Predestination
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
08 Mar 2008, 9:11 pm
PREDESTINA'TION, n. The act of decreeing or foreordaining events; the decree of God by which he hath, from eternity, unchangeably appointed or determined whatever comes to pass. It is used particularly in theology to denote the preordination of men to everlasting happiness or misery.
Predestination is a part of the unchangeable plan of the divine government; or in other words, the unchangeable purpose of an unchangeable God.
General references
Gen_21:12-13; Exo_9:16; Exo_33:19; Deu_7:7-8; Deu_10:15; Deu_4:37; Deu_32:8; Jos_11:20; 1Sa_12:22; 1Ki_12:15; 1Ki_20:42; 2Ki_19:25; 2Ch_6:6; Job_23:13-14; Psa_33:12; Psa_65:4; Psa_78:67-68; Psa_78:70-72; Psa_105:17-22; Psa_135:4; Pro_16:4; Isa_44:1-2; Isa_44:7; Jer_1:4-5; Mal_1:2-3; Mat_11:25-26; Mat_20:16; Mat_20:23; Mat_22:14; Mat_24:22; Mat_24:40-41; Luk_17:34-36; Mat_25:34; Mar_13:20; Mar_13:22; Luk_4:25-27; Luk_8:10; Luk_10:20; Luk_18:7; Luk_22:22; Mat_26:24; Mar_14:21; Joh_6:37; Joh_6:39; Joh_6:44-45; Joh_15:16; Joh_15:19; Joh_17:2; Joh_17:6; Joh_17:9; Joh_21:23; Act_1:7; Act_2:23; Act_2:39; Act_2:47; Act_3:18; Act_4:28; Act_13:48; Act_17:26; Act_22:14; Rom_1:6; Rom_8:28-30; Rom_8:33; Rom 9:7-33; Rom_11:5; Rom_11:7-8; 1Co_1:26-29; 1Co_2:7; Gal_1:15; Eph_1:4-5; Eph_1:9-11; Eph_2:10; Eph_3:11; Col_3:12; 1Th_1:4; 1Th_2:12; 2Th_2:13; 2Ti_1:9; Tit_1:1-2; Jam_1:18; 1Pe_1:2; 1Pe_1:20; 2Pe_1:10; Jud_1:4; Rev_13:8
Exemplified:
In the destruction of:
Eli's sons
1Sa_2:25
The Hivites
Jos_11:20
The Philistines
Jdg_14:4
Ahaziah
2Ch_22:7
Amaziah and the idolatrous Jews
2Ch_25:20
In the covenant with Abraham to have a posterity
Gen_21:12; Neh_9:7-8
In Zerubbabel
Hag_2:23
In the apostles
Joh_13:18; Joh_15:19
In Jacob
Rom_9:12-13
In Rufus
Rom_16:13
In Paul
Gal_1:15
08 Mar 2008, 10:01 pm
I see it like this: God watching over people with an "I knew you would do that" attitude toward them. So when they screw up, it's "I knew you would do that", and when they do good it's "I knew you would do that". That part is easy to understand.
So everything that ever happens, God knew we would do that, and since everything happens just the way God wants it to happen, whatever is happening now, it was meant to be. The garbage on earth, it was predestined to be garbage. The good stuff, predestined to be good stuff.
When someone screws up, no matter what the screwup is, God knew they would do that, and that is exactly what God had planned to happen. So it sort of takes the blame off the act when it comes to sinning, I guess. If it happens, God knew it would happen, allowed it to happen, so everthing bad that happens is... good? Now I'm confused.
No, not good, but it is what it is. Some people would like to use predestination to justify getting away with bad deeds is what I meant.
08 Mar 2008, 11:53 pm
Predestination seems like the religious equivalent of determinism to me. Religious people would say that God chose everything, while atheists would say that it was all decided by the initial conditions of the universe during the big bang. Either way, it doesn't leave much room for ideas like free will or responsibility.
But how much free will do we really have? I say not much. All of our choices are just reactions to internal and external forces that we have no control over.
08 Mar 2008, 11:58 pm
But how much free will do we really have? I say not much. All of our choices are just reactions to internal and external forces that we have no control over.
Essentially it is determinism, just instead of physical laws we have God. The issue is that most people who subscribe to these ideas are compatibilists.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Mar 2008, 1:08 am
I see it as, we have free-will on a microscale but God is sovereign on a macroscale.
Related to this is that God is eternal: He exists both inside and outside of time and He knows the beginning through the end. Also He is omniscient: possessing all knowledge of every detail ever. In this sense I agree with Noelle as above she had written.
09 Mar 2008, 1:26 am
Related to this is that God is eternal: He exists both inside and outside of time and He knows the beginning through the end. Also He is omniscient: possessing all knowledge of every detail ever. In this sense I agree with Noelle as above she had written.
But let's just look at these 2 things: God is the first cause, and God knows all of the end results. How do we have free will in this? The system is effectively causal. The distinction in the micro and the macro end up being meaningless because of this.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Mar 2008, 1:37 am
Related to this is that God is eternal: He exists both inside and outside of time and He knows the beginning through the end. Also He is omniscient: possessing all knowledge of every detail ever. In this sense I agree with Noelle as above she had written.
But let's just look at these 2 things: God is the first cause, and God knows all of the end results. How do we have free will in this? The system is effectively causal. The distinction in the micro and the macro end up being meaningless because of this.
09 Mar 2008, 1:45 am
No, it is assuming that one source sets up the start and from that start can know all of the outcomes. Your argument is merely a form of compatibilism, but it does not refute the notion that God can and does cause your eye to blink at his command. How is it innately obvious that we are not robots, for one, that is essentially the starting point of materialist determinism meaning it is less obvious, as well, even if we have choices to make does not mean that our choice has not already essentially been made, which is at the crux of the argument. I argue that if from our first action, we know all resulting actions, then essentially speaking the world must be determined. This is based upon 2 truths you've assumed about God: that he is the Creator, and that he is omniscient, and has nothing to do with God's relationship with time or anything of that nature.
09 Mar 2008, 3:08 am
I'm currently writing a little essay on free will (I call it voluntary action). I think we artificially combine two phenomena into one:
1.) Our internal experience of making choices.
2.) The notion that these choices are somehow physically uncaused (i.e. the “ghost in the machine”).
I don’t think these two things are necessarily contingent on each other. It’s possible that number 1 is true while number 2 is false. The fact that we think 1 implies 2 is a consequence of how our brains are programmed to phenomenologically separate mechanical forms of causality (that associated with inanimate objects) from more complicated “hidden” forms of causality (associated with living things).
In the end, even if a cause for an action isn’t physical (i.e. god wills me to perform a certain action) that doesn’t discredit the causal connection. Actions are caused by thoughts and thoughts are caused by other thoughts and influences from the environment. Even if a physical basis can’t be pinned down it may still be causal. If behavior wasn’t causal then it would be random. I wouldn’t consider random behavior to be free will.
Last edited by marshall on 09 Mar 2008, 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
09 Mar 2008, 3:15 am
1.) Our internal experience of making choices.
2.) The notion that these choices are somehow physically uncaused (i.e. the “ghost in the machine”).
I don’t think these two things are necessarily contingent on each other. It’s possible that number 1 is true while number 2 is false. The fact that we think 1 implies 2 is a consequence of how our brains are programmed to phenomenologically separate mechanical forms of causality (that associated with inanimate objects) from more complicated “hidden” forms of causality (associated with living things).
I agree with you on this. In fact, even though we still apply causal arguments to our actions, we also still invoke free will. It is sort of interesting.
I think that Hume argued against libertarian free will in a similar manner. I remember reading that on wiki though.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Mar 2008, 3:16 am
No, it is assuming that one source sets up the start and from that start can know all of the outcomes. Your argument is merely a form of compatibilism, but it does not refute the notion that God can and does cause your eye to blink at his command. How is it innately obvious that we are not robots, for one, that is essentially the starting point of materialist determinism meaning it is less obvious, as well, even if we have choices to make does not mean that our choice has not already essentially been made, which is at the crux of the argument. I argue that if from our first action, we know all resulting actions, then essentially speaking the world must be determined. This is based upon 2 truths you've assumed about God: that he is the Creator, and that he is omniscient, and has nothing to do with God's relationship with time or anything of that nature.
On the timeline from an eternal perspective, all events have occurred. But for us they are still happening.
09 Mar 2008, 3:25 am
And that does not matter. It has nothing to do with God's relationship with time. In fact, the very fact that when he created the world, he created all other events from the fall to WW2, basically illustrates a lack of free will for us as we can only have free will if we have a present and things are still happening. Because things cannot still be happening and already have happened, one of these views must be less true, and because God's position is the most objective, the view of this happening, and us making choices must be false as all of the choices must have already been made, thus meaning that God ordained all things.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Mar 2008, 3:40 am
And that does not matter. It has nothing to do with God's relationship with time. In fact, the very fact that when he created the world, he created all other events from the fall to WW2, basically illustrates a lack of free will for us as we can only have free will if we have a present and things are still happening. Because things cannot still be happening and already have happened, one of these views must be less true, and because God's position is the most objective, the view of this happening, and us making choices must be false as all of the choices must have already been made, thus meaning that God ordained all things.
Then there is the next question of "are we still responsible for our actions?" Hypercalvinism would say "no".
09 Mar 2008, 3:50 am
Well, we obviously are given responsibility for our actions through some mechanism. The issue is that there is still this notion of being chosen as an elect that is "not because of works but because of him who calls" Romans 9:11 and this idea is continued throughout Romans 9:15-23. The real issue is merely the application of logic, if we have a being who is omniscient, and is the first actor, then that being can be considered on some level responsible for all things that happen for he knowingly set it all into action, this can be referred to as "God's plan" or whatever name you wish to give it. It is also for this reason that we have theologians such as Liebniz postulate that this is the best of all possible worlds despite the doubtability of such a position.
09 Mar 2008, 4:24 am
See my last post. The idea that determinism eliminates responsibility is another consequence of how our brains are programmed to think. We can still make choices even if our behavior is pre-determined. Calvinism is consistent with personal responsibility.
I'm an atheist but I will defend Calvinism because I think it's the most logical theological position even if it makes God out to be an as*hole (IMO of course).
