God’s Omniscience and Predestination

[brightfame52]

Be more careful with the terms of your equations.

Huh ?

 

[brightfame52]

@DialecticSkeptic

f the first part is true, then the second part is false. God is the ultimate cause (sin serves his purposes), but he is not the immediate or proximate cause (the author of sin).

Who is the immediate or proximate cause of any and all secondary causes of sin ?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Who is the immediate or proximate cause of any and all secondary causes of sin ?

Your question does not appear to be in good faith. It is framed as a rhetorical trap, not a sincere inquiry that seeks clarity. And by implying that God is the proximate cause of proximate causes, you are collapsing categories that Reformed theology keeps distinct: primary causation (ordained sin) and secondary causation (commits sin). You are trying to flatten all causality into one kind. But God is not a creature; his causation is not like ours (nor is God like us). God ordains sin from a holy nature and for his glory, while man commits sin from a corrupt nature and for his own desires. God's purposes are righteous, while man’s intentions are corrupt.

Also, God is not a moral agent among others, like we are, accountable to a higher standard. He is the Creator—transcendent, self-existing, righteous, defining all categories and standards (divine agency). We are the creatures—limited, dependent, and fallen, subject to those categories and standards (moral agency). He is the judge; we are the judged.

 

[makesends]

See, this is what I was thinking:

It makes us a different creation from the reprobate. Entirely.

We aren't light from darkness then, we are light created, placing us in Christ from eternity.

They would be darkness created, not in Christ from eternity, and never the twain shall meet... Yet we meet. Why, where is that from?

But I must be making a mistake somewhere ..

I agree to a point. Logically, IF God from the beginning intended different ends for specific ones, we have to conclude those specific ones, then, were created differently. But from all we read, all are the same in that they are all by nature sinners and thus already judged condemned.

(Years ago, the thought came to me that if my intended and I were promised, that in God's eyes then, we were already one, and nothing wrong with sex, right? (Aside: It is curious how hard a person works to justify what they want to do!) The 'already but not yet' of the body of believers, though we have fellowship, must necessarily wait for the consummation in Heaven. So, I can't say that from the beginning we ARE what we will be, except in that same sense --'already, but not yet'. The Sons of God are not yet revealed. We do not see HIM as HE is. We do not yet know him as we are known.)

In my opinion, the differences are only the intention --not 'the build', except in one other way. (As we know there is nothing in anyone to merit salvation nor to make it easier or more suited for God to save them)-- --as I was saying, only the intention, but also the specificity of that end in Heaven. Each one is an individual, that specific member of the Body of Christ, perhaps even more detailed a difference than between the various cells in a temporal human body, (each of us 'this cell and not that'. That too, is individual to each person.

So I think that God's view of that final particular individual creation is what he spoke into existence, and this temporal 'frame' is what it takes (took) to become that. (We are not exactly the person we think we are; and not yet the person God made; not yet completed beings.)

 

[makesends]

Pure heresy.

Good luck with the alternative.

 

[makesends]

I don't know yet.

Seems both Biblical and logical though.

Theres implications I need to figure out,

FWIW, those implications are beautiful, and very grace-ful. God is not tame.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I agree to a point. Logically, IF God from the beginning intended different ends for specific ones, we have to conclude those specific ones, then, were created differently. But from all we read, all are the same in that they are all by nature sinners and thus already judged condemned.

(Years ago, the thought came to me that if my intended and I were promised, that in God's eyes then, we were already one, and nothing wrong with sex, right? (Aside: It is curious how hard a person works to justify what they want to do!) The 'already but not yet' of the body of believers, though we have fellowship, must necessarily wait for the consummation in Heaven. So, I can't say that from the beginning we ARE what we will be, except in that same sense --'already, but not yet'. The Sons of God are not yet revealed. We do not see HIM as HE is. We do not yet know him as we are known.)

In my opinion, the differences are only the intention --not 'the build', except in one other way. (As we know there is nothing in anyone to merit salvation nor to make it easier or more suited for God to save them)-- --as I was saying, only the intention, but also the specificity of that end in Heaven. Each one is an individual, that specific member of the Body of Christ, perhaps even more detailed a difference than between the various cells in a temporal human body, (each of us 'this cell and not that'. That too, is individual to each person.

So I think that God's view of that final particular individual creation is what he spoke into existence, and this temporal 'frame' is what it takes (took) to become that. (We are not exactly the person we think we are; and not yet the person God made; not yet completed beings.)

I read that twice and can't figure out what you're saying. Stop being so careful, trying to cover this base and that base, and speak plainly.

 

[Hazelelponi]

He [Polanus] speaking how man is the subject or object of election, and how considered by God therein, hath these words

:* * God in his decree of election did behold (or look upon) his elect as to the end he predestinated them unto, so as men absolutely in common, without all consideration of qualities in them. But if we consider the means leading to the end, so he looked upon men, not as in their upright condition (afore the fall), but as they would be corrupt of and in themselves by the fall, and fallen headlong by their own default into eternal death.'

The works of Thomas Goodwin : Goodwin, Thomas, 1600-1680 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

12 v. ; 23 cm

archive.org

@makesends was saying this - am I correct? It's possible, keep it Christological and continue to consider it.

This is how I understood it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Doesn't the end entail the means? If the end of the elect is redemption in Christ, then from what were they being redeemed? I don't see how Goodwin or anyone else escapes the infralapsarian implications of the language they use.

 

[brightfame52]

@DialecticSkeptic

Your question does not appear to be in good faith.

It is, are you evading it ?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It is. Are you evading it?

Obviously not, since I answered it (e.g., "collapsing categories," etc.).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Cause	Definition	Theological Role in Sin	Example Scripture
Ultimate Cause	The eternal source or foundation for what will occur	God’s sovereign decree ordains that sin will be permitted and governed for his glory	Ephesians 1:11 – "He works all things according to the counsel of his will."
Formal Cause	The internal nature or condition that makes a thing what it is	Man’s corrupt nature after the Fall—what makes sin to be "sinful"	Mark 7:21 – "From within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas…"
Efficient Cause	The active agent that brings something about	Man’s act of sin, willfully committed from a corrupt nature	James 1:15 – "Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin."
Final Cause	The ultimate purpose or goal	God’s glory—his justice, mercy, and wisdom displayed through sin and redemption	Romans 9:17 – "For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might demonstrate my power in you."

 

[brightfame52]

Obviously not, since I answered it (e.g., "collapsing categories," etc.).

You may as well evaded it, that changed nothing

 

[makesends]

Cause	Definition	Theological Role in Sin	Example Scripture
Ultimate Cause	The eternal source or foundation for what will occur	God’s sovereign decree ordains that sin will be permitted and governed for his glory	Ephesians 1:11 – "He works all things according to the counsel of his will."
Formal Cause	The internal nature or condition that makes a thing what it is	Man’s corrupt nature after the Fall—what makes sin to be "sinful"	Mark 7:21 – "From within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas…"
Efficient Cause	The active agent that brings something about	Man’s act of sin, willfully committed from a corrupt nature	James 1:15 – "Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin."
Final Cause	The ultimate purpose or goal	God’s glory—his justice, mercy, and wisdom displayed through sin and redemption	Romans 9:17 – "For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might demonstrate my power in you."

Notice, if you will, that these divisions and definitions are what man does in order to think cogently on these things. But there is reason also to consider the overlap, as within, for example, "..for from him and through him and to him are all things."

Ultimate Cause -- First Cause
Formal Cause -- God's Creatures
Efficient Cause -- Includes (at the least) God's Immanence
Final Cause -- God will be our God, and we will be his people.

In other words, those are only considerations. Crutches, at best.

 

[His clay]

Does God’s omniscience mean that He knows all things in the future with absolute certainty?
I believe it does. So, If God knew those that would not accept Jesus to be saved, why did He create them knowing this?
And,
If God knew those that would believe on Jesus to be saved, why did He create them knowing this?

If God chose to create unbelievers to be damned for their unbelief, and believers to be saved for their belief, isnt this predestination?

I can't tell you how many times I've brought this point up. The only difference is the type of causation (post-creation). But the difference does not in any way change what your opening post stated. Some are so opposed to Calvinism that they cannot see how their own view is under assault by their own fire.

 

[His clay]

Notice, if you will, that these divisions and definitions are what man does in order to think cogently on these things. But there is reason also to consider the overlap, as within, for example, "..for from him and through him and to him are all things."

Ultimate Cause -- First Cause
Formal Cause -- God's Creatures
Efficient Cause -- Includes (at the least) God's Immanence
Final Cause -- God will be our God, and we will be his people.

In other words, those are only considerations. Crutches, at best.

You have addressed some very key issues. I have raised these in a more general way. Ignoring critical causal distinction is a key element of the anti-Calvinist rant, and I pointed out that this "turning a blind eye" to critical causal distinctions is what I call the causal conflation fallacy.

H

Thread 'Responsibility and Causation'

May 23, 2023

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom...

• His clay
• Replies: 21
• Forum: Arminianism & Calvinism

• 
• 

 

[makesends]

He [Polanus] speaking how man is the subject or object of election, and how considered by God therein, hath these words

:* * God in his decree of election did behold (or look upon) his elect as to the end he predestinated them unto, so as men absolutely in common, without all consideration of qualities in them. But if we consider the means leading to the end, so he looked upon men, not as in their upright condition (afore the fall), but as they would be corrupt of and in themselves by the fall, and fallen headlong by their own default into eternal death.'

The works of Thomas Goodwin : Goodwin, Thomas, 1600-1680 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

12 v. ; 23 cm

archive.org

@makesends was saying this - am I correct? It's possible, keep it Christological and continue to consider it.

This is how I understood it.

Haha! You would do this to me!!! I don't have time to read all that, but yes, what I did read sounded like he was heading that direction.

 

[His clay]

Cause	Definition	Theological Role in Sin	Example Scripture
Ultimate Cause	The eternal source or foundation for what will occur	God’s sovereign decree ordains that sin will be permitted and governed for his glory	Ephesians 1:11 – "He works all things according to the counsel of his will."
Formal Cause	The internal nature or condition that makes a thing what it is	Man’s corrupt nature after the Fall—what makes sin to be "sinful"	Mark 7:21 – "From within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas…"
Efficient Cause	The active agent that brings something about	Man’s act of sin, willfully committed from a corrupt nature	James 1:15 – "Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin."
Final Cause	The ultimate purpose or goal	God’s glory—his justice, mercy, and wisdom displayed through sin and redemption	Romans 9:17 – "For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might demonstrate my power in you."

Oops, I attributed to @makesends what you wrote. I appreciate what both of you have written. I'll leave you with the same link that I left makesends, where I identify the "causal conflation fallacy".

H

Thread 'Responsibility and Causation'

May 23, 2023

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom...

• His clay
• Replies: 21
• Forum: Arminianism & Calvinism

• 
• 

 

[Hazelelponi]

Haha! You would do this to me!!! I don't have time to read all that, but yes, what I did read sounded like he was heading that direction.

You don't have to read anything, if you think it looks about right then the impetus stands, for me to continue to consider it..

I just thought I would provide an idea for where I thought you were basically going since DS asked and you were busy.

DS's response to the idea is giving me food for thought. I'm still a little stuck but I have new thoughts to consider and factor in.

I thank both of you for your time. I was frustrated and I'm not anymore, you both have helped.

 

[Carbon]

I can't tell you how many times I've brought this point up. The only difference is the type of causation (post-creation). But the difference does not in any way change what your opening post stated. Some are so opposed to Calvinism that they cannot see how their own view is under assault by their own fire.

Yes, I believe you're exactly right.