I've been a Christian for the majority of my life and I have never heard the question of predestination answered intelligently. Therefore I was wondering what others say about predestination.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Predestination
- Thread starter bay1996
- Start date
There are many questions about predestination. Which are you referring to or did you have in mind?
Upvote
0
Archie the Preacher
Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
- Apr 11, 2003
- 3,171
- 1,012
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
God exists in Eternity. God is not confined to 'time' in the sense humanity - the entire Universe - is bound. Eternity is a rather strange concept. There seems to be a sense of 'before' and 'after', since Satan was created as an angel and has fallen from that position. There is no suggestion that Satan bounces around in Eternity and is 'not fallen' again at times.
On the other hand, the idea of 'now' is very loose in Eternity. God's 'now' is all of recorded time for humanity, and I think for all the existence of the Universe. Possibly all of Eternity is 'now' to God.
From this, and from certain statements in the Bible, we understand God has existed before the inception of the Universe. (Long before.) My thought is that wording was used as the people at the time had a very limited view of time and Eternity. (Not to insult the ancient peoples, I know people NOW who can't quite grasp Eternity.)
Since God is 'exempt' from time and exists in Eternity, we must conclude God exists after the end of the Universe as well. Further, in God's view, 'before' and 'after' the time of the Universe are the same 'now'.
So, if God exists 'before' and 'after' the end of the Universe and still sees everything and everyone, the idea of predestination loses the stigma of 'pre-judging'.
I've tried to break this up so dissent can be separated to specific sections of the train of thought.
On the other hand, the idea of 'now' is very loose in Eternity. God's 'now' is all of recorded time for humanity, and I think for all the existence of the Universe. Possibly all of Eternity is 'now' to God.
From this, and from certain statements in the Bible, we understand God has existed before the inception of the Universe. (Long before.) My thought is that wording was used as the people at the time had a very limited view of time and Eternity. (Not to insult the ancient peoples, I know people NOW who can't quite grasp Eternity.)
Since God is 'exempt' from time and exists in Eternity, we must conclude God exists after the end of the Universe as well. Further, in God's view, 'before' and 'after' the time of the Universe are the same 'now'.
So, if God exists 'before' and 'after' the end of the Universe and still sees everything and everyone, the idea of predestination loses the stigma of 'pre-judging'.
I've tried to break this up so dissent can be separated to specific sections of the train of thought.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Think about one key part of this question:
Before a person physically exists on earth, where, what and who is he?
The answer to this question determines WHEN and HOW does the process of predestination begin.
In other word, do we consider incarnation as a part of the process?
Upvote
0
Without freedom to act for oneself, predestination removes morality from the question, so if the Bible leads to it as a conclusion, it is contradictory for the bible to speak as if people have control over their own actions.
Upvote
0
Predestination to an incomplete creation, is like saying "it's up to chance whether you say you like it, but if you say you like it you have to accept the consequences"
in other words, it is known in advance that you will take a chance, but that whatever chance you take, it will be you that has to live with it.
That's the nature of God's design.
PS. Look up Jim Brown on predestination if you want to see an explosive interpretation of it
in other words, it is known in advance that you will take a chance, but that whatever chance you take, it will be you that has to live with it.
That's the nature of God's design.
PS. Look up Jim Brown on predestination if you want to see an explosive interpretation of it
Upvote
0
God does not need to think in the sense of temporality as a human does. God already knows, and does not change.
Upvote
0
Predestination doesn't remove morality. That assumes free will is relevant to the concept of PAP, which it isn't.
Have you heard of the Frankfurt example?
Upvote
0
If God creates the world with foreknowledge of what is going to happen then there is no such thing as self determination, so there is no such thing as morality.
Upvote
0
First, define what you mean by self determination. Second, aside from simply claiming this, what else is there to back this reasoning?
Upvote
0
Predestination applies to morality as that which compels other people to show mercy, when you have done the wrong thing.
Think about it, if you only did what you already knew, how can they judge you any more harshly than if they had done it themselves (for the same reasons)
Think about it, if you only did what you already knew, how can they judge you any more harshly than if they had done it themselves (for the same reasons)
Upvote
0
Self-determination - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I am saying it logically follows that if an omniscient being sets things in motion and knows the consequences before you ever exist, you do not have it.
The end point is determined you can not choose something else, so there is no free will and thus morality are illusionary.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 35,796
- 4,480
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So if you make breakfast for your son and you set a plate with dog poop and his favorite cereal, knowing that he will choose the cereal, is his option merely illusionary?
Upvote
0
Do I absolutely know he will choose it? If so yes.
Most of our moral choices aren't so automatic though from our perspective.
So, I fail to see your point.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 35,796
- 4,480
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, you know he will not choose the plate of dog poop. The point is, just because you know what your son will choose, does not negate his free will choosing. After all, you do not know what the future will bring.
Upvote
0
The thing is, that proposition does not logically follow. It must be shown that free will means the ability to do other than how one originally acted. Until then it's an unsupported claim.
Though, I'd argue, like I mentioned before, from the perspective of the Frankfurt example:
"Donald is a Democrat and is likely to vote for the Democrats; in fact, only in one particular circumstance will he not: that is, if he thinks about the prospects of immediate American defeat in Iraq just prior to voting. Ms White, a representative of the Democratic Party, wants to ensure that Donald votes Democratic, so she secretly plants a device in Donald's head that, if activated, will force him to vote Democratic. Not wishing to reveal her presence unnecessarily, Ms White plans to activate the device only if Donald thinks about the Iraq War prior to voting. As things happen, Donald does not think about Iraq prior to voting, so Ms White thus sees no reason to activate the device, and Donald votes Democratic of his own accord."
Donald couldn't have done otherwise. He literally could only do one thing, though he did of his own desires, and thus was able to make a choice of which he was responsible for. So, the concept of PAP is not relevant to moral responsibility, and likewise is not relevant to free will.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
