toldailytopic: Did God choose an eternity ago who would, and who wouldn't, be saved?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 23rd, 2010 09:52 AM

toldailytopic: Did God choose an eternity ago who would, and who wouldn't, be saved?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

Yes

 

[Son of Jack]

Only if you conflate knowing with actively choosing...

 

[nicholsmom]

I think that that is what the parable of the wheat and tares is all about. And I think that that is what is meant by "the elect" when it's used. And I think that that is what is meant by "foreordained" when it's used. I think that it is suggested by the word "chosen" when God uses it to refer to those He calls His own.

There are plenty of great theologians who will say it much prettier and give the exact Scripture references together with language study, context analysis, and reliance on the clear and unambiguous Scriptures to inform about the less clear and seemingly ambiguous ones - plus a lot of stuff that I forget all the time.

This is not much more than Sozo's "yes," but it is what I can manage just now

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

I think that that is what the parable of the wheat and tares is all about. And I think that that is what is meant by "the elect" when it's used. And I think that that is what is meant by "foreordained" when it's used. I think that it is suggested by the word "chosen" when God uses it to refer to those He calls His own.

There are plenty of great theologians who will say it much prettier and give the exact Scripture references together with language study, context analysis, and reliance on the clear and unambiguous Scriptures to inform about the less clear and seemingly ambiguous ones - plus a lot of stuff that I forget all the time.

This is not much more than Sozo's "yes," but it is what I can manage just now

Except my "yes" means something different.

 

[godrulz]

N-O spells know/no.

Knight re-opens a centuries old can of worms:juggle:

Sozo's yes is probably based on simple foreknowledge (Arminian-type view). We freely chose to receive or reject Him, but He has exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

nicholsmom probably assumes a Calvinistic, deterministic basis for God's foreknowledge (?TULIP-like view). Election is individual vs corporate.

Some may suggest Molinism, middle knowledge, counterfactuals of freedom for how God can know our free choices in advance. This settled position is also philosophically confusing and incoherent.

My no/know is based on Open Theism, a free will theism. If future choices are unsettled and contingent (by the agent), then EDF (ex. def. fore.) is not possible. If salvation is based on love, relationship, freedom, responsibility, not robotics or unilateral decree/causation/coercion, then God did not choose nor foreknow which individuals would ultimately be saved (remote knowledge). Proximal knowledge increases the probability of knowing (when Hitler was in his last days, God would know the improbability of him ever repenting and believing, so would essentially know he was hell-bound. He did not know this as a certainty when Hitler was in the womb, and certainly not from before creation).

Simple foreknowledge is problematic and begs the question. It is an assumption that is not coherent. EDF is not compatible with LFW (libertarian free will). Calvinism denies genuine free will (for compatibilism), so EDF would be possible, but at the expense of love and choice. Molinism forgets that might/might not obtain/actualize is a factor, not just would/would not. The other key is that election/predestination is corporate, not individual. God determines to have a people (Israel/Church) and actively persuades, woos, draws, influences people to Himself without predestination, coercion, causation. He choose in eternity past to have a people, but did not settle/choose which individuals would ultimately be part of the group.

So, I vote 'no' with Knight and other great Christian radical thinkers.:king:


www.opentheism.info (John Sanders)

http://www.gregboyd.org/

 

[elohiym]

Yes.

Eph 1:3-6

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 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:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

[godrulz]

Except my "yes" means something different.

It is still a 'yes', so is part of the settled vs unsettled future view. If relationship is indeterminate before it exists, then 'no' makes more sense. If all of reality, including the future is determinate, then 'yes' becomes possible. What is the nature of reality/future? Does God know reality as it is? Nicholsmom's view makes God arbitrary in election, so your 'yes' is at least more palatable.

 

[chrysostom]

if He had
why
do we have to go through this?

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

N-O spells know/no.

The Bible disagrees with you. What else is new?

Sozo's yes is probably based on simple foreknowledge (Arminian-type view).

I am an open theist, so you are wrong again. :yawn: What else is new?

So, I vote 'no' with Knight and other great Christian radical thinkers.:king:

No Christian will vote no, looking at the question as asked.

 

[godrulz]

Yes.

Eph 1:3-6

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 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:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Eph. 1 is about God's corporate election of the Church (and relationship to Christ), not about individual election. The Ephesian saints were now part of this group, so the truths apply to them (just as they apply to us individually as we believe like them). The passage cannot be proof texted to say that God, in eternity past, picked Tom, Dick, Harry, but not Jane, Sue, Betty (even before they existed).

Is your 'yes' based on Calvinistic election of individuals or simple foreknowledge of their future free choices to believe?

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

Yes.

Eph 1:3-6

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 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:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

You gave it away too quickly :chuckle:

 

[chrysostom]

Only if you conflate knowing with actively choosing...

can you choose without knowing?

 

[godrulz]

The Bible disagrees with you. What else is new?

I am an open theist, so you are wrong again. :yawn: What else is new?

No Christian will vote no, looking at the question as asked.

Perhaps you misunderstand the question? Did God choose David (you) before creation to be saved, but chose Hitler to be damned, even before he existed?

If you are playing games and saying that God chose believers, not unbelievers, an eternity ago, then that is not what is being asked.

You are not a very good Open Theist, because that view is the antithesis of Calvinism (decree/determinism) and Arminianism (SFK) and would definitely answer 'no' based on Open Theism principles. Are you a black sheep Open Theist taking the label, but not the view itself?

I am a Christian and voted 'no'. Knight is a Christian, and so is Clete, and they would vote 'no' (unless it is a trick question).

The answer to this question is not a salvific issue. Saying yes or no to the person and work of Christ is salvific, not corporate vs individual election, views on time/eternity/omniscience, etc.:bang:

I realize I said the sky is blue, so you must now say it is green, but why not just answer properly despite having to agree with me?

 

[godrulz]

if He had
why
do we have to go through this?

We are not in a manipulate 'Matrix'. Our lives are played out in real time and God responds to changing contingencies rather than fatalistically fixing destinies/the future.

 

[csuguy]

Nope. But if he did - then we might as well do whatever we want without regard to his commands or teachings, since none of it would make a difference as everything is pre-ordained.

 

[elohiym]

My no/know is based on Open Theism, a free will theism. If future choices are unsettled and contingent (by the agent), then EDF (ex. def. fore.) is not possible.

In English? :idunno:

If salvation is based on love, relationship, freedom, responsibility, not robotics or unilateral decree/causation/coercion, then God did not choose nor foreknow which individuals would ultimately be saved...

The scripture states "chose us." You say he didn't choose us.

Now, why don't you explain what "hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world."

Simple foreknowledge is problematic and begs the question. It is an assumption that is not coherent.

Do you just spout opinion, or do you ever exegete scripture?

God determines to have a people (Israel/Church) and actively persuades, woos, draws, influences people to Himself without predestination, coercion, causation. He choose in eternity past to have a people, but did not settle/choose which individuals would ultimately be part of the group.

You are playing word games.

First, free will is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. What you have described is, by definition, NOT free will.

Second, if he chose to have a people in eternity past, then at least one person had no choice, else God's choice to have a people could not occur because no people made an alleged free will choice to be his people.

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

Perhaps you misunderstand the question?

Not me. :chuckle:

God chose from the beginning that all those who are in Christ will be saved.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes

Except my "yes" means something different.

I was going to ask what you meant, but I see that has already been answered.

You're right. The wording of the question leaves it to be answered in the affirmative. Knight asked a very vague question here. Without more specifics I cannot give a more specific answer.

I do have to say that if you take predestination to its ultimate conclusion, however, that they would have to answer in the negative, no matter what. Because, according to predestination, God didn't choose anything. He could not. He would have no choice. Because it was predestined that He would predestine that He would predestine...:dizzy:

 

[Stripe]

How would one be able to choose something an eternity ago? :idunno: