Did God decree from before the foundation of the earth that Jesus would come to die on the cross in the exact manner that the Bible describes?
Do you believe in predestination ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
True.
Also true.
The only way to put these two things together coherently is Catholicism. Even though /in spite of our freedom, God still manifests His sovereignty over His creation, in precisely the way in which Catholicism teaches that He does:
Spoiler
* - 'Securi' won't let me publish the link to the source at the moment.
:AMR:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Fair enough. Which parts of the answer did you find incongruent?
The part where it says God is sovereign — which presumably means He knows everything that will happen — while also asserting that I have agency.
Those two concepts do not mesh. Either I'm choosing or God is; it cannot be both.
Why not?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If A brings about B's circumstances, and if A knows B really well, then A can know what B will do, and B is still free at the same time.
The above is true unless you insist that, in the case that A has the power to manipulate the circumstances of B, that B is only free if and only if A chooses freely not to manipulate the circumstances of B.
That is a separate thesis from whether God's sovereignty and your agency can coexist. They can. So long as you can't prove that, "in the case that A has the power to manipulate the circumstances of B, that B is only free if and only if A chooses freely not to manipulate the circumstances of B."
God has the power to alter our circumstances. Our choice does not touch our circumstances, when their cause is beyond our control. For example an earthquake is beyond our control but it is our circumstance. Moving away from faults is not beyond our control. That is our choice. God doesn't coerce us to choose, but He does know us well enough that He knows what we'll do when faced with our circumstances, and He has the power to manipulate our circumstances.
God chooses your circumstances, and, you also choose what you'll do, think, say, etc., within them.
He knows you, and He knows what you're going to do, because both He knows you, and He is sovereign over your circumstances, and He reserves His right as the Maker to manipulate them, and again, because He knows you, combined with, that He has the power to manipulate your circumstances, and He does not waive the right to exercise that power, He knows what you're going to do.
As the Clavinist might say, He does this "According to His good pleasure," which does capture that whatever He's up to, we cannot resist effectively, which is something He's told us straightforwardly since time began. But Catholicism says that He is working a plan that is going to be the best possible outcome for everybody, even those who don't believe in Him, because those stubborn people freely choose to resist Him no matter what, and forcing them to submit would not be better than letting them have their way instead, so He does not force stubborn people to repent, they have to choose that on their own, choose to not be stubborn, to not resist, to not rebel, to not go the route of Lucifer anymore.
Your idea of human freedom requires God to waive His right as the Maker. Catholicism's does not.
Lon
Well-known member
2 Corinthians 5:14 Hebrews 12:6 :up: Coercion and force are difficult to distinguish, however. Certainly there is power behind God's movements and Romans 9:19 for your inspection...
:chuckle: With the Cliff Clavin rub attached, even --> Romans 8:28
It'd 'appear' that 'Clavinism' also carries a decent answer (not to exclude your exclusive "Catholic exclusive" claim :think: )
Because if God has it all planned out, I don't have a say.
Why is this not obvious?
Sure.
However, if A brings about B's circumstances, and if A knows B really well, then A tells B what B will do, B still has a choice.
Lon
Well-known member
There are no E's in Clavan.
There are 3 in "Ratzenberger?" (not sure if that counts)
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I maintain that there is neither coercion nor force in God working His plan sovereignly, for the reason I set out previously, because it is not needed. There is no contradiction necessary between His complete exhaustive sovereignty and our true freedom.
And Romans 9:17 KJV---did God need to coerce Pharaoh, in order that, in His words, "I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth?" He did not, and imo this glorifies His power even more than had He employed coercion or force in bringing about His plan. But I'm biased, being theologically Catholic.
'Trouble with it is twofold. One is that it doesn't come more directly from the Apostles than does Catholicism. The Protestant process of determining what God wants us to know, excludes Apostolic tradition originating from words spoken but not written by the Apostles. As such the record from which Protestant theologians draw their facts is limited to just what happens to be captured in the Scripture, and for Catholics it includes the whole Scripture plus what is known to have originated with the Apostles but was never written down.
And the other is that, Who is John (Cliff) Clavin anyway, that we should listen to him? He was a Lawyer. He wasn't a priest like Martin Luther, he wasn't authorized to celebrate Mass like Luther was, nor was he ever under the authority of authentic Church bishops like Luther was---even though Luther did rebel against his bishop, bringing about the Reformation.
His area of credentialed expertise was the law, and the law only. He studied the Scripture for sure, and he shared what he thought of them, and of what they say, and of what he thought that God wants us to know, but still, he was no authority in theology like every single bishop at the time was.
So there isn't any reason that any Christian should feel compelled to believe what he said about matters of faith and morals, since he was no authority in these matters. If he were teaching something about the law, then fine, he was a lawyer, and we can trust his expertise in teaching about law, but not about theology.
And before you remind me that he didn't originate what we today know as the theology attached to his name, then even moreso, these unnamed and uncredentialed people also do not deserve our submission to their teachings. If Clavin himself wasn't an authority then surely none of his followers are either, or any of those influenced by him.
But besides that this theological school can possibility provide a way through the horns of this apparent dilemma, it is widely easily misunderstood to be saying that God's sovereignty actually does exclude the possibility of true human freedom, and many of this school of theology spend a lot of time defending against this charge, largely unsuccessfully imo.
And meanwhile Catholicism's teaching on divine providence explicitly proclaims that we are free in every way, while at the same time God is sovereignly working out His plan for the world, and it provides the explanation for how this can be.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's literally what I said, and it was also my whole point. Regardless of whether A tells B what B will do, too. B remains free.
Are you sure?
This would imply that God does not necessarily know for sure what we will do.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
My argument is that there is no necessary contradiction between God knowing what we're going to do, and us nonetheless being truly free to choose what we want to do. God can know what we want to do, and what we're going to do, both, with us still being completely free to choose.Are you sure?
This would imply that God does not necessarily know for sure what we will do.
God chooses to know every details of His sheep. However it's not a necessity for God to know those not of His Elect.
God can actually choose not to know at all all those put in a permanent separation from God.
Matthew 7:23 (NIV2011)
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Lon
Well-known member
It's a Catholic hanging point with a long tradition.
Its a house of cards, if one doesn't accept one tenent of the Catholic tradition, it doesn't the other either. On this, for a Prostestant, it doesn't matter if he is a theologian (he was, though ALSO a lawyer), it rather matters if one aligns with him by their own studies (not really available to the Catholic, but the only way an non-Catholic could become Catholic is either 1) as one naive of theology or 2) one who through their own studies, aligns theologically with Catholicism.
beloved57
Well-known member
Mans religion teaches contrary to scripture, that Gods predestination is premised on Gods foresight of mans doing something, his works or believing etc, but its not true. Gods predestination is conditioned upon His own Eternal Purpose, the good pleasure of His Will Eph 1:5
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Last edited:
Is God Himself predestined? Can he change the outcome of a sequence of events by intervening?
This would be true if there were not a relationship involved. Given that there is a relationship, we can invoke the thought experiment I proposed: A knows all. A tells B what he will choose. Does B have a choice?
I think that God is interested in a genuine relationship with people who can think for themselves. That means He has either given up exhaustive foreknowledge, or it was never possible in the first place.