God's Foreordination and Man's Responsibility

[RBerman]

Ok risk was probably the wrong word for what I was trying to say (give me a break it was 9 am in between classes )
I apologize for that, sometimes my wording of things can cause confusion as to what I mean. I guess the bottom line is that I think that God is all knowing and all powerful, but that he is giving us free will and he decides not to interfere with that free will. It is his will to do so, and as he is all powerful he is able to intervene for those of us who choose life through Jesus Christ.

No problem! I had a feeling that was what you meant. Your view is closer to mine than LJ's is.

[Littlejoe]

I agree with LittleJoe to the extent that one should not say that God "risks" anything unless you also believe that God doesn't know the future in an exhaustive and definitive way. That's why the historic Christian approach has been to avoid "risk" language for God. But every so often, a wave of Socianians rears its collective head and proposes that God doesn't know the future (exhaustively and definitively) in the first place, so we can't hold it against him when his best guesses go bad. He's only human. Well, not human; more like a Greek god, endowed with superhuman powers but lacking complete knowledge of the future, and doing the best he can under the circumstances. (And then the Socinians often accuse the orthodox Christians of being the ones contaminated by Greek thinking! Oh, the irony...)

More of your blatant mischaracterizations of OVT...

OVT is no more Socianian than Calvinism is Gnostic...shame on you! (Even though both gnosticism and calvinism believe in predestination.) Your repeated attempts to label OVT heretical has really made me rethink the growing respect I was starting to develop for you RB...not that you really care, but it's pretty sad really!


LJ

[siliconwafer]

I don't buy into the foreordination idea, though I do acknowledge that God foreknew what would happen "if"...and so made provision for counter measures...

Didn't God make a plan that Jesus would be crucified?

[siliconwafer]

I agree with LittleJoe to the extent that one should not say that God "risks" anything unless you also believe that God doesn't know the future in an exhaustive and definitive way. That's why the historic Christian approach has been to avoid "risk" language for God. But every so often, a wave of Socianians rears its collective head and proposes that God doesn't know the future (exhaustively and definitively) in the first place, so we can't hold it against him when his best guesses go bad. He's only human. Well, not human; more like a Greek god, endowed with superhuman powers but lacking complete knowledge of the future, and doing the best he can under the circumstances. (And then the Socinians often accuse the orthodox Christians of being the ones contaminated by Greek thinking! Oh, the irony...)

God doesn't take risks. God knows the future and He is in complete control of it. When something bad happens, it is not like God didn't know about it. God knows that bad things will happen. He is in complete control of them. He decided to allow them.

[oxmixmudd]

Ok, thanks for clarifying! Jim was right and I was wrong about what you said
...but you really need to adjust how you are describing it...if God already knows everything and has known it either by His will (calvinism) or by his simple foreknowledge (arminianism) then there is no "risk"...He already knows what's going to happen. Look at it this way:

Let's say God timelessly knows that Susan will be in a fatal car accident on her 21st birthday. Now, this simple foreknowledge does not cause her death or even determine her choice to go driving with her friends. (All we are looking at is whether or not timelessly definite foreknowledge provides God a basis upon which he is able to act providentially.) So, can God use his knowledge of Susan’s death to warn Susan not to go driving?...nope... Can God act in a miraculous way to prevent this accident?...nope... In fact, can God do anything on the basis of his knowledge that Susan will die to prevent her from dying? The answer to these questions is, of course, that even God cannot intervene on the basis of simple-foreknowledge in order to prevent this event from happening. Why, because since God’s foreknowledge is infallible, what he foreknows will happen...will indeed happen. Not even God can act in order to change what he infallibly knows will come to pass. Simple-foreknowledge, if it existed, would be absolutely useless to God in preventing foreknown evil and other undesired events taking place....since we know that God does indeed intervene... where does that leave us? Calvinism - God ordained that Susan would die, Arminianism - God always knew she would die...in neither case can prayer or...well... anything else really ever save Susan from death in a car accident. It's going to happen.

So, even extrapolating this to election (who gets saved and who doesn't) The same scenario applies using the above reasoning. God either decreed from the foundation of the world that you would or would not accept Him (calvinism) or He already knew from the foundation of the world that you would or would not accept Him (arminianism) there is no risk as He always knew.

LJ

I actually really enjoy pursuing these kinds of questions, but it can be difficult because there are many folks that simply will not allow for the intellectual pursuit of concepts they deem heretical. That is, here we actually have a wonderful juxtaposition of concepts that really do appear to contradict each other. God is all knowing, so how do we have free will, if to have free will means he does not ordain or control our choices. Indeed, how can we have free will if God in fact knows what we will in fact chose, because how can God 'know' what we will chose if the 'choice' is not already made? Then of course OTOH you have the questions concerning how and why God is just in holding us accountable for our sin if we are for ordained to commit it.

Each system (Calvanism, Arminianism, OVT etc) has its apparent self-contradictions. Trying to explore each system of thought means dealing with these contradictions (and the proposed solutions by those holding to the systems of thought) but what is most unsatisfying to me is that often the solution to questions about the associated contradictions is to call the questioner a heretic.

I believe the question of God's foreknowledge and man's free will is in many ways unanswerable - at least in a fashion that produces a completely self-consistent internal theology or logical system of thought. The Bible being God's word tells us about all the various aspects of this question, but doesn't give us a complete solution to the effective contradictions. We struggle to find the solutions, but often short change one aspect of scripture's teaching on the issue in favor of another. Calvanism to me is a fairly extreme example of this, where God's omnisicence and omnipotence buries any and all scriptures which speak of free will. (the burial being accomplished through various means which explain them away to the point they become meaningless).

When we do this, we lose a piece of the puzzle. I think we shortchange ourselves in terms of the majesty and mystery that is God. In effect, we force fit God into a box that we can understand - and in doing so anthropomorphize Him, we actually in trying to honor some aspect of Him (like omniscience) take away from His majesty by saying this nullifies His gift of free will to His creation. E.g. "There can't really be 'free will' if God knows everything, because foreknowledge precludes free will."

There are in fact many aspects of God that are beyond us. He is one God, yet three persons. He gives us free will, yet predestines our adoption as His Children. He is outside of time (before Abraham was, I am), yet 'chooses' based on our prayers to Him. (Jesus most certainly encourages us to pray and believe, and even Chroist was limited by unbelief). Yet how can an omnipotent God be 'limited' by our faith or lack thereof?

It is to me sad so many teach absolute conclusions on these things, when in fact we can't really fully understand them.

My scientific side often falls back to an aspect of creation in which I think God gives us a glimpse of how this can be. In the quantum world, there are many aspects of reality very much 'contradictory' to what we observe on the macro scale. Things can be particles and waves at the same time. Position and Velocity can be mutually exclusive measurements. We can look at the mathematics of infinity and see that the infinite can be ordered, some infinities 'more powerful' than others. We can see the seemingly contradictory statement that between any two points I can find another point, yet there can also be points missing! That is, I can have no space small enough not to have another value, yet in fact be missing an infinitude of values!

And in these kinds of things I think God reveals in the natural what is true about Him spiritually - that there are significant aspects of Him that are both true and contradictory at the same time! And so free will and omniscience are both very much reality, even though they appear to contradict.


Jim

[RBerman]

More of your blatant mischaracterizations of OVT... OVT is no more Socianian than Calvinism is Gnostic...shame on you! (Even though both gnosticism and calvinism believe in predestination.) Your repeated attempts to label OVT heretical has really made me rethink the growing respect I was starting to develop for you RB...not that you really care, but it's pretty sad really!

Easy come, easy go I guess. I didn't expect you to like the comparison of OVT to aspects of Socianism, but if the shoe fits, wear it. It's not as if this is the first time, or even the tenth, that the church has contended with a group which limits God's knowledge of the future in the name of alleged greater fidelity to Scripture. At least you're still Trinitarian. Mainly I was perturbed that you leapt on Ladybug's words so eagerly, when it was clear to me that she didn't imbue them with the meaning that you did. It would be like if someone said, "I think that God saves sinners," and I responded, "Welcome to Calvinism!" Thankfully, she has clarified her meaning, and we now all know that indeed she was not endorsing Open Theism. What I'd really like is to drop this Open Theism rehash entirely and give Siliconwafer a chance to respond to the previous posts in this thread which were actually about his opening question. With that in mind, I'll hush until that goal has been accomplished.

[The Remonstrant]

Mystery of Divine Sovereignty

How do you reconcile God's foreordination and man's responsibility? There are events mentioned in the Bible where God ordained that they would come to pass and at the same time man is responsible for what happened.

First, from an Arminian perspective, I don't believe God has exhaustively decreed everything (actions, events) that takes place. Obviously, in keeping with Scripture, one has to believe God has foreordained (or caused, in so many words) a number of events to take place in the past. Some events God has performed unilaterally, apart from any cooperation with free agents (creation being an obvious example). The second coming of Christ also will take place at a future time unknown to us, and cannot and will not be thwarted by human or (evil) angelic (i.e., created) beings.

Regarding your examples of divine foreordination and human responsibility, I will readily concede God uses the evil schemes and actions of free agents to wise, holy and good ends. There is certainly a level of deep mystery in God's dealings with (sinful) man. God accomplishes good in spite of our wickedness. But evil was never part of God's original intention for creation (though here I will not engage in the controversy over divine foreknowledge and its nature), nor did he ordain the fall of angels or man.

God has given us some freedom. Our freedom is diminished the more we rebel against him and continue in sin. The call to follow Christ -- to repent, believe and trust in him -- is a call to righteousness and a turning from sin. There is a lot of "behind the scenes" work going on around us, much that we aren't let in on, as it were. God is at work, but how and in what ways particularly, a lot of that we are precluded from knowing (at least in the present life). I believe both those of an Arminian or Calvinist persuasion can concede this much.

[themuzicman]

Easy come, easy go I guess. I didn't expect you to like the comparison of OVT to aspects of Socianism, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

It doesn't. That's the point. Socianians were deemed heretics for denying the deity of Christ.

From now on, I will refer to you as the gnositic heretic because Calvinism agrees with gnosticism on some things, OK?

It's not as if this is the first time, or even the tenth, that the church has contended with a group which limits God's knowledge of the future in the name of alleged greater fidelity to Scripture.

Except that the Church didn't deal with them on that doctrine. They dealt with the on their doctrine which denied the deity of Christ. (Maybe you should do your own reading.)

Just to be clear: The Church did NOT take issue with Socinians' denial of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.

At least you're still Trinitarian. Mainly I was perturbed that you leapt on Ladybug's words so eagerly, when it was clear to me that she didn't imbue them with the meaning that you did. It would be like if someone said, "I think that God saves sinners," and I responded, "Welcome to Calvinism!"

It's odd that you agreed with me that "risk" is a word that only Open Theists use, and that it was quite obvious she made a very uniquely Open View statement, and then you turn around and say this. Are you claiming that only a Calvinist says, "I think that God saves sinners"?

Or can you not really find a good comparison?

Thankfully, she has clarified her meaning, and we now all know that indeed she was not endorsing Open Theism. What I'd really like is to drop this Open Theism rehash entirely and give Siliconwafer a chance to respond to the previous posts in this thread which were actually about his opening question. With that in mind, I'll hush until that goal has been accomplished.

And yet you continue to make the old, tired, and refuted statement against Open Theism. Your words don't match your actions. There's an "H" word for that.

[RBerman]

I have been sloppy and negligent and must apologize. Sabellianism is a third century Trinitarian heresy. Open Theism is not related to Sabellianism, but rather to Socinianism, a 16th century heresy. Socinus was also a non-Trinitarian, and he denied penal substitution as well. But more germane to our topic, he denied that God possessed certain knowledge of the future choices of men. Thus the Scripture Catechism of the Socinian John Biddle, the father of English Unitarianism:

John Biddle

Chapter 2: Of God

Question: As for our free actions, which are neither past, nor present, but may afterward either be or not be, what are the chief passages of the Scripture, from whence it is wont to be gathered, that God knoweth not such actions, till they come to pass yea, that there are such actions?

(followed by quotations from Genesis 2:19 and 3:22 and 6:5-7 and 22:1-12; Exodus 3:15-18 and 4:1-9 and 13:17 and 16:4 and 32:14; Numbers 14:27-30; Deuteronomy 8:2 and 13:3 and 32:26-27; Judges 3:1-4; 1 Samuel 2:30; 1 Samuel 15:10-11; 1 Chronicles 32:31; Isaiah 5:4; Jeremiah 26:2-3 and 36:1-3; Ezkiel 12:1-3; Philippians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:4)

© source where applicable

I'm sorry for anyone I confused; Sabellius and Socinus have similar enough names as it is. John Owen's Vindiciae Evangelicae rebuts all aspects of Socinian distinctives, including (in Owen's Chapter 5) the component known today as Open Theism. So yes, Open Theism is a core Socinian doctrine, much moreso than the way that Calvinist and Muslim concepts of predestination touch. (Islam and Christianity agree that God is one, of course, and then proceed to radically disagree about that one God.) And LJ is correct to note that Open Theists don't buy the full Socinian package of Open Theism, Unitarianism, and rejection of penal substitution.

[themuzicman]

I have been sloppy and negligent and must apologize. Sabellianism is a third century Trinitarian heresy. Open Theism is not related to Sabellianism, but rather to Socinianism, a 16th century heresy. Socinus was also a non-Trinitarian, and he denied penal substitution as well. But more germane to our topic, he denied that God possessed certain knowledge of the future choices of men. Thus the Scripture Catechism of the Socinian John Biddle, the father of English Unitarianism:

John Biddle

Chapter 2: Of God

Question: As for our free actions, which are neither past, nor present, but may afterward either be or not be, what are the chief passages of the Scripture, from whence it is wont to be gathered, that God knoweth not such actions, till they come to pass yea, that there are such actions?

(followed by quotations from Genesis 2:19 and 3:22 and 6:5-7 and 22:1-12; Exodus 3:15-18 and 4:1-9 and 13:17 and 16:4 and 32:14; Numbers 14:27-30; Deuteronomy 8:2 and 13:3 and 32:26-27; Judges 3:1-4; 1 Samuel 2:30; 1 Samuel 15:10-11; 1 Chronicles 32:31; Isaiah 5:4; Jeremiah 26:2-3 and 36:1-3; Ezkiel 12:1-3; Philippians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:4)

© source where applicable

I'm sorry for anyone I confused; Sabellius and Socinus have similar enough names as it is. John Owen's Vindiciae Evangelicae rebuts all aspects of Socinian distinctives, including (in Owen's Chapter 5) the component known today as Open Theism. So yes, Open Theism is a core Socinian doctrine, much moreso than the way that Calvinist and Muslim concepts of predestination touch. (Islam and Christianity agree that God is one, of course, and then proceed to radically disagree about that one God.) And LJ is correct to note that Open Theists don't buy the full Socinian package of Open Theism, Unitarianism, and rejection of penal substitution.

Ah, yes, the "Reformed" rebuttal of Socianianism. An inerrant writing handed down by the reformed pope of England, no doubt.

Seriously.... Of course Open Theism is going to look rather different and easily repelled when one begins with Calvinist assumptions and systematic theology. That's why there aren't many Calvinist Open Theists. However, Calvinism isn't the standard by which heresy is measured, John Owen's writings don't mean much to us.

[Kenny]

Her statement that God took a risk is uniquely Open View. Even the Arminian cannot make this claim.

A proponent of simple foreknowledge may well believe that God takes risks. He may know what is going to happen, according to that view, but that knowledge is providentially useless; it comes “after” (in the order of explanation) God’s having already decided what he is going to do. In fact, I’d say that the only folks out there who can consistently deny that God takes risks are Molinists and theological determinists.

[RBerman]

Ah, yes, the "Reformed" rebuttal of Socianianism. An inerrant writing handed down by the reformed pope of England, no doubt. Seriously.... Of course Open Theism is going to look rather different and easily repelled when one begins with Calvinist assumptions and systematic theology. That's why there aren't many Calvinist Open Theists. However, Calvinism isn't the standard by which heresy is measured, John Owen's writings don't mean much to us.

I understand that. I don't expect you to agree with Owen. I expect you to agree with Biddle, because Open Theism was/is one of the three major planks of the Socinian platform.

[Phat8594]

I've thought about how God's foreordination and man's responsibility could be reconciled. Man could be responsible for his actions because his actions proceed from his will. He acts according to his desires and his desires are generated in the appropriate way (i.e. He is not brainwashed, given drugs, hypnotized, receive a computer chip implant and so on.) Also, he acts voluntarily.

I don't necessarily buy the desires argument...because we still have to figure who gave Adam and Eve the desire to sin. In any case, it seems like an overly simplified idea of why and how people make decisions.

Surely, we can all agree that often times people are conflicted because they have multiple conflicting desires.

And also if you say that:

desires are generated in the appropriate way (i.e. He is not brainwashed, given drugs, hypnotized, receive a computer chip implant and so on.)

What are you to call total depravity (calvinist definition) and irresistable grace?

Some people would object to this by saying that if God made a plan that people would have certain desires even the desire to sin, then people would not be morally responsible for their actions.

God using man's free will for His purposes and His glory is nothing new. It doesn't matter what you do, God will still work things for to His purposes; free will does not thwart God's sovereignty.... nor can it...as if anything man could do could ever take away from God's glory or power. THATs how big our God is.

[themuzicman]

I understand that. I don't expect you to agree with Owen. I expect you to agree with Biddle, because Open Theism was/is one of the three major planks of the Socinian platform.

And I assume you realize that guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

[RBerman]

And I assume you realize that guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

Indeed it is.