Argument for Pre-Destination

[Chany]

But Human nature is Imago Deus, in the Image and Likeness of God...that means, along with other things, possessing free will. So when you say human nature that is, by default includes free will. You can not include something as part of the decision that includes a thing in a proof that the included thing does not exist.

I'm not arguing against freewill on a functional level. X is still making decisions upon his own will. What I am saying is that the decision's outcomes are determined by human processing that is from learned behavior and human nature. Human nature is created by God and learned behavior is taught by humans, who were created by God.

In other words, humans are still making decisions. However, their decision making skills can be traced back to an original position started by God. Therefore, although humans are making decisions, their starting point determines their final outcome. Since the starting point is determined (or can be traced to a starting point determined) by God, God determines of the final outcome of everything.

 

[Davidnic]

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to argue that starting point determines outcome. Ott points out that even Augustine said that Gods knowledge of outcome had no more effect on actions than mans remembrance of the past does not cause it to occur. So God, creating the starting point with knowledge of the ends has no effect on the outcome. He simply foresees what will happen in the exercise of free will..He does not create the starting point for the purpose of the end point as a foregone conclusion. He foresees the end, but He does not create a being on a toy railroad track only capable of the programmed route because of how it was made.

 

[Chany]

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to argue that starting point determines outcome. Ott points out that even Augustine said that Gods knowledge of outcome had no more effect on actions than mans remembrance of the past does not cause it to occur. So God, creating the starting point with knowledge of the ends has no effect on the outcome. He simply foresees what will happen in the exercise of free will..He does not create the starting point for the purpose of the end point as a foregone conclusion. He foresees the end, but He does not create a being on a toy railroad track only capable of the programmed route because of how it was made.

Then explain how the human processing is more than past experiences and human nature.

 

[ivebeenshown]

He does not create the starting point for the purpose of the end point as a foregone conclusion.

"Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." - St. Paul

God created man's free will, which is man's power to act according to his rational faculty, for his own purpose.

 

[Davidnic]

Then explain how the human processing is more than past experiences and human nature.

Because there is a soul that has the action of grace. Scientists do not even know how perception works relaying images to be comprehended by the brain, so we do not even know the biological side of it enough to say past experiences combined with inborn understanding (or human nature) are sole operators. But just granting human experience as a given factor we have to look at what human nature is.

But even granting past experience and looking at human nature alone...human nature includes a soul that is open to grace.

In all of this you are not taking into account the effects of grace, in particular actual grace that can inform and direct us beyond past experiences.

Grace is part of our nature made in the Image of God. And it is grace that raises human processing beyond simple experiences of the past. Grace allows us to actualize potential not yet experienced. A life and urge in us that is Divine in origin that we can accept or reject. Something that moves us beyond what we comprehend and experience acting in the soul.

So human processing is past experiences and human nature but human nature includes Grace. It is the action of Grace that is missing in your proof and you fail to attribute it to human nature;thus removing what makes free will possible...the Image of God.

How the Image of God works is a mystery but most theologians will place the immortal nature of the soul and the action of free will into its auspices.

If your argument of past experiences and a kind of instinct was for an animal then indeed, it would be true. But humanity is not an animal in that way because they have the Image of God. So when you rightly say human nature plays a part, you have to include grace as the natural state of that nature as originally created and then later restored.

So grace would be the unaccounted factor in your example.

 

[Michie]

Learning so much from this thread.

 

[Davidnic]

it is a good discussion with interesting thought provoking observations all around

 

[WarriorAngel]

In other words, humans are still making decisions. However, their decision making skills can be traced back to an original position started by God. Therefore, although humans are making decisions, their starting point determines their final outcome. Since the starting point is determined (or can be traced to a starting point determined) by God, God determines of the final outcome of everything.

But Human nature is Imago Deus, in the Image and Likeness of God...that means, along with other things, possessing free will. So when you say human nature that is, by default includes free will. You can not include something as part of the decision that includes a thing in a proof that the included thing does not exist.

This is where the phrase 'Apple doesnt fall far from the tree' becomes a double entendre.

God doesnt determine our fate - we determine our fate. We are free beings and if we do not use the gifts and skills for good - we are accountable for that. BUT our gifts come from God - doesnt mean we chose to use those gifts. 'We chose' is the absolutes in judgment of man.

 

[Chany]

Because there is a soul that has the action of grace. Scientists do not even know how perception works relaying images to be comprehended by the brain, so we do not even know the biological side of it enough to say past experiences combined with inborn understanding (or human nature) are sole operators. But just granting human experience as a given factor we have to look at what human nature is.

But even granting past experience and looking at human nature alone...human nature includes a soul that is open to grace.

In all of this you are not taking into account the effects of grace, in particular actual grace that can inform and direct us beyond past experiences.

Grace is part of our nature made in the Image of God. And it is grace that raises human processing beyond simple experiences of the past. Grace allows us to actualize potential not yet experienced. A life and urge in us that is Divine in origin that we can accept or reject. Something that moves us beyond what we comprehend and experience acting in the soul.

So human processing is past experiences and human nature but human nature includes Grace. It is the action of Grace that is missing in your proof and you fail to attribute it to human nature;thus removing what makes free will possible...the Image of God.

How the Image of God works is a mystery but most theologians will place the immortal nature of the soul and the action of free will into its auspices.

If your argument of past experiences and a kind of instinct was for an animal then indeed, it would be true. But humanity is not an animal in that way because they have the Image of God. So when you rightly say human nature plays a part, you have to include grace as the natural state of that nature as originally created and then later restored.

So grace would be the unaccounted factor in your example.

How do we accept or reject grace? In other words, if God sends me grace, what do I do to reach the decision to follow grace's call or not?

 

[Davidnic]

And here we come to the component of mystery. We use free will to accept or reject. That free will, tied to the Image of God is a mystery as to the exact function and can not be part of a proof, but is an act of faith.

Since the nature of God can not be fully understood, His Image and the consequences; in all discussions come down at some point to an act of faith. Scripture and Tradition declare there is Free Will in accepting or rejecting grace. So we accept that there is. We accept that the urgings and the action on them are supernatural.

As in all discussions of God, at some point it comes to an act of Faith that can not fit into a logic proof. So it is with defining the operative nature of Grace perfectly. Grace is a supernatural gift and we each are given enough to act in the right way. Ultimately the response to grace is at the urging of the heart, it is not dealing with past experience or understanding. We may use those in an attempt to understand it or explain it, but they fall short.

Grace is a supernatural gift. The use of our nature, that is receptive and made for grace, to accept it is an interaction on a supernatural level that operates in the natural world.

Since Grace is the life of God in us and God can not be fully understood then grace, and total understanding of its operation will always be a mystery. This is where the conversation comes to a wall. Because although the argument you put forth is fine for an animal, even one with higher cognitive abilities...it hits a supernatural wall with man.

There is predestination, although we believe it in a different form than other Christians. God foresees what we will do and alots grace according to His will.