Vinnie

Rarely do I do this anymore but this is an apolgetics type article not an historical one.

I just see this subject hashed and rehashed too much and it annoys me.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/fwpre.html

Vinnie

Amlodhi

Hello Vinnie,

Exactly so. And the most irritating part is that since they know it is an untenable position, they generally attempt to obscure the argument by hiding it somewhere within numerous paragraphs of rambling rhetoric.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

7thangel

The Bible is not in error presenting Free Will and Predestination. Since the beginning there is only one salvation through men, and that is through predestination. But salvation through predestination was only revealed during the times of Christ and the apostles. The law of Moses, which implicate its adherents to work our their salvation, thus it is achieving salvation through Free Will, through one’s volition, was not at all given for the Israelite's salvation. Rather, Paul said, “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;…” Thus, when the seed came, Christ, he had abolished the law of works. But then, there was a prophesy of the falling away of the elect, specifically the Jews, thus there was a time that the knowledge of God’s salvation through predestination be hidden. Thus, Christ said, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.” So, again, there will be a time that the Church will adhere to the law of works. The apostles themselves did not explain predestination clearly, so was Christ himself. In fact, it was Paul who presented it clearly, because he was anointed to be the apostle to the gentiles, referring to the gentiles “in the future” who would come to know the gospel. Now, as the Christians being bound again by ignorance of the true law of God, being likened to the estate of Israel before Christ came, they were given laws by the apostles to work their salvation, to work their salvation again according to one’s volition.

As you can see, Paul darely said, “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to MY gospel.” Was Paul preaching another Gospel and another Christ because he clearly indicates a difference in gospel among fellow apostles? No, but unless you know the reason why Paul call himself as an “apostle to the Gentiles,” you would not know the difference, neither the reason of the difference.

Amaleq13

You offer a theological rebuttal but Vinnie, if I understand him correctly, has made a logical argument against the co-existence of the two.

The concepts of predestination or perfect foreknowledge logically preclude the concept of free will.

7thangel

I do not argue that both can exist together in harmony, rather, adherence to the concept of Free Will is part of the process until we come to know God's predestination.

And actually, the law of Moses serves as evidence of God's salvation through His predestination. And until we do not understand that such is the case, the law of Moses serves as a law, or a tool that makes us save ourselves according to volition, or concept of free will.

How could we know that God predestines us except through demonstration? And actually, the law of Moses is a prophetic demonstration of the salvation of Israel/elect. Taking the law literally was never intended to save any; as implied by Deuteronomy 27:26.

Gawen

Tell me then, 7thAngel, why the writers couldn't write this out to be more easily read and understood. I see you interpreting and going back and forth between testaments to make your point. One would think that after so many rewrites and translations and years, they'd have made it easier to understand before it became canon.

Amlodhi

So you are saying here that we follow the Mosaic law until we come to know that we are predestined to be saved?

Who is we? Gentiles don't adhere to Mosaic law.

Also, according to the tenets of predestination, it would make no difference whether anyone followed Mosaic or any other law. Those among the elect will be quickened by the Spirit of God unto salvation whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not and no action or lack of action on their part can in any way change this fact. Those not among the elect can adhere to Mosaic law 'til the cows come home and will still be S.O.L.

In what way does Mosaic law provide evidence of predestination?

There is actually no indication that the OT laws were anything other than what they purported to be. That is, laws that the people were expected to follow in order to retain the favor of God.

The concept that the OT laws were originally intended as some sort of object lesson to demonstrate that no one is perfect resulted from the common fallacy of reading NT doctrine retroactively into the OT.

Incidentally, I've know many an apologist to get overly enthused about the word "all" in Deut. 27:26;

"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of the law . . ."

You should know, however, that the word "all" is not present in the Hebrew.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

CJD

The very truth that counter-factual propositions exist show this fatalistic interpretation of the relationship between exhaustive foreknowledge and free will to be (putting it mildly) bunk.

Regards,

CJD

Amaleq13

The concept . . . of perfect foreknowledge logically precludes the concept of free will.

Feel free to share these allegedly true "counter-factual propositions". Otherwise, it would appear that there can be no truly free choice if the outcome is known with certainty beforehand. It seems to me that the concept of a "free choice" logically requires that the outcome be uncertain until the choice is made.

CJD

For starters, you are drawing a necessary conclusion from an argument that possesses a contingent premise: God foreknows that I shall do x. It should be grossly obvious that x is contingent quite simply because x hasn't happened in time yet. The best you can say with this premise is that "I shall do x" not that "I must do x." The former is hardly an affront to my freedom!

If you were to modify your contingent premise as follows: "Necessarily, God foreknows that I shall do x," you would be further mistaken. God's knowledge is not the same in every possible world. While we (traditional) theists think that God's omniscience is a necessary attribute, we affirm that the content of his foreknowledge is contingent (i.e., it varies from world to world). Counter-factuals do not change the past; rather, they assert the simple truth that there is a possibility of another state of affairs counter to what is.

Case in point:— S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 121–122.

Note that nothing about what actually is the case makes this statement true. In fact, the antecedent of this statement is false (the rate of expansion was not smaller than what it actually was). How does this apply to volition?

God's foreknowledge is a necessary consequence of his sovereign predetermination—not the other way around. If I re-post in this thread, God would have known it previously. However, If I refrain from re-posting in this thread, God would have known this previously, as well. It is precisely this counter-factual power that I possess over your fatalistic view of divine foreknowledge that renders the supposed antinomy moot.

Freely Yours (and God knew it),

CJD