Do you believe in predestination ?

[Stripe]

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.

 

[Idolater]

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.

I think that God is interested in a genuine relationship with people who can think for themselves.

I agree, and so does Catholicism.

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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:

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?

 

[Stripe]

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.

 

[Idolater]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Stripe]

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.

I think you've committed the logical fallacy of begging the question. We're trying to test the idea that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, but you've made that a necessary condition of the conclusion.

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.

That's fair. I was presenting hypothetical responses as if I were in the situation. I think I'd be able to choose red or blue, or take our not take the apple regardless of what anyone, including God, told me beforehand.

You seem to think otherwise.

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.

It might be. You might be right. However, I think it's more important to improve our relationships than to improve our knowledge. This is in regard to parenthood, but informs on how we might view our relationship with God.

 

[Nanja]

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 [FONT="]Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,[/FONT]

Amen Brother. We know that scripture teaches that God's predestination of certain individuals to Eternal Salvation was not that He looked into the future to see what choices men would make, i.e. believing or repenting; but solely according to Him who works all things after the counsel of His Will Eph. 1:11. That's the origin of God's Own Eternal Will: His decreeing from eternity, to appoint beforehand.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:


In other words, God foreordained or determined in advance those whom He separated in Eternal Election Eph. 1:4-5 to have forgiveness of sins Eph. 1:7 by the Lamb Slain before the foundation of the World Rev. 13:8.

1 Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Acts 13:48b - and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.


Eph. 3:9-11

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:


Now the remainder of men not Chosen in Christ, not predestinated to Eternal Life, God has appointed to eternal wrath: the same are those whom He appointed to stumble at the Word of God 1 Pet. 2:8.


Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

 

[way 2 go]

That's fair. I was presenting hypothetical responses as if I were in the situation. I think I'd be able to choose red or blue, or take our not take the apple regardless of what anyone, including God, told me beforehand.

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.

Mat 26:33 Peter answered him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away."
Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.

 

[Lon]

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?

Yes. It is like me having an Almanac. The problem is that if I get that information from the future, it records exactly what you did choose (will choose). Similarly, if you like chocolate, I don't have to ask when bringing you a cone. Your 'choice' is already known. You'd say you didn't have a choice. 1) true, but you didn't want one and 2) it isn't quite true you couldn't have had another flavor, you are just much happier without the '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.

Sort of. I can train my dog to bite me or give me a tail wag after any given command or action. I'm NOT genuinely interested in a dog who can 'choose' between the two. God did not want us to 'choose' evil. Until then? No choice: Like chocolate, which is a good thing, you don't have to have a bevy of choices to be happy nor does it keep you away from relationship.

Rather, as with my dog, relationship is interaction, not whether he can bite me or not, or that he can lick me or wag his tail. Such just doesn't matter. My dog probably can choose to sit or lie down, but it really doesn't matter because 1) he doesn't care and 2) I don't either. It is simply valuing one another's time and proximity.

More important than your 'free will' is your identity, your imago deo. You are 'aware' and that is the actual gift from God. My dog is somewhat aware and somewhat relational, but we are made of something different.

Let me try this: "If" you were only offered vanilla ice cream for dessert at a friend's, have 'no choice' but you still enjoy your friend and the company. It isn't 'freewill' that allows this, but rather 'awareness' of values you share, that makes or breaks a relationship. It has not a lot to do with choice. I have friends, brothers and sisters in Christ, really, I didn't choose who are life-long brothers and sisters in Christ. God chose them. I suspect you had no choice either but like me, are just as happy about it. :e4e: -Lon

 

[Stripe]

Yes. It is like me having an Almanac. The problem is that if I get that information from the future, it records exactly what you did choose (will choose). Similarly, if you like chocolate, I don't have to ask when bringing you a cone. Your 'choice' is already known. You'd say you didn't have a choice. 1) true, but you didn't want one and 2) it isn't quite true you couldn't have had another flavor, you are just much happier without the 'choice.'

This is just a restatement of the thing we disagree with.

God did not want us to 'choose' evil.

Obviously.

However, to have freedom, we have to have the freedom to reject Him.

Let me try this: "If" you were only offered vanilla ice cream for dessert at a friend's, have 'no choice' but you still enjoy your friend and the company. It isn't 'freewill' that allows this, but rather 'awareness' of values you share, that makes or breaks a relationship. It has not a lot to do with choice.

Can you try again? I don't understand.

 

[Lon]

This is just a restatement of the thing we disagree with.

Obviously.

However, to have freedom, we have to have the freedom to reject Him.



Can you try again? I don't understand.

I'm saying, against the notion that freewill is necessary for relationship, that you'd take the vanilla simply because the relationship isn't dependent upon freedom of choice but rather shared values. Freewill never comes into play.

 

[Stripe]

I'm saying, against the notion that freewill is necessary for relationship, that you'd take the vanilla simply because the relationship isn't dependent upon freedom of choice but rather shared values. Freewill never comes into play.

Why?

 

[Lon]

Why?

You and I, in Christ, are brothers - No choice. Further? We don't care. That choice was made for us and we couldn't be happier. It is a relationship fully out of both of our choices. We can argue it is a consequence but consequences aren't the choice, they are all the results of. Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ purposed to save us. It set off a whole series of fatalistic happenings: damning some, winning some. It doesn't matter really, if God foreknew indelibly or not. It rather matters what each and every one of those consequences happen[ed] to be. Our relationship, thus, has nothing to do with your or my choice, but rather is His choice without our say. You and I are eternal brothers, bonded for eternity based on no choice between you and I, but Him and His AND we know it is a real relationship, the definition of. Our freewill never came into play. We don't care. Both of us completely satisfied in Christ that He makes all these choices and they couldn't have been made otherwise as far as we are concerned (may still need explanation, but I hope this is meaningful). -Lon, as far as Christ, your eternal brother.

 

[Stripe]

You and I, in Christ, are brothers - No choice. Further? We don't care. That choice was made for us and we couldn't be happier. It is a relationship fully out of both of our choices. We can argue it is a consequence but consequences aren't the choice, they are all the results of. Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ purposed to save us. It set off a whole series of fatalistic happenings: damning some, winning some. It doesn't matter really, if God foreknew indelibly or not. It rather matters what each and every one of those consequences happen[ed] to be. Our relationship, thus, has nothing to do with your or my choice, but rather is His choice without our say. You and I are eternal brothers, bonded for eternity based on no choice between you and I, but Him and His AND we know it is a real relationship, the definition of. Our freewill never came into play. We don't care. Both of us completely satisfied in Christ that He makes all these choices and they couldn't have been made otherwise as far as we are concerned (may still need explanation, but I hope this is meaningful). -Lon, as far as Christ, your eternal brother.

You're just declaring things that I don't believe without providing reason.


Why is it that a relationship is not dependent upon freedom?

 

[Lon]

You're just declaring things that I don't believe without providing reason.


Why is it that a relationship is not dependent upon freedom?

Again. You and I never chose this relationship. It was thrust upon us. Because of our love for the Savior, there is no need for you to 'choose' this.
Let me ask you this (it may tidy it up): WOULD you choose otherwise between us? Is it even a desire? The answer will confirm what I'm saying.

 

[Stripe]

You and I never chose this relationship.

I did. :idunno:

 

[way 2 go]

I think this question might help a bit:



For example, would it have been possible for Judas to not have sold Jesus to the authorities?

Judas did so , no.

Peter clearly showed a desire not to deny Jesus but did deny Jesus.

Mat 26:33 Peter answered him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away."
Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.

 

[Lon]

I did. :idunno:

You didn't get to choose me as your brother in Christ. Further? John 15:16; Romans 9:16 Of course I'm not a synergist (strictly monergist), but you still didn't get to choose me as your brother in Him. That was indeed His choice.

 

[Stripe]

You didn't get to choose me as your brother in Christ.

I chose Jesus. Yeah, that came with consequences.

 

[ttruscott]

The Bible clearly teaches predestination of the elect. It's not in doubt within scripture. It certainly is hated by most humans.

The bible surely does. People hate it because it implies that HE therefore also predestines the non-elect to hell. Even the sects that teach predestination spend huge amounts of time and thought on how it can still be said HE does not predestine the others to hell but it is inescapable and a billion pages of theo-babble, sophist-icated argument, cannot change that.

It is proof to me that the sects do understand the blasphemy involved in the charge that HE predestined some to hell because they work so hard to allay that fact and make it conform to HIS righteousness. The only doctrine that I have ever seen that side steps the whole issue is the claim that we all chose our own fates, ie, to enter into HIS promise of election (salvation too) by our own free will or rejected HIS promise of election (and salvation ) by their free will. If it was by our free will choice it casts no aspersions on HIS predestining our lives, (not fates) to conform to our choices. Of course it necessitates that we were created before the creation of the physical universe and made our decisions in the spirit world well before we were moved into the world of mankind, Matt 13:36-39.

Why some people think that the doctrine of our pre-conception existence is so horrible that they must accept the blasphemy that our GOD who is love creates some people knowing they will go to hell because HE had already decided not to elect them to heaven is well beyond me, sigh.