Why foreknowledge = foreordination to God

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.

 

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.

 

Because from our perspective, that's how it appears.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

…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.

 

No, I could go into more detail. I just doubt it would be worth it. 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?

 

Post deleted

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

 

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.