Calvinism

[atheos_sum]

BenK:
The definition of ‘primary state’ was:

So what we mean is that God, whose existence is not dependant on the universe, (ie. who exits whether the universe exists or not), is omniscient. Okay, granted. Although that should be “God possesses knowledge in the primary state” rather than “possessed”. The PS, being an attribute of God, (ie, not dependent on the universe for his existence), is something he is, not something he was.

I’m pretty sure you have grasp on what I mean by the primary state. I’ll just add that we can juxtapose the “primary state” with the “actual state.” The actual state is one in which both God and the universe exist concurrently. The actual state, thus, is the state in which you and I and God (among all other things) exist. Just remember: the primary state does not imply that time existed before time existed. So you don’t have to object to those imperfect verbs. The primary state is “before” the actual state only in the same sense that Paul says “before the creation of the world.”

…

 

[atheos_sum]

…
So, I’m assuming that we’re on the same page—and that you have granted #9. So now I’ll provide you with some warrant for #10. But I’ll go slow and probably wait for your replies before I give more warrant.

1. All acts of God are done according to God’s decisions.
2. The creation of the universe was an act of God.

C) □→The creation of the universe was an act done according to God’s decision.

1. All intentional acts obtain from a state in which

i. The act itself does not obtain (does not exist.)

ii. The decision ‘to act’ is made.

1. The creation of the universe was an intentional act.

C) □→The creation of the universe obtained from a state in which

i. The creation of the universe does not exist (does not obtain.)

ii. The decision to ‘create the universe’ is made.

1. A decision to act cannot be made in the same state in which the act already obtains. (Ex.g. I don’t decide as I am taking a bath that I am going to take the bath I am already taking.)
2. The actual state is the one in which the decision ‘to create the universe’ has already obtained.

C) God did NOT make the decision ‘to create the universe’ in the actual state.

1. The only possible state that God could have made the decision ‘to create the universe’ is a state in which

i. God exists

ii. The universe does not exist

1. The primary state is the only state in which

i. God exists

ii. The universe does not exist

C3) □→The only possible state in which God could have made the decision ‘to create the universe’ is the primary state.

To oversimplify this part of the argument: God decided to create the universe from a state in which only God, and not the universe, exists (i.e. the primary state.) This is very straightforward.

 

[OkeyDokei]

Calvinism shows the problems of Catholicism in a much clearer way. The way you view Calvinists is the way i view catholics…

 

[BenK]

I’m pretty sure you have grasp on what I mean by the primary state. I’ll just add that we can juxtapose the “primary state” with the “actual state.”

By definition, we can’t. The PS, being an attribute of God (ie that he exists eternally and independent of anything else), is something he always is. The ‘actual state’ of God is, and always is, what you have called the ‘primary state’.
the actual state is one in which both God and the universe exist concurrently.

I think the word ‘concurrently’ is extremely problematic here. God’s relationship to time is fundamentally different to our own; all is present to God. One might therefore talk of God being ‘concurrent with all things always’ or perhaps even assert that ‘nothing is truly concurrent with God’, but not that God, in one ‘state’ is ‘concurrent’ with the universe, and in another ‘state’ not.

 

[Matt16_18]

**Matt16_18:**Your “primary state” is nothing by a synonym for God.

Atheos_sum: A synonym? Hardly. It’s the possible state of affairs in which His existence is necessary—it’s not actually Him.

God has his existance in a ground of being called a “state of affairs” that makes God necessary? If you believe that, then you are not a Christian at all.

Angels and men are created beings that possess both act and potency, and unlike God, created beings do not have the ground of their being in themselves. God is not created, He is the Creator, and He alone is pure act. God is the great, “I Am” - He is who He is, and in Him is no necessity.

The concept that you have of God not the Christian or Jewish concept of God, it is something that sounds strangely similar to the false god of process theology, or the pantheistic concept of God found in the religions of the Orient.[Jesus] showed me the whole plan of Redemption with the way in which it was to be effected, as also that He Himself had done. I saw that it is not right to say that God need not have died for us upon the Cross; the he could, by virtue of His omnipotence, have redeemed us otherwise. I saw that He did what He did in conformity to his infinite perfection, His mercy, and His justice; that there is no necessity in God, He does what He does, He is what He is!

• Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich

 

[Matt16_18]

Rand Al'Thor:

already has! i was told “we dont understand why…”

it’s pretty convienient only understanding God when it helps your argument.

LOL.

That didn’t take long, did it? Ah well, happens every time. Notice that Contarini won’t address the argument either. He will tell us what Calvin, Augustine, and Aquinas all believed, but he won’t tell us what HE believes.

BenK:

It’s so pathetic, isn’t it. We’ll build a most elaborate doctrine of salvation right up to the point when our own beliefs lead to problematic conclusions (ie God is evil) and at* that* point start telling people that they would be wrong to question God and that this doctrine is mystery.

Reminds me of the EO when they can’t give a straight answer as to how they determine when an Ecumenical Council is invalid. Suddenly, their inability to give a rational reason for why they are right, and the Catholic Church is wrong, is proof that their “mystical Eastern mindset” is incomprehensible to western Christians that think too much!

OkeyDokei:

Calvinism shows the problems of Catholicism in a much clearer way. The way you view Calvinists is the way i view catholics…

God’s perfect will is that no one should perish.The Lord is … not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
2 Peter 3:9

God our Savior … desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Tim 2: 3-4

 

[atheos_sum]

BenK:

By definition, we can’t.

By definition…? What about the primary state says it cannot be juxtaposed with any other state?

BenK:

The PS, being an attribute of God (ie that he exists eternally and independent of anything else), is something he always is. The ‘actual state’ of God is, and always is, what you have called the ‘primary state’.

Ugh. I would argue with you about using “attribute” but I think I’ll let that pass. Read what I said about Kant.

Only God exists in the primary state. But we exist too, and we don’t exist in the primary state. So it follows there is another state in which “we exist too.” Is there something wrong with calling this the “actual state”?

Since there are different states, it follows that we can compare different states to each other.

BenK:

I think the word ‘concurrently’ is extremely problematic here. God’s relationship to time is fundamentally different to our own; all is present to God. One might therefore talk of God being ‘concurrent with all things always’ or perhaps even assert that ‘nothing is truly concurrent with God’, but not that God, in one ‘state’ is ‘concurrent’ with the universe, and in another ‘state’ not.

Sure, if you don’t want to use the word “concurrently,” we don’t have to. But you need to understand this notion: In one state God exists, and in another state God and the universe exist. They’re not identical states.

By the way, next week is finals week, and so I’m probably not going to be very patient with these finicky details.
**Matt16_18:
God has his existance in a ground of being called a “state of affairs” that makes God necessary?

You have no idea what you’re talking about. There are plenty of Christians who use the terminology “possible state of affairs” with respect to God and modality. Stay out of this debate if you don’t understand these things.
**Matt16_18:
If you believe that, then you are not a Christian at all.

Well, if you had any doubts, you could have just read my handle. Atheos_sum translates as “I am an atheist,” in Latin.

 

[BenK]

What about the primary state says it cannot be juxtaposed with any other state?

Since there are different states, it follows that we can compare different states to each other.

In one state God exists, and in another state God and the universe exist. They’re not identical states.

“God”, in Christian theology, is nescessarily eternal and independent. Therefore it is nonsense to speak of God as being in any other ‘state’ than nescessarily eternal and independent. While we can certainly contrast the ‘state’ of being eternal, nescessary, and independent with the state of being created, contingent, and dependent for existence, we can in no sense apply the latter ‘state’ to God.

By the way, next week is finals week, and so I’m probably not going to be very patient with these finicky details.

Finicky details? You’re whole argument seems to be grounded in a system of ‘states’ and how they apply to God. These are hardly ‘details’.

 

[atheos_sum]

BenK:

“God”, in Christian theology, is nescessarily eternal and independent. Therefore it is nonsense to speak of God as being in any other ‘state’ than nescessarily eternal and independent. While we can certainly contrast the ‘state’ of being eternal, nescessary, and independent with the state of being created, contingent, and dependent for existence, we can in no sense apply the latter ‘state’ to God.
to be grounded in a system of ‘states’ and how they apply to God. These are hardly ‘details’.

You have been thinking of the primary state as an “attribute.” Thus, to you, how can both the primary state and actual state be attributes of God. It’s no wonder these sound mutually contradictory to you. Kant is rolling in his grave.

But let’s impact your argument. According to what you have said, it sounds as if God cannot be in the actual state. In order for you to deny predestination, you have essentially resorted to denying that God works in the state in which you and I exist. “If you believe that,” Matt should tell you, “then you are not a Christian at all.”

Is not God both transcendent and immanent? It doesn’t sound like you have a good grasp on what Christian theology is. You shoud start by reading C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”.

BenK:
Finicky details? You’re whole argument seems to be grounded in a system of ‘states’ and how they apply to God. These are hardly ‘details’.

Throughout these posts we have been active in more areas of theology than perhaps is necessary. I call them finicky details because a lot of them have already been fleshed-out and have reached a consensus among theologians and philosophers. (For example, transcendence and immanence.) My argument is an extremely simple one. I simply don’t have time to sit in front of my computer and explain again and again and again what already makes sense to a lot of other people–especially since i have finals starting Monday.

 

[BenK]

According to what you have said, it sounds as if God cannot be in the actual state. In order for you to deny predestination, you have essentially resorted to denying that God works in the state in which you and I exist.

Inasmuch as the ‘actual state’ in which you and I exist is the state of being created, contingent, and dependent for existence, God is not ‘in’ the actual state. God is uncreated, nescessarily eternal and independent, therefore he is not in the ‘state’ of being created, contingent, and dependent.

I would have thought this was straightforward Christian orthodoxy.

You shoud start by reading C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”.

Funny you should mention Mere Christianity:

“(From C.S. Lewis, ‘Time and Beyond Time’ in Mere Christianity) We tend to assume that the whole universe and God himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. But many learned men do not agree with that. It was Theologians who first started the idea that some things are not in Time at all: later philosophers took it over: and now some scientists are doing the same.
Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another… God, I believe, does not live in a Time-Series at all. His life in not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is, so to speak, still 1920 and already 1960. For his life is himself.
…Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do to-morrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot… But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case what we call ‘to-morrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘to-day’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not ‘forsee’ you doing things to-mmorow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though to-morrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your to-mmorow’s actions in just the same way - because he is already in to-morrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, he does not know your action until you have done it: but then the moment at whcih you have done it is alreday ‘Now’ for him.”

 

[atheos_sum]

BenK:

Inasmuch as the ‘actual state’ in which you and I exist is the state of being created, contingent, and dependent for existence, God is not ‘in’ the actual state. God is uncreated, nescessarily eternal and independent, therefore he is not in the ‘state’ of being created, contingent, and dependent.

I would have thought this was straightforward Christian orthodoxy.

What kind of omnipotent creator would not be able to exist in the same state as His creation as well as His own? You are only stressing the transcendent aspect of God, and neglecting the immanent aspect.

Given that the universe exists now, do you not say God exists now too? If you answer yes, then you have acknowledged an “actual state.” This is not something to quibble over.

BenK:

Funny you should mention Mere Christianity:

“(From C.S. Lewis, ‘Time and Beyond Time’ in Mere Christianity) We tend to assume that the whole universe and God himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. But many learned men do not agree with that. It was Theologians who first started the idea that some things are not in Time at all: later philosophers took it over: and now some scientists are doing the same.
Almost certainly…in to-morrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, he does not know your action until you have done it: but then the moment at whcih you have done it is alreday ‘Now’ for him.”

I actually suggested CS Lewis as a joke because nearly every Christian has read him anyway. It would be like you suggesting that I read Aristotle. It wouldn’t be to suggest that I agree with Aristotle, but to undermine my understanding of philosophy.

Nonetheless, the views Lewis is addressing are not mine. I have already supposed that God is outside and above time. So, that having been said, my argument undermines this entire passage.

I’m using more vernacular language now, maybe this will be more useful.

God decided to create the universe at the beginning of time (or created time at the beginning of the universe depending on how you look at it.) He beheld the knowledge of the universe for an eternity. God, having created the universe, is able to be in the moment of 1920 and 1960. They are “Now” for Him. But His decision, because He knew the very fate of the universe, predestined everything in all those moments which are “Now” for Him. The objection, “but He transcends time” is an incredibly ignorant objection to make at this point, precisely because “He transcends time” is part of my own argument. It complements my argument when you say that.

If you had been following the formal parts of my argument, as you wanted me to put forward, you would have understood that the actual state’s reality rests upon the primary state’s reality. If God does not exist in the primary state, then the actual state would not have been possible, because the actual state is a product of the primary state. The decision “to create” is only possible in the primary state. “All moments are present to God” in the primary state. Thus God created ‘all moments’ having known their fates and obviously confirming their fates upon his decision.

Also, this passage of Lewis’s raises harmful afterlife questions. If God transcends time and can behold my life in 1987 and 2005, can he not “already” see me as “I am” in the afterlife? Surely, the answer is a resounding yes. At this point, I should be saying to myself, “What on Earth! There is nothing I can do to change my fate!”

 

[BenK]

What kind of omnipotent creator would not be able to exist in the same state as His creation as well as His own?

God can exist in the state of being a created, contingent, and dependent being - that is the essence of the incarnation, the divine nature took on human nature.

However, God’s immanence, his being-present in all places and all moments, does not require him to partake of the same ‘state’ as that which he is present to. God is present in and to me: my name is Ben, does that make God’s name Ben? I am six foot four, does that make God six foot four? Likewise, I am created, contingent, and dependent; God is not, though he sustains and is present to every aspect of my being.

God decided to create the universe at the beginning of time (or created time at the beginning of the universe depending on how you look at it.) He beheld the knowledge of the universe for an eternity. God, having created the universe, is able to be in the moment of 1920 and 1960.

Since for God, there are no past moments, there is never a philosophically rigorous use for the past tense with reference to God’s omniscient perspective. “God decided” should read “God decides”, “created time” should read “creates time”, “beheld the knowledge” should read “beholds the knowledge”, “God, having created” should read “God, creating”. This is precisely the point that Lewis and I make regarding God’s transendence of time. The fact that God sees what I choose is no more an argument against my freedom than the fact that I see which type of Pizza a friend orders when we’re at Pizza Hut is an argument against his freedom.

The essence of freedom with respect to omniscience is this: God knows that John chooses X because John chooses X. John’s choice is the cause of God’s knowledge.

 

[atheos_sum]

BenK:

God is present in and to me: my name is Ben, does that make God’s name Ben? I am six foot four, does that make God six foot four? Likewise, I am created, contingent, and dependent; God is not, though he sustains and is present to every aspect of my being.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean this. I’m not suggesting that God is everything his creation is (i.e. depth, width, eye color etc). You and I both live in the actual state, that doesn’t make me six foot four.

This all arises from your mistaken idea that the states (primary and actual) are literally “attributes” of God. They are not. You are six feet and four inches tall; God is not. I have green eyes; God does not. Those are attributes. On the other hand, you exist in the actual state and so does God. These are not attributes, but rather, the realm in which we call attributes into question. I exist; you exist; if Christianity is true, God exists. In the study of metaphysics, these are not attributes. How can existence itself be an attribute? A real coffee cup has real properties *x y *and z. An imaginary coffee cup has imaginary properties *x y *and z.

Don’t mistake me for saying God is imaginary: God, existing in the primary state has properties x y and z, and has the same properties existing in the actual state.

But to the bigger picture. I don’t see how downplaying in this manner actually helps your critique.

BenK:

Since for God, there are no past moments, there is never a philosophically rigorous use for the past tense with reference to God’s omniscient perspective. “God decided” should read “God decides”, “created time” should read “creates time”, “beheld the knowledge” should read “beholds the knowledge”, “God, having created” should read “God, creating”. This is precisely the point that Lewis and I make regarding God’s transendence of time. The fact that God sees what I choose is no more an argument against my freedom than the fact that I see which type of Pizza a friend orders when we’re at Pizza Hut is an argument against his freedom.

I prefer to say that “God created” (pefect tense) because, from our perspective, it has obviously already taken place. The way we experience time, God is not constantly in a state of creating the universe. At this point in history, God would be sustaining the universe, wouldn’t he?

The way you suggest to do this seems like it would only confuse us more.

True, God would be in 1960 and 2005 all at once. But for us to keep saying both “it is 1960” and “it is 2005” would only confuse us because we don’t transcend time in that manner. Let’s keep it simple.

BenK:

The essence of freedom with respect to omniscience is this: God knows that John chooses X because John chooses X. John’s choice is the cause of God’s knowledge.

How could anything we do cause God to know something? If God is learning, then that seems to suggest that He was previously in a state of knowing less–which is not omniscient.

Moreover, we cannot do anything to influence God because God does not change–he is immutable. Also, God is perfect. And a something perfect could not change and be more perfect. Any change to a state of perfection suggests that the previous state was one in which He was not perfect. Perfection does not change.

I want to use your example of John to illustrate what my point is:

God knows that John chooses X not only because John chooses X, but because God knowingly created a universe in which John unmistakably chooses X.