Free Will and Predestination

The Rogue Tomato

The Rogue Tomato

Well-known member
Okay, let's say you've convinced me that we choose to respond to the Gospel of our own free will, and God elects us according to his foreknowledge about how we will respond.

If that is how it works, then since God has complete foreknowledge, it can't turn out any other way. And you're back to the predestination of the elect. The only difference is that you've given yourself a modicum of credit for your own salvation. It's still predestined.

The only alternative then is open theism.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Okay, let's say you've convinced me that we choose to respond to the Gospel of our own free will, and God elects us according to his foreknowledge about how we will respond.

If that is how it works, then since God has complete foreknowledge, it can't turn out any other way. And you're back to the predestination of the elect. The only difference is that you've given yourself a modicum of credit for your own salvation. It's still predestined.

The only alternative then is open theism.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this to some degree the other day. I don't see much of a difference in election from this standpoint between Calvinism and Arminianism.

There are more choices than Open Theism. I generally prefer the predictability model that I've created... :)

The way Calvinism and Arminianism treat time limits God. I used to drive Ransom crazy asking him if the knowledge God possesses consists of a singular thought based upon causation.
 
Does the following describe an open theism?

When GOD created everyone in HIS image with a free will to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, that is, HIS heavenly marriage with us, at a suitable time in our social development HE then proclaimed (without proof so as to not coerce our choices), to every creature ever created, Col 1:23):
- HIS Deity,
- the nature of right and wrong,
- the natural and legal consequences of choosing to be sinful in HIS sight,
- HIS gospel of salvation for any and all forgivable sin INCLUDING
- the promise that anyone who put their faith in HIM after this proclamation would be chosen (elected) to salvation from sin and anyone who rejected HIM as their GOD and saviour would be outside of HIS mercy and grace, unable for HIM to save them from the consequences of their choice to be evil in HIS sight and therefore they would be predestined to hell by this free will choice to exit from HIS promise of election, not by HIS will but their own. One could call this a predictive predestination rather than a causative predestination, since the cause of our election or reprobation starts and remains only with us.

Does the fact that this scenario is placed firmly in the distant past before the proof of HIS divinity and eternal power was given by the creation before our eyes of the physical universe (Job 38:7) OR

the fact that our FATE (to become elect unto salvation or to be condemned as reprobate) were chosen by us by our free will faith in HIM as our LORD and Saviour which HE facilitates on earth for those of HIS elect who then stumbled over the call for them to come out from among the reprobate so they could be damned and by this second choice become HIS sheep gone astray into sin, HIS good / elect but sinful seed, needing to be redeemed by the death of the Son...

still fit what might be called open theism?

It avoids the theological conflict caused by supposing sinners need a free will on earth to choose to put their faith in HIM for salvation as that had been done already. The word already then modifies both sets of people in John 3:18 since before the foundation of the world:
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned (already), but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not (has never) believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. Berean Standard Bible

Does the mere fact that this theology insists:
we chose our own FATE to be saved or condemned by our free will but GOD gives HIS elect who then chose to sin predetermined LIVES on earth to ensure that their redemption happens the best and fastest way possible....bring it into or does it bypass the definition of open theism?
 
TedT said:
Does the following describe an open theism?

When GOD created everyone in HIS image with a free will to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, that is, HIS heavenly marriage with us, at a suitable time in our social development HE then proclaimed (without proof so as to not coerce our choices), to every creature ever created, Col 1:23):
- HIS Deity,
- the nature of right and wrong,
- the natural and legal consequences of choosing to be sinful in HIS sight,
- HIS gospel of salvation for any and all forgivable sin INCLUDING
- the promise that anyone who put their faith in HIM after this proclamation would be chosen (elected) to salvation from sin and anyone who rejected HIM as their GOD and saviour would be outside of HIS mercy and grace, unable for HIM to save them from the consequences of their choice to be evil in HIS sight and therefore they would be predestined to hell by this free will choice to exit from HIS promise of election, not by HIS will but their own. One could call this a predictive predestination rather than a causative predestination, since the cause of our election or reprobation starts and remains only with us.

Does the fact that this scenario is placed firmly in the distant past before the proof of HIS divinity and eternal power was given by the creation before our eyes of the physical universe (Job 38:7) OR

the fact that our FATE (to become elect unto salvation or to be condemned as reprobate) were chosen by us by our free will faith in HIM as our LORD and Saviour which HE facilitates on earth for those of HIS elect who then stumbled over the call for them to come out from among the reprobate so they could be damned and by this second choice become HIS sheep gone astray into sin, HIS good / elect but sinful seed, needing to be redeemed by the death of the Son...

still fit what might be called open theism?

It avoids the theological conflict caused by supposing sinners need a free will on earth to choose to put their faith in HIM for salvation as that had been done already. The word already then modifies both sets of people in John 3:18 since before the foundation of the world:
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned (already), but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not (has never) believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. Berean Standard Bible

Does the mere fact that this theology insists:
we chose our own FATE to be saved or condemned by our free will but GOD gives HIS elect who then chose to sin predetermined LIVES on earth to ensure that their redemption happens the best and fastest way possible....bring it into or does it bypass the definition of open theism?
Click to expand...

Contrary to what many believe, "Open Theism" isn't new. There have long been teachings seeking to define what "Omniscience" actually means. Many have taken "Omniscience" to mean that God knows infinity.

I disagree. I take "infinity" to be represented by God. Knowledge is not a concept external to God that God must meet. God is Eternal. Eternal is not a quantifiable distinction because is limitless. Which is why I have long said that time isn't a creation of God. It is a quality of Divinity. God is Chronos/Kronos. (Greek word for time. Not the pagan Greek "god")
 
Last edited:
praise_yeshua said:
Contrary to what many believe, "Open Theism" isn't new. There have long been teachings seeking to define what "Omniscience" actually means.
Click to expand...
As for me I am do not believe in Open Theism my thinking is different then they about what omniscience means. There is one point I think they appreciate though....and that's if something is not a reality it's not a limitation not to be there. eg. Can we say God is limited for he's not in the universe of a fictional place like Star Wars? No, for it does not exist. It's fictional.

Does our future actually exist right now, from our vantage point before it happens. I have my own way of thinking about how God knows all things by foreknowledge which certainly does not agree with Calvinists believing that all things are ordained. They're not. Men choose to receive the grace of God or they reject it and salvation is offered to all.
 
Rockson said:
As for me I am do not believe in Open Theism my thinking is different then they about what omniscience means. There is one point I think they appreciate though....and that's if something is not a reality it's not a limitation not to be there. eg. Can we say God is limited for he's not in the universe of a fictional place like Star Wars? No, for it does not exist. It's fictional.

Does our future actually exist right now, from our vantage point before it happens. I have my own way of thinking about how God knows all things by foreknowledge which certainly does not agree with Calvinists believing that all things are ordained. They're not. Men choose to receive the grace of God or they reject it and salvation is offered to all.
Click to expand...

This is a complex subject that offends people. We don't have to agree. It doesn't offend me to discuss the matter but some Calvinists have been very hard on Open Theism. Example, Piper really attacked Greg Boyd over the topic. Both professionally and personally. I don't agree with Greg Body about many things. However, he is a gifted Theologian. Well learned and capable. Which is why Piper attacked him. He saw Boyd as a challenger to his narrative. I've considered this subject many times throughout my life. I enjoy discussing it but it has made enemies for me. I very seldom get to the point where I can actually discuss it freely. Given the discussions we've all had the last few days, I hope we can.
 
So, it sounds like the free-willers here are satisfied with predestination being true. If we are predestined to be chosen according to what God foresees we will choose, and since God is 100% omniscient, then it cannot turn out any other way. In other words, our election is pre-determined before the foundation of the world.

I'm saying this assuming your view is correct. I don't share that view, this is just for the sake of argument.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
So, it sounds like the free-willers here are satisfied with predestination being true. If we are predestined to be chosen according to what God foresees we will choose, and since God is 100% omniscient, then it cannot turn out any other way. In other words, our election is pre-determined before the foundation of the world.

I'm saying this assuming your view is correct. I don't share that view, this is just for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

Not me... :)

I do believe what you're saying is logically consistent. The construct varies but relative to the shared view of the Omniscience of God they are largely the same.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
So, it sounds like the free-willers here are satisfied with predestination being true. If we are predestined to be chosen according to what God foresees we will choose, and since God is 100% omniscient, then it cannot turn out any other way. In other words, our election is pre-determined before the foundation of the world.

I'm saying this assuming your view is correct. I don't share that view, this is just for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

It's a common mistake to confuse necessity with certainty.

The common illustration is watching a video of a football game where you know the outcome—wow, now you've eliminated all their free wills.

No, when we say an agent chooses among options, we don't mean to say the choice was UNCERTAIN. We mean to say it was not NECESSITATED. That is, it could have been different if the agent chose differently, and he had the ability to choose differently. But the ability to choose differently does not mean other things will actually be chosen—else we would have to be able not to choose among options, but to actually choose multiple contradictory options. (They call this a modal scope fallacy in modal logic.)

From a timeless point of view choices could be seen as already made in some sense, but that does not eliminate the freedom of them.

Here is my understanding of election:

 
dizerner said:
It's a common mistake to confuse necessity with certainty.

The common illustration is watching a video of a football game where you know the outcome—wow, now you've eliminated all their free wills.

No, when we say an agent chooses among options, we don't mean to say the choice was UNCERTAIN. We mean to say it was not NECESSITATED. That is, it could have been different if the agent chose differently, and he had the ability to choose differently. But the ability to choose differently does not mean other things will actually be chosen—else we would have to be able not to choose among options, but to actually choose multiple contradictory options. (They call this a modal scope fallacy in modal logic.)

Here is my understanding of election:

Click to expand...

I personally do not see the value of watching a game I already know the outcome of.

Scripturally..... I'm recalling.... "Forgetting those things that are behind". "The dead know nothing"... I'm not discounting the importance of the differing constructs. Just trying to look at it from "God's perspective".

Which is why I'm different. Both systems limit God. God can not be infinite within all things that have already transpired or have exhaustively been predetermined.
 
praise_yeshua said:
I personally do not see the value of watching a game I already know the outcome of.
Click to expand...

God does not watch people throw balls for entertainment either, lol.

praise_yeshua said:
Scripturally..... I'm recalling.... "Forgetting those things that are behind".
Click to expand...

Not addressed to God.

praise_yeshua said:
"The dead know nothing"...
Click to expand...

From our perspective, not theirs. All live to God.

praise_yeshua said:
I'm not discounting the importance of the differing constructs. Just trying to look at it from "God's perspective".
Click to expand...

Exactly, God's perspective, and all the errors come from making a god in our image with our own limitations.

God is outside of time.

praise_yeshua said:
Which is why I'm different. Both systems limit God. God can not be infinite within all things that have already transpired or have exhaustively been predetermined.
Click to expand...

Some things are really logically dichotomous.

I know we all want to be that special hipster that doesn't conform to anything and stands out unique and alone.

Take the proposition: God either exists or God does not exist.

You did not find some special fancy third option where God "kinda" exists.
 
praise_yeshua said:
1. I can't help but see that as an arbitrary remedy for your issue. I don't see any evidence to establish.
2. Even if you dissolve time, it doesn't fix your issue. For Omniscience to work in your system, everything must already exist regardless of time.
Click to expand...

God tabernacles in eternity, Isaiah 52:13. The Creator/creature distinction is not "arbitrary," it is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

The logic of your point 2 is applying creaturely limitations to the One who created them, it is a non sequitur applied to God.

To put it in colloquial terms: you are putting God in a box.
 
dizerner said:
God tabernacles in eternity, Isaiah 52:13. The Creator/creature distinction is not "arbitrary," it is the exact opposite of arbitrary.
Click to expand...

It is arbitrary because this does not establish your claim that God is outside of time. It is your interpretation without supporting evidence.

Eternity is not the absence of time. It is an endless measure of time. You are starting with your conclusion and working your way backwards instead of working from a foundation outward. At least Calvinism works from beginning to end. Not that I believe their claim. I don't. They have a different issue, yet they still limit God.

dizerner said:
The logic of your point 2 is applying creaturely limitations to the One who created them, it is a non sequitur applied to God.

To put it in colloquial terms: you are putting God in a box..
Click to expand...

I disagree. You're actually putting God "in a box". You are creating limits on God. Not me. Regardless of time, you believe everything already exists with God. It is why I often ask if God has a singular all encompassing thought that encompasses all of existence (including the essence of God).

You're appealing to ambiguity as evidence of ambiguity. I'm not.

I'm saying that Eternity is endless indefinite time of no limited duration. That is Eternity. World WITHOUT END....

You're forming an end to God. So does Calvinism. I realized this a long time ago. I've argued this extensively. The argument your making revolves around claims of anthropomorphism.

To which I say, God is love. Love isn't just a characteristic of humanity. It is representative of the exact nature and essence of God. It is more than a formation/creation. It is an Innate quality of Divinity. This is represented in God's creation but it is no less Who He is.

Such beliefs is what lead me to truly embrace the intricate nature of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The absence of God is chaos. Time is order. Eternal sequence. Precept upon precept. Cause, effect. There is no scenario within Eternity where this does not exist. To deny time relative to Eternity is self defeating.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Okay, let's say you've convinced me that we choose to respond to the Gospel of our own free will, and God elects us according to his foreknowledge about how we will respond.

If that is how it works, then since God has complete foreknowledge, it can't turn out any other way. And you're back to the predestination of the elect. The only difference is that you've given yourself a modicum of credit for your own salvation. It's still predestined.

The only alternative then is open theism.
Click to expand...
Foreknowledge is not to say predetermined. That God knows what we freely choose and allows it to happen is not to say that God decrees that we necessarily choose what is chosen. God still knows it, but God didn’t cause it.

Calvinism essentially says that God knows something because he decrees it, which logically means that God doesn’t know anything unless he decrees it. This is similar to the Open Theism belief that God doesn’t know anything unless he experiences or sees it. The formula “God doesn’t know until X” is the same in both camps.


Doug
 
praise_yeshua said:
I disagree. You're actually putting God "in a box". You are creating limits on God. Not me. Regardless of time, you believe everything already exists with God.
Click to expand...

No, I don't.

God being outside of time does entail that all things are always present, that does not logically follow.

Your taking your limited thought (box) and saying my unlimited thought (no box) has to fit in it.

You're basically saying "If God isn't in MY box then he's in A box."

Another non sequitur.
 

Similar threads

civic
Arminian perspective on Gods Sovereignty and mans free will
16 17 18
Replies
344
Views
2K
Jim
J
J
Predestination from the church fathers
Replies
6
Views
207
Behold
Behold
Begotten
Open Panel Discussion - Open Theism
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
2K
TomL
T
FutureAndAHope
Free Online Book on Free Will vs Calvinism
Replies
5
Views
273
civic
civic
civic
Gods Sovereignty and mans free will
Replies
3
Views
270
Jamie Russell CME
Jamie Russell CME
Back
Top Bottom