If God knows the future

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Thanks for the Fr. Most info, Matt. Interestingly his postion is identical to the Lutheran view.
For the record I pretty much agree with Fr. Most.

Then you should be able to see why Calvinism is incompatible with what Fr. Most is saying.

… to be fair he was a little off on Aquinas there is really not qualitative difference between the Thomist ana Lutheran/Mostian view.

Where do you think Fr. Most was “off” in understanding of Aquinas?

Fr. Most rejects the “Thomist” theology of Domingo Banez and Cardinal Cajetan, that much should be clear!

 

[fcanepa]

God knows all there is to know, it is called omnicience. However, God has chosen to create individuals with genuine free will. It is not a limitation on God to understand that He does not know in advance how much toothpaste I am going to put on my tootbrush tomorrow morning. The information simply does not exist to be known, by God or anyone else.

Remember when God told Abraham (just after Abe showed his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at God’s command), “Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son…” God said “Now I know” in other words He did not know what Abe would do until the moment of decision actually came.

I think we need to avoid simply anthropomorphisizing this away - there are many times in the Bible where God is surprised and pleased (or dissapointed) in what a human does.

 

[cynic]

sandusky:

No I get it. You must have absolute control, absolute, unimpeded free will. How is it that you think a man, once regenerated and given the gift of faith, can lose it?

Equating a Calvinist’s position with racism is nothing more than an emotionally wrought conclusion. You are thinking like the world.

God says He will save people from every nation, tribe, and tongue. The percentages are His choice, not the Calvinist’s. Missionaries go where God wills, as seen in Acts when the H.S. forbade Paul from taking the Gospel to Asia. It’s God’s choice where the Gospel goes, not the Calvinist’s, or anyone else’s choice.

As far as not hearing the Gospel, that too is God’s choice. Scripture holds all men guilty of rebellion. Scripture commands all men to repent and believe in Christ. Whoever does not do that is condemned. Condemnation is not contingent upon hearing the Gospel. One’s degree of punishment may be lessened if he has not heard the Gospel, but one’s guilt is not mitigated a bit by that.

Again, that’s God’s decree, not the Calvinist’s, nor anyone else’s.

So God is not neccessarily just, he does not neccessarrily value each one of us, he is simply God, capriciouse and cruel. Condemning entire nations, peoples, for failing to make a choice that was not available to them. Or is that too emotional?

 

[sandusky]

cynic:

So God is not neccessarily just, he does not neccessarrily value each one of us, he is simply God, capriciouse and cruel. Condemning entire nations, peoples, for failing to make a choice that was not available to them. Or is that too emotional?

Too emotional.

Give me the verses that describe God as Capricious, cruel, unloving. You believe that God must give everyone fair warning. Have you read the Bible?

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

You ask:
If you are referring to the last statement, yes, and because it is God’s right to save whom He will.

Yes, but his “right” to save whom he will cannot violate his perfect righteousness - he can’t save everyone and remain righteous if not all are worthy of salvation. In addition, he cannot be omniscient if he wishes something that contradicts his righteousness - it would imply he is lacking information in forming the proper opinion.

Originally Posted by Sandusky
The verse in Timothy expresses God’s desire, not His purpose. He has purposed to save only those He foreknew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
The problem with this solution - that God’s desire is different than his purpose - is that it fails to account for the fact that God is perfectly righteous and omniscient.

Philthy, I am not sure what you are saying. God is righteous, and He is omniscient; what does that have to do with His saving only those He foreknew?

Plenty, read on.

Are you saying that it is not right for God to do that? If that is what you are saying, Paul has dealt with that objection. Read Rom 9:6-14, with particular attention to Paul’s statement in v14. Read also Rom 9:17-21, with particular attention to vv19-21. Read also Dan 4:35. It is God’s right to do as He pleases with His creation.

Not exactly. Im not talking about anyone judging God - which is Paul’s discussion. I am simply observing that for God - in his omniscience - to wish something(all to repent) that he does not bring to fruition - through his omnipotence - when he has total and complete control over it (your position) is impossible/has implications. He either:

• has chosen not to have the control entirely, or
• lacks a perfectly righteous will, or
• is lacking information which would otherwise lead his wishes to parallel his will.

Take you pick, but whichever one you choose you will need to adjust your concepts of God’s omniscience, righteousness or the application of His omnipotence. That is the problem with saving only those he foreknew while wishing all to repent. BTW, where does it actually say that he saves ONLY those he foreknew?

I do not agree with that. Scripture clearly says that no one is worthy of salvation.

Actually you do agree with it - you dont agree with the potential implication that some ARE worthy. I never made such a claim, however. The fact that “no one is worthy” does not invalidate or contradict" the statement that not all men are worthy - logic 101. If I were to ask you, “True or False - Not all men are worthy of salvation” The correct answer is “True”, without implying that ANY are worthy.

Why is it inappropriate for God to wish that all were saved? Read Eze 33:11; 18:23, 32. Is it also inappropriate that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?

Its only inappropriate if everything is in his power, he has all the information, he is perfectly righteous and he chooses to something other than his wishes to become reality. On exactly what basis would he be “wishing” for it yet not “willing” it? What is preventing him from effecting it?

Again, Scripture says no one is worthy of salvation;

I don’t know what to say to that.

Thank you, Ive been patiently waiting for this honest answer. I dont have all the answers either…

God is not lacking anything, and He is perfectly righteous, and wishes that all would be saved, but He has not purposed to save all, but only those whom He foreknew.

Yea, I hear ya. Your OK with that, I know. I find it logically impossible for the reasons Ive described.

That is the Catholic position, Philthy.

It has apparent advantages and disadvantages. And dont think Im not sensitive to the strenghths of your position - I am.

God has declared that all men should repent, even though God grants, or appoints only some to repentance (Acts 13:48; Phil 1:29). Again, no one repents without God’s granting it, even though He has declared that all should repent.

Good stuff - unfortunately it doesnt address the issue of why he would actually wish that they repent while simultaneously willing them not to…

Can I make a selfish request? Will you (and everyone else) please pray for my health, safety and success during my upcoming missions trip to the Honduras?

Blessings,

Phil

 

[cynic]

sandusky:

Give me the verses that describe God as Capricious, cruel, unloving. You believe that God must give everyone fair warning. Have you read the Bible?

Your theology implies that God is cruel, through his creation of miserable souls, whose sole purpose to exist is to glorify him through their condemnation and destruction in hell. Again you’ll say I’m using a human standard to define what is cruel, that God is God, no answer for that I guess.

Is there any real judgement if every action/thought we take is predetermined?

(doesn’t the Bible state that those who are ignorant are judged by what they know? maybe I am ignorant and got that passage wrong)

Ok thanks.

 

[urban-hermit]

Melchior:

Unfortunately, many folks here are defining away the very meaning of Predestination.

Matt16_18:

Predestination and election aren’t synonyms. All men are created for union with God.

I’m addressing faithful Catholics here, because I am a Catholic and it is too hard to communicate with people outside that sphere on fine points (sorry, I love y’all but my powers of argument are very limited ! )

Anyway, in a discussion such as “Re: If God knows the future…”, it seems essential to first agree on the meaning of words such as “predestination”.

I know that the #1 standard dictionary definition of a word may not be exactly what theologians mean when they use that same word.

Usually, at least in my experience, predestination refers to whether or not we will END UP in heaven. Not whether God WANTED us in heaven before He made us. ( He did ! )

We all agree (right?) that God WILLS to share His everlasting happiness with all of us, and that He has made it POSSIBLE by giving sufficient grace to everybody to get to heaven. The other piece of the puzzle is the mysterious gift to humans of free will.

So regarding a more precise definition of predestination, I offer this from the catechism:

#600
To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore He establishes His eternal plan of “predestination,” He includes in it each person’s free response to His grace . . .

Is this helpful ?