B
- Status
A
atheos_sum
Guest
The idea is that God is outside of time and does not experience it in a linear fashion as humans do. After all, time itself is a creation of God. God is omnipresent, even in different dimensions of time—all dimensions of time. But I don’t think this changes the notion of double-predestination at all. This might seem a bit complicated, but I’m going to present a series of statements describing the nature of omniscience and time.
Before there was linear time there was knowledge of time in the mind of God. Knowledge of time by necessity must have obtained before time obtained because everything that obtains in the world would have been preceded by God’s knowledge of it. That is to say, everything God expects to happen (or obtain) does in fact happen (or obtain.) He has no false impressions of anything. The knowledge of time is absolute and true in the mind of God.
So from God’s absolute perception of time, “before the foundation of the world” to use the jargon, God has soteriological knowledge that transcends “time.” That is, he knows who will have eternal life and who will have eternal separation from Himself. It is more accurate to say, “He knows and always knew who has eternal life and separation.” There is nothing about the antiquity or even the transcendence of the absolute perception that mysteriously allows for free will.
B
BenK
Guest
What on earth can you mean by ‘before there was linear time’? It makes no sense at all to talk about something that chronologically precedes cronos.
There is nothing mysterious about how God’s trancedence of time allows for both free will and divine omniscience. The clash occurs when we try to say that “God knows what I will choose, yet I might choose anything.” The problem is solved, however, when we understand that “what I will do” is a meaningless concept applied to the knowledge of a trancendent being. God doesn’t see what I’m going to choose, he sees what I choose; the moment of my choice is as present to God as the moment of my contemplation of the choice.
There is nothing mysterious about how God’s trancedence of time allows for both free will and divine omniscience. The clash occurs when we try to say that “God knows what I will choose, yet I might choose anything.” The problem is solved, however, when we understand that “what I will do” is a meaningless concept applied to the knowledge of a trancendent being. God doesn’t see what I’m going to choose, he sees what I choose; the moment of my choice is as present to God as the moment of my contemplation of the choice.
A
atheos_sum
Guest
We’re only separated by words, my friend, not ideas. I’m sure that we share the same basic idea of kronos and omniscience. I think the difference is that it’s as if I’m describing transcendence of time to someone bound by time, and you are not. If you have ever read the book “Flat Land” you’d know the difficulty. But it is much easier for us to describe the 3rd dimension in terms of the 2nd dimension—since we have experienced both—than it is to understand God’s dimensions in terms of our own.
But sure, what I said was linguistically ambiguous. It would have been better to have simply said “time is finite; God is infinite.” It’s not that I think some event chronologically preceded kronos itself. The knowledge of kronos exists unbound by time in the mind of God. Take this statement, “Before an event P occurred, God possessed knowledge of P occurring.” But that is not to say that God is bound by time, or even that he only knew P “before” P. What you and I both mean to say is that God would have known P eternally, or, God would have known P from His eternal and absolute perspective. Correct?
Does this mean you have conceded to double-predestination?
I never said this. But again, this is only a problem for you because the second clause in that statement is describing the world in terms a time-sensitive human being such as you or I would understand. ex.g. Jones didn’t know if Smith will accept Lord Jesus as his personal savior, but Lord Jesus knew from eternity that Smith would reject it, but Jones preached Gospel to Smith anyway since he did not know this. Augustine never had a problem with that notion, why do you?
How could something be meaningful to us yet meaningless to an omniscient deity?
I don’t disagree with you on this point. What exactly is the problem?
W
Writer
Guest
I was with you until the last paragraph… If I am catching your drift, you’re saying that, since God knows the future, we don’t have free will. To discount free will is to give the enemy a weapon he’d treasure like no other. It not only runs contrary to common theloogical sense, but it creates an environment where our actions don’t have consequences, and there is no responsibility for our moral choices. Fore-knowledge of an event does not infer that we are controlling the said event. I may know the end of a movie I am watching, but that doesn’t mean that my knowledge of the ending affects the outcome of the film. Yes, God knows whether you or I will be with Him in Heaven, but to egocentricaly declare yourself elected and thereby avoid responsibility for your behavior, seems to hang on a false premise that omniscience translates into having a direct affect upon all things to happen in the future. It also seems to betray an inconsistent grasp of the nature of time itself.
If our actions are indeed of so little consequence, then why is there such a great emphasis on doing good action in the Bible. As James reminds us, faith without action is dead. Action is the outward reflection of the faith within. Just like you can’t have a candle without light and warmth, you can’t have faith in a vacuum. We are to “work out our faith with fear and trembling”. While we can have a degree of personal assurance or certainty as to our eternal destination through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, we are sadly mistaken if we believe that nothing we can do against God has the power to seperate us from His love in eternity. Actions, as a result of free will, always have the potential to place in the enemy’s camp, but we hold to God’s mercy that we will live accordingly and spend eternity with Him.
P
Philthy
Guest
Too bad it doesn’t bother to explain what, exactly, it means by it or who it applies to, nor does it say that those who are predestined will be aware of their predestined status. There is, after all, a difference between “teaching” something, and simply using the word. In short, it’s not a tremendously useful concept to those of us on this side of time.
Phil
S
sonseeker
Guest
Phil,
I told you where to look to find the teaching on predestination. Did you read either of the passages I cited? It does not sound as though you did.
I’ll explain.
You say that the scripture does not explain what it means by predestination, or who it applies to, or if those who are predestined will be aware of their predestined status.
Get your bible and listen carefully.
Read the Rom 8:29-30 passage. He has, predestined, called, justified, glorified.
Now, go to Eph 1:5, Paul says, “He [God]predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself.” That is the meaning of predestination. God is adopting us as "sons," a generic term such as mensch in German: Man[kind]. Contrary to belief that is popular today, not everyone is a “child of God.” If you have a problem with that, it is not with me; if you have your bible open, you can see what it says.
"Who" that predestination applies to is the "us," in the verse. He predestined “us.” Who is this us?
Well, it is written by Paul, who is an apostle, who has given a specific Gospel message that is identical to the message of the other apostles, who all believe the message that they learned from Jesus. So we know for sure that the group called “us,” contains at the very least, the apostles.
Let’s consider this further. We look above the text we are in to see if there is any context for "us." When we get to v1, we see that the letter is addressed to the ***“the Saints who are at Ephesus, who are faithful in Christ Jesus.” ***That is another clue as to who “us” is. We now know that the group, “us,” contains the apostles who all preached the same message concerning Christ. Paul, who is one of those apostles, is writing this letter to the Ephesians, who “are faithful in Christ Jesus.”
***We can safely conclude then, who the “us” are. They are, those who have heard, and believed the Gospel message as preached by the apostles. ***(Not just the Ephesians, but all who hear and believe)
But, remember, it must be the exact message that has been preached by the apostles: nothing added, subtracted, changed, but the pure unadulterated gospel that the apostles preached.
So, now we know what predestination means: adoption to sonship.
We know who the predestined are: the ones who believe the gospel as it was preached by the apostles, without any change.
Next, we need to find out if the predestined will be aware of their status.
Go to v 13. There you have the answer to a predestined one being aware of his status.
The way to know: If, after listening to the word of truth, as the apostles taught it, (the only place you find that message unchanged today is in the scripture) you believed what they taught, then you were sealed in Him [Christ]… Read on, and if you read carefully and thoughtfully you will see the assurance of salvation there also.
There is the answer to your problem.
There are other checks, read 1 John, for marks of a true believer, you can know, if you read and list out the marks of a true believer.
Hope that helped you and the others immediately above your post.
A
atheos_sum
Guest
Precisely the point. How can immorality and determinism be compatible in the world we are describing?
As far as this being an ugly and undesirable conclusion, well, desirability doesn’t have much to do with truth. Is the universe a reflection of your desires?
You are right in at least one respect: if Jones knows Smith’s future, it doesn’t follow that Jones is the cause of Smith’s future. But! The only way in which Jones could be the cause of Smith’s future is if Jones was the creator of Smith and also knew Smith’s future before creating him. That’s why God as the omniscient creator is very important to my point. You should read the last two paragraphs of post 53.
vide Augustine
A
atheos_sum
Guest
In fact, read this treatise by Augustine, doctor of the Church. Augustine himself affirmed predestination.
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
Then contrast what Augustine says with the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (especially canons IV, V and XI) which anathematizes the position of Augustine and the Council of Orange.
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
Then contrast what Augustine says with the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (especially canons IV, V and XI) which anathematizes the position of Augustine and the Council of Orange.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
One big problem with Calvinism is that it implicitly it teaches that God is the source of all evil, which is outrageous blasphemy.
Scriptures teach that God is light and in him is no darkness. But Calvinism teaches that free will does not exist, and that belief turns God into an unfeeling monster who makes capricious decisions about which of us are going to live evil lives, and which of us are going to live holy lives. If one accepts Calvinism, it is ultimately God’s fault that evil is in the world, since the damned humans have no choice but to live anything other that lives that are full of unrepentant evil. And presumably if men do not have free will, than neither do angels. It follows from Calvinism’s denial of free will that it is also God’s will that Lucifer became evil, for God must have predestined Lucifer to commit the sin of rebellion. In the end, the Calvinists are worshipping a “god” that they believe is the font and source of evil, which is hardly compatible with Christianity.
Scriptures teach that God is light and in him is no darkness. But Calvinism teaches that free will does not exist, and that belief turns God into an unfeeling monster who makes capricious decisions about which of us are going to live evil lives, and which of us are going to live holy lives. If one accepts Calvinism, it is ultimately God’s fault that evil is in the world, since the damned humans have no choice but to live anything other that lives that are full of unrepentant evil. And presumably if men do not have free will, than neither do angels. It follows from Calvinism’s denial of free will that it is also God’s will that Lucifer became evil, for God must have predestined Lucifer to commit the sin of rebellion. In the end, the Calvinists are worshipping a “god” that they believe is the font and source of evil, which is hardly compatible with Christianity.
W
Writer
Guest
This is a great piece. I am reading *Confessions *and enjoy St. Augustine wherever I find him. While I plan to read it in greater depth at some future point, a quick read doesn’t quite reveal how Saint Augustine supports your assertion that free will does not exist. Yes, “predestination” is used in the Bible, but you are adding another level of meaning to the word by implying that foreknowledge is tantamount to having an automatic effect upon that which is know, which does not appear to be a logical conclusion to draw. I might add that (in Chapter 23) “although it is most manifestly asserted by the witness of the divine declarations” appears to be further attestation of the need for works to follow faith. Yes, by grace alone, but faith without works signals that it isn’t real faith to begin with.
In fact, predestination of Mary is one of the arguments supporting the Immaculate Conception. That is, God knew who would bear His son into the world before the world was even created. He would have sheltered His sone from evil, therefore Mary was without the stain of original sin. Besides, how could sin and pure good co-exist so closely? Not to digress, but, to use Mary as an example, Mary had the ability to choose her course of action at the Annunciation and the wedding feast, the start of the ministry of Christ. Both times (unlike Eve) she made the correct choice. She exercised her free will and chose God’s way for her life. God did not force her to undertake this future, she accepted it as an awesome opportunity.
I think we’re debating in circles here… I can accept much of what you’re saying, but I see no basis that foreknowledge of God cancels out personal free will. I see the opposite… that God’s omniscience simply sees what our unltimate decisions will be before we are aware of them.
C
Contarini
Guest
No. Geneva was not part of Switzerland at the time; Calvin was never a dictator (though he had considerable influence); and while the city government asked him to leave early in his ministry there, they begged him to come back a few days later.
If the Calvinist regime in Geneva was tyrannical, then the Papacy was certainly tyrannical. Calvin’s Geneva and the Counter-Reformation Papacy were very similar in many respects.
Edwin
B
BenK
Guest
B
BenK
Guest
Q. Who does God work for the good of?
A. Those who love him.
Q. Who does God call according to his purpose?
A. Those who love him.
Q. Who does God predestine?
A. Those he foreknows. Which is to say, those he foreknows Love him, he presestines to glory.
How do you get unconditional predestinatino from that passage? There’s a condition placed slap bang in the first verse: ‘Love God’!
C
Contarini
Guest
How do you think Thomas Aquinas avoids this conclusion? Do you find his arguments convincing? I don’t. Granted, he tries harder than Calvin. He was a far superior thinker and has far more nuance. But the basic problems are the same for both.
Calvin grants what would now be called “compatibilist” free will. Thomas does not give humans any more than that with regard to divine causality (though with regard to secondary causes he insists on full libertarian freedom). The differences between them are largely (though not entirely) differences of semantics and nuance.
If you look at an official Calvinist confession like Westminster, the differences are far less clear. Westminster is far more nuanced, and far closer to Thomas, than Calvin was. (Calvin’s post-Reformation dominance within the Reformed tradition is unfortunate, because he was hardly their most nuanced thinker.) The WCF insists that divine causality does not take away the freedom of second causes. You’re attacking a caricature here (granted that many modern Calvinists believe te caricature).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s a false dichotomy. The mainstream of Western theology, as represented by theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, upholds free will while also teaching predestination “ante praevisa merita.” As St. Thomas puts it, God does not know things because they happen; they happen because God knows them. God’s knowledge is the cause of the things it knows. “Free will” thus does not imply indeterminacy with regard to divine action.
I have serious problems with this view. But it does no good to pretend that Augustine and Aquinas did not teach this, or to explain away the difficulties involved in any alternative.
For Aquinas, the view you’re maintaining is unworthy of God, because it makes creatures the cause of something in God.
Edwin
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Where do you find Aquinas either explicitly or implicitly asserting that God is the source of all evil?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Edwin,
It is impossible to say what Calvin really believed, since he was a poor theologian whose writings are full of contradiction.
If Calvin were alive today, there are several questions that I would like to ask him. One question being this: Was it God’s will for Adam and Eve to be disobedient to his expressed will that they were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? It seems to me that Calvinist theology collapses in on itself when trying to give a straight answer to this question.
If one asserts, (as a Calvinist must do), that it was God’s will that Adam and Eve were to be disobedient to God’s expressed will that they were to avoid eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then God’s will is confused and opposed to itself - i.e. it is God’s will for Adam and Eve to be both disobedient and obedient to what he has commanded. And if God’s will is confused and contradictory, why was Adam and Eve’s non-free act of disobedience the reality that came into existence? Why wasn’t Adam and Eve’s obedience the reality that came to be? If one is willing to overlook the sheer irrationality of believing that God’s will is opposed to God’s will, the reality of Adam and Eve’s choice for disobedience would be proof that God’s will for disobedience is the more powerful part of God’s confused will. Which means that the evil that is in God is greater than the good that is in God.
The only rational way to answer my question is to acknowledge that Adam and Eve did indeed have free will, and because they were not created in a condition of total depravity, that it is possible for creatures that were created good and holy to make choices that are against God’s expressed will. Which is why Lucifer could rebel against God’s will. Which also means that it is possible for fallen creatures that have been justified by the unmerited grace of God to exercise their free will in ways that are in opposition to God’s perfect will. IOW, it is possible in this world to lose one’s sanctified and justified state and be eternally damned by making the free choice for unrepentant disobedience to God.
It is impossible to say what Calvin really believed, since he was a poor theologian whose writings are full of contradiction.
If Calvin were alive today, there are several questions that I would like to ask him. One question being this: Was it God’s will for Adam and Eve to be disobedient to his expressed will that they were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? It seems to me that Calvinist theology collapses in on itself when trying to give a straight answer to this question.
If one asserts, (as a Calvinist must do), that it was God’s will that Adam and Eve were to be disobedient to God’s expressed will that they were to avoid eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then God’s will is confused and opposed to itself - i.e. it is God’s will for Adam and Eve to be both disobedient and obedient to what he has commanded. And if God’s will is confused and contradictory, why was Adam and Eve’s non-free act of disobedience the reality that came into existence? Why wasn’t Adam and Eve’s obedience the reality that came to be? If one is willing to overlook the sheer irrationality of believing that God’s will is opposed to God’s will, the reality of Adam and Eve’s choice for disobedience would be proof that God’s will for disobedience is the more powerful part of God’s confused will. Which means that the evil that is in God is greater than the good that is in God.
The only rational way to answer my question is to acknowledge that Adam and Eve did indeed have free will, and because they were not created in a condition of total depravity, that it is possible for creatures that were created good and holy to make choices that are against God’s expressed will. Which is why Lucifer could rebel against God’s will. Which also means that it is possible for fallen creatures that have been justified by the unmerited grace of God to exercise their free will in ways that are in opposition to God’s perfect will. IOW, it is possible in this world to lose one’s sanctified and justified state and be eternally damned by making the free choice for unrepentant disobedience to God.
C
Contarini
Guest
Here. He tries to avoid this conclusion, as I said. But I don’t find his attempt convincing: "Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above ([22], [2], ad 2; [48], [2]), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive.”
Evil is a falling short on the part of a creature. The order of the universe requires the existence of things that can fail, which leads to the conclusion that they do. Therefore God is the cause of evil accidentally.
If Aquinas did not also teach that providence extends to everything that happens, and that God’s foreknowledge is causative, then he might have an out. But he closes those escape routes for himself. It’s true that he denies that providence imposes necessity, but it’s also clear if you read his discussion in context that he thinks that God’s providence ensures that specific events will occur–it doesn’t just foresee them. “Necessity” has to do with the way in which the event is produced. God’s initial act of creation is not necessary, because God could have chosen to create otherwise. And the causative principles God has established act in turn to cause other things, and some of these second causes act contingently rather than necessarily. But through it all divine providence is working to ensure specific results.
I therefore conclude that Aquinas is essentially in the same boat as Calvin. The difference is that Aquinas sets up a lot of sophisticated philosophical distinctions to avoid the conclusion, while Calvin grasps the bull by the horns.
In Christ,
Edwin
M
Matt16_18
Guest
I think that you misunderstand Aquinas, for it is clear that Aquinas believes that men have free will, and that free will is the cause of its own movement: I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. … Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
Whether man has free will?
IOW, God is the cause of man having free will, but man is the cause of moving his free will to the choice of evil instead of good.
- Status