Predestination, is it coercive determinism ?

[Jan001]

Since faith is a gift (predestined as such?) I suppose it does depend on what one does with the gift. Christ has set a race before us from which we're not to weary because of His great example of endurance over those who oppose Him. My comment to Jan001 had to do with her stance that God predestined Christ to a role My question was how could Christ be predestined to that role when He was the author of that role?

God's Son was destined before the foundation of the world to be the Savior of the world because God knew that Adam would sin and lose all possibility of eternal life for himself, Eve, and all mankind. God wanted to give all mankind another chance to be with Him for eternity.

Jesus Christ is the author of our faith because it is He who gave us His gospel to do. If we believe His gospel, we will obey/do His gospel. We have faith in Jesus Christ if we do what He tells us to do. He is our Lord if we do His gospel/commandments as He commanded us to do.

Jesus Christ is also the finisher of our faith; the rewarder of our faith. It is He who will approve us worthy to receive eternal life with God forever after we die if we are faithful to His teachings/gospel until we die. Matthew 25:31-46

2 Thessalonians 1:7b-8
.....when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, rsv

Luke 6:46
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? rsv

Matthew 7:21-23
Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ rsv​

 

[Marvin Knox]

My understanding that if God predestines something then it will happen and this is the exact same thing as God determining infallibly that something will happen. The use of 'coercive' in the discussion is redundant.
What do other people think and believe ?

You had it right with the first sentence.

Then you added the second sentence - which may or may not be true depending on how you view free will.

The proper view of predestination vs. free will IMO is that the predestination by God of all that takes place in His creation in no way eliminates the choices of men.

God determines what events will and will not take place. But those events fall out according to natural causes in the vast majority of case (miracles excluded).

The Westminster Confession of Faith rightly says that God determines all that takes place but that He has so ordained that they "fall out" according to "second" (or natural) causes.

The "natural cause" of a certain choice made by a man (with the results which follow) coming to past (just as it was predestined to happen) is the God given ability and freedom of men to make choices.

Those choices are made without coercion - in the sense usually meant by opponents of the concept of predestination. Instead - they happen according to the nature and resulting will of the man.

The nature of a man may or may not be changed miraculously by God. He may or may not become a "new creation" depending on the electing grace of God.

In the sense that God determines the nature of a man (either because of His altogether just judgment or because of His loving grace) - all of man's natural choices are in at least some way "coerced" but not in the way you likely mean the word IMO.

But the answer to the question about the relationship between predestination and "coercion" is much more nuanced than most people are willing to consider.

 

[Berean777]

I would just like to add that free will from a human point of view is not free from the sense that the choices are limited and that God physically and metaphysically has placed constraints on what man can or cannot do.

Think of a designer who designs a closed loop system with predetermined inbuilt parameters and that those parameters have a certain range of operation. The range of operation are not infinite and hence are limited. Within these limited constraints that man can physically and metaphysically operate in, God has shown as the closed loop system administrator, that the system must remain in balance and not runaway out of control. So we have seen God throughout the Old Testament intervening to counteract disturbances in the system. In the same way that a designer doesn't require to intervene continuously, but only when required to bring the closed loop system into balance.

God therefore remains the sovereign will that guides the closed loop system. In this regard from an individual perspective man can choose to be a disturbance to the system or a plant that should operate as it was designed to do.

The free will concept allows individuals the ability to plot the course of the closed loop system, with God overseeing it and not intervening, so long as checks and balances are in play. The Creator from Genesis has given responsibility to humanity to manage itself.

God can and most certainly has sent in his agents to do his bidding, who were known as prophets in the old testament. However the oponent Lucifer has also sent in his agents who throw a spanner in the works, with the sole purpose of creating a run away system.

 

[twin1954]

I would just like to add that free will from a human point of view is not free from the sense that the choices are limited and that God physically and metaphysically has placed constraints on what man can or cannot do.

Think of a designer who designs a closed loop system with predetermined inbuilt parameters and that those parameters have a certain range of operation. The range of operation are not infinite and hence are limited. Within these limited constraints that man can physically and metaphysically operate in, God has shown as the closed loop system administrator, that the system must remain in balance and not runaway out of control. So we have seen God throughout the Old Testament intervening to counteract disturbances in the system. In the same way that a designer doesn't require to intervene continuously, but only when required to bring the closed loop system into balance.

God therefore remains the sovereign will that guides the closed loop system. In this regard from an individual perspective man can choose to be a disturbance to the system or a plant that should operate as it was designed to do.

The free will concept allows individuals the ability to plot the course of the closed loop system, with God overseeing it and not intervening, so long as checks and balances are in play. The Creator from Genesis has given responsibility to humanity to manage itself.

God can and most certainly has sent in his agents to do his bidding, who were known as prophets in the old testament. However the oponent Lucifer has also sent in his agents who throw a spanner in the works, with the sole purpose of creating a run away system.

Sounds like the Matrix to me. For God to set back and just let things run would mean that He would constantly have to interfere because man makes stupid choices.

God is not inactive in His Creation for if He were He would constantly be responding to anomalies and would no different than a man.

 

[Berean777]

Sounds like the Matrix to me. For God to set back and just let things run would mean that He would constantly have to interfere because man makes stupid choices.

God is not inactive in His Creation for if He were He would constantly be responding to anomalies and would no different than a man.

I understand what you are implying. But the presumption of God continuously intervening is not what has happened. God only intervenes directly when matters cannot be resolved by the earthly agents that he sends.

Please read.......

Matthew 21:33-40

At the moment we see for example the homosexual movement and discern that his agents are having trouble in contending with the head way that it has made in a short space of time and some agents have even put up with this without contention. In this scenario when agents are overwhelmed or are inapt to deal with the situation, then the situation becomes critical. Once the situation becomes critical, God then deals with it the way he had always done so.

Please read......

2 Thessalonians 2:5-12

 

[Berean777]

The same scenario happened in Jerusalem around 60 to 70 AD. After God's agents were driven out, then God sent in the Roman armies who destroyed Jerusalem along with its inhabitants.

We see same cause and effect happening throughout ancient Israel's history with God sending prophets and then when kings didn't heed the warning and killed the prophets, then God sent their enemies to give them a beating.

The church has been the agent of God after Pentecost and there is prophesied a time where the falling away from the faith will come and the man of sin revealed. The church in this time is encircled by all its enemies as prophesied in.....

The Lord Comes and Reigns

1A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.3Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. (Zechariah 14:1-3)

God does occasionally wage war against humanity and when the battle lines are drawn, especially in the case of the homosexual movement, then he allows it to take its course before he intervenes. Do you think that Sodom and Gommorah was the only intervention against the homosexual movement?

Offcourse not, throughout history God has wielded the sword against his enemies.

 

[Berean777]

Let us say for example the world wants to make peace and as a consequence this act would undermine the cross of his only begotten Son Christ Jesus. In this scenario, if all the world voted for peace and wanted peace, God would intervene and take away peace, that is, he will ensure that there will be no peace.

An example of the above are the numerous efforts Israel, the world and Palestine had made to broker a peace accord. In every effort by which all parties strived for, peace eluded them. The result of their intentions was only realised in death and suffering.

The answer that God gave to Israel, the world and Palestine was that you will not have peace without my Son.

Do you honestly think that God after the spilling of the precious blood of his only begotten Son, who is the prince of peace, will allow a peace accord or a worldly universal peace or homosexual movement?

There is a saying that goes like this.....

The Son's enemies skins are itching for it.

This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. (Zechariah 14:12)

To all the enemies of God......

Contending with God is no picnic in the park, for blood will flow. The cities of the world will be destroyed. God intervenes with such decisiveness and excessive force that he describes what he will do to humanity that dares to even flinch.....

Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire of his jealousy, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full and sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth. (Zephaniah 1)

 

[Marvin Knox]

Sounds like the Matrix to me. For God to set back and just let things run would mean that He would constantly have to interfere because man makes stupid choices. God is not inactive in His Creation for if He were He would constantly be responding to anomalies and would no different than a man.

I agree with you that God is far from inactive in His creation.

Opponents of the absolute sovereignty of God seem to see God's relationship to His creation in what we might call a "Jeffersonian" view of how things work. That is to say that they seem to think that God just created, wound it all up, normally sits back and watches things happen, and occasionally intervenes in the affairs of the creation.

IMO, God has not left us with the option of seeing things that way - no matter how convenient to our sensibilities it would be.

A cursory reading of the O.T. may well yield that kind of view if it was only a cursory reading.

After the revelations given to us in the N.T. however - there is absolutely no excuse for Christians to hold to that kind of "hands off by God" view of things.

The teaching concerning the so called free will of the creation must be balanced in some kind of systematic way with what the scriptures teach about God's omnipresence and the resultant providential control by God over His creation.

In Him we live and move and have our being. All things were created by Him and for Him and in Him all things exist. He works ALL according to His wise and perfect will.

Whatever one thinks about free will - that theology has to include considerations of exactly who God is and how He operates His creation.

We are not and never will be God. No one (including the devil and his angels) can operate for one split second out of some kind of control by God. Theologians need to learn to live with that fact.

Obviously things get a bit sticky when it comes to discussing God's relationship with His creation and the fact that He is not to be accused of sin. Books have been written about that and many a discussion has come to blows here and elsewhere.

At the risk of seeming to put my eggs all in the basket of the WCF - it seems to me that many of their very general statements about these things say it fairly accurately.

For instance:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is
God the author of sin,nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

"God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all
creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and
holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and
immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power,
justice, goodness, and mercy."

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all
things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders
them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or
contingently."

"God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work
without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far
manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all
other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined
with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of
them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof
proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous,
neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

Again - it's not to put these statements on a par with the scriptures themselves. But it is to say that hundreds of good and learned men of God addressed these very things that we discuss so often here ---- and they did it over a great many years and provided the scriptures they considered in coming to their conclusions.

People will no doubt continue to bring forth emotion based reasons as to why these conclusions about how God operates must be incorrect. But IMO they will continue to fall flat.

The reason for that is that the scripture teaches these things and that they are inescapable to anyone (such as the Westminster framers) who are willing to put in the time to approach all of the scriptures God has provided for us in a systematic and unemotional way.

 

[stephen583]

God determines what events will and will not take place.

I think you might be confusing "predestination" with "omnipresence". Since God has seen the "beginning and the end" of everything, (particularly the End), he is in the position of "calling" what happens without the need to impose his will over anything.

Saul of Tarsus was a persecutor of Christians. Why did Jesus appear before Saul on the road to Damascus ? Was it to take away his "Free Will" ? Or, Did God already know how Saul was going to react when he saw the resurrected Son of Man and was blinded for three days afterwards ?... So the choice was actually left to Saul, and not to God, wasn't it ?

What many are taking as "predestination", actually reflects the "omnipresence" of God instead.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I think you might be confusing "predestination" with "omnipresence". .................What many are taking as "predestination", actually reflects the "omnipresence" of God instead.

I'm trying to see where you got the idea that I equate predestination with omnipresence. I do know the difference. I can't see where you get the idea that I do not.

They are different concepts (even if they are related in some ways - as are all things to do with how God operates vis a vis His providential control of His creation are related).

Since God has seen the "beginning and the end" of everything, (particularly the End), he is in the position of "calling" what happens without the need to impose his will over anything.

It is of course true that God does know the "beginning and the end". He always has and always will.

But that knowledge includes not only what people will do of their own "free" will.

It includes what God chooses to do in His omnipresent and providentially controlling capacity as the sovereign creator and upholder of all things.

While it is true that God knows all things that can and will happen in all circumstances - it is also true that He chose what circumstances would come to past in the future. He made that choice before time according to the scriptures and acted in time in such a way that they would indeed come to past - usually through natural means such as the choices of men.

Saul of Tarsus was a persecutor of Christians. Why did Jesus appear before Saul on the road to Damascus ? Was it to take away his "Free Will" ? Or, Did God already know how Saul was going to react when he saw the resurrected Son of Man and was blinded for three days afterwards ?... So the choice was actually left to Saul, and not to God, wasn't it?

This is a good illustration of how things work according to what I have said.

As you rightly point out - Saul's choice was the way that God used to bring to past the things that He predestined to happen. That includes the writing of the Bible and whatever else we could point to.

But God's action in history was calculated to put Saul in the positions he was in when he made his choices. Had God chosen some other activity then what He partook of - other things would have transpired. Perhaps even Saul continuing to persecute the church and God's writing the Bible through someone else entirely.

God does "coerce" the choices of men in some ways. His nature and the nature of the creation demand that it be so.

But that "coercion" is not done in such a way that it violates what we could call the dignity of man created in God's image and able to make choices (and be responsible for those choices).

 

[Berean777]

I agree with you that God is far from inactive in His creation.

Opponents of the absolute sovereignty of God seem to see God's relationship to His creation in what we might call a "Jeffersonian" view of how things work. That is to say that they seem to think that God just created, wound it all up, normally sits back and watches things happen, and occasionally intervenes in the affairs of the creation.

IMO, God has not left us with the option of seeing things that way - no matter how convenient to our sensibilities it would be.

A cursory reading of the O.T. may well yield that kind of view if it was only a cursory reading.

After the revelations given to us in the N.T. however - there is absolutely no excuse for Christians to hold to that kind of "hands off by God" view of things.

The teaching concerning the so called free will of the creation must be balanced in some kind of systematic way with what the scriptures teach about God's omnipresence and the resultant providential control by God over His creation.

In Him we live and move and have our being. All things were created by Him and for Him and in Him all things exist. He works ALL according to His wise and perfect will.

Whatever one thinks about free will - that theology has to include considerations of exactly who God is and how He operates His creation.

We are not and never will be God. No one (including the devil and his angels) can operate for one split second out of some kind of control by God. Theologians need to learn to live with that fact.

Obviously things get a bit sticky when it comes to discussing God's relationship with His creation and the fact that He is not to be accused of sin. Books have been written about that and many a discussion has come to blows here and elsewhere.

At the risk of seeming to put my eggs all in the basket of the WCF - it seems to me that many of their very general statements about these things say it fairly accurately.

For instance:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is
God the author of sin,nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

"God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all
creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and
holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and
immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power,
justice, goodness, and mercy."

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all
things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders
them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or
contingently."

"God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work
without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far
manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all
other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined
with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of
them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof
proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous,
neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

Again - it's not to put these statements on a par with the scriptures themselves. But it is to say that hundreds of good and learned men of God addressed these very things that we discuss so often here ---- and they did it over a great many years and provided the scriptures they considered in coming to their conclusions.

People will no doubt continue to bring forth emotion based reasons as to why these conclusions about how God operates must be incorrect. But IMO they will continue to fall flat.

The reason for that is that the scripture teaches these things and that they are inescapable to anyone (such as the Westminster framers) who are willing to put in the time to approach all of the scriptures God has provided for us in a systematic and unemotional way.

I read your excerpt and it is what I consider respectable to the Christian understanding of who God is.

I believe that after Pentecost God continuously intervenes through his Holy Spirit filled agents.

From the above we discern that God doesn't deal with inanimate objects the same way as he does to humanity especially after Pentecost. Here is the mystery of God

the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:17)

Therefore the continuous intervention that God has with humanity must be predominantly through his agents.

I stated previously that God seldomly intervenes directly as he did in the Old Testament, because God allows the Great Commission to do his Holy Works. If you recall the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 10, where God doesn't intervene directly to deliver Cornelius and his family, but instructs Peter in line with the Great Commission prerogative to preach the gospel of the Son Christ Jesus.

After Pentecost God has taken a reconcialatory role with humanity according to the Great Commission prerogative and at the same time he remains system administrator who continuously intervenes with inanimate objects such as stars and the likes.

We conclude that once God's agency is taken out of the way, then the almighty sovereign Lord directly intervenes in human matters that have gone out of control.

5Don’t you remember that I told you about all this when I was with you?6And you know what is holding him back, for he can be revealed only when his time comes. 7For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way.8Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, but the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming. (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8)

According to Paul the one holding back the man of lawlessness is the agency of God owing to God's indirect intervention. The church fulfils this part as the restrainer and history can most certainly attribute this role to the church.

 

[Berean777]

What many are taking as "predestination", actually reflects the "omnipresence" of God instead.

Interesting point.

 

[Berean777]

When we think of God's motive and intent after Pentecost, we are drawn to the knowledge that God intervenes through his agency, within the context of the Great commission prerogative. He said I will make my dwelling with man.

We see after Pentecost a reconcialotory role being played by God as opposed to the four horsemen of the apocalypse of the old testament times.

The agency, that is the church has the role to play as arbitrator of God's will. Which is why in Zechariah we see it encircled and powerless. Only then does God see it fit to intervene.

Let's recap on the versus......whilst considering that after Pentecost Jerusalem or the city of peace is actually the Holy Spirit filled church.

1A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem/CHURCH, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem/CHURCH to fight against it; the city/SPIRITUAL CITY will be captured, the houses/PLACES OF PRAYER ransacked, and the women/DENOMINATIONS raped. Half of the city/SPIRITUAL CITY will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.3Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. (Zechariah 14:1-3)

 

[Marvin Knox]

My original post was an attempt to address the statements in the OP only.

Whether we are talking about mudslides or evangelism - the principles remain the same.

Nothing (POSITIVELY NOTHING) happening within God's creation happens without His minute involvement at every conceivable level.

Evey single thing that happens is and was predestined by God to happen or it would not happen.

God has always known what will happen and that goes from before there ever was anything in creation - only the self existent God Himself.

That fact alone dictates that all things that take place in God's creation were (before their existence in time) destined to happen exactly the way that God knew they would happen. That is inescapable logic IMO.

Since there was nothing before creation but God Himself (omniscient as to everything that would ever happen in His creations) - the one who would orchestrate that destiny was and is the omniscient, omnipresent, sovereignly and providentially controlling creator and sustainer of all things.

Whatever a person (be they professional theologian or armchair theologian) means by coercion can and should include those facts.

But by the same token - it must also include the fact that God gives choices to men and holds them rightly accountable.

When referring to the reciprocal (for want of a better term) of coercion - namely free choice - we must also consider all of these things.

We must guard against picking and choosing which side of an doctrinal equalization we prefer. We must include both sides - simply because that is what God has presented to us.

We live and move and have our being in Him and yet we are not mere puppets or computers.

Difficult concepts to understand by mere mortals as to how that could be - but nonetheless absolute fact as attested to by the scriptures.

Any talk about coercion and or choice must include all that the scriptures lay out for us.

 

[Berean777]

God's experience of humanity is not one that is static, whereby God doesn't see man as an independent thinker, rather God thinks of man as just a robot driven by him as pieces in a chest piece.

God experiences humanity dynamically, whereby God sees man as an independent thinker and one who can oppose his will, if so he wishes.

From the above two scenarios, the latter is purpose built for God to experience man and one that sees man interact with his creator, regardless of indifference in power. The story of Abraham who dialogued with the Lord in his tent, is one that is built on contention and intentions that are not manipulated by the creator by the use of his power, but one that through dialogue and understanding is made known through tangible one on one experiences.

God cannot experience robots and certainly didn't create man to always fall in line to his will, rather gave man a free will to contend with him and through a process of reconciliatory dialogue establishes a repore with his subjects.

 

[Marvin Knox]

God's experience of humanity is not one that is static, whereby God doesn't see man as an independent thinker, rather God thinks of man as just a robot driven by him as pieces in a chest piece.

God experiences humanity dynamically, whereby God sees man as an independent thinker and one who can oppose his will, if so he wishes.

From the above two scenarios, the latter is purpose built for God to experience man and one that sees man interact with his creator, regardless of indifference in power. The story of Abraham who dialogued with the Lord in his tent, is one that is built on contention and intentions that are not manipulated by the creator by the use of his power, but one that through dialogue and understanding is made known through tangible one on one experiences.

God cannot experience robots and certainly didn't create man to always fall in line to his will, rather gave man a free will to contend with him and through a process of reconciliatory dialogue establishes a repore with his subjects.

I totally agree as does the Westminster Confession of Faith.

This is and always has been the so called Reformed position.

Any representation of the Reformed (or most Calvinist's) position which presents their position on predestination in a way that there is talk of robot and computers is to misrepresent the position of a fellow Christian.

In so far as man always falling in line with His will (or not) - this obvious situation is why any systematic theology in history worth it's salt presents the will of God in an "absolute" and a "permissive" way.

(Most such systematic theologies are written from a generally Reformed position by the way - and there's good reason for that.)

You are quite right when you say:

"God's experience of humanity is not one that is static, whereby God doesn't see man as an independent thinker, rather God thinks of man as just a robot driven by him as pieces in a chest piece. God experiences humanity dynamically, whereby God sees man as an independent thinker and one who can oppose his will, if so he wishes. From the above two scenarios, the latter is purpose built for God to experience man and one that sees man interact with his creator, regardless of indifference in power."

God has said that He purposefully intends that this "dialog" and responses by both parties be part of how He brings His absolute will to past. It is - in the words of the WCF - one of God's "second causes".

The Reformed teaching on those concepts follow in an excerpt that I repeat here - taken from a previous post.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think you might be confusing "predestination" with "omnipresence". Since God has seen the "beginning and the end" of everything, (particularly the End), he is in the position of "calling" what happens without the need to impose his will over anything.

Saul of Tarsus was a persecutor of Christians. Why did Jesus appear before Saul on the road to Damascus ? Was it to take away his "Free Will" ? Or, Did God already know how Saul was going to react when he saw the resurrected Son of Man and was blinded for three days afterwards ?... So the choice was actually left to Saul, and not to God, wasn't it ?

What many are taking as "predestination", actually reflects the "omnipresence" of God instead.

God's omnipresence has the ability to overstep freewill when it comes to His Plan. Ie: Naming Cyrus the Persian as one who would bring about His will in releasing His people from captivity long before that took place. Isaiah 44:28 However that had nothing to do with Cyrus being predestined to salvation.
Proverbs 21:1
“The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.”

 

[stephen583]

I don't actually like the term "coerce" as it appears in the OP. The definition of coerce is (1). Using threats or force to persuade someone under duress to comply with the will of another. (2). To enslave the unwilling through force, or threats.

I don't think the lesson Saul took form his experience on the road to Damascus and the three days he was blinded afterwards, was God could inflict injury on him any time He chose to, and as his slave, he better act accordingly.

After all, the Apostle Paul knew full well, by taking up the cross, he would be subject to far worse punishment by man than just being temporarily blinded. In fact, if memory serves me right, tradition says the Apostle Paul was decapitated by the Romans.

I don't think Saul was coerced into becoming a Christian. He was shown the power of God, that's true, and after that, the decision was left entirely up to him... but coerced ? I don't think so.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I don't actually like the term "coerce" as it appears in the OP. The definition of coerce is (1). Using threats or force to persuade someone under duress to comply with the will of another. (2). To enslave the unwilling through force, or threats..

I agree. But we have to deal with the terms used by others whether or not we like them.

Talk of robots and the like are another example that is really out of place.

It is used in a derogatory way to insinuate something about the beliefs of others that they do no hold to. God's working through the choices of men to bring about his ultimate purpose has nothing to do with robots.

Likewise "coercion" in the sense that it is bandied about is another attempt to misrepresent the beliefs of others.

In this case those others are likely Reformed or Calvinists or at least anyone who believes in predestination.

My purpose for referencing the WCF is that it is very very clear that neither of these terms can be applied to it's teaching.

Since it is the document most often used by those referencing predestination - it is good to get what it says right out front and eliminate any kind of legitimate references to robots and coercion.

Not that the truth always stops people from misrepresenting others though. We can easily see that here can't we?

 

[stephen583]

In this case those others are likely Reformed or Calvinists or at least anyone who believes in predestination.

I could be mistaken, but I thought all Evangelicals basically ascribe to some form of "predestination" as part of their doctrinal belief. I'm a non-denominational Christian myself, and never actually believed in "predestination", but always curious, I thought I'd pop into this thread and read why people think it's a valid doctrine.

If I had to describe God's relationship with mankind, I would characterize it as being "Parental". His relationship is changing, as mankind grows spiritually. Not because God is changing, but because we are the ones changing. When a parent is raising a toddler, plenty of "coercion" is used. As a child grows into adolescence, coercion becomes less and less effective, and by the time they've reached their late teens, coercion is virtually useless.

It's kind'a hard to threaten a teenager with being sent to his room, when hes' already got one foot out the door. All anyone can do, is hope they've instilled enough character in their child, he doesn't go out and become Pablo Escobar when he leaves home.

I think that's what God wants for mankind. A fully independent creation able to stand on its' own two feet, and worthy to inherit His kingdom. I guess for this to happen, God has to allow the Apocalypse to happen, so we learn just how close we came to annihilation. That's how I see it anyway. I don't think "coercion" figures into it at all.