How do you reconcile free will with predestination?

[CatholicSoxFan]

Your argument renders God incompetent. Also, Paul states why God reprobates some (if not most). Damnation allows God to express his wrath.

“Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Romans 9:19-24

No, you just don’t know what omnipotence means.

 

[Counterpoint]

No, you just don’t know what omnipotence means.

Sure I do. “Omnipotence” means “all-powerful.”

 

[MacQ]

Free will and predestination are incompatible with each other by definition:

The apostle Paul clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 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: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:” Ephesians 1:3-11

How do you reconcile free will with predestination?

Simple.
By not taking a word out of context in Paul’s writings for starters.
Predestination usually refers to a concept whereby our fates are decided ahead of time, and that certainly is incompatible with true free will.

As Paul used it, the term more aptly would mean that God’s desire was to gather us all to him. Not that he picked some out to save.

 

[Counterpoint]

(1) And you have to establish that the word proorizo in St. Paul’s writings means fatalistic double predestination or some other deterministic plan. You have not.

I don’t have to establish that Paul means “fatalistic double predestination” (although a compelling case can be made for that), because that’s not the argument I made in the OP of this thread. And I have already established that “predestination” implies predeterminism by definition. (If we can’t agree on the meaning of words, then it will not be possible to verbally communicate with each other.)

Merriam-Webster defines “predestination” as “the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed.”

(2) You have not yet taken into account the first-person data at the foundation of the definition of freedom of the will. Freedom of the will refers to the fact that I am aware I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, controlled, or taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision.

To reiterate: “Free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If it is, then everything was predetermined by God. If it isn’t, then our choices ultimately boil down to some element of randomness. (I cannot be held any more responsible for some decision or act that ultimately is the result of pure chance than I can for one that is completely predetermined.)”

This is not debatable. (If we cannot agree on the dictates of logic (specifically the “law of noncontradiction”), then it will not be possible to have a rational debate.)

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Sure I do. “Omnipotence” means “all-powerful.”

That doesn’t mean that God can do logically impossible things, like determining free actions, though. Logically impossible states of affairs, like a state of affairs in which a libertarian free agent is determined, aren’t really states of affairs at all, and thus that God can’t actualize them doesn’t mean that He doesn’t have a maximal ability to actualize states of affairs.

 

[Counterpoint]

Simple.
By not taking a word out of context in Paul’s writings for starters.
Predestination usually refers to a concept whereby our fates are decided ahead of time, and that certainly is incompatible with true free will.

As Paul used it, the term more aptly would mean that God’s desire was to gather us all to him. Not that he picked some out to save.

Nonsense!.

“For whom he did FOREKNOW, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also CALLED: and whom he CALLED, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

 

[MacQ]

Nonsense!.

“For whom he did FOREKNOW, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also CALLED: and whom he CALLED, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

:nope:
When someone cuts and pastes cherry pickings from Paul, it’s a red flag to me that someone is trying to justify some false concept. I have noticed that radical fundamentalist folks do that. They often leave off the things that don’t agree with their premises.
Sorry. Unconvinced.

 

[Counterpoint]

:nope:
When someone cuts and pastes cherry pickings from Paul, it’s a red flag to me that someone is trying to justify some false concept. I have noticed that radical fundamentalist folks do that. They often leave off the things that don’t agree with their premises.
Sorry. Unconvinced.

I believe you have it backwards. I’m not the one here who has to do the “convincing,” you are. The name of this forum is “Catholic Answers” (or at least, it purports to be). What this means is that I (as the non-Catholic) get to ask the questions and you (as the Catholic) have to provide me a with compelling explanation.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I believe you have it backwards. I’m not the one here who has to do the “convincing,” you are. The name of this forum is “Catholic Answers” (or at least, it purports to be). What this means is that I (as the non-Catholic) get to ask the questions and you (as the Catholic) have to provide me a with compelling explanation.

No, when you cited Rom 8 to him, it was an attempt to convince him of a point.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I don’t have to establish that Paul means “fatalistic double predestination” (although a compelling case can be made for that), because that’s not the argument I made in the OP of this thread. And I have already established that “predestination” implies predeterminism by definition. (If we can’t agree on the meaning of words, then it will not be possible to verbally communicate with each other.)

Merriam-Webster defines “predestination” as “the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed.”

You cite St. Paul in the OP. It does matter to your argument what he meant.

(1) The elementary point you don’t seem to get is that it comes down to what St. Paul means by the Greek word he used in the context of his arguments and the times: not the definition of an English word here in 2014. If you don’t know the very first thing about Biblical hermeneutics how can we have a conversation about the meaning of a biblical text?

(2) I cited numerous internationally-recognized biblical scholars who state that Paul is not speaking about fatalistic double predestination or some other deterministic plan for individuals. He is speaking about God’s election in love of Israel first and then the Church, and both corporately.

(3) I’m waiting for your compelling case from experts of the caliber I cited that Paul means fatalistic double predestination for individuals.

To reiterate: “Free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If it is, then everything was predetermined by God. If it isn’t, then our choices ultimately boil down to some element of randomness. (I cannot be held any more responsible for some decision or act that ultimately is the result of pure chance than I can for one that is completely predetermined.)”

This is not debatable. (If we cannot agree on the dictates of logic (specifically the “law of noncontradiction”), then it will not be possible to have a rational debate.)

(4) “Free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not.” Obviously.

(5) “If it is, then everything was predetermined by God.” You haven’t established that it is predetermined by God according to St. Paul.

(6) “If it isn’t, then our choices ultimately boil down to some element of randomness.” (5) and (6) add up to a False Dilemma, since you’re into logic. (5) hasn’t been established and (6), macro-level randomness, is not the only way to account for the first-person foundation of freedom. You have not established that it is.

Quantum level randomness is a given. However using quantum level randomness to explain the first-person definition of freedom at the macro level is like attempting to interpret a sentence by an analysis of the chemical composition of the ink with which it is written.

The possibility you exclude is the we are irreducibly first-person conscious agents who make free choices as I defined them. This does not exclude that some circumstances we are in that require a choice may have no significant reasons to choose either way, and one chooses literally or figuratively by flipping a coin.

(7) Curiously you have not at all addressed the first-person data involved in the definition of freedom that must ultimately be explained (probably reductively) for (6) to succeed.
Freedom of the will refers to the fact that I am aware I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, controlled, or taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision.

The problem is that it does not seem you are talking in hypotheticals (What if God predetermined eternal destiny of the individual?). You are starting with the assertion that Paul has taught that our individual eternal destiny is predetermined, and ask how can this be reconciled with free will, if indeed the Bible teaches free will?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I believe you have it backwards. I’m not the one here who has to do the “convincing,” you are. The name of this forum is “Catholic Answers” (or at least, it purports to be). What this means is that I (as the non-Catholic) get to ask the questions and you (as the Catholic) have to provide me a with compelling explanation.

You seem to have the wrong idea. We don’t have to " convince " you or anyone else. In fact we don’t have to respond to anyone. In your case and in the case of many others who stop by, they will not be convinced no matter what anyone says, because their minds, for one reason or another, are closed.

In your case however, how is one to explain anything to anyone who doesn’t even know they exist? A futile endeavor to say the least.

People here are wise to your intent and tactics.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If your choice was completely predictable beforehand, then it was completely determinate.

First, our choices are not " predictable. " And, even if they were it would not follow that they are determined.

Linus2nd

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

First, our choices are not " predictable. " And, even if they were it would not follow that they are determined.

Linus2nd

Well, what I think what he is trying to say is that if you can infer infallibly what I am going to do based on the circumstances, then I am not free.

 

[MacQ]

No, when you cited Rom 8 to him, it was an attempt to convince him of a point.