Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[JonF]

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ​

4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love." ​

​

We were chosen 'in Him."

Was Moses chosen to be the Bride of Christ? No.

Was David chosen to be in the Church of God? No.

Some are confused over what "chose" means in this instance. Its something we have been chosen for because God knew we would believe.

Yet? Out of all God knew would believe? Only certain ones were Chosen to be his Bride. Chosen in Him.



.

That whole post is non sequitor, we are going off topic here genez, if you want to start a debate about Calvinism I suggest you start a new thread, this one is about whether free will and an omniscient God can coexist consistently

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, predictability isn’t causal, as we have talked about before.



You misunderstand foreknowledge. Foreknowledge isn’t causal. The occurrence of event A at time T causes Foreknowledge F. Not: the Foreknowledge F of event A causes Event A at time T.

Yes, I agree with tis. But for F(A) to exist, A must occur at T. Otherwise, F(A) does not exist (since F(A) is knowledge, and knowledge is always a true statement)

I agree that if some entity knows that event A will happen, event A must happen. But the constituent of A still had a choice, in that the foreknowledge is predicate of their choice.

But they don't have a choice: if they did, they could choose to do something other what is allegedly foreseen. If the future is 'known', then the outcome is variable.

Look at this way. Did the allies win WWII? Do you know this with absolute certainty?

Unless there is a conspiracy against me, the evidence remains compelling. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Since you know this could anything else of happened? Notice this is a valid critique, your argument makes no use of temporality, so this is a parallel example.

On the contrary, my argument discusses the ramifications of making predictions to entities without omniscience, or rather, without knowledge of the future. This implies a use of the 'arrow of time', and thus time itself.

 

[JonF]

Yes, I agree with tis. But for F(A) to exist, A must occur at T. Otherwise, F(A) does not exist (since F(A) is knowledge, and knowledge is always a true statement)

But they don't have a choice: if they did, they could choose to do something other what is allegedly foreseen. If the future is 'known', then the outcome is variable.

Ah my friend you have it backwards! If they chose something else then F wouldn’t exist, instead a new event F' would.

Some quick Christian theology. There are basically two views on foreknowledge: passive and active.

Passive foreknowledge is where God knows something because it will happen; i.e. the event causes the knowledge.

Active foreknowledge is what you are describing, that God knows an event will happen because He causes it to happen.

As a Calvinist I believe in both types. Some events cause foreknows because he his knowledge is predicate of our actions; and other events (salvation, prophecy, etc) he ordains.

Unless there is a conspiracy against me, the evidence remains compelling. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

On the contrary, my argument discusses the ramifications of making predictions to entities without omniscience, or rather, without knowledge of the future. This implies a use of the 'arrow of time', and thus time itself.

I was just pointing out that your argument isn’t temporal. You use the word “foreknowledge” but the word “knowledge” fits equally well.

p.s. I’m glad this debate finally moved onto solid ground of reconciling definitions

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah my friend you have it backwards! If they chose something else then F wouldn’t exist, instead a new event F' would.

Hence why I said allegedly forseen. My whole argument is that the ability to choose and the ability to forsee are mutually exclusive. I tried to word my post so as to avoid the very thing you have just done. My apologies.
I am rushed for time, so I will rephrase later when you reply to this post (I have forseen that you will ).

Some quick Christian theology. There are basically two views on foreknowledge: passive and active.

Passive foreknowledge is where God knows something because it will happen; i.e. the event causes the knowledge.

Active foreknowledge is what you are describing, that God knows an event will happen because He causes it to happen.

Again, this is not what I am arguing for. I am arguing for passive foreknowledge. It is similar to the fallacy of self-fulfilling prophecies.

I was just pointing out that your argument isn’t temporal.

And I was pointing out that is. Though we may be disagreeing on what we mean by 'is/isn't temporal'.

You use the word “foreknowledge” but the word “knowledge” fits equally well.

Foreknowledge is a subset of knowledge, but knowledge is not necessarily fore-~. Again, I am rushed for time, so I will explain more fully later.

p.s. I’m glad this debate finally moved onto solid ground of reconciling definitions

It does bode well for a conclusion, I must admit.

 

[GenemZ]

That whole post is non sequitor, we are going off topic here genez, if you want to start a debate about Calvinism I suggest you start a new thread, this one is about whether free will and an omniscient God can coexist consistently

Calvinism is about free will. Is it not? We are discussing if free will and omniscience co-existing is possible.


It was you who set in motion what you now claim is off topic.

or eph1 or john6

Remember?

Who made you do it?

 

[JacobHall86]

Calvinism is about free will. Is it not?

Um no, its not about free will at all. (That is for several reasons, the main one is because the coincept of freewill is rooted in pelagianism which was condemned a heresy at the council of Carthage, but thats for another thread at another time.)

Calvinism is about one thing, the Glory of God. Thats all.

 

[Tavita]

Um no, its not about free will at all. (That is for several reasons, the main one is because the coincept of freewill is rooted in pelagianism which was condemned a heresy at the council of Carthage, but thats for another thread at another time.)

Calvinism is about one thing, the Glory of God. Thats all.

I'm interested in this 'free-will' concept and I'd like to ask where I can find more info on your statement, "the concept of freewill is rooted in pelagianism which was condemned a heresy at the council of Carthage". Do you have any links for it?

Thanks

 

[JacobHall86]

I'm interested in this 'free-will' concept and I'd like to ask where I can find more info on your statement, "the concept of freewill is rooted in pelagianism which was condemned a heresy at the council of Carthage". Do you have any links for it?

Thanks

Pelagius = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

Pelagianism = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

Councils of Carthage (note the one from 418) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage

 

[GenemZ]

Pelagius = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

Pelagianism = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

Councils of Carthage (note the one from 418) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage

You speak of an extreme example. And, did you note what those who opposed Pelaquis believed in?

They had a few loose nuts in their own machinery, as well.

Here:

1:Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.

2:Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.
​

I hate that era as being used to be the final word for us today. Doctrinal stupidity was rampant in many ways, because so many Christians were just coming out of paganism, and had no solid sense about certain doctrinal issues that were only later to be straightened out... by those far removed from paganism, after many generations and years of foundational Biblical teachings.


Infant baptism saves us? Before we can think? See how primitive they were in understanding Biblical redemption back then?

 

[GenemZ]

I'm interested in this 'free-will' concept and I'd like to ask where I can find more info on your statement, "the concept of freewill is rooted in pelagianism which was condemned a heresy at the council of Carthage". Do you have any links for it?

Thanks

An erroneous concept of free will was formed by Pelagius. Not the concept of free will.

 

[Tavita]

Pelagius = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

Pelagianism = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

Councils of Carthage (note the one from 418) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage

An erroneous concept of free will was formed by Pelagius. Not the concept of free will.

Many thanks to both of you, I have learned something new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage

 

[JacobHall86]

An erroneous concept of free will was formed by Pelagius. Not the concept of free will.

Lets see some solid Biblical examples of free will in the New Testament.

 

[JonF]

Hence why I said allegedly forseen. My whole argument is that the ability to choose and the ability to forsee are mutually exclusive. I tried to word my post so as to avoid the very thing you have just done. My apologies.

I am rushed for time, so I will rephrase later when you reply to this post (I have forseen that you will ).
[/color]

Again, this is not what I am arguing for. I am arguing for passive foreknowledge. It is similar to the fallacy of self-fulfilling prophecies.
[/color]

And I was pointing out that is. Though we may be disagreeing on what we mean by 'is/isn't temporal'.

I suggest you look into “compatibilism”

Foreknowledge is a subset of knowledge, but knowledge is not necessarily fore-~. Again, I am rushed for time, so I will explain more fully later.

I fully understand set theory; my point is your argument never made use of the ‘fore’

 

[JacobHall86]

You speak of an extreme example. And, did you note what those who opposed Pelaquis believed in?

They had a few loose nuts in their own machinery, as well.

Here:

1:Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.

2:Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.
​

I hate that era as being used to be the final word for us today. Doctrinal stupidity was rampant in many ways, because so many Christians were just coming out of paganism, and had no solid sense about certain doctrinal issues that were only later to be straightened out... by those far removed from paganism, after many generations and years of foundational Biblical teachings.


Infant baptism saves us? Before we can think? See how primitive they were in understanding Biblical redemption back then?

I am not talking about his contemporarys, I was talking about his theology, Nice attempt at a derail though.

 

[GenemZ]

Lets see some solid Biblical examples of free will in the New Testament.

What? I think the burden of proof is on you to show how there is no free will. The NT is about free will. Just because God preordains the time and place we are to choose, does not mean he preordains our choices. He only foreknows our choice. Just like a parent can know how a child will choose something in a given situation. The parents ability to know does not nullify the child's free will.

John 5:13-14 (New International Version)
​

"The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.
Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."
​

That man had a choice presented to him. But, originally he did not have a choice about being healed. For the volition of Christ was involved in healing the man. But, the healing was not to guarantee the man's choice about continuing in sin.


.

 

[GenemZ]

I am not talking about his contemporarys, I was talking about his theology, Nice attempt at a derail though.

The point was, his contemporaries were the ones who determined he was off. Just look how ignorant his judges were! That's the point.


Yet, you hold up their opinion on what he taught as having to be absolutely incorrect in all ways, because its an official church decree.

Look at Luther!

His contemporaries who held authority in the church said he was a heretic. Some in this forum will openly declare Luther a heretic because of what his contemporaries said about his teachings! (wake up)

 

[JacobHall86]

What? I think the burden of proof is on you to show how there is no free will. The NT is about free will. Just because God preordains the time and place we are to choose, does not mean he preordains our choices. He only foreknows our choice. Just like a parent can know how a child will choose something in a given situation. The parents ability to know does not nullify the child's free will.

The New Testament never says anything about free will, but it does mention foreknowledge and predestination.

BTW, I dont care about free will so far as it goes with if I am going to wear a green or blue shirt, its in reference to Salvation. The rest of it doesnt really make a differance to me.

If you are arguing in favor of FW to choose to wear flip-flops or boots I dont care, but if you are saying man has a choice about salvation than this is something that we need to discuss further.

 

[GenemZ]

The New Testament never says anything about free will, but it does mention foreknowledge and predestination.

BTW, I dont care about free will so far as it goes with if I am going to wear a green or blue shirt, its in reference to Salvation. The rest of it doesnt really make a differance to me.

If you are arguing in favor of FW to choose to wear flip-flops or boots I dont care, but if you are saying man has a choice about salvation than this is something that we need to discuss further.

If I posted a new thread, and knew it would attract pro-homosexual types to try and refute it? Did they have free will because I foreknew what I said would cause a reaction?


Just because God knows you would believe when presented certain truths? Does that mean he made you get saved?



.

 

[JacobHall86]

The point was, his contemporaries were the ones who determined he was off. Just look how ignorant his judges were! That's the point.


Yet, you hold up their opinion on what he taught as having to be absolutely incorrect in all ways, because its an official church decree.

Look at Luther!

His contemporaries who held authority in the church said he was a heretic. Some in this forum will openly declare Luther a heretic because of what his contemporaries said about his teachings! (wake up)

Luther was vastly differant than Pelagius. Vastly differant. BTW, Luther held ideas very close to Augustine and the major reason the RCC went downhill was because they made the decision to follow much more pelagian ideals in the 10th century, which were very very opposed to what Luther taught, who was a follower of the doctrine of Grace.

Maybe you should wake up to the heresy you cling to.

 

[JacobHall86]

If I posted a new thread, and knew it would attract pro-homosexual types to try and refute it? Did they have free will because I foreknew what I said would cause a reaction?


Just because God knows you would believe when presented certain truths? Does that mean he made you get saved?

Yes.

BTW, your arguement about the homosexual thread shows how weak your arguement is because you are unable to address waht I am saying based solely on my words, so you use buzz terms to attract people who might be more inclined to agree with you based on other issues rather than the one you are addressing.