Are we Predestined?

[Presby02]

I see it as my choices have been dependent on his plan.

So determined then.

 

[Presby02]

Theological Determinism: This perspective holds that a divine entity or a higher power's omniscience and plan predetermine all events, including human actions.

Hard determinism is a philosophical position that asserts that free will is an illusion and that all events, including human actions and choices, are entirely determined by antecedent causes. In other words, under hard determinism, there is no room for genuine human agency or the ability to make choices that are independent of prior causes and conditions.

According to hard determinism, the state of the universe at any given moment, along with the laws of nature, logically and inevitably lead to specific outcomes in the future. This perspective denies the existence of any true alternatives and suggests that every action or decision made by an individual is the inevitable result of the sum total of their genetic makeup, past experiences, and external influences.

The proponents of hard determinism often draw on ideas from causal determinism, which posits that the world operates according to a chain of cause-and-effect relationships. They argue that even our thoughts and feelings are predetermined by physical processes in the brain and the external environment, leaving no room for genuine free will.

As a consequence of hard determinism, notions of moral responsibility and accountability become problematic. If individuals are not ultimately in control of their actions and choices, the traditional concepts of blame, punishment, and reward lose their grounding in the context of personal responsibility.

Critics of hard determinism argue that it negates the intuitive sense of agency and choice that humans experience in their everyday lives. They contend that certain complexities, such as the unpredictability of human behavior and the presence of genuine uncertainty in some systems (e.g., quantum mechanics), challenge the notion of a purely deterministic universe.

Overall, the debate between hard determinism and other philosophical perspectives on free will remains an ongoing and profound topic in philosophy and cognitive sciences, touching on fundamental questions about the nature of human existence and the limits of human autonomy.

calvinism is determinism which is fatalism.

Websters affirms this below, the calvinist affirms this with their proof texts here: Prov 16:4 ,1 Peter 2:8 and the WCF also affirms this in the confession. Romans 9 and double predestination also affirms its fatalism by the definition. As we see it makes God unjust.

from Stanford encyclopedia

Though the word “fatalism” is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable, philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. This view may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called “Logical fatalism” (or, in some cases, “Metaphysical fatalism”); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called “Theological fatalism”.

fa·tal·ism | \ ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm \

These reformed confessions are fatalism

This is fatalism.

1646 WCF, 3.1
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own
will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as
thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of
the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established.

1689 LBCF, 3.1
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever
comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath
fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the
creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all
things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.


dictionary.com

See synonyms for: fatalism / fatalistic on Thesaurus.com
College Level

---

noun
the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable; submission to fate :Her fatalism helped her to face death with stoic calm.
Philosophy. the doctrine that all events are subject to fate or inevitable predetermination.


conclusion: determinism is fatalism/ calvinism


from wiki

The term "fatalism" can refer to any of the following ideas:

• Any view according to which human beings are powerless to do anything other than what they actually do.[1]Included in this is the belief that humans have no power to influence the future or indeed the outcome of their own actions.[2][3][clarification needed]
  • The belief that events are decided by fate and are outside human control
  • One such view is theological fatalism, according to which free will is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient God who has foreknowledge of all future events.[4] This is very similar to theological determinism.[a]
  • A second such view is logical fatalism, according to which propositions about the future which we take to currently be either true or false can only be true or false if future events are already determined.[1]
• The view that the appropriate reaction to the inevitability of some future event is acceptance or resignation, rather than resistance.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism#cite_note-8 This view is closer to everyday use of the word "fatalism", and is similar to defeatism.

hope this helps !!!

Its not fatalism. Must I educate you again on your bogus claim?

 

[Presby02]

How is this not doublethink, holding opposite opinions to both be true at the same time?

Easy. They are not opposite opinions.

 

[Presby02]

1. Merit based Election before Creation?

The basis of election cannot be, as some have suggested, some merit foreseen in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in their life life as sinners, but rather on HIS unmerited favour:
Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?

Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.

First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD'S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].

Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance. This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before earthly life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

Now, according to pre-conception existence (pce) theology, the "before earthly life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Therein is the reason why HE loved some "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest.

Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the eternally evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?

And now to my question? When my is actually addressed I will address yours.

 

[Presby02]

Perdetermination is the choice of God before man existed; thus, if God chooses X to happen, man cannot possibly do otherwise.

Doug

Agreed. So if it involves what God has chosen to occur ,and involves your choices, your free will is out the window? You could not have chosen otherwise?

 

[Presby02]

No it can’t; only one person can decide the certainty of the moment. If God determines the certainty from eternity past, then man has no part in making it certain; it is determined by God alone. Thus, all that happens is necessary only because God determines it; man has no freedom to do otherwise.

Doug

That is simply not true. You could have done otherwise, you simply won't. Natural vs. Moral ability.

 

[Presby02]

God can.

• Acts 2:39 [ESV] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

God does.

• Romans 8:29 [ESV] For those whom he foreknew
• Galatians 1:15 [ESV] But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
• Ephesians 1:4 [ESV] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

To HIM be all glory, honor and praise.

Sola Scriptura: "Scripture alone" is our highest authority.
Sola Fide: We are saved through "faith alone" in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia: We are saved by the "grace of God alone".
Solus Christus: "Jesus Christ alone" is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria: "to God alone belongs all of the the glory".

And, has been pointed out many times, "foreknow" in Romans 8:29 is a verb. Its not what He foreknows, its who He foreknows.

 

[Jim]

So determined then.

Absolutely not. God's plan is not determined by our choices. God's plan contains conditions which must be met in order for any given individual to receive the benefits of His plan.

 

[Jim]

And, has been pointed out many times, "foreknow" in Romans 8:29 is a verb. Its not what He foreknows, its who He foreknows.

You keep posting that. But it makes no sense. God's foreknowing is not limited to whom; but rather only includes whom. He also foreknows what. The fact that "foreknow" is a verb has nothing whatsoever to do with what God foreknows. God's foreknowledge includes both what and whom He foreknows since He foreknows absolutely everything; He is omniscient.

It turns out that in Romans 8:29, the whom that God foreknows are those spoken of in verse 28 who love God.

 

[Jim]

That is simply not true. You could have done otherwise, you simply won't. Natural vs. Moral ability.

But not because God foreknows it. Again, God foreknowing is not causative. What you end up doing is certain, not because God foreknows it, but rather because that is what you finally choose to end up doing.

 

[Jim]

Agreed. So if it involves what God has chosen to occur ,and involves your choices, your free will is out the window? You could not have chosen otherwise?

But very little of what God knows will happen is by God's predetermination. God's foreknowledge is not dependent upon His predetermination. God foreknows everything but predetermines almost nothing.

 

[civic]

Its not fatalism. Must I educate you again on your bogus claim?

over 6 reliable sources agree with me.

just sayin

 

[FreeInChrist]

So determined then.

You do not understand.

 

[civic]

So determined then.

for me God "foreknew" my choices, not determined them.

 

[atpollard]

God is the only one who can do these things;

100% agree.

however, he will only do them after we believe that he will do them for us according to his promise!

Doug

For "glorified", I can agree that it is temporally and "ordo salutis" after "we believe".
For "justified", well, the waters are a little muddier ...

• Setting aside "Limited vs Universal", did the ATONEMENT happen before or after "we" (you and I) "believed"?
• When did Jesus do what Jesus did?
• When does God apply it to us?
• Is the TEMPORAL order different from the "Ordo Salutis" (LOGICAL order)?

"justified" gets a little trickier ... maybe above my pay grade.

 

[civic]

God can.

• Acts 2:39 [ESV] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

God does.

• Romans 8:29 [ESV] For those whom he foreknew
• Galatians 1:15 [ESV] But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
• Ephesians 1:4 [ESV] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

To HIM be all glory, honor and praise.

Sola Scriptura: "Scripture alone" is our highest authority.
Sola Fide: We are saved through "faith alone" in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia: We are saved by the "grace of God alone".
Solus Christus: "Jesus Christ alone" is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria: "to God alone belongs all of the the glory".

Are you holy/ blameless without sin like the passage says ?

It's one thing to quote a passage its an entirely other thing to believe it and obey it.

And the parallel passage in Romans 8 the purpose of being predestined is to be conformed to the image of Christ.

The same word in Romans 8 Paul uses in Philippians 3:20-21 below :

But our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables Him to subject all things to Himself, will transform our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body.

 

[atpollard]

It turns out that in Romans 8:29, the whom that God foreknows are those spoken of in verse 28 who love God.

Why do you always ignore the OTHER PART of what Romans 8:28 says about those people?

• They "love God"
• What else does it say about them? [hint: "called"]

 

[atpollard]

Are you holy/ blameless without sin like the passage says ?

It's one thing to quote a passage its an entirely other thing to believe it and obey it.

Yes. Not because of any Wesleyan Perfection nonsense, but because I AM has declared it so and He who declares the END from the BEGINNING will finish what He has started. Romans 8:29-30 speaks of a chain of events (past, present and future) all in a verb tense that indicates that the matter is settled. The "glorified" is as certain as the "predestined", the "called" and the "justified".

So from where God sits (the only POV that matters), all His children are already "holy/ blameless without sin" like the passage says!

 

[civic]

Yes. Not because of any Wesleyan Perfection nonsense, but because I AM has declared it so and He who declares the END from the BEGINNING will finish what He has started. Romans 8:29-30 speaks of a chain of events (past, present and future) all in a verb tense that indicates that the matter is settled. The "glorified" is as certain as the "predestined", the "called" and the "justified".

So from where God sits (the only POV that matters), all His children are already "holy/ blameless without sin" like the passage says!

but the glorified now is only positional- our glorified bodies are future.

 

[civic]

Yes. Not because of any Wesleyan Perfection nonsense, but because I AM has declared it so and He who declares the END from the BEGINNING will finish what He has started. Romans 8:29-30 speaks of a chain of events (past, present and future) all in a verb tense that indicates that the matter is settled. The "glorified" is as certain as the "predestined", the "called" and the "justified".

So from where God sits (the only POV that matters), all His children are already "holy/ blameless without sin" like the passage says!

So what does God mean when He says: without holiness no one will see the Lord ? or be Holy as I am Holy says the Lord.