Foreordain and Foreknow
Does something happen because God foreordained it to happen, or did God foreordain it to happen because He foresaw that it would happen? Is foreknowledge based upon foreordination or foresight? Does foreknowledge precede foreordination or vice-versa?
Theological Issues to Consider
- God is perfectly and infinitely self conscience, knowing everything about Himself. This is known as the Necessary Knowledge of God.
- God knows all theoretical possibilities outside of Himself. God has even foreordained that some vast theoretical possibilities will become actual. This is known as the Free Knowledge of God. So God knows all that can happen, and foreordains all that will happen.
- God is omniscient. Louis Berkhof said God’s omniscience is “that perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act.” Psalm 147:5 says, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power. His understanding is infinite.” (also see 1Sam. 2:3; Job 37:16; 1John 3:20; John 16:30, 21:17; Psalm 90:8)
- God, who is unchanging, has always known all things before they existed.
- Being perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16), God cannot doubt, nor be ignorant, but knows all things with total certainty. Since God’s knowledge is eternal then He has never learned nor forgotten anything.
- Absolute foreknowledge implies inevitability, and inevitability implies certainty. Certain knowledge requires certain facts. Certain foreknowledge requires that the things foreknown will certainly occur. (see Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18)
Some Wrong Answers
- Sixteenth Century Jesuit theologians formulated a theory of Middle Knowledge of God. This theory concludes that there is a Middle Knowledge between God’s Necessary Knowledge and Free Knowledge. This theory proposes that God foreknows because He foresees the free and unimpeded acts of Man. Richard Muller defines this Middle Knowledge as “a conditional and consequent knowledge of future contingents by which God knows of an event because of its occurrence… Such events are outside of the divine willing.” This theory is very similar to Clark Pinnock’s theory that “God limits His knowledge.”
- Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead developed a theory called Process Theology. This theology was further developed by pseudo-theologian Charles Hartshorne. This theory says that God is in the process of growing and developing, thus He has no absolute foreknowledge. God is not “stagnant” but ever-learning. This theory is similar in many ways to the currently popular heresy of Open Theism.
A Great Text to Consider
In Acts 2:23 Peter was preaching in Jerusalem and said of Jesus: “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, having crucified, and put to death.” Based on this verse, here are your options concerning the definition of foreknowledge:
Either
- God foreordained in eternity to send Jesus Christ to be crucified by men for the redemption of the elect. Then in the fullness of time what God knew, based on what He had foreordained, happened exactly as planned and the travail of His soul was satisfied.
- God looked into the future and saw that men would arrest, beat and crucify Jesus, so He decided to make the best of that situation and ordain it to be the way Jesus could pay for the sins of the world. Had men not decided to crucify Jesus, God would have needed to ordain which ever one of the other contingent scenarios that was going to play out. Ultimately, the cross was man’s doings not God’s eternal plan.
The Right Answer
Whether God foreordains based on His foreknowledge or foreknows based on His foreordination is one of the most important theological questions that one can answer. The answer is really a matter of whether God is actually God or not. And since the revelation of Scripture is that God is the absolute and perfect sovereign then one must conclude that God certainly foreknows all things, actual and contingent, because He has perfectly and righteously foreordained all that happens. Since God is absolutely sovereign nothing can happen apart from His foreordination, based on His own pleasure no outside influences. Since God has eternal omniscience then foreordination logically precedes foreknowledge. (Note that I did not use the term chronologically but logically, for we are dealing with eternity.) God logically foreknows with perfect certainty because He has foreordained, not vice-versa.
Posts
29 Spoke Up:
Great post! It was well said, succinct, helpful, and enlightening. Thanks.
Jason E. Robertson–
You said the following, which I shall quote in italics:
Does something happen because God foreordained it to happen, or did God foreordain it to happen because He foresaw that it would happen?
Are these REALLY the only two possibilities? Perhaps, as God is eternal and not materially limited to the contingencies of space/time, God does not foreknow nor foreordain anything. These concepts only make sense if the being to whom they are being applied is finite and subject to the causal and phenomological structures of contingent space/time. As God is neither of these, at least not in God’s eternal nature, I hardly see that foreknowledge or foreordination are even philosophically tenable ways to speak of God whom one claims to be eternal and self-existing.
Theological Issues to Consider
Yes, let us consider them.
1. God is perfectly and infinitely self conscience, knowing everything about Himself. This is known as the Necessary Knowledge of God.
This is a tautological irrelevancy. How would one define an “imperfect” and “finite” self-consciousness?
2. God knows all theoretical possibilities outside of Himself. God has even foreordained that some vast theoretical possibilities will become actual. This is known as the Free Knowledge of God. So God knows all that can happen, and foreordains all that will happen.
This makes no sense at all.
For one, how can there truly be “theoretical possibilities outside of Godself?” If God is, as you tautologically claim, “infinitely self-conscious,” and is at the same time the source from which all things derive existence, how is it possible that “theoretical possibilities” could exist? Such would require that God is, in some way, subject to some form of contingency which exists “outside” of Godself. As this is something which those of your philosophical persuasion will vehemently disavow, you have undermined your own presupposed conceptions of God’s relationship to the universe.
Secondly, I do not understand how you can claim that this scenario engenders the “Free Knowledge” of God. After all, if God is infinitely self-conscious, knows the so-called “theoretical possibilities outside Godself,” and furthermore ordains that which will, in logical order, come to belong to the “foreknowledge” of God, then God’s knowledge is not really free at all, but is rather logically contingent upon that which God has ordained, from all of eternity, to come to pass. Therefore, although one may suggest that God’s act of ordination is free (which I will dispute later), this same freedom cannot be extended to God’s knowledge, for this knowledge is, in fact, predicated (logically) upon the ordaining act of God in eternity. Of course, this creates an incredibly absurd picture of God, a God who is “infinitely self-conscious” because of that which God has foreordained. In this way, God’s self-consciousness, because it is predicated upon God’s logically preceding ordaining will, is eternally contingent upon that which is “other” than God, rather than existing within God’s eternal being.
3. God is omniscient. Louis Berkhof said God’s omniscience is “that perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act.” Psalm 147:5 says, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power. His understanding is infinite.” (also see 1Sam. 2:3; Job 37:16; 1John 3:20; John 16:30, 21:17; Psalm 90:8)
Berkhof, interestingly enough, has corroborated my final claim in the preceding paragraph. He notes that God “knows Himself [sic] and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act.” What??? Just as I claimed above, because God’s self-consciousness and God’s “foreknowledge” are predicated upon God’s “one eternal and most simple act” of ordination, the entire psychological/conscious complex of the Godhead is, in fact, contingent upon that which is “other” than God. This is necessary, for without ordination (the “one eternal and most simple act”), God-consciousness and knowledge (whether “fore” or other) would not exist. This, of course, is nothing more than a philosophical form of pantheism.
4. God, who is unchanging, has always known all things before they existed.
Again, this goes to bolster the claims which I have been making. Because God’s “knowledge” is explicitly and contingently linked to that which has been created and has “always” been known, the divine consciousness cannot exist or be propositionally supposed apart from the created order, whether phenomologically posited or merely hypothesized. From what you have been advocating thus far, any bifurcation between that which is “other” and that which is “God” is impossible, for the very self-consciousness of deity is, within your system, predicated upon the eternal ordination of creation. Therefore, as that which is created cannot be separated from the mind of God, it is impossible to not also assert that creation is consubstantial with deity, for how can thought be separated from one’s being?
5. Being perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16), God cannot doubt, nor be ignorant, but knows all things with total certainty. Since God’s knowledge is eternal then He has never learned nor forgotten anything.
This is, again, tautological. If God’s self-consciousness and “knowledge” are predicated logically upon God’s ordination of all that is, what would there be for God to doubt?
6. Absolute foreknowledge implies inevitability, and inevitability implies certainty. Certain knowledge requires certain facts. Certain foreknowledge requires that the things foreknown will certainly occur. (see Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18)
Requires certain “facts?” I thought you said that God’s foreknowledge was logically predicated upon God’s ordaining will. To posit the need for “facts” to establish the certainty of this knowledge seems to indicate that the preceding ordination is either incomplete or not efficacious to inform the self-consciousness of God, for otherwise no contingent appeal to “facts” (which appear to be located outside of “foreknowledge,” at least as you have described them) would be necessary. What gives?
Some Wrong Answers
LoL!
1. Sixteenth Century Jesuit theologians formulated a theory of Middle Knowledge of God. This theory concludes that there is a Middle Knowledge between God’s Necessary Knowledge and Free Knowledge. This theory proposes that God foreknows because He foresees the free and unimpeded acts of Man. Richard Muller defines this Middle Knowledge as “a conditional and consequent knowledge of future contingents by which God knows of an event because of its occurrence… Such events are outside of the divine willing.” This theory is very similar to Clark Pinnock’s theory that “God limits His knowledge.”
You may not like this conception (neither do I). However, at least it provides a way in which to separate that which God has created from God’s being. As I have sufficiently shown above, the complex which you are offering is indistinguishable from pantheism, only one dressed upon in philosophy.
2. Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead developed a theory called Process Theology. This theology was further developed by pseudo-theologian Charles Hartshorne. This theory says that God is in the process of growing and developing, thus He has no absolute foreknowledge. God is not “stagnant” but ever-learning. This theory is similar in many ways to the currently popular heresy of Open Theism.
Again, you do not advocate Open Theism, Process Theology, etc. However, they are actually the logical conclusion of the very system which you are advocating. For a discussion of why this is so, see this article.
The main problem with these theories is if they are true then either God is not God, or He was God and chose no longer to be God.
Well, while they may not agree with your conception of God, such does not require that within their systems “God is not God.” God, according to them, may not be your philosophical conception of God. However, that does not categorically preclude them from providing important insights to the conception of God, one which will be forever epistemologically untamable for the human person.
A Great Text to Consider
In Acts 2:23 Peter was preaching in Jerusalem and said of Jesus: “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, having crucified, and put to death.” Based on this verse, here are your options concerning the definition of foreknowledge:
Either
* God foreordained in eternity to send Jesus Christ to be crucified by men for the redemption of the elect. Then in the fullness of time what God knew, based on what He had foreordained, happened exactly as planned and the travail of His soul was satisfied.
Or
* God looked into the future and saw that men would arrest, beat and crucify Jesus, so He decided to make the best of that situation and ordain it to be the way Jesus could pay for the sins of the world. Had men not decided to crucify Jesus, God would have needed to ordain which ever one of the other contingent scenarios that was going to play out. Ultimately, the cross was man’s doings not God’s eternal plan.
But note that in the verse the crucifixion of Christ was based upon God's determined purpose (foreordination) and foreknowledge. Note which came first! Furthermore, there is just no possible way to get foreknowledge based on foresight from this verse. Our entire theology would come unraveled!
Again, I reject that the “options” can be limited to the two that you have listed above. This issue we are dealing with, hermeneutically, is what definitions one will apply to the words “determined” and “foreknowledge.” Obviously, the Calvinist is going to read a whole slew of philosophically presupposed definitions into it, just as will the Arminian, the Open Theist, etc. I think if we look at the grander context of Scripture, there is no legitimacy for making this a “make or break” verse for one perspective or another. Rather, it is but one quite small piece within a larger whole that is quite eclectic from one writer to another. What we must avoid, however, is to assume that the writers had one grand vision of sovereignty/foreknowledge/foreordination which directed the form and content of their writing. Rather, each instance of “proof” either way occurs within specific contexts which are predicated upon very specific circumstances. To turn the biblical writers into apologists for particular doctrines is ridiculous and hermeneutically unjustified.
A perfect example of this is the blatant way in which the writer of Acts links God’s sovereign purpose with the free decisions of humanity. If you try to systematize it, the writers will disown you.
The Right Answer
LoL! x2.
Whether God foreordains based on His foreknowledge or foreknows based on His foreordination is one of the most important theological questions that one can answer. The answer is really a matter of whether God is actually God or not.
I completely and vehemently disagree with that this issue is “one of the most important theological questions that one can answer.” If it was so important, one of the ecumenical councils of the historic church (and by “historic” I do not mean “within the last 500 years”...) would have been faced with the issue and would have been pressed to make a definitive statement about it. To the contrary, however, no such authoritative teaching has been passed down.
And since the revelation of Scripture is that God is the absolute and perfect sovereign then one must conclude that God certainly foreknows all things, actual and contingent, because He has perfectly and righteously foreordained all that happens.
I see no philosophically compelling reason why one must assert that for God to be sovereign, God must also exist in the manner which you have described above. Moreover, as I have claimed convincingly above, your perspective actually creates a pantheistic God, for there is no meaningful way in which that which is created by God can be separated from God’s self-consciousness.
Exist-dissolve, said like a good Wesleyan. Did you and Deviant Monk just go nuts when you read my two posts this week? I guess you did, and I thank you for responding. The whole of your two comments [Deviant’s is under my post about Sovereign Election from Monday] provide an ample illustration of just how far off Wesleyanism has become. Of course we consider each other BROTHERS, but oh how I wish the great Wesley brothers would have listened to their Calvinists colleagues. What concerned me the most about your comments in particular was not that you disagreed on every point but that you seemed to have no idea what was being talked about. You even admitted that it “makes no sense” to you. Nevertheless, you engaged with a full Arminian assault!
I would encourage you two to read my posts about Universal Prevenient Grace. This theological error has tainted all of your arguments. You, though you may not even know it, have just declared the WCF and the BCF to be absurdly unbiblical.
And further, I am sure you are unaware that you are similar to Aristotle, Cicero, Marcion, and Origen who denied omniscient foreknowledge because they could not harmonize it with free will. Of course there are many other false views of God’s foreknowledge: semi-Socinian, Arminian, and Barthian. But you are the only one that I have ever seen you claims to be orthodox Christian and also believes that the “Necessary Knowledge of God” [a vitally important part of Theology Proper; 1Cor.2:11] is a, as you say, “tautological irrelevancy.”
But if I could possibly convince you to at least study this subject a little more, then I would direct you into a study of the types of prophecy. There are two types and they illustrate the depth of God’s foreknowledge and foreordination. Specifically compare and contrast “Conditional Prophecy” and “Absolute Prophecy.” Both of these types are used by God and reveal how He can both know contingencies that will never happen and realities that will happen at the same time and that not be impossible. [Example: compare Jonah’s prophecy to 1 Kings 13:32] God is neither a gambler nor a predictor.
A little less LoL and a little more study, especially of a Systematic Theology book, would be very helpful to you. But again, thanks. And as I said you your friend the deviant monk, please comment in the future. I hope to see you grow in your understanding of theology. But if not, your comments make for good illustrations to my students of where poor theology leads.
Just a thought, I would be willing to devote a two hour dialogue on The Narrow Mind with Jason, Exist and Deviant. Just let me know if any of you are interested.
Gene
gene--
I'm all for it!
i'm in.
Gene can I come too? I could be like a side kick and point and make faces at deviant and exist for the radio audience.
By the way Exist-dissolve just won the Abanes Award for the longest comment.
I just realized I was commenting as my alter ego Juan Cigarillo.
jason e. robertson--
You said (in italics):
Exist-dissolve, said like a good Wesleyan. Did you and Deviant Monk just go nuts when you read my two posts this week? I guess you did, and I thank you for responding. The whole of your two comments [Deviant’s is under my post about Sovereign Election from Monday] provide an ample illustration of just how far off Wesleyanism has become.
What are you talking about? Throughout my previous response, I presented a direct philosophical challenge to Calvinism, one which concluded with the audacious claim that Calvinism is effectually equivalent with Pantheism. How many "Wesleyans" have you read or spoken with that have made such a claim? If you are being honest, the answer is none. Therefore, your easy dodge of my response by a simple categorization of it as a classic "Wesleyan" response reveals that 1.) you did not bother to actually read my post, 2.) you don't understand the categories that are involved in my presentation or 3.) you are unable to respond, so you resort to gross mischaracterizations that completely fail to engage my thoughts, as I have yours.
Of course we consider each other BROTHERS, but oh how I wish the great Wesley brothers would have listened to their Calvinists colleagues.
Well, fortunately for the small segment of Christian thought that is represented by the groups you have identified, the Wesley brothers were intellectually honest enough to see the errors inherent to the Calvinistic systems espoused in their day, and boldly stood against such.
What concerned me the most about your comments in particular was not that you disagreed on every point but that you seemed to have no idea what was being talked about. You even admitted that it “makes no sense” to you.
Another mischaracterization. I said that it "made no sense" because your offering was not philosophically tenable. I took great pains to show why this is true.
Nevertheless, you engaged with a full Arminian assault!
Again, how many "Arminian assaults" have you encountered that make the claim that Calvinism is philosophical Pantheism? Again, as you refuse to or are unable to engage critically with my critique of your philosophical system, I honestly do not know what to make of your perspective.
I would encourage you two to read my posts about Universal Prevenient Grace.
Why should I go and research more of your ideas when you will not engage my opinions of your thought in this post?
This theological error has tainted all of your arguments.
You claim this, but you have yet to show why this is true. If you believe I am in error, engage what I have posted, as I have engaged your posts, and show me how. I am not one of your "students" that needs to be fed propositional statements. I desire that you interact with my post on the level which I have engaged yours. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are only about accusations, or are unable to intelligently respond.
You, though you may not even know it, have just declared the WCF and the BCF to be absurdly unbiblical.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be cryptic. I not only declare that the WCF is "absurdly unbiblical", but I would go further to say that it is philosophically infantile in how it delineates the divine nature. As to the BCF, I am unaware of what that is. I tend to focus my attention on the creeds of the church that are universally recognized and authoritative, not the formulations of marginal, historically infant groups.
And further, I am sure you are unaware that you are similar to Aristotle, Cicero, Marcion, and Origen who denied omniscient foreknowledge because they could not harmonize it with free will.
Why are you "sure" that I am unaware of what these thinkers have said? Surely you do not think that you are the only one who is capable of engaging these thinkers! And as to your derision of Aristotle, this is quite interesting, given the fact that Aristotelian categories are the very ones upon which Calvinistic philosophy builds its doctrine of God!!! Your attempt to overturn my argument by associating it with thinkers to whom you would apply a negative value (notice you still have not yet actually engaged what I have said...) is one of the most basic rhetorical errors. Surely you, professor, are above such tactics.
Of course there are many other false views of God’s foreknowledge: semi-Socinian, Arminian, and Barthian. But you are the only one that I have ever seen you claims to be orthodox Christian and also believes that the “Necessary Knowledge of God” [a vitally important part of Theology Proper; 1Cor.2:11] is a, as you say, “tautological irrelevancy.”
Well, as I am the first one whom you have met that advocates such, perhaps now you can leave off your tactics to this point and actually engage my critique of your ideas.
But if I could possibly convince you to at least study this subject a little more, then I would direct you into a study of the types of prophecy. There are two types and they illustrate the depth of God’s foreknowledge and foreordination. Specifically compare and contrast “Conditional Prophecy” and “Absolute Prophecy.” Both of these types are used by God and reveal how He can both know contingencies that will never happen and realities that will happen at the same time and that not be impossible. [Example: compare Jonah’s prophecy to 1 Kings 13:32] God is neither a gambler nor a predictor.
If you want to convince me of anything, the first place to start would be to deal with my ideas, especially my critique of your post. Changing the subject, personal attacks, etc. are all smokescreens to an unwillingness/inability to interact intelligently with my lengthy and thorough engagement of your post. I do not need you to "direct" me to different resources. What I want you to do is to stay right here and continue the discussion, responding to the critique I have leveled (successfully, given your silence thus far) against your post.
A little less LoL and a little more study, especially of a Systematic Theology book, would be very helpful to you.
Yes, I have read a lot of systematic theology books by a wide-range of authors from multifarious theological backgrounds. Let's leave off this misdirection and get down to an actual discussion of ideas.
But again, thanks. And as I said you your friend the deviant monk, please comment in the future. I hope to see you grow in your understanding of theology. But if not, your comments make for good illustrations to my students of where poor theology leads.
For the sake of your students, I truly hope that you use different approaches in responding to their ideas than you have used with me. You express the "desire" to teach, yet you do nothing of the kind, for you do not wish to interact with my quite critical engagement with your post. I have had many seminary profs like this, those who wish to express their own ideas but change the subject whenever their understanding is questioned.
I have devoted many years to theological studies. Because of this, I am not a theological newbie. I attempted to respond intelligently and thorougly to your post. I only request the same.
ExistDissolve, in all of your years of devotion to theological studies did you ever run across the London Baptist Confession of Faith i.e. BCF or do you consider Baptist to be a "marginal, historically infant groups"?
Just to help you out the BCF is the WCF with a corrected view of baptism. You can pick one up at your local Christian Bookstore. It is a pretty popular document.
E.D.,
Thank you again for your comments. It is fun to watch you virtually pull your hair out while trying to take pop-shots at me. You must be new to Fide-O and we are glad to have you and your friend around.
Now back to the subject at hand, you are quite upset that I will not take time to debate your many errors. The reason I don’t is because I don’t have to. My post is based upon two-thousand years of orthodox and reformed theology; your comments are based upon your philosophies. My post was supported with theology and Scripture; your comments were basically incoherent.
Nevertheless, I would like to continue to point out your fallacies in hopes that you humbly consider them. Let’s start with the foundational theology of foreordination and foreknowledge. I listed for you quite a few Scriptures that help formulate this aspect of Theology Proper. But E.D., you seemed to ignore them and stuck with your philosophical approach. Your complete lack of understanding of the definitions of “Free Knowledge” and “Necessary Knowledge” seem to cause you to stumble through the rest of the post. Necessary Knowledge is called that because it is NOT determined by an action of the divine will; it is purely an act of divine intellect, without any concurrent of action of the divine will. Again I encourage one to read Isaiah 40:13-14 and Job 38:2-7 to get a theological understanding of God’s omniscience.
I agree with Thomas Watson who said, “God’s knowledge is primary, for He is the pattern and source of all knowledge from which others merely borrow; His knowledge is pure, for it is not contaminated by either the object or its sin; his knowledge is facile, for it is without any difficulty; it is infallible; it is instantaneous; it is entirely retentive. God is perfect in His knowledge.”
But the difficulty for most is when some try to understand the relationship between God’s divine foreknowledge and contingent events. Though God’s omniscience should comfort us, A.W. Pink was correct when he observed that it “fills us with uneasiness.” That is true because we are not the one’s who possess the knowledge and lack trust in the One who does.
Arminians like yourself regard freedom of Man’s will as indifferentia (arbitrariness). Such a view of Man’s will then leads Arminians (and Jesuits and Lutherans) to believe in a scientia media solution, which I mentioned in my post as the Middle Knowledge solution. Basically it is a belief in a special class of future things that are outside of God’s decrees and foreordination and thus only known by God through His ability of foresight.
This Pelagian approach to God is certainly unbiblical and specifically challenged by such Scriptures as I have provided. Moreover, it is objectionable, because it makes the divine knowledge of God dependent on the arbitrary choices of man, virtually annulling the certainty of the knowledge of future events, and thus implicitly denies the omniscience of God.
But we Calvinist understand the freedom of Man’s will as lubentia rationalis (reasonable self-determination – that is Augustine’s words – I like ‘em.). In other words, freedom is not arbitrary but rational and reliable. The will of Man is not some thing that is incalculable or uncontrolled by something. Our human natures since the fall are reflective of our father the Devil, and we are slaves to sin. Our freedom has its laws. Indeed, the good news of the Gospel is that an omnipotent loving God has given us a new nature, and we find ourselves controlled by the law of Christ!
Now concerning contingencies, let me first restate the definition of omniscience: God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act. 1Sam. 23:11-13 gives us a great illustration of God perfectly knowing all “contingencies” even though they will never be actual. Also, Jesus states possible actions that never happened in Matt. 11:21-23. Jesus knew with certainty things that are not actual. Oh the marvelous intellect of God!! He not only perfectly knows all things that are and will be but He also knows all that is not nor ever will be! “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it,” Psalm 139:6.
Now concerning the word “simple” in the definition of omniscience, we understand that God knowledge is not divided into chronological parts. He is fully aware of all things at all times. He knows all things at once. But of course our Arminian friends believe that that knowledge excludes the free acts of men.
Now concerning foreordination, Arminians deny the logical order God’s knowledge. That is seen in E.D.’s comments. He said, Therefore, although one may suggest that God’s act of ordination is free (which I will dispute later), this same freedom cannot be extended to God’s knowledge, for this knowledge is, in fact, predicated (logically) upon the ordaining act of God in eternity. Of course, this creates an incredibly absurd picture of God, a God who is “infinitely self-conscious” because of that which God has foreordained. And the statement he is most proud of: Just as I claimed above, because God’s self-consciousness and God’s “foreknowledge” are predicated upon God’s “one eternal and most simple act” of ordination, the entire psychological/conscious complex of the Godhead is, in fact, contingent upon that which is “other” than God. This is necessary, for without ordination (the “one eternal and most simple act”), God-consciousness and knowledge (whether “fore” or other) would not exist. This, of course, is nothing more than a philosophical form of pantheism.
In my post, I gave the simple answer to this most difficult issue concerning the relationship between foreordination and foreknowledge. The two most important things to ponder is the “logic issue” and the “certainty issue.” E.D. has trouble with the “logic issue” as all humanity does because we understand knowledge from the “chronological” viewpoint. We learn in a succession of learning moments. God does not. His knowledge is simultaneous. But that does not mean that God’s knowledge is illogical (see Shedd, Theology, I, 355). We thus understand that that which logically determines which of all that God knows, including the contingencies, is His foreordination that God knew simultaneous to His foreknowledge. Our Arminian friend may cry pantheism (which makes no sense according to his argument), other Arminians slide into Deism and Semi-Pelagianism, but we of the Reformed faith understand that these issues point directly to the sovereignty of God. So when one departs from the Scriptures into philosophical mumbo-jumbo we discover that his conclusions leave him frantically and fatalistically confused. Paul said in 2Cor. 2:11, “No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” And the Spirit of God has revealed many of God’s thoughts to us in Scripture.
I would instruct you to read Ps. 81:14-15; Isa. 42:9; 48:18; Jer. 2:2-3; 38:17-20; Ezek 3:6. In these verses we find a perfectly omniscient God and men making choices. We find a God that has decreed all things and their causes and conditions in the exact order in which they come to pass. Here are more verses to support my claims; Acts 2:23; Rom. 9:16; Eph 1:11; Phil. 2:13.
BTW, if I were Wesleyan I would deny it too.
Scott--
You said:
ExistDissolve, in all of your years of devotion to theological studies did you ever run across the London Baptist Confession of Faith i.e. BCF or do you consider Baptist to be a "marginal, historically infant groups"?
No, I have not come across this document. I found a copy online, and I am currently perusing it.
As to your question, I would say "yes" in terms of creedal/confessional authority.
Just to help you out the BCF is the WCF with a corrected view of baptism. You can pick one up at your local Christian Bookstore. It is a pretty popular document.
Thanks for the information. I will probably not buy it as it is freely available online.
Let me give my Arminian brothers a friend. His name is Origen (d.254). He wrote, "Foreknowledge precedes foreordination." Of course, Origen was a Universalists, believing that in the end all persons will choose God and be saved. I am sure my Arminian brothers will not let their Pelagianism go that far, but I hope that it is helpful to you guys to know who else views salvation synergistically. Or maybe give me more quotes from Charles Finney to support your views. "Upon some God foresaw that he could wisely bestow a sufficient measure of gracious influence to secure their voluntary yielding, and upon others he could not bestow enough in fact to secure this result... He does for all that he wisely can." -- Charles Finney
jason e. robertson--
You said (in italics):
It is fun to watch you virtually pull your hair out while trying to take pop-shots at me.
It's interesting that direct and thorough response to your posting is qualified as "pop-shots." Hopefully none of your students will ever give you this kind of trouble!
Now back to the subject at hand, you are quite upset that I will not take time to debate your many errors. The reason I don’t is because I don’t have to. My post is based upon two-thousand years of orthodox and reformed theology; your comments are based upon your philosophies. My post was supported with theology and Scripture; your comments were basically incoherent.
If my post is 1.) unorthodox 2.) philosophical and 3.) incoherent, then you should have no problem in contesting the issues I have raised. However, once again, you avoid a direct answer to the issues I have raised by deflection to other issues that are superfluous not only to your original posting, but moreover to my response. Oh, and BTW, "supporting" a perspective with Scripture usually requires more than simply tagging a laundry list of Scriptures to the end of a posting. Anyone can do that (like Arius, for example); however, engaging in such an approach does not guarantee or even help one's post approach the level of "biblical." Besides, unless you are completely naive, the way in which one approaches the Scriptures is, indellibly, based upon the philosophical presuppositions that one brings to them. Therefore, these presuppositions must be exhaustively questioned and critiqued before the issue of the Scriptures even comes to the fore. However, apparently you are not willing to engage in a self-critique of your presuppositional matrix. If you were, you would be more than willing to engage me on the level of the critique which I have leveled against your "offering." Moreover, as the entire soteriological complex of Calvinistic theology is built upon quite specific philosophical presuppositions, I do not understand why you would deride a philosophical discussion. If you do not realize the part that your philosophical assumptions play in your formulation of doctrine, your approach to Scripture, and the theological conclusions at which you arrive, you are being intellectually obtuse.
Let’s start with the foundational theology of foreordination and foreknowledge. I listed for you quite a few Scriptures that help formulate this aspect of Theology Proper. But E.D., you seemed to ignore them and stuck with your philosophical approach. Your complete lack of understanding of the definitions of “Free Knowledge” and “Necessary Knowledge” seem to cause you to stumble through the rest of the post. Necessary Knowledge is called that because it is NOT determined by an action of the divine will; it is purely an act of divine intellect, without any concurrent of action of the divine will.
How is one to differentiate an "act of divine will" and an "act of divine intellect?" How can the there be an act of the intellect without the concomitant act of the will? If this is true, then you have actually overturned your original contention that God's foreknowledge is logically preceded by ordination.
In Calvinistic methodology, there is no meaningful distinction between "Necessary Knowledge" and "Free Knowledge." As that which is ordained is ordained from all of eternity, there is no way, logically or chronologically, to separate knowledge of that which is ordained from God's knowledge of Godself. Since this is irrefutable philosophically, and because you claim that God's foreordaining will and act is the logical foundation upon which divine foreknowledge proceeds, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that eternal "act" of the divine will (and, necessarily, the act of the divine intellect) is the very source of God-consciousness. Therefore, as GOd's act of ordination of that which occurs outside of God cannot be separated, in eternity, from God's being, one is left with pantheism. You have yet to refute this claim.
Again I encourage one to read Isaiah 40:13-14 and Job 38:2-7 to get a theological understanding of God’s omniscience.
Okay, I read both these passages. I fail to see what these have to do with "foreknowledge."
I agree with Thomas Watson who said, “God’s knowledge is primary, for He is the pattern and source of all knowledge from which others merely borrow; His knowledge is pure, for it is not contaminated by either the object or its sin; his knowledge is facile, for it is without any difficulty; it is infallible; it is instantaneous; it is entirely retentive. God is perfect in His knowledge.”
What does this have to do with anything? I have not advocated that God's knowledge is not "perfect." I have only questioned the way in which you philosophically characterize the epistemology of God.
But the difficulty for most is when some try to understand the relationship between God’s divine foreknowledge and contingent events. Though God’s omniscience should comfort us, A.W. Pink was correct when he observed that it “fills us with uneasiness.” That is true because we are not the one’s who possess the knowledge and lack trust in the One who does.
Again, I don't understand how this addresses anything which I have raised.
Arminians like yourself regard freedom of Man’s will as indifferentia (arbitrariness). Such a view of Man’s will then leads Arminians (and Jesuits and Lutherans) to believe in a scientia media solution, which I mentioned in my post as the Middle Knowledge solution. Basically it is a belief in a special class of future things that are outside of God’s decrees and foreordination and thus only known by God through His ability of foresight.
This Pelagian approach to God is certainly unbiblical and specifically challenged by such Scriptures as I have provided. Moreover, it is objectionable, because it makes the divine knowledge of God dependent on the arbitrary choices of man, virtually annulling the certainty of the knowledge of future events, and thus implicitly denies the omniscience of God.
But we Calvinist understand the freedom of Man’s will as lubentia rationalis (reasonable self-determination – that is Augustine’s words – I like ‘em.). In other words, freedom is not arbitrary but rational and reliable. The will of Man is not some thing that is incalculable or uncontrolled by something. Our human natures since the fall are reflective of our father the Devil, and we are slaves to sin. Our freedom has its laws. Indeed, the good news of the Gospel is that an omnipotent loving God has given us a new nature, and we find ourselves controlled by the law of Christ!
I have no idea what this has to do with the objections to your post that I have raised. Instead of directly addressing the issues which I raised, you are breaking into a discussion of a completely unrelated subject in an attempt to mischaracterize my position by associating with other forms of thought that bear little or no resemblance to my own.
Now concerning contingencies, let me first restate the definition of omniscience: God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act. 1Sam. 23:11-13 gives us a great illustration of God perfectly knowing all “contingencies” even though they will never be actual. Also, Jesus states possible actions that never happened in Matt. 11:21-23. Jesus knew with certainty things that are not actual. Oh the marvelous intellect of God!! He not only perfectly knows all things that are and will be but He also knows all that is not nor ever will be! “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it,” Psalm 139:6.
According to your philosophical system, I find it impossible to countenance that something that exists in the mind and intellect of God could not attain to existence outside of God. After all, if "God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act," then this very act of eternal ordination gives necessary existence to all that which God "knows." Therefore, "possible" existence without existence is a complete contradiction of everything that you have been attempting, quite unsuccessfully, to establish.
Now concerning foreordination, Arminians deny the logical order God’s knowledge. That is seen in E.D.’s comments. He said, Therefore, although one may suggest that God’s act of ordination is free (which I will dispute later), this same freedom cannot be extended to God’s knowledge, for this knowledge is, in fact, predicated (logically) upon the ordaining act of God in eternity. Of course, this creates an incredibly absurd picture of God, a God who is “infinitely self-conscious” because of that which God has foreordained. And the statement he is most proud of: Just as I claimed above, because God’s self-consciousness and God’s “foreknowledge” are predicated upon God’s “one eternal and most simple act” of ordination, the entire psychological/conscious complex of the Godhead is, in fact, contingent upon that which is “other” than God. This is necessary, for without ordination (the “one eternal and most simple act”), God-consciousness and knowledge (whether “fore” or other) would not exist. This, of course, is nothing more than a philosophical form of pantheism.
In my post, I gave the simple answer to this most difficult issue concerning the relationship between foreordination and foreknowledge. The two most important things to ponder is the “logic issue” and the “certainty issue.” E.D. has trouble with the “logic issue” as all humanity does because we understand knowledge from the “chronological” viewpoint. We learn in a succession of learning moments. God does not. His knowledge is simultaneous. But that does not mean that God’s knowledge is illogical (see Shedd, Theology, I, 355). We thus understand that that which logically determines which of all that God knows, including the contingencies, is His foreordination that God knew simultaneous to His foreknowledge. Our Arminian friend may cry pantheism (which makes no sense according to his argument), other Arminians slide into Deism and Semi-Pelagianism, but we of the Reformed faith understand that these issues point directly to the sovereignty of God. So when one departs from the Scriptures into philosophical mumbo-jumbo we discover that his conclusions leave him frantically and fatalistically confused. Paul said in 2Cor. 2:11, “No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” And the Spirit of God has revealed many of God’s thoughts to us in Scripture.
You claim that the relationship of God's foreordination and foreknowledge cannot not be understood chronologically. However, in order to mitigate the power, force and logic of my response, you claim that God's foreknowledge and foreordination is "simultaneous." Therefore, you have jettisoned the logical relationship between foreknowledge and foreordination that you claim is necessary and replace it with the very chronological argument which you so vehemently disavow. Moreover, instead of attempting to counter the philosophical deconstruction I have made of your offering, you ultimately retreat into the "mystery" of God's eternal nature, even though you are quite comfortable--when posting on your own terms--to make quite definitive and propositional claims about the same.
BTW, if I were Wesleyan I would deny it too.
I never denied that I was Wesleyan. Rather, professor, I was merely pointing out the obtuse way in which you attempted to associate my unique critique of your post with a theological tradition with which you do not agree. As typical of your responses, instead of actually engaging the force and form of my thought, you resort to personal attacks and juvenile attempts at guilt by association. Again, I hope you pursue other tactics with your students.
E.D.
You aren’t taking enough time to consider the theology that has been presented. A sound debate is impossible if you refuse to substantively deal with the material I have presented. Further, I would hope that you would try to back your claims with Scripture in the future. In addition, it would be nice if you could give a definitive teaching of some theologian that agrees with your dismissal of my definitions of God’s Necessary and Free Knowledge.
You said, According to your philosophical system, I find it impossible to countenance that something that exists in the mind and intellect of God could not attain to existence outside of God. After all, if "God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act," then this very act of eternal ordination gives necessary existence to all that which God "knows." Therefore, "possible" existence without existence is a complete contradiction of everything that you have been attempting, quite unsuccessfully, to establish.
Ok, so you disagree with me and let’s look upon my bookshelf here at home and see who else you disagree with….
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, James Montgomery Boice… oh, and then there is ol’ B.B. Warfield who devotes an page after page (The Works of B.B.Warfield V.II ) to the fact that the Gospel of John is the greatest example and illustration and narrative describing the foreknowledge and foreordination of God.
I understand that you cannot understand how God’s mind works. Trust me, we will not dock you for that. But to then say that because you can’t understand it that it can not be true for God is treading into dangerous waters. (And I don’t think you read the passages that I listed or you would not have said that. Some a part of me wonders if you are really serious about this issue. Or maybe you are just one of those guys that likes to argue but never learn?)
And E.D., “simultaneous” implies no succession. Come on friend, that is an easy one. Slow down and think through this stuff for a moment. “Simultaneous” is not a chronological argument but the very opposite. Selah.
jason e. robertson--
You said (in italics):
You aren’t taking enough time to consider the theology that has been presented. A sound debate is impossible if you refuse to substantively deal with the material I have presented.
What are you talking about? I am the one who has fully, line-for-line, engaged your original post. In response, you did not bother to do the same, but rather resorted to sophmoric attempts at deflection and misdirection. Now you accuse me of "refusing to substantively deal with the material [you] have presented." !!! I simply have to chuckle, given the amount of webspace that I have occupied in fully responding to every tenet of the original argument presented in the essay.
Further, I would hope that you would try to back your claims with Scripture in the future. In addition, it would be nice if you could give a definitive teaching of some theologian that agrees with your dismissal of my definitions of God’s Necessary and Free Knowledge.
First of all, I don't understand why I should have to "back my claims" with Scripture. Your original post was not an exegesis of Scripture, but was rather an attempt at providing a philosophical argument for your ideas about God's foreknowledge and foreordination. THe fact that you tagged Scripture verses onto the end of your argument is entirely irrelevent. Secondly, as we are not discussing historical theology, but are rather discussing the claims which you have made in the original post. Therefore, I do not see the point in appealing to other theologians. My point in coming to this blog--as opposed to reading a book--is to interact with your ideas and the way in which you conceptualize these ideas. Besides, I am quite certain you would discount, out of hand, any theologians to whom I would appeal (even as you have made sweeping, yet unwarranted claims about many influential thinkers from Christian and secular history). The bottom line is that you do not really care which theologians I would conjure--rather, I suspect that you simply want a list so that you can continue with your juvenile attempts to undermine my position through "guilt by association." If you think this assumption is unwarranted, that is fine. HOwever, your behaviour throughout this discussion can lead me to no other assumption.
Ok, so you disagree with me and let’s look upon my bookshelf here at home and see who else you disagree with….
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, James Montgomery Boice… oh, and then there is ol’ B.B. Warfield who devotes an page after page (The Works of B.B.Warfield V.II ) to the fact that the Gospel of John is the greatest example and illustration and narrative describing the foreknowledge and foreordination of God.
I am okay with disagreeing with them. There are many other theologians whom I respect that disagree with them also. Moreover, I hardly see how my disagreement with the--let's be honest--homogenous group of thinkers can seriously be utilized as an argument against my ideas. If you want to show me where my thinking is askew, by all means show me. However, simply appealing to theologians such as those listed above cannot be categorized as engaging my ideas. Rather, you are simply continuing your tactics of attempting to malign my ideas through guilt by association. However, in the preceding, you have gone a step further, by conjuring the tactic of "guilty by non-association." Utterly brilliant.
I understand that you cannot understand how God’s mind works.
Nor can you, it must be stated.
But to then say that because you can’t understand it that it can not be true for God is treading into dangerous waters.
Fabricating an epistemological structure for God and calling it "true" is just as dangerous...
(And I don’t think you read the passages that I listed or you would not have said that. Some a part of me wonders if you are really serious about this issue. Or maybe you are just one of those guys that likes to argue but never learn?)
Okay, here we go:
Isaiah 40:13-14 --
13 Who has understood the mind [d] of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?
14 Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?
Ok, we have an affirmation that God is not dependent upon others for knowledge. I hardly see how this establishes the way in which Calvinistic "foreknowledge" is explicated.
Job 38:2-7:
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?
Again, an affirmation of the fact that God is not insturcted by others about God's knowledge. However, I hardly see how this establishes the way in which you speak about "foreknowledge."
And E.D., “simultaneous” implies no succession. Come on friend, that is an easy one. Slow down and think through this stuff for a moment. “Simultaneous” is not a chronological argument but the very opposite. Selah.
Are you kidding me? I never said that simultaneous implies "succession," only chronology. One cannot speak of simultaenity without the chronological relationship of ideas. According to most basic form of thinking, simultaneous is, in fact, a chronological argument. Try doing two things "simlutaneously" when there is no time under consideration.
don't you all have something better to do than present verbose comments on stupid blogs with pictures of fat people?
ashlynreese, that is not a fair conclusion. You know the camera adds 50 lbs.
Also it is not fair to insult us then not have a blog of your own or even and email to defend our honor.
Exist, your challenge of certian language as being tautologically irrelevant is knit picking. If I say God has perfect knowledge and then go and to say God cannot doubt, nor be ignorant, but knows all things with total certainty then all I did was define perfect knowledge. If I say I drive a blue car and then go on to say a blue metal and plastic assembled product containing a combustion engine, four tires and a steering wheel that allows me to travel at faster speeds than I can walk was I repeating myself? You should know that symantics in theology matter as well as clarification. We already can see that certian terms are defined differently in your head than ours, which forces the need to overstate what would be the assumed obvious.
Also I find you accusation of philisophical pantheism to be vague and it also sounds like you are using someone elses argument which you really don't fully understand. Nowhere as far as I could tell in the post was it even imply literally or philisophically that God is in everything and everything is in God. However, if God is the Creator and the Sustainer of this universe then nothing exist outside of Him. Now if you believe that God did not create and does not sustian this universe we live in then we need to have a different discussion. Also if you do not believe God is Sovereign (and I will not qualify sovereign for fear of being tautological) then I may see where you are coming from. If not, then I must ask after reading all of your extremely long comments, what is your point? If you choose to answer this question can you do so in one paragraph?
Okay, we can do The Narrow Mind on either Thursday 06/15 or on Tuesday 06/20 from 5-7pm. And yes Juan, you can come to!
So I need to know who's in for Thursday or Tuesday.
We can get Jason and/or Scott in the studio and do a 3 way call with deviant and exist (I need some real names for the website announcment)And Juan can call in on the 800 number once we start taking calls.
Gene
Scott Hill--
You said:
Exist, your challenge of certian language as being tautologically irrelevant is knit picking. If I say God has perfect knowledge and then go and to say God cannot doubt, nor be ignorant, but knows all things with total certainty then all I did was define perfect knowledge. If I say I drive a blue car and then go on to say a blue metal and plastic assembled product containing a combustion engine, four tires and a steering wheel that allows me to travel at faster speeds than I can walk was I repeating myself? You should know that symantics in theology matter as well as clarification. We already can see that certian terms are defined differently in your head than ours, which forces the need to overstate what would be the assumed obvious.
The reason I used the term "tautology" is not because there was redundency in defintion. Tautological language, more precisely, refers to the use of redundency to establish the veracity of 1.) a self-evident truth or 2.) a circular argument. I objected to the orignal post's language because a circular assumption about the nature of God's knowledge is made and then supported with more circularity.
Also I find you accusation of philisophical pantheism to be vague and it also sounds like you are using someone elses argument which you really don't fully understand.
Believe me, my argument, to the best of my knowledge, is not borrowed from someone else. I have never heard anyone level the accusation of pantheism against Calvinism. While this might create little "authority" for my ideas, I think I have sufficiently outlined my reasons--using the original post's own content--for arriving at this conclusion.
Nowhere as far as I could tell in the post was it even imply literally or philisophically that God is in everything and everything is in God.
As I pointed out in my original response, to understand God's "knowledge" as proceeding (logically) from God's foreordaining act is to create an indellible and eternal relationship between God's very self and that which God foreordains. Moreover, as God's self-consiousness, per Berkower, logically originates from the "one act" of God's ordaining will, the very existence of creation is necessary for God to have self-consciousness. In this sense, then, the creation is eternally a part of God and, as its existence logically precedes God's own self-consciousness, it is impossible to not speak of creation as consubstantial in nature with God, for the very existence of creation is that which gives rise to God's self-consiounsness per God's ordaining will in creation.
However, if God is the Creator and the Sustainer of this universe then nothing exist outside of Him.
I do not disagree with this. However, as Calvinism's conception of the logical relationship between ordination and knowledge in the Godhead dictates, it is actually impossible to distinguish between that which is "God" and that which is not, for the relation of creation and God's ordination therein is that which gives rise to God's "knowledge." In this sense, the very existence of creation logically precedes God's knowledge thereof. Therefore, as God's eternal ordination is that "one act" whereby God comes to have knowledge not only of God's own self-consciousness, but also and concomitantly knowledge of that which has been ordained, any meaningful distinction between God and creation has been blurred beyond division.
Now if you believe that God did not create and does not sustian this universe we live in then we need to have a different discussion.
I have never said this, nor have I ever intimated it.
Also if you do not believe God is Sovereign (and I will not qualify sovereign for fear of being tautological) then I may see where you are coming from.
I do believe God is sovereign, just not in a materialist (Calvinistic) way.
If not, then I must ask after reading all of your extremely long comments, what is your point? If you choose to answer this question can you do so in one paragraph?
My point is that Calvinism attempts to dupe those who approach it into believing that it is a logical construction of God. I disagree vehemently on both points. As I have shown, Calvinism has serious conceptual problems that mitigate against philosophically coherent understanding of God.
Sorry. In my last comment, "both points" should be "this point."
E.D., I hate to repeat myself in a debate, because it is evident then that you are getting nowhere with your opponent. But I will respond again that your statement: ... the very existence of creation is necessary for God to have self-consciousness. In this sense, then, the creation is eternally a part of God and, as its existence logically precedes God's own self-consciousness, it is impossible to not speak of creation as consubstantial in nature with God, for the very existence of creation is that which gives rise to God's self-consiounsness per God's ordaining will in creation. That is just flatly theologically not true.
The Bible clearly teaches that God is distinct from His creation. He is not part of it, for he has made it and rules over it. The term often used is transcendent. He is both transcendent and immanent. God is far “above” in the sense that he is greater than creation and independent of it. Creation is dependent on God. Your materialism is the philosophy of unbelievers and “ultimately denies the existence of God altogether.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 15:5:B). At the least, your logic concludes that God is changing because the universe changes and that God is not holy because an unholy creation is part of him.
Calvinism teaches on the other hand that God created the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo). God had a self conscience prior to creation. That is taught clearly in scripture and simply in the fact that God is eternal and creation is not.
Further, E.D., your views lead one to believe that God cannot cause or plan voluntary choices, that God’s providential involvement in or control of history must not include every specific detail of every event that happens, but that God instead simply responds to human choices and actions as they come about and does so in such a way that his purposes are ultimately accomplished in the world. Such ones believe that God’s purpose for the world “is not a blueprint encompassing all future contingencies” but “a dynamic program for the world, the outworking of which depends in part on man.” (Pinnock, Grace Unlimited, p.18).
And further, such ones deny the biblical doctrine of predestination and the fact that God’s will includes evil. E.D., do you think that the verses in the Bible that speak of God’s predestination and providential control are exceptions and do not describe the way that God ordinarily works in human activity. Do you believe that choices caused by God are real choices?
Exist, that fact that you have never heard some one level pantheism against Calvinism is very telling.
Jason E. Robertson--
E.D., I hate to repeat myself in a debate, because it is evident then that you are getting nowhere with your opponent.
Perhaps that is because my opponent will not fully engage with my critique of his original post.
But I will respond again that your statement: ... the very existence of creation is necessary for God to have self-consciousness. In this sense, then, the creation is eternally a part of God and, as its existence logically precedes God's own self-consciousness, it is impossible to not speak of creation as consubstantial in nature with God, for the very existence of creation is that which gives rise to God's self-consiounsness per God's ordaining will in creation. That is just flatly theologically not true.
I agree. However, it is precisely the consequence of the way in which you have been describing the relationship between God's ordiniation and knowledge.
The Bible clearly teaches that God is distinct from His creation. He is not part of it, for he has made it and rules over it. The term often used is transcendent. He is both transcendent and immanent. God is far “above” in the sense that he is greater than creation and independent of it. Creation is dependent on God.
I have no problem with the bible's teaching on this point, and I fully affirm it. However, what I do have a problem with is that what you have been advocating devolves very quickly into the critique which I have been leveling against your original philosophical statements. I realize that you believe that what you are advocating is "biblical." However, if what you have just described is the biblical view of God's relationship to creation, then should reassess the means by which you describe this (or rather, the philosophical paradigms through which you describe), for you are advocating something that is entirely antithetical.
Your materialism is the philosophy of unbelievers and “ultimately denies the existence of God altogether.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 15:5:B). At the least, your logic concludes that God is changing because the universe changes and that God is not holy because an unholy creation is part of him.
What? Yours is actually the materiaist philosophy, for you are the one who is unable to bifurcate the creation from the mind of God, being as the ordination of all things in creation is the very (logical) fount of God's self-consciousness. Moreover, the all-pervasive determinism which you advocate makes it entirely impossible, philosphically, to bifurcate between that which is "God" and that which is "created."
What "logic" of my concludes that God is "changing?" WHere have I ever advocated this? It sounds like you are out of debate and are rather falling upon unsubstantiated accusations through which you are attempting to identify me with theologies you eschew, even though nothing in my responses could possibly lead one to this conclusion.
Calvinism teaches on the other hand that God created the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo). God had a self conscience prior to creation. That is taught clearly in scripture and simply in the fact that God is eternal and creation is not.
Well, you may affirm those propositions, but the way in which you have deployed language to describe this through the philosophical paradigms of Calvinism completely contradicts your propositional affirmations. I have sufficiently shown this throughout our dialogue, and instead of showing me how I am wrong, you simply say that don't believe this and deflect to another avenue of discussion.
Further, E.D., your views lead one to believe that God cannot cause or plan voluntary choices, that God’s providential involvement in or control of history must not include every specific detail of every event that happens, but that God instead simply responds to human choices and actions as they come about and does so in such a way that his purposes are ultimately accomplished in the world. Such ones believe that God’s purpose for the world “is not a blueprint encompassing all future contingencies” but “a dynamic program for the world, the outworking of which depends in part on man.” (Pinnock, Grace Unlimited, p.18).
Again, to avoid actually dealing with my penetrating critique of your post, you deflect by attempting to associate me with other thinkers and ideas, even though the direction of your deflection relates in no way to anything that I have posted. I have not once, in this entire exhange, spoken about the ability of God to "cause or plan volunatary choices," or anything about God's "providential involvement in or control of history," nor have I even intimated that "God simply responds to human choices and actions as they come about...". Yours, clearly, is simply a strategy of setting up strawmen when one is faced with a dialogue in which one is unable to competently engage. What game are you playing at, professor?
And further, such ones deny the biblical doctrine of predestination and the fact that God’s will includes evil.
Again, are you kidding me? While I will save the errors you have promoted in this sentence for another post, this is simply Exhibit A of your now fully revealed rhetorical approach, one which consists of dodges, deflections, and juvenile shots at "guilt by association." C'mon, professor.
E.D., do you think that the verses in the Bible that speak of God’s predestination and providential control are exceptions and do not describe the way that God ordinarily works in human activity.
Exceptions to what? The only basis that an "exception" can be established is if one has already, through a philosophical presuppositional complex, determined what the "rules of the game are." As you approach the Scriptures through a particular philosophical paradigm, and I another, obviously are interpretations of "predestination" are going to clash. However, simply because I do not interpret the words the same way does not mean that the interpretation at which I arrive is an "exception," for to admit to such would be to capitulate to the veracity of the philosophical complex which you have arbitrarily placed upon the Scriptures. Believe me, I am not about to fall for that trap, professor.
Do you believe that choices caused by God are real choices?
LoL! Most likely, I disagree entirely with you materialist conception of God's relationship to "causality" which, in turn, is intimately related to one's definition of "real." Therefore, you'll forgive me if I don't walk into this trap before your more precisely define the terms under consideration. Good night, professor.
Good night, E.D. I know what you believe; its not new. Your comments drip with it. But getting you to admit it seems futile. But I tried.
Post a Comment