Why foreknowledge = foreordination to God

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by whetstone, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    The concept of foreknowledge means 'knowing something before it's going to happen.' Foreordination, on the other hand, means 'ordaining (or decreeing) something in the future to happen.'

    Some believe election is based on foreknowledge. That God merely peers into the future and chooses whom He will save based on who will accept.

    Others believe election is based on foreordination. That God actually decided whom He would save apart from the decision of the person being saved.

    For those who believe in election according to foreknowledge- I propose this to you: Foreknowledge coupled with omnipotence is the exact same as foreordination. Here's how:

    If God can see future events, and He is all powerful- then He is capable of altering those events. If a tsunami would be headed for California in 2008 and God didn't want it, He could easily change the climate so it wouldn't happen.

    Each time God looks into the future (we'll say it this way for sake of argument even though God doesn't have to look- He already knows) He is making decisions about what goes and what stays.

    God knew that Adam would sin. And yet God did not alter the future so that Adam wouldn't. God ordained the sin in the garden- otherwise He would have prevented it!

    I was saved at age 5. God knew I would accept Him. But then, perhaps I wouldn't have if put under different circumstances. God placed me into the family I was born in, with the mind I was given, at the right place in the right time so that I would be receptive to the gospel. It was all foreordained.

    If God merely looks into the future but cannot change the events, He is not all powerful. If He CAN change the events but chooses not to- we have the God of deism. The truth is that He is ordaining every minute event in human life as we know it! Here is the logic for this progression:

    1. Foreknowledge is seeing things before they happen.
    2. Foreordination is ordaining events to happen prior to their occurance.
    3. Omnipotence allows a being to manipulate creation at will.
    4. God has foreknowledge and omnipotence.
    5. God can see into the future and choose whether to manipulate those events or not.
    6. Therefore all future events are foreordained by God either by action or inaction.
    7. This means that God's foreknowledge plus His omnipotence means He is foreordaining everything to occur.


    If you deny that foreknowledge = foreordination to God, you are denying God's omnipotence. If you hold this position- I'd really like to know why and how that's possible. God bless.

    Daniel Allen
    www.spurgeon.us
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I avoid this forum. However, here's my understanding:

    - "future" is an aspect of time.
    - "Time" is an aspect of creation.
    - God is not subject to creation, thus God is not bound to (or "in") time. He does not "see the future", he's above time in general.

    Any attempt by us to figure out foreordination and election is largely futile, for we are finite and bound by time, trying to undertstand the infinite outside of time. God is omnipotent even beyond "seeing the future", he is so omnipotent he even knows how to allow foreordination/foreknowledge and true free choice to co-exist in a way us limited beings can not understand in our current state and position in creation.
     
  3. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a copout. It's not even logical. It's true that 'His ways are above our ways and His thoughts our thoughts' but God has revealed to us that He is omnipotent and has foreknowledge. What will you do with this information?
     
  4. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a copout. I agree God has revealed to us that he is omnipotent and has foreknowledge. I'm simply saying that from our perspective, we can't fully understand that, because "omnipotent" would include being free from the limitation of time itself. Terms like "future" don't exactly apply from the perspective of eternity.
     
  5. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally agree that God perceives all time as the same- so then I have to ask: Why would God even tell us He has foreknowledge if it was a non-sequitter?
     
  6. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because from our perspective, that's how it appears.
     
  7. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    If our salvation is determine by our free will and God's foreknowledge of it, God would no longer need to predestine our salvation. If God decides who is saved, he needs to predestine that event and guarantee the redemption of their bodies.

    According to natters' view, the act of God's predestination in numerous passages would need to be stricken from the Bible. Here's how Romans 8:29-30 would need to be; omit words in italic. KJV

    "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

    "Moreover, whom he did predestinate {foreknow}, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

    Natters, do you agree with this statement:

    Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motiviated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom to choose God?
     
  8. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Untrue and ridiculous. Just because I disagree with your interpretation of certain phrases does not mean I have a problem with the phrases themselves.

    Not sure, sounds like a loaded question. [​IMG]
     
  9. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which one is it Naters? Number 1 or number 2.

    1. Predestination is ordaining one's salvation prior to its occurance.

    2. Free will is one choosing Christ followed by God granting salvation.

    Again, do you agree with the statement on choosing? Yes or No.
     
  10. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    prophecynut, I do not believe it is that simple. I believe neither Calvinists and Arminians are wrong, but rather both are incomplete - like two temporal blind men arguing for different parts of the same eternal elephant.
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Natters, what do you think is incomplete concerning Soteriology as outlined in the Canons of the Synod of Dordt?
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy, short answer: the same thing with Calvinism (and Arminianism) in general - it's only seeing part of the elephant, from a time-limited perspective, and tries to fit God's eternal perspective on a temporal timeline.
     
  13. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    …and others see election in a completely different way (i.e. that it has nothing to do with being born again).

    ??? Very confusing. There is a premise here, I think, that needs to be mentioned; sin MUST enter the world. I disagree. Jesus is the lamb slain “before the foundation of the world”. This principle is without regard to sin itself. Adam sinned of his own volition and not due to pre-ordained destiny.

    1. It’s much broader than this. It’s not just “seeing things before they happen”. Fortune tellers say they can do the same. It’s “knowing” all things completely and thoroughly. God is never surprised or caught off guard. He never has to devise a “plan B”.

    2. Events? Perhaps as they apply to covenant principles but not individual circumstances.

    3. Omnipotence, as you’ve described it, sounds very child-like, as if God, like a child, is just playing in a sand box doing whatever He wills and whenever He chooses. God is more responsible than this. Omnipotence, in my mind, has nothing to do with ability. Rather, it regards God’s authority.
    4. No comment.
    5. Yes, but that is a fantasy. There is no need for God to “change events”.

    6. ? Not following you.

    7. Then I suppose everything in life is fatalistic.
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Does this "no answer" answer mean you can't tell me what you think is missing from the Soteriology as outlined in the Canons of Dordt?
     
  15. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I could go into more detail. I just doubt it would be worth it. [​IMG] Do you agree or disagree that understanding of time-based terms like "foreknowledge" and "future" are imperfect at best when applied to scenarios outside of time in the first place?
     
  16. jarhed

    jarhed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post deleted

    [ November 01, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  17. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    so no one here will lay claim to 'election based on foreknowledge?' On every other thread it is all the rage, but when it is shown to be foolish the Arminians say 'well God's ways are higher than our ways.'
     
  18. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. You're going to tell us how to understand God.

    Wait wait! It's Calvinism to say you understand God? We have a problem here.
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Please do! After all, it was your thesis, so it is your responsibility to either support it or withdraw it.
    By that do you mean it would be too much trouble for you to actually support your assertions with facts? Do you find the truth to be "too much trouble?"
    I will be more than happy to address your question as soon as you answer mine. Here it is again:
    I eagerly await your answer.
     
  20. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natters,

    I think there's a problem even with your terminology, although I'll admit I'm not sure how to correct it. But when you speak of God's eternal perspective, it sound like God looks on creation and takes in info about it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...