On Predestination

[fhansen]

Quite a different conversation…since none of us are omniscient or at the level of a creator…don’t ya think? We are guarding our world because we are on our own…again…quite simple.

You’re point is that free will is a fallacy if God is omniscient. My point is that free will is operative regardless of whether or not someone’s watching from an eternal perspective, whether or not they know the beginning from the end. And we’re not just guarding our world; we’re recognizing injustice and immorality when we see it, and knowing that the choices involved could and should be otherwise.

 

[oldcelt]

You’re point is that free will is a fallacy if God is omniscient. My point is that free will is operative regardless of whether or not someone’s watching from an eternal perspective, whether or not they know the beginning from the end. And we’re not just guarding our world; we’re recognizing injustice and immorality when we see it, and knowing that the choices involved could and should be otherwise.

I think your first line sums it up nicely.

 

[fhansen]

I think your first line sums it up nicely.

So, then, your point is that, if God does not foreknow our choices, then man is responsible for his own actions. But, if God does somehow foreknow our choices, then man cannot be responsible for his actions?

 

[tonyrey]

A timeless creator cannot interfere in the lives of his creatures, so “ignoring” and “neglecting” them is not His choice, it is a logical consequence of God’s alleged immutability.

Immutability is not incompatible with freedom and creativity. Even we remain the same person when we make decisions and change the course of events.

 

[Seraphim73]

A timeless creator cannot interfere in the lives of his creatures, so “ignoring” and “neglecting” them is not His choice, it is a logical consequence of God’s alleged immutability.

I’m sorry friend but that is a very humanistic way of looking at God. You can’t even say God is timeless or immutable or pure being. St Basil, St Gregory and others would say that’s just a bunch of baloney. God is beyond mutable and immutable, beyond time, beyond being and non-being. He is so completely other we can’t even begin to make a description of Him.

But they would also say, following Scripture, that our God is the living God. That He interacts with His creation, that He behaves different ways at different times with different people, and that those differences and interactions are really real. It’s not just that we experience God different. His interactions with us really are different. And Scripture makes that clear too. Sometimes God shows Himself, sometimes He hides, He comes, He goes, sometimes He gets angry, other times He is assuaged. So in reality the idea that God can’t interact with us is just preposterous. It certainly is not supported by the Church’s experience.

 

[belorg]

Immutability is not incompatible with freedom and creativity. Even we remain the same person when we make decisions and change the course of events.

First of all: no, we definitely do not remain the same person when we make decisions.
And secondly, I haven’t said anything about freedom and creativity. I was talking about interference.
So, your response is completely irrelevant to what I said.

 

[belorg]

I’m sorry friend but that is a very humanistic way of looking at God. You can’t even say God is timeless or immutable or pure being. St Basil, St Gregory and others would say that’s just a bunch of baloney.

St Thomas , on the other hand, would not say this is baloney And he actually has some interesting arguments for his position.

God is beyond mutable and immutable, beyond time, beyond being and non-being. He is so completely other we can’t even begin to make a description of Him.

If that is the case, all attempts to make any sense about God are, excuse me for my choice of words, “just a bunch of baloney”

But they would also say, following Scripture, that our God is the living God. That He interacts with His creation, that He behaves different ways at different times with different people, and that those differences and interactions are really real. It’s not just that we experience God different. His interactions with us really are different. And Scripture makes that clear too. Sometimes God shows Himself, sometimes He hides, He comes, He goes, sometimes He gets angry, other times He is assuaged. So in reality the idea that God can’t interact with us is just preposterous. It certainly is not supported by the Church’s experience.

And they would have no basis for the claim that “our God is the living God”.

 

[Seraphim73]

St Thomas , on the other hand, would not say this is baloney And he actually has some interesting arguments for his position.

I imagine St Thomas ultimately would agree that any description we make ultimately is woefully inadequate.

If that is the case, all attempts to make any sense about God are, excuse me for my choice of words, “just a bunch of baloney”

Any positive statement about God ultimately falls short. You have to have a clear understanding of that fact when speaking about Him.

And they would have no basis for the claim that “our God is the living God”.

Who is they?

 

[oldcelt]

So, then, your point is that, if God does not foreknow our choices, then man is responsible for his own actions. But, if God does somehow foreknow our choices, then man cannot be responsible for his actions?

No, I’m saying that a creator with foreknowledge who then condemns that creation for the things that were already known is complicit it that individuals destruction. A just creator would either not condemn or not create.

 

[belorg]

I imagine St Thomas ultimately would agree that any description we make ultimately is woefully inadequate.

It doesn’t matter what you “imagine”, but Thomas of Aquino does use the decsription “immutable” for god.

Any positive statement about God ultimately falls short. You have to have a clear understanding of that fact when speaking about Him.

you mean a statement like “God is good” etc; I fully agree with that.

Who is they?

The “they” you mentioned.

 

[Seraphim73]

It doesn’t matter what you “imagine”, but Thomas of Aquino does use the decsription “immutable” for god.

Well what I imagine does matter. I’m a person and we’re having a discussion. If opinions don’t matter I’m not sure what we’re doing here.

The “they” you mentioned.

In the time it took you to type this you could have told me. If I knew who you were talking about I wouldn’t have asked. If you want to have a civil discussion snarky comments are not going to help.

 

[tonyrey]

]First of all: no, we definitely do not remain the same person when we make decisions.

In any court of law we are regarded as the same person as we have been from the moment we were conceived. We certainly don’t lose our identity or responsibility for what we have done in the past because of what we are doing now. We may have a different characteristics but that doesn’t mean we are a different person. Our body changes but our mind has unbroken continuity because it transcends physical events. If we were simply biological machines we would be incapable of self-control and self-awareness. All our thoughts, decisions and actions would be produced by factors beyond our control whereas in reality we are independent agents who can take the initiative, resist our impulses and overcome our habits.

And secondly, I haven’t said anything about freedom and creativity. I was talking about interference. So, your response is completely irrelevant to what I said.

Your omission has no bearing on the relevance of freedom and creativity which are essential attributes of a normal person.

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, I’m saying that a creator with foreknowledge who then condemns that creation for the things that were already known is complicit it that individuals destruction. A just creator would either not condemn or not create.

From St. Thomas’ Summa:

As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

 

[oldcelt]

From St. Thomas’ Summa:

As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Augustine engaging in, if you’ll excuse the expression, double-talk. God is all good, so he allows evil so that good will come of it…nonsense…and top that off, he condemns those he created, with absolute foreknowledge, who didn’t follow this or that.

 

[Seraphim73]

Augustine engaging in, if you’ll excuse the expression, double-talk. God is all good, so he allows evil so that good will come of it…nonsense…and top that off, he condemns those he created, with absolute foreknowledge, who didn’t follow this or that.

It’s not nonsense. God can’t stop us from committing evil because we have free will. God is love and that love requires a free expression. It can’t be any other way.

 

[tonyrey]

Augustine engaging in, if you’ll excuse the expression, double-talk. God is all good, so he allows evil so that good will come of it…nonsense…and top that off, he condemns those he created, with absolute foreknowledge, who didn’t follow this or that.

So it is better to create robots rather than autonomous persons?

 

[belorg]

Well what I imagine does matter. I’m a person and we’re having a discussion. If opinions don’t matter I’m not sure what we’re doing here.

Informed opinions do matter, and you should know that Thomas uses “immutable” in his description of God.

In the time it took you to type this you could have told me. If I knew who you were talking about I wouldn’t have asked. If you want to have a civil discussion snarky comments are not going to help.

How can you not know what I was talking about when I directly replied to your post:

But they would also say, following Scripture, that our God is the living God. That He interacts with His creation, that He behaves different ways at different times with different people, and that those differences and interactions are really real. It’s not just that we experience God different. His interactions with us really are different. And Scripture makes that clear too. Sometimes God shows Himself, sometimes He hides, He comes, He goes, sometimes He gets angry, other times He is assuaged. So in reality the idea that God can’t interact with us is just preposterous. It certainly is not supported by the Church’s experience.

That’s the ‘they’ you mentioned. There is nothing snarky about this.

 

[belorg]

A court of law has nothing to do with this. We are talkiing about achnage and it is abundantly clear that people’s minds (even if they are immaterial) change, even if it is in an unbroken continuity.

Your omission has no bearing on the relevance of freedom and creativity which are essential attributes of a normal person.

Freedom and creativity are not releavnt in this context.

 

[Seraphim73]

Informed opinions do matter, and you should know that Thomas uses “immutable” in his description of God.

St Thomas would admit any description is inadequate.

How can you not know what I was talking about when I directly replied to your post:

That’s the ‘they’ you mentioned. There is nothing snarky about this.

They do have a basis. It’s what Sacred Scripture says.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;12485281:

In any court of law we are regarded as the same person as we have been from the moment we were conceived. We certainly don’t lose our identity or responsibility for what we have done in the past because of what we are doing now. We may have a different characteristics but that doesn’t mean we are a different person. Our body changes but our mind has unbroken continuity because it transcends physical events. If we were simply biological machines we would be incapable of self-control and self-awareness. All our thoughts, decisions and actions would be produced by factors beyond our control whereas in reality we are independent agents who can take the initiative, resist our impulses and overcome our habits.

A court of law has nothing to do with this. We are talkiing about achnage and it is abundantly clear that people’s minds (even if they are immaterial) change, even if it is in an unbroken continuity.

We can change our minds but **we **do not change. There is no doubt whatsoever that you, I and everyone else remain the same persons for all personal, moral, legal, social, medical, economic, philosophical and theological purposes. *Causa finita est.
*