Predestination

[belorg]

My basic question is does God ever mess with free will? When people are “full of grace” or in God inspiring the sacred authors do they still have free will to sin? Could people who were so called by God like Abraham, Moses or Mary could they have said no to God?

If the God(s) of Christianity exist, there cannot be free will. So it’s not a matter of ‘messing with free will’.
God supposedly created all things and also all people.
He e.g. created person A, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perform action a under situation S and He also created person B, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perfrom action b under situation S.

The choice A and B make is determined by two things: the external situation and who A and B are. Where is the room for free choice?

It seems that, if we presuppose the Christian God(s) exist, the calvinist notion of predestination is the only logically possible conclusion.

 

[Timonator348]

If the God(s) of Christianity exist, there cannot be free will. So it’s not a matter of ‘messing with free will’.
God supposedly created all things and also all people.
He e.g. created person A, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perform action a under situation S and He also created person B, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perfrom action b under situation S.

The choice A and B make is determined by two things: the external situation and who A and B are. Where is the room for free choice?

It seems that, if we presuppose the Christian God(s) exist, the calvinist notion of predestination is the only logically possible conclusion.

I’m not sure where you get the notion of “the Christian God(s)” but I think this notion of everything being preordained by God does not hold true in the human experience. As any given person we are born into certain circumstances but as we go through life we encounter situations that cause us to make decisions with a large multitude of potential outcomes. Just because God foreknows which choice we will make he does not control which direction we choose to lead our life closer to Him or away from Him.

 

[tonyrey]

If the God(s) of Christianity exist, there cannot be free will. So it’s not a matter of ‘messing with free will’.
God supposedly created all things and also all people.
He e.g. created person A, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perform action a under situation S and He also created person B, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perfrom action b under situation S.

The choice A and B make is determined by two things: the external situation and who A and B are. Where is the room for free choice?

It seems that, if we presuppose the Christian God(s) exist, the calvinist notion of predestination is the only logically possible conclusion.

You ignore the fact that God **shares His power **with us to such an extent that we can ignore and even reject Him…

Nor do you explain how you can have free choice if you are a biological machine…

 

[belorg]

I’m not sure where you get the notion of “the Christian God(s)” but I think this notion of everything being preordained by God does not hold true in the human experience. As any given person we are born into certain circumstances but as we go through life we encounter situations that cause us to make decisions with a large multitude of potential outcomes.

The fact that a situation may be very complex does not alter anything. If situation S occurs, no matter how complex this situation S may be, then person A will choose action a and person B will choose action b.

Just because God foreknows which choice we will make he does not control which direction we choose to lead our life closer to Him or away from Him.

The choice we will make depends on who we are (which is completely under God’s control since He apparently created us) and the situation we find ourselves in (which is not under our complete control, but ,again, if God is the way Chrsitians claim he is, it’s under His complete control).

 

[belorg]

You ignore the fact that God **shares His power **with us to such an extent that we can ignore and even reject Him…

God shares His power with A and because A is A (which was God’s decision), A chooses to do a (let a be 'rejecting God). And God shares His power with B because B is B (which was God’s decision), B chooses to do b (let b be ‘not rejecting God’). Still God’s decision, not A’s or B’s.

Nor do you explain how you can have free choice if you are a biological machine…

Since I have never claimed that if I am a biological machine I have libertarian free will, I do not need to explain anything.

 

[Timonator348]

The choice we will make depends on who we are (which is completely under God’s control since He apparently created us) and the situation we find ourselves in (which is not under our complete control, but ,again, if God is the way Chrsitians claim he is, it’s under His complete control).

It appears you are assuming since God created us we are completely under his control like puppets when you say if God is the way Christians claim he is I believe you’re referring to non-Catholic Christians, particularly from a Calvinist background. The majority of Christians know God does not control our every thought and action. God wants us to love him freely because forced love is not truly love at all.

 

[belorg]

It appears you are assuming since God created us we are completely under his control like puppets when you say if God is the way Christians claim he is I believe you’re referring to non-Catholic Christians, particularly from a Calvinist background. The majority of Christians know God does not control our every thought and action. God wants us to love him freely because forced love is not truly love at all.

No, I’m referring to all sorts of Christians. I am well aware that Catholics do not believe God controls us, but that just is the logical consequence of God being the creator of everything.

 

[tdgesq]

No, I’m referring to all sorts of Christians. I am well aware that Catholics do not believe God controls us, but that just is the logical consequence of God being the creator of everything.

Not necessarily. Most Christian theists hold that the soul is immaterial, and many hold that it possesses the attribute of self-cause or self-determination. You may object that by God creating the soul he is a condition precedent to our self-determination. While that is true, the theistic metaphysic does not require it to be the proximate cause of our individual choices.

 

[belorg]

Not necessarily. Most Christian theists hold that the soul is immaterial, and many hold that it possesses the attribute of self-cause or self-determination. You may object that by God creating the soul he is a condition precedent to our self-determination. While that is true, the theistic metaphysic does not require it to be the proximate cause of our individual choices.

The soul may very well be immaterial or possessing the attribute of self-cause or self-determination, but that does not remove the problem.
Either soul A was created completely the same as soul B, in which case A becoming different from B is purely coincidental.
Or A becomes differnent from B because A wants to be different from B. But if A was created just the same as B, then A’s wanting to be diffrerent is also purely coincidental.
Or A was created differently from B, in which case God is responsible for A’s choosing a and B’s choosing b.

 

[tdgesq]

The soul may very well be immaterial or possessing the attribute of self-cause or self-determination, but that does not remove the problem.

It certainly removes the problem of predetermination by God of all human choices.

Either soul A was created completely the same as soul B, in which case A becoming different from B is purely coincidental.

I don’t know what you mean by “coincidental.” You will need to define terms.

Or A becomes differnent from B because A wants to be different from B. But if A was created just the same as B, then A’s wanting to be diffrerent is also purely coincidental.

If what you mean is that A made a choice different from B that was not based upon any external cause then I agree. Whether this choice is “coincidental” or not depends upon what you mean by the term.

Or A was created differently from B, in which case God is responsible for A’s choosing a and B’s choosing b.

Not necessarily. It would have to be the created difference between A and B that caused the different choices. There could still be created differences between A and B that did not cause the different choices.

 

[JRKH]

The fact that a situation may be very complex does not alter anything. If situation S occurs, no matter how complex this situation S may be, then person A will choose action a and person B will choose action b.

The choice we will make depends on who we are (which is completely under God’s control since He apparently created us) and the situation we find ourselves in (which is not under our complete control, but ,again, if God is the way Chrsitians claim he is, it’s under His complete control).

While I think I understand your premise I also think it has a couple of potential failure points.

NOTE: the following contains “Analogies”. Analogies are almost never “perfect”…so don’t expect them to be…

“Maker/Ownership/control”
Here the assumption is that because God made us we are completely under his control…
This may or may not be so…If God did, as we believe, create us with a free will, then the thing built into us is, by design, outside of His control.
This happens all the time in computer gaming design. “Randomizers” are built in by the designer/creator, and when the game is activated the creator effectively releases control of the outcome and consequences. So in a rudimentary sense, the creator of the game has given the game “free will”.
So your idea that because God created us we must be under his control is not necessarily true.

Viewpoint.
Free Will could depend on the viewpoint one takes.
Some take their children to a large playground for the first time. The parents have been there before and even helped design it. They know what is there, the potential dangers, the probable choices of their kids, etc…They might even know that there is likely to be a fight or three among the kids…
The Kids, having never been there before have no idea what to expect, who they will run into etc…
The parents trun the kids loose in the palyground and sit on the side just watching and talking among themselves.

There are two different perspectives here. The parents, because of their greater knowledge and experience can pretty well guess what their own child will do…this is “foreknowledge”
The Kids have very different perspective. They don’t know what’s there, it’s all new, decisions must be made, actions taken, interactions to deal with and so on…Because of their lesser knowledge, and experience, they have far less idea what to expect.

So the idea the God knows what we will do and that means no free will fails because WE don’t know what we will do…Free Will exixts fro our viewpoint (the only one we have)

Peace
James

 

[belorg]

It certainly removes the problem of predetermination by God of all human choices.

It would lead us to the conclusion that human choices are partly predetermined by God and partly purely random or coincidental.

I don’t know what you mean by “coincidental.” You will need to define terms.

Completely random.

If what you mean is that A made a choice different from B that was not based upon any external cause then I agree. Whether this choice is “coincidental” or not depends upon what you mean by the term.

‘The choice’ occurs at random, so it isn’t a choice anymore than the nucleus of an atom ‘chooses’ to decay.

Not necessarily. It would have to be the created difference between A and B that caused the different choices. There could still be created differences between A and B that did not cause the different choices.

If it’s not the difference between A and B that causes the choices, then the choices are uncaused.
In the end, ‘A went to heaven because he made the right choice’ means exactly the same as ‘A was lucky enough to do A, so he goes to heaven.’

 

[belorg]

While I think I understand your premise I also think it has a couple of potential failure points.

NOTE: the following contains “Analogies”. Analogies are almost never “perfect”…so don’t expect them to be…

“Maker/Ownership/control”
Here the assumption is that because God made us we are completely under his control…
This may or may not be so…

That’s true, and I have never denied that.

If God did, as we believe, create us with a free will, then the thing built into us is, by design, outside of His control.

Again, yes, it is possible that God built something into us that is outside His control. however, that is NOT free will.

This happens all the time in computer gaming design. “Randomizers” are built in by the designer/creator, and when the game is activated the creator effectively releases control of the outcome and consequences. So in a rudimentary sense, the creator of the game has given the game “free will”.

No, he hasn’t. He has built in a randomizer, which means that all ‘choices’ in the computer game are random and not the result of any will at all, let alone free will.

So your idea that because God created us we must be under his control is not necessarily true.

I have some problems imagining the Christian omniscient God building something He cannot control, but I will accept it FTSOTA. It has nothing whatsoever to do with free will however. Do you actually believe that God organaizes a lottery and the lucky ones go to heaven?

Viewpoint.
Free Will could depend on the viewpoint one takes.
Some take their children to a large playground for the first time. The parents have been there before and even helped design it. They know what is there, the potential dangers, the probable choices of their kids, etc…They might even know that there is likely to be a fight or three among the kids…
The Kids, having never been there before have no idea what to expect, who they will run into etc…
The parents trun the kids loose in the palyground and sit on the side just watching and talking among themselves.

There are two different perspectives here. The parents, because of their greater knowledge and experience can pretty well guess what their own child will do…this is “foreknowledge”
The Kids have very different perspective. They don’t know what’s there, it’s all new, decisions must be made, actions taken, interactions to deal with and so on…Because of their lesser knowledge, and experience, they have far less idea what to expect.

Sure, but irrelevant.

So the idea the God knows what we will do and that means no free will fails because WE don’t know what we will do…Free Will exixts fro our viewpoint (the only one we have)

Peace
James

I’ve never claimed that foreknowledge precludes free will. What I claim is that choices are either the result (whether direct or indirect does not matter) of how God created people, or they are the result of absolutely nothing. They are purely raodom.

 

[JRKH]

That’s true, and I have never denied that.

Again, yes, it is possible that God built something into us that is outside His control. however, that is NOT free will.

This is going to depend a great deal on the second possibility which is “viewpoint”
It’s obvious that your definition of “free will” differs from ours.

No, he hasn’t. He has built in a randomizer, which means that all ‘choices’ in the computer game are random and not the result of any will at all, let alone free will.

This is one of those points where “analogies aren’t perfect” applies.
The point is that a “Creator” can design something into a creation that makes the decision process independant from the creator.

I have some problems imagining the Christian omniscient God building something He cannot control, but I will accept it FTSOTA. It has nothing whatsoever to do with free will however. Do you actually believe that God organaizes a lottery and the lucky ones go to heaven?

Well first of all, I can understand your problems understanding this.
Secondly God did not make something that he cannot control. Rather he made something that he chooses not to control - and He is true to His promise.
As to the “lottery” reference, Of course I don’t believe this…

Sure, but irrelevant.

I disagree.
You are arguing that “Free Will” does not exist, because all of our decisions are based on “who we are”, as made by God.
I merely am pointing out that, while by one viewpoint and definition, you might be right, by another viewpoint and definition you might be wrong.

I’ve never claimed that foreknowledge precludes free will. What I claim is that choices are either the result (whether direct or indirect does not matter) of how God created people, or they are the result of absolutely nothing. They are purely raodom.

Well - I accept that this is how you believe, but I must disagree that this definition of yours removes or disproves “Free Will”.

Peace
James

 

[belorg]

This is going to depend a great deal on the second possibility which is “viewpoint”
It’s obvious that your definition of “free will” differs from ours.

I don’t think viewpoint has got anything to do with it. What you describe has nothing to do with ‘will’, so it isn’t free will from any viewpoint.

This is one of those points where “analogies aren’t perfect” applies.
The point is that a “Creator” can design something into a creation that makes the decision process independant from the creator.

Well, no, I don’t think He can. if it is to be a ‘decision’ process and not just a randomizer, I can see no way to do that. Either the decisions of player A are a result of how player A is created or they are just random and aren’t even decisons. Or it’s a matter of
random ‘mutations’ resulting in a player A who makes decisions because He is evolved into being player A. But then it is still a afct that A chooses to do a because he’s A. Instead of God creating everything, we would have God playing dice and ending up with a perhaps unwanted result. this does not sound like the Chrsitian God to me.

Well first of all, I can understand your problems understanding this.
Secondly God did not make something that he cannot control. Rather he made something that he chooses not to control

No, that’s not true, because if He can control it but chooses not to, it’s in principle controlable and determined. The only way something isn’t controlable, even for an omniscient creator, is if it is the result of a completely undetermined process, AKA a random process.

• and He is true to His promise.
  As to the “lottery” reference, Of course I don’t believe this…

I’m sure you don’t. But I think there is no other logical option.

I disagree.
You are arguing that “Free Will” does not exist, because all of our decisions are based on “who we are”, as made by God.
I merely am pointing out that, while by one viewpoint and definition, you might be right, by another viewpoint and definition you might be wrong.

The viewpoint isn’t relevant, the definition of course may be.
Now libertarian free will or counterfactual free will means that under situation S, person P can choose to do a or to refrain from a. IOW there is a possible world in which, under situation S, P chooses to do a and there is at least one possible world in which P chooses not to do a.
Now if person A is the same in every possible world, then he will also do the same in every possible world under situation S, unless this choice is not determined by who person P is. But then it isn’t determined by P and it isn’t determiend by S, so by what can it be determined? If it is determined, it can only be determined by something outside P, and the best candidate would be God (is He existed of course). The other option is that the choice is not determined at all. but in order for a decision to be a free wil decision, it must be determined by the will of someone. So an undetermined decision cannot be a (libertarian)free will decision.

Well - I accept that this is how you believe, but I must disagree that this definition of yours removes or disproves “Free Will”.

Peace
James

I think I have presented a fair argument as to why it does disprove libertarian free will.

 

[marica_mandic]

Hopefully someone who knows a lot more about this than myself can help me to grow in understanding. I firmly believe what is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” And in John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

I’m trying to understand the concept of predestination and the elect with this idea of God wanting the whole world to be saved yet they aren’t because of the free will to sin. My question is if someone is of God’s elect and are called by God can they still ultimately turn away from him by free will? Conversely, if one has faith can they receive God’s grace for salvation if they are not part of the elect? I know this is a big topic and I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

We have choice, free will that is my opinion, God call us every day . We have choice but for us is better to choice God.

 

[tdgesq]

It would lead us to the conclusion that human choices are partly predetermined by God and partly purely random or coincidental.

In other words, it does remove the problem of predetermination by God of all human choices - exactly what I asserted above.

Completely random.

Ah. And why should I accept that agent causation entails complete randomness? You say it does, but that isn’t a sufficient reason.

‘The choice’ occurs at random, so it isn’t a choice anymore than the nucleus of an atom ‘chooses’ to decay.

I have no reason to compare a self-caused choice of a soul to the decay of the nucleus of an atom. You are imposing your own materialistic/reductionist worldview onto the metaphysic of the theist. If the soul is the immaterial enduring substance of man that is the mechanism for choice then there is no necessity for an antecedent cause. Choices are non-deterministic in the sense that there is no antecedent cause to analyze, but that doesn’t mean they occur randomly. In fact, we can point to the precise cause of the choice, even if we can’t predict exactly what that choice will be outside of actually asking the agent.

If it’s not the difference between A and B that causes the choices, then the choices are uncaused. In the end, ‘A went to heaven because he made the right choice’ means exactly the same as ‘A was lucky enough to do A, so he goes to heaven.’

I’m not getting this. Are you suggesting that random events are uncaused?

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think viewpoint has got anything to do with it. What you describe has nothing to do with ‘will’, so it isn’t free will from any viewpoint.

Well that’s one viewpoint…

Well, no, I don’t think He can. if it is to be a ‘decision’ process and not just a randomizer, I can see no way to do that. Either the decisions of player A are a result of how player A is created or they are just random and aren’t even decisons. Or it’s a matter of random ‘mutations’ resulting in a player A who makes decisions because He is evolved into being player A. But then it is still a fact that A chooses to do a because he’s A. Instead of God creating everything, we would have God playing dice and ending up with a perhaps unwanted result. this does not sound like the Chrsitian God to me.

Well frankly, the fact that you, “can see no way to do that”, does not make it undoable.
If the creator creates a “learning” creation, then as the creation learns it changes. It’s decision at one point may be different than it’s decision at another point in it’s life - based, not on a randomizer as I mentioned in the first, and admittedly, very simple analogy, but rather on a very complex system that is not interfered with once the creator sets it in motion.
I do not pretend to understand this system but I accept it.

No, that’s not true, because if He can control it but chooses not to, it’s in principle controlable and determined. The only way something isn’t controlable, even for an omniscient creator, is if it is the result of a completely undetermined process, AKA a random process.

Not necessarily.

The viewpoint isn’t relevant, the definition of course may be.
Now libertarian free will or counterfactual free will means that under situation S, person P can choose to do a or to refrain from a. IOW there is a possible world in which, under situation S, P chooses to do a and there is at least one possible world in which P chooses not to do a.
Now if person A is the same in every possible world, then he will also do the same in every possible world under situation S, unless this choice is not determined by who person P is.

In principle I’ll accept this.

But then it isn’t determined by P and it isn’t determiend by S, so by what can it be determined? If it is determined, it can only be determined by something outside P, and the best candidate would be God (is He existed of course). The other option is that the choice is not determined at all. but in order for a decision to be a free wil decision, it must be determined by the will of someone. So an undetermined decision cannot be a (libertarian)free will decision.

This is where we differ…I do not accept that the decision is based on anything other than who the person is.

I think I have presented a fair argument as to why it does disprove libertarian free will.

Fair, but unconvincing…

Peace
James

 

[levinas12]

Calvinism says that none of us has any choice in the matter. By being born, some will inevitable go to hell while others, to Heaven. And, there’s nothing we can do about it.

Sounds like the religious background of scientific determinism.

 

[praxising]

Hi,

There are many ways to approach this topic, and to some extent how it is approached is going to determine if it is dealt with as philosophical issue or a scriptural interpretation issue. Usually the philosophical issue is whether predestination is consistent with God’s goodness, omniscience, and omnipotence.

On the other hand, the meaning of “predestined” as used in the Bible is a scriptural interpretation issue. .

I thought this was a very good post and it seems to me that the only way you can have the philosophical discussion is by everyone deciding they all agree on the meaning of proorizo in Scripture.

Ephesians 1:5:

NAB: In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will,

KJV: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

You can’t actually take every word in a foreign language and directly substitute an English word that means the same thing. So we have to look at more explanation of what the word means. This word can mean “decide beforehand” or “appoint beforehand.”

You could use it in English in this way: “The puppy is destined to hunt badgers.” But the puppy grows up to be a beloved family pet in a place where no one has ever seem a badger. Or, a father can look at his newborn son and decide when the boy grows up they will be partners in the business he started. But the boy grows up to choose another profession.

It seems to me if we look over all the verses where proorizo (Strong’s 4309) is used theologically, we come to the conclusion that we are created to be something, as we breed an animal for a certain function, God made us for a certain “fate:” to be, in Paul’s words:

… he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. ~ Ephesians 1:4

But we aren’t “without blemish.” So when you put the verses together, we are intended by God for a certain end, “destined” to it, or “predestined” to it. But we still have to cooperate in that, make a choice and do something: surrender to God’s Will for us.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace that he lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight, he has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth. In him we were also chosen, destined in accord with the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will, so that we might exist for the praise of his glory, we who first hoped in Christ.

The atheist with whom you debate is as surely destined to perfect holiness, to exist to glorify God, as everyone else. People make choices. We are not dachshunds, who have no choice in whether we fulfill our destiny. We are the beloved children of God who can inherit the Kingdom or wander away and squander our inheritance.