| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Predestination or Free Will?; Another church topic | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 13 2006, 01:39 PM (782 Views) | |
| Dewey | Jun 15 2006, 04:17 AM Post #26 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
”Dwain, if this is nothing more than an extension of the doctrine of God's omniscience, then why even use the term predestination and why did Calvin make such a big deal out of it?” A few opening points. The predestination/free will debate did not originate with Calvin during the Reformation. Augustine first set forth the doctrine in detail, espousing almost verbatim the same five points later detailed by Calvin in the “Institutes.” Augustine was opposed by Pelagius, who held what we would today call the “free will” argument. The church debated the issue, and adopted Augustine’s position, in the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. In other words, it isn’t a concept to be viewed as some wacky Protestant heresy, and I’m not sure why Calvin is the one who always gets the credit, or blame, for the doctrine. Second, while they are very closely related, there is a difference between omniscience and predestination. The Bible is quite clear that predestination – the act of “fore-ordaining” is a concept that is part of the way that God works in creation – or more accurately, is the best way for humans to explain to other humans, one of the ways in which an eternal and omniscient God works. As with any human descriptors for the way God acts, it’s going to be incomplete at best. Calvin originally wrote the “Institutes” as a defense of French Protestants, who were being persecuted at the time. The book was addressed to the king of France, and was intended as a detailed explanation of Protestant theology. It was a lengthy statement of faith for examination by the king’s theological experts, to state that, in fact, the French Protestants’ beliefs were not as different from catholic doctrine as many would say - and when it did vary, what the scriptural reasons were for the variance. In other words, in discussing predestination in the Institutes, he wasn’t “making a big deal about it” at all. To the contrary, at least regarding this doctrine, he was trying to point out the orthodoxy of Protestant belief. Just for the sake of discussion, the scriptural references to predestination are the following brief passages (I think I’ve got them all, but I might have missed some): “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 8:28-30) “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.” (Ephesians 1:4-6) “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:11-12) The issue is not something invented by Calvin, or Augustine, but are scriptural concepts that must be addressed and understood. And why did he emphasize that there are some who are "elected" to be saved and some that are not (I understand "elected" to mean "chosen")? This term clearly implies a decision by God, not simply his allowing things to unfold. “Election” is a concept that, I think (but I may be mistaken), Calvin does expand upon Augustine. He doesn’t invent the term, as it is a concept that the Bible clearly addresses, but I think he adds an opinion that Augustine didn’t elaborate upon. To Calvin, election is not God simply picking and choosing (“you’re in; you’re out”) among humans. Rather, Calvinist theory says this: Before the individual can even truly understand the choice of accepting or rejecting God’s grace, God must first act through the work of the Holy Spirit within the individual before they can even truly grasp the Truth of the situation presented to them. This act of God reaching out first to the individual – as opposed to the reverse – is God’s act of election. God chooses to “reach down” to the human and make the first move in a sort of standoff that would otherwise be unresolvable through any actions originating on the individual human’s part. But remember, once the Holy Spirit opens the heart and mind to the individual to be able to receive God’s grace, the individual is still free to choose to reject it. Predestination only indicates that God knows what you're going to choose before you do. There is discussion whether God elects to do this only to certain people and not others, or to all people all the time, or to all people at some time, or other combinations. What’s the right belief? I don’t know. I personally believe that it’s most scripturally accurate to say that God elects to make understanding and acceptance of God’s saving grace available to every individual at some time or various times, within the individual’s life. I am certainly not an expert on the Calvinistic theology of predestination, but I can't believe that it is so central to Calvinistic teachings but not other Christian teachings when all it means is "God already knows what decisions you will make and thus knows if you will be in heaven or hell." At its essence, that is exactly what it means. God, who is not constrained by time, knows the end of the movie already – in fact, to God, the end of the movie is playing simultaneously with the opening credits. To that end, everything is “foreordained” in the eyes of God. Predestination is something that must be viewed from God’s eyes, not ours; and in the sense of looking backward in time, not forward (or more accurately, without consideration of time). Predestination doesn’t create debate in its essence, but in its extension, being a refutation of salvation through one’s good works. Its further stickiness comes in with the related, but separate argument, “It just isn’t fair that God would choose, before the person is even born, to spend eternity in hell!” And I don’t have time to address that specific issue right now. To a very great degree, the best theology in this thread so far has come from FrankM. I can believe one thing about the issue, and Rick might believe something totally different. In the end, we’ll both likely be more wrong than right, and to a large degree, it’s a waste of time to argue about things that by definition involve answers that haven’t been revealed to us, or that we’re just not equipped to understand. But every once in a while, you’ve got to engage in a little silliness. That’s just another part of what makes us human. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 15 2006, 05:11 AM Post #27 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dewey/Dwain, thank you for not misunderstanding my post. Although my remark was directed at the subject matter lying beyond the knowable, there's an additional difficulty for me here, namely I can't wrap my mind around what "time" itself means. I'm not referring to time as an index for tagging a set of events in mathematical modeling but rather that notion we all have of a continuous flow from the "past" to the "future" – the unidirectional arrow of time. I believe it's something we impose in our corrupted perception of "reality," and so its presence undermines any philosophical problem statement. Consequently, when philosophical discussions involve notions of time, I simply tap out. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 15 2006, 05:31 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Haha you got me! :lol:
I tend to think along similar lines (afterall what can "flow mean when applied to time itself) but i'm willing to give the theologians some wiggle room and consider the possibility that this kind of block time relativistic picture might be wrong, but it doesn't seem to make much difference the freewill stuff still gets eaten by certain future knowledge. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jun 15 2006, 06:35 AM Post #29 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
btw moonbat, I'm not ignoring you, just responding in order - and I'm kind of busy today, not enough time to reply to your post yet... I'll get there. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 15 2006, 07:11 AM Post #30 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I quote IT's post: ""predestination" and "foreknowledge" are timebound constraints and have no bearing on what happens in eternity (the everpresent now) in which God is." I see no logical problem in positing "free will" -- the notion that the mapping between a situation (the input) and our reaction to this situation (the output) are not deterministic and therefore, in principle at least, not entirely predictable -- on the "local level" while positing an omniscient but unmeddling Deity at the "global level." I suspect your real problem and Ax's as well is with the notion of "salvation" itself from an omniscient Deity. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 15 2006, 07:23 AM Post #31 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I suspect the real problem is how that salvation is offered by that omniscient Deity, to whom and how one achieves it. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 15 2006, 07:33 AM Post #32 |
|
Senior Carp
|
… and I'll add whether that salvation is achieved in some afterlife or just in this life. But none of that bothers me. In the face of the uncertainty I know I'll never resolve, I choose the solution of following Christ's second commandment as best I can while being true to myself regarding His first. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 15 2006, 09:24 PM Post #33 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I see the differences between and among the various Christian denominations and believe them to have a bearing on the values that their respective members live. I enjoy a good discussion about them as much as anyone. I have my opinion on those which I think reflect what Jesus taught more than others. However, I think the vast majority of Christians, Jews , Muslims, members of all other religions, those who have no religion and even those who affirmatively reject religion do what you do, Frank. Go to what they see as the basis of leading a good life and do the best they can to do so. I doubt that the vast majority spend a lot of time worrying about theological distinctions. And when it comes right down to it, when He is called to judge a man or a woman, I don't think God does either. I think there's is a point where we all would be far better off if we all stopped slicing and dicing religious teachings and spent our energy living the basic religious values which seem to be common to all religions instead as best we can -- and let others do the same as well as they can. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 16 2006, 01:01 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
That's a fair point, but surely the slicing and dicing means progress, in the market place of ideas gradually concepts without anything holding them up give way to concepts that are more robust. I mean without the debate without the pushing against ideas would the modern liberal version of religion that you adhere to (and that i quite like - in an ethical sense) exist? In terms of simply finding the best model, the right answers, trying to approach truth, there is no alternative to slicing and dicing, if we do not question everything, be critical of everything then we will never discover the errors in ours and other peoples viewpoints. The negative attitude of "side and slicing" the putting other people down stuff, i'd agree that is unnecessary and detrimental. I guess it's something easy we slip into, though you seem remarkably able to debate political and religious issues without engaging in it. Which i'm continually amazed and impressed by. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 16 2006, 02:08 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
And now back to the slicing:
Hey Frank. If we suppose that time is the way time feels, that it inherently cannot be escaped from, that only the present really exists. The God is along side with us in the present because there is no where else for him to be. If he has foreknowledge then it is local, and the universe is ultimately deterministic (even if it's hidden from us and only visible to God). If time is not anything like the way it feels, if God can be outside of it/unconstrained by it. Then it means reality is complete, there is a time "thing" to be outside of, - all of time is 'out there' there are an infinite number of "present"s being experienced along this time line none more significant than another. It also means that as God created the universe he created everything, he wrote the entire history of reality, and in doing so determined every event that would occur. We can slightly alter our thinking about a scenario like the second without really thinking about what time means as much. The "global level" can interact with the "local level", even if God doesn't choose to, in principle he can write down what's going to happen and hand it to me. So then that is no different from local knowledge, it means that if we imagine taking the state of all reality (including God) then all information is there at every point in time. Which is surely a kind of determinism (thoiugh a slightly weird version of it). Rephrased because i can link the global and the local because God can interact with us i can say that the information about some event is available before the event, which means the event is fixed, there is no possible deviation, the experience of choice is ultimately illusion, because the chooser really can never ever choose the alternative to what is written in the piece of paper that God wrote for me, he thinks he can but he can't, he just following times path. Now it's concievable that these kinds of questions are just demonstrating the same incoherence that is really at the heart of the theological concept - just what is it supposed to mean? Is it just randomness? Just noise? Well that justifies blame as much as a dice does, or some event triggered by variation of the background radiation. If it's not just randomness then there is a pattern if there is a pattern then i can in principle write down the relationship between outputs and inputs, if this pattern is deterministic then ok we've eliminated blame again. So then there is the inbetween, it's trivially obvious that people do adhere to pattern - we predict what people will do all the time (even if it's not with certainty). But this inbetween is not giong to help us (as may be expected given the status of the purely random and purely determinstic limits) We have some kind of pattern that defines probabilities and some randomness underneath that, equivalently we could have a probablistic computer with a random number generator based on quantum phenomena (assuming for the moment qm includes geniune randomness - which i don't think you believe but for sake of argument) But again what is there to blame here? The pattern defining the probabilities? And where does that come from? Well i tend to think it comes from genes and environment, to a theist presumably it ultimately comes from God. But either way (or indeed some other way) it makes no difference, the nature of the thing doing the choosing cannot be a choice of the thing itself. If one really wants to argue this point then you simply ask how it starts off - the first first pattern - what's that about? Either you posit a 'structure' governing probabilities already present or you posit pure randomness, either way it makes no difference (though pure randomness clearly doesn't fit observation). So the whole free will as vehicle for blame dissolves away on close examination. The usual objection (and i'm not saying you would claim this, i'm just adding it for completeness) that i'm deconstructing the undeconstructable, that i'm thinking scientifically seems no defense at all because it does not provide a meaning, the question "what do you mean" still rings out - if there is no answer, if it means nothing then it is being used as a false construct an error that people should remove from their ideas. Of course if it is a pragmatic construct then ok, i'm fine with that indeed that's how I treat the whole idea but then the theological concept can not defer to pragmatic arguments because it is this pillar used to excuse their supposedly omnibenevolent diety. So even before one realises that thermodynamics completely kills the whole idea (where does the energy to trigger that neurone come from?), the whole concept seems incoherent even at an essential metaphysical level. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 16 2006, 05:10 AM Post #36 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Moonbat, As always, you raise a number of items worthy of comment in your post. For now let me just say that, to me, the most likely case is that the mapping (between our input and our reaction to this input) is deterministic. But, as usual, it appears to have a random term because of incomplete information. So it is "random" in the modeling sense of ordinary probability and statistics. The mapping, or characteristic transformation, itself will of course vary from person to person, and that's why, for instance, we can recognize a consistency from post to post of the viewpoints, behaviors, etc., of any of the people here. In effect, this characteristic transformation (which evolves with, and therefore is a function of, time as well as myriad other variables) replaces the hodgepodge of vague (primitive) psychological terms such as anima, animus and persona. OK, that's certainly a prosaic view. I'm sure there's nothing remarkable or new to you in what I just said. That is, we seem to be resonant. Does this mean I think it most likely we don't have free will? Yes. But so what? How or why should that alter my actions in any way? I suspect that my dual view of the world would bewilder some people if they bothered to read what I write on these subjects, but hopefully not you. The best analogy that comes to mind now is the wave-particle dualism of electromagnetic energy. I simply apply the model or worldview that works best for me depending on the application. I am not blessed as some who know they know the entire truth. So I have to get by as best I can.
|
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 16 2006, 07:15 AM Post #37 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
When it is used for that, I agree. The slicing and dicing is a good thing. To me, theological debate is the research and development arm of religious doctrine. When it is used to say "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are bad", it is not a good thing. And when it is used to justify intolerance, violence and killing, it is even worse. I have no trouble with the slicing and dicing, let's just not make it more important than it is in terms of what a religiously based life is supposed to be all about. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








4:52 PM Jul 10