Do you See God as having Foreknowledge =/same As His Predestination or Not?

There two separate words in the greek for "foreknowledge" and "predetermination."

If the concept of "predetermination" is intended then there would be no need for the author to employee the term "foreknowledge."

The author means what they say. If they say that God "foreknows," then it means that He knows beforehand. If they say God "predestines," it means that He destined something beforehand. But if it says God "foreknows" we have no basis on which to presume based on our limited finite understanding of infinite and eternal matters that the author intended to mean the concept of "predetermination."

This is the mistake Calvinists often make, IMO. They reason, with limited understanding and finite human logic, something like: "If God foreknows everything before creating anything, then it must be true that God predetermined everything prior to creating it." And while scripture does teach divine foreknowledge and omniscience it never draws this conclusion. In fact, we see God interacting within time and space, apparently changing his decision to punish, weeping, laughing and never even tempting a man to evil. Yes, its a difficult thing to fully grasp, but we never should go beyond the revelation and into speculation.

 

Then why even speak of his mere knowledge of it? It would be like this:

You shoot your dog. The next day you walk upon a couple of guys talking about someone who just shot their dog and they ask you, "Did you know about the guy who shot his dog?" You might say, "Yes, that was me, I shot my dog." Or you could say, "Yes, I knew about that."

Both would be true, but isn't the second one a bit disingenuous? Isn't it a given that someone knows about what they have done? Why even speak about God foreknowing something HE DID? Why not just say he did it? Understand my question?

 

:thumbsup: Well said.

 

The reason I spoke of God's foreknowledge is that the scriptures speak of it in Acts 2:23. That verse mentions both God's determinate counsel and his foreknowledge.

If God is omniscient, the by definition he knows all, including that which has yet to occur. But that may be connected to his omnipotence.
I freely admit that I don't understand how they are connected, but connected they are

 

Having been a Calvinist, I'll say that is not my reason for rejecting Calvinism. If I really thought that was the intent of the authors I'd accept it and teach it boldly, as I did for a decade of my life.

I reject it because I honestly don't believe that was the intent of the authors. When you really come to understand the whole concept of God's judicially hardening Israel so as to ingraft the Gentiles, many of the issues come to light and the perceived conflict disappears.

 

I understand that, which is my point. If Calvinists believe that divine foreknowledge translates into divine predetermination, then why does scripture even employee the word foreknowledge? There must be a distinction, otherwise why even use a different word?

Right, so either the author is being intentionally redundant OR those two words have different meanings. If they have different meanings then one must ask, what is the difference between something foreknown by God and something predetermined by God?

I respect that you admit this to be a mystery and I agree. But SOME claim they know the answer to the mystery by insisting that whatever is foreknown by God MUST have been predetermined by God, which is unfounded. See my point?

 

I think the main reason is that it's difficult to accept that God's electing love is discriminatory. And there is the human sense of fairness that we don't see in such discriminating love.

Non-Cals may answer your question differently.

 

I do see your point. I still think there's a connection between God's omnipotence and his omniscience.

And, I understand the concern that if everything is predetermined by God, then it makes him the author of evil.

Yet, Isaiah 45:7 says:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (NIV)

Regardless of the translation one prefers, God still does some stuff that we humans think is bad, bad, bad.

Maybe it's the way we want to define evil so it takes God off the hook.

 

I agree. But to presume to much oversteps the revelation and moves into speculation. And I really doubt the speculations of finite beings about such infinite matters could ever lead us to a good place.

Not to mention all the texts which speak of God's complete holiness and separateness from sin. I find it difficult to believe that when James wrote the first chapter of his book saying, "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death," that he was really thinking to himself, "God really predetermines not only the temptation but the nature of the one tempted so that his choice to sin is likewise predetermined by God."

I agree with Edwards when he wrote: "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency.""

Actively "DOES IT" or permissively decrees it?

 

Either way, the result is the same.

When God says he creates disaster (or evil) is he actually doing it or just permitting it?

When God said he would destroy Sodom, did he do it or permit it?

By the way, using the term "permissively decree" sounds like an oxymoron to me. I'm sure you can elaborate on it, and would appreciate it.

You'll understand that I'm not making light, but when I saw that expression as oxymoronoic, the first thing that came to mind as an example is "jumbo shrimp."

 

These question made me think of this.

Luke 13
Repent or Perish
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

We are all going to die, don't know the time or the hour but it is going to happen. Death is not the tragedy,

Hebrews 9:27
Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.


The question is what are we going to do while we have the time to repent? Didn't God warn those that could be saved?
Did God make Lot's wife turn back to the City?

 

Except the result of people impugning the holiness of God.

Are you sure this is about moral evil (sin) or just calamity? I think that distinction is important. And I do think that from a human perspective even those things which may have been permissively allowed by God can be accredited to him simply because he had the ability to stop them and didn't. That doesn't mean He, by his active agency, did it. Make sense?

I posted a good working definition here>>>

and from a respected bible dictionary here>>>>

 

I definitely don't mean to denigrate God's holiness. Still, when God says, through Isaiah, "I create evil," (or disaster) that this involves something more than God's permission for the evil (disaster) to occur. I think your definitions attempt to explain it away as much as explain it.

Yes it does make some sense. And I do prefer the "I create disaster" rendering more than God's creating evil.

 

Would it help for me to quote from Reformed commentators who explain these passages in the way I have?

It's like in the book of Job when he says, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord."

We know, because of our behind the scenes look that Satan is the one who did the "taking away," and God permitted him to do so; preventing Satan only from taking Job's life. So, sometimes authors may accredit (blame) something on God in a direct way with the understanding that God could have prevented this, but didn't, thus He in essence "did it" from the perspective of Job, but in reality He permitted it to be done by Satan. Make sense?

Like you said, it's all the same result, but the difference is that we don't mistakenly blame God for sin, which is clearly not a biblical view.