the future, whenever it presents itself to me in the future, if I am physically capable of eating it then: that I have simultaneously rendered my future choice capable of foreknowledge, and nullified my will.

This is why Open Theists refocus the argument on whether God is free, because it makes it a lot easier to answer question like this, hence my post earlier about God being the one to eat the ice cream.

If you can't agree to this, then I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the terms you're using. If I have chosen to eat ice cream, then am I no longer free anymore, because I have actually made a choice? That makes zero sense.

Rather, you are free up until you eat the ice cream to choose not to eat it. Heck, you can even spit the ice cream out before you swallow it. That's how free you are.

That necessitates that freedom is just a constant state of indecision, and that once you make a choice, you are no longer free.

Only when that choice is turned into action. We're talking about just having the choice, however. The "action on that choice" comes later.

This is the opposite of what Jesus said about knowing the truth. We're going to be set free. So making a choice cannot equal losing our freedom; we will gain our freedom when we make the right choice.

It doesn't equal losing our freedom. It equals exercising our freedom.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
I think it's pretty cut and dried.

For example, if God says "I will without fail do X" (and in scripture, He did that at least a few times), and then later repents (turns away from) of doing that very thing, then there's only two possibilities, as far as I can tell (feel free to present a third):

Either

God never actually intended to do that which He said He did, because He knew that He was never going to do it (the "infallible foreknowledge" bit), which makes Him a liar.

OR

God fully intended to do that which He said He would do, and would have done it, but for the fact that something else is in play, namely, what He says in Jeremiah 18, that if circumstances change, He can no longer do that which He said He would do for whatever the reason may be. This makes God out to be not only just, but also capable, not a liar, but honest and righteous, and more importantly, depending on the situation, merciful and gracious!



The ENTIRE BOOK of Jonah speaks to the irrelevance of this distinction.

God said to Nineveh, "In forty days you will be destroyed."

As @Arthur Brain keeps pointing out with the passage regarding Peter, that is an extremely specific prophecy, with, like with Peter, NO conditions set as to negating what will happen. God fully intended to destroy them.

But guess what happened forty days later.

At the end of the forty days, Jonah went up on a hill to watch them burn, but the fire never fell from heaven, and so He got mad at God for not following through with what He said He would do.

The entire book of Jonah shows that the nation repented, even the king put on sackcloth and sat in ashes! The entire nation repented towards God! Here's the result, as it relates to this topic:

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. - Jonah 3:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah3:10&version=NKJV

GOD IS MERCIFUL, is He not?

He explains to Jonah:

But the Lord said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night.And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?” - Jonah 4:10-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah4:10-11&version=NKJV

God is saying that if circumstances change, then He no longer has to follow through with what He said He would do.

That means God is free!



This is why Open Theists refocus the argument on whether God is free, because it makes it a lot easier to answer question like this, hence my post earlier about God being the one to eat the ice cream.



Rather, you are free up until you eat the ice cream to choose not to eat it. Heck, you can even spit the ice cream out before you swallow it. That's how free you are.



Only when that choice is turned into action. We're talking about just having the choice, however. The "action on that choice" comes later.



It doesn't equal losing our freedom. It equals exercising our freedom.
and the book of Revelation tells of the judgement poured out and the result is "they did not repent"

Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk).
Rev 9:21 And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.
Rev 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain.
Rev 16:11 And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Beloved,
If predestination is true and all things are set in stone before the foundation of the world, why did Jesus ask if it was possible for this cup to be passed from Him? He was asking if there be any other way than Him going to the cross. Why would Jesus ask this if He already knew it wasn’t possible and that everything was planned before the foundation of the world?
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Beloved,
If predestination is true and all things are set in stone before the foundation of the world, why did Jesus ask if it was possible for this cup to be passed from Him? He was asking if there be any other way than Him going to the cross. Why would Jesus ask this if He already knew it wasn’t possible and that everything was planned before the foundation of the world?
First of all, lets establish that He already knew that it had been determined that He was going to die by way of the cross. Do you believe that ? Lk 22:21-23

21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
First of all, lets establish that He already knew that it had been determined that He was going to die by way of the cross. Do you believe that ? Lk 22:21-23

If He did, why would He ask not to have to bear the cup? If it was determined, don’t you think he’d feel silly asking. “I’ve predetermined it but I’m going to ask anyway.”
 
Top