Foreknowledge--Predestination

[joelkaki]

It would seem to me that traditional Arminians are illogical on this point: If God actually foreknows with certainty what will happen, then that is just as set in concrete as it is if he actually predetermined it to happen.
Of course, I affirm that he did predetermine it to happen. But it just seems that traditional Arminians really do not escape the difficulty they see with Calvinism.

Joel

[geebob]

amen.

[geebob]

In fairness, I do recognize a qualitative difference in calvinistic election and arminian foreknowledge (that God does not determine our response to him due to a B theory of time or counterfactuals of freedom, both of which I reject). But I believe that there is an important point where Calvinism and traditional arminianism meet where I believe Arminians could be more consitent and further diverge from the calvinists. Every man has a chance to be saved. That is basic to arminianism. But I don't think they are fully consistent with this point.

[Sozo]

Am I missing something?

Even if God knows who is going to be saved and who isn't, what does that have to do with predestination?

God predestines that all those who receive Christ, will be conformed to Christ.

[geebob]

I couldn't agree more.

[Blake Reas]

If I was not a Calvinist I think that I would go OV instead of Classic Arminianism, It really doesn't make since how God could just "foreknow" things. The word means loved or had a relationship with anyway.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[Gavin]

one could also say: by knowing that the world would sin through Adam, and many would not repent, and still choosing to create the world anyway, you still have the same problem.

[Jaltus]

one could also say: by knowing that the world would sin through Adam, and many would not repent, and still choosing to create the world anyway, you still have the same problem. Actually, that is a problem with any view incorporating EDF. Calvinism does not escape it. However, you have a few assumptions in this here, but I am not going to spend the time to point them out.

It would seem to me that traditional Arminians are illogical on this point: If God actually foreknows with certainty what will happen, then that is just as set in concrete as it is if he actually predetermined it to happen.That does not mean it is not a free choice, though. The fundamental difference between C and A is over choice (well, and grace, but let's not deal with that now). Just because something is foreknown does not mean it is "ordained." What As are looking to leave behind is that God causes all things. God can foreknow without causing, in the Arminian understanding, whereas Calvinists are stuck with a concept of God that makes everything His choice, and nothing being human choice.
Of course, I affirm that he did predetermine it to happen. But it just seems that traditional Arminians really do not escape the difficulty they see with Calvinism. Actually, we do. THe problem is who is responsible for the choices we make? Calvinists try to have it both ways by saying God determines AND man chooses. Being as "illogical" as we Arminians are, we believe only one is possible. Since God determining alone would make God the source of evil, we go with mankind choosing.

Basically, the complain against Arminians is that we hold the "contradictory" view that God can have forenkowledge without causing the future. However, both C's and OV's are assuming that God has to literally foreSEE the future. Why is that? Does God need a little crystal ball to look into? Does He really need to have the future on videotape in order to know what is going to happen?

Why limit God like that?

Is it not a limit on His omnipotence by C's and OV's that make God have to foresee in only a specific way? Sorry, guys, but I don't buy it at all.

Foreknowledge is not causitive.

[Arminian]

The word means loved or had a relationship with anyway.

So. That's the very argument many Arminians make.:yipee:

[Arminian]

joe,

If God actually foreknows with certainty what will happen, then that is just as set in concrete as it is if he actually predetermined it to happen.


The problem with your view is that knowledge of something doesn't determine it. It merely reflects the view of the actual event.

If you refuse to acknowlege the truth of the relationship between knowledge and the actual event, you must claim that God's actions are secondary to, and determined by, his knowledge of what he will do. So the qestion for you is: If God can count from now until eternity, what number has he arrived at? Whatever that number is, you can add 1 to that number and you will have a greater number than God's. Or perhaps you think God is still counting??

No, you must come to grips with the relationship between knowledge and the event. Think about it.

[Gavin]

The problem with your view is that knowledge of something doesn't determine it. It merely reflects the view of the actual event.
Actually, I agree with that. To know in advance is not the same as to cause.

[TheFiveSolas]

Arminian wrote:

If you refuse to acknowlege the truth of the relationship between knowledge and the actual event, you must claim that God's actions are secondary to, and determined by, his knowledge of what he will do. So the qestion for you is: If God can count from now until eternity, what number has he arrived at? Whatever that number is, you can add 1 to that number and you will have a greater number than God's. Or perhaps you think God is still counting??


Maybe its late, or maybe I'm just a little slow, but would you mind explaining what you meant by the above? I wasn't able to follow it.

Thanks!

[Arminian]

Maybe its late, or maybe I'm just a little slow, but would you mind explaining what you meant by the above? I wasn't able to follow it.

If God knows what he will do every day from now until eternity, is he controlled by his knowledge of what he will do?

Numbers can be counted for eternity. Has God stopped counting yet? If he has, you can add 1 to the number he has arrived at and have a greater number than God's. If he hasn't, then he is limited is some respect.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

See, that's like asking can God make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it? To say No means God can't make everything, and to say yes means He is not all powerful. Weird huh? To eliminate this quandry, I offer a simple solution. God is not controlled by His creation. Neither is He bound by it. He is above time and beyond matter.

:cir:

[Sozo]

03-05-2003 @ 10:27 AM
Bill the Cat:
He is above time and beyond matter.

:cir:

Matter... yes!

Time & Space... no.

Time & space are, because God is.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

But God must be independent of time or else He could not be described as eternal. Yes time and space are because God is, but God still made them and therefore is not subject to them.

[freeontheinside]

See, that's like asking can God make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it? To say No means God can't make everything, and to say yes means He is not all powerful. Weird huh? To eliminate this quandry, I offer a simple solution. God is not controlled by His creation. Neither is He bound by it. He is above time and beyond matter.

Right on. I have a theory and that is God can not do the obsurd. I also agree that God must be above the very thing that he has created. He comes from a different realm that I like to call "uncreated" everything else is part of the "created" realm. Now some may be daying that I am a dualist but I am really not. I just think that God is totally other than the creation and this is a way to express that.

But God must be independent of time or else He could not be described as eternal. Yes time and space are because God is, but God still made them and therefore is not subject to them.

I would have to agree with you again here Bill. :thumb: God is not bound to the same limitations that the creation is bound to. He can chose to operate within the creation (i.e. Jesus) but he is in no way limited by this creation that he has made.

Jaultus I have a qusetion for you and that is in response to the following quote by you:

Actually, we do. THe problem is who is responsible for the choices we make? Calvinists try to have it both ways by saying God determines AND man chooses. Being as "illogical" as we Arminians are, we believe only one is possible. Since God determining alone would make God the source of evil, we go with mankind choosing.

Does this in any way negate the fact that God would have known of the decission of mankind and therefore could have prevented the actions? If this is so please help me to understand why this does not place at least some of the responsibility upon God :help: Another question for you would do you believe that there is anything that man could decide independent of God's knowing and allowing it to occur?

Just some food for thought. I am glad I found all of you again. I look forward to interacting with you all again.:hi:

[theist]

Sozo,


God predestines that all those who receive Christ, will be conformed to Christ.


I think you're going to have problems finding that in the bible, instead, he conformed those he predestined to be conformed. He predestines sinners- not saints. So, the likeness of "recieve christ" is in the conforming part. Truly, he changed us from the disposition unto death, into a new creation, into a creature of life- able to recieve christ, a product of faith.

2 Tim. 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life-- not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, (NIV)

So, did he predestine those who did something?

in HIS grip,

rustyb