There are a lot of arguments on this board and in chat. I am not against a civil debate. However, most of the time what starts out as a valid question devolves into random personal attacks and in the worse case scenario winds up straying from the topic.
I didn't grow up in a Christian household. I didn't grow up in a Christian environment. So, when I finally responded to The Call, I was forced to make other choices. I had to choose a church. So I went to church. However, I began to notice that the church and what I read in the bible were at odds. So I began to go to other churches. There too there were teachings, doctrines and traditions that didn't commune with the scriptures. I began to search out the answers to these questions on my own. It bothered me that most denominations, unless they were brand new, didn't look anything like the denomination in question originally looked like. The point of this little story is to illustrate the fact that by going to these churches and asking questions they comparatively staged a debate. Who was right on which issues and in regards to certain doctrines, ways of living the Faith and in regards to what it means to be Christian? The Baptists or the Methodists? The Evangelicals or the Wesleyans? The Lutherans or the Calvinists? etc.
So that's why I'm offering the following exchange between an Orthodox Priest and a few Calvinist Protestants. It does get heated but never gets personal. Passionate but not without self-control. Not only is this representative of what I consider a good debate, but it's also a very interesting subject: Free Will vs Determinism
Dialogue on Free Will & Determinism
FJ: It has been asserted that foreknowledge of a choice, necessarily determines that choice, and eliminates other possibilities as possibilities.
Let's take the godless world of Star Trek, just to test whether this logic holds up. At the most, the Trek universe has some sort of personless force behind it... certainly no being who governs the affairs of men.
Now suppose that a person in this godless universe discovers a way to go back into the past, but can only go back into the past as an invisible, passive observer. They go back 10 years, and happen to be at a location and time which they well recall—thus they know what will happen, and thus what choices will be made. How would such a passive observer's knowledge change the nature of the choices that were made, which previously were absolutely free choices?
Calvinists typically make the point that God's foreknowledge cannot be based on his simply knowing the future, because he knew it prior to these future events, and thus could only know it because he decreed that it would be so. Thus God's foreknowledge rest entirely in his own purposes, and is not in the least bit contingent upon man's actions — but on the contrary, it is God's foreknowledge that determines what man's actions will be.
Thus, we are left with to logically conclude that man's sinful actions originate entirely with God, and are not in the least bit contingent upon any choice of man — including Adam's sin, because his fall was also foreknown "before" there was anything to foreknow other than God's eternal purpose. If this view were true, God would be without a doubt the source of sin; and man's actions being completely predetermined by God, to speak of free will is meaningless, because God's will is completely determinative.
Any Calvinist willing to own up to these conclusions? If not, explain why. You can argue that your view is correct based on Scripture—but you should at least just come out and admit that you believe God is the author of sin. If you cannot admit that, then you must explain foreknowledge in terms in which God is not the only active participant, simply playing out in history what he alone had decided to do.
CP: I wonder if you might provided the biblical texts for you statement that God works all things according to His eternal purpose and foreknowledge?
FJ:
Just for good measure, 1st Peter 1:2:
CP: Not being privy to the counsel of the Almighty, I do not know the details of the mechanism(s) that God uses to predetermine the free choices men make.
FJ: And yet you are sure that God determines every choice, not because he foreknows them, but because he decreed them? Who filled you in on that counsel of the Almighty? But the haughty Assyrians were not sisters of charity before they invaded Israel my friend. They were already proud.
CP: As predetermined to be so by God, yes.
FJ: So God decreed that the Assyrians would choose evil, not because he foreknew that they would choose evil, but simply because he decreed that it would be so? If so, then God is the author of sin, and the Assyrians are completely passive. And Foreknowledge — you left that part out. That's the problem here. Too much focus on one aspect of verses like this, and too little to the parts that don't fit your views.
CP: According to my Greek sources, the word prognosis used here and elsewhere in the NT carries with it a sense of predetermination, of prior choice, and not just mere perception (cf. Rom 8:29). In 1 Pet. 1:20, the word is used in relation to none other than Jesus Christ. Surely God our Father did something a little more active than just perceiving the death of His Son?
FJ: Here is what my Greek source says on the subject (Kittle's TDNT, abridged):
CP: Surely your view demands that the foreknowledge of God is a passive thing, mere intellectual perception of something happening - to which God then reacts to. The universe is a series of random events that God somehow molds to His purpose.
FJ: God is not passive, but neither is he the mover behind all choices or actions. He gives no man strength for lies, says Sirach. In your view, he determines those lies and decrees them from the foundation of the world, and only foreknows them because he determines them, not the other way around. Thus your view would make God the author of sin.
CP: God doesn't do anything until man does something first.
FJ: God does plenty prior to man's doing something—but in your view, God is the only active participant. All others are passive, doing only what God has decreed. I have not said that God has no influence on men—in fact, if you wish to discuss it, we can talk about the doctrine of synergy.
If you found this little exchange interesting and would like to read the entire exchange, you can do so by clicking HERE.
God bless!
I didn't grow up in a Christian household. I didn't grow up in a Christian environment. So, when I finally responded to The Call, I was forced to make other choices. I had to choose a church. So I went to church. However, I began to notice that the church and what I read in the bible were at odds. So I began to go to other churches. There too there were teachings, doctrines and traditions that didn't commune with the scriptures. I began to search out the answers to these questions on my own. It bothered me that most denominations, unless they were brand new, didn't look anything like the denomination in question originally looked like. The point of this little story is to illustrate the fact that by going to these churches and asking questions they comparatively staged a debate. Who was right on which issues and in regards to certain doctrines, ways of living the Faith and in regards to what it means to be Christian? The Baptists or the Methodists? The Evangelicals or the Wesleyans? The Lutherans or the Calvinists? etc.
So that's why I'm offering the following exchange between an Orthodox Priest and a few Calvinist Protestants. It does get heated but never gets personal. Passionate but not without self-control. Not only is this representative of what I consider a good debate, but it's also a very interesting subject: Free Will vs Determinism
Dialogue on Free Will & Determinism
FJ: It has been asserted that foreknowledge of a choice, necessarily determines that choice, and eliminates other possibilities as possibilities.
Let's take the godless world of Star Trek, just to test whether this logic holds up. At the most, the Trek universe has some sort of personless force behind it... certainly no being who governs the affairs of men.
Now suppose that a person in this godless universe discovers a way to go back into the past, but can only go back into the past as an invisible, passive observer. They go back 10 years, and happen to be at a location and time which they well recall—thus they know what will happen, and thus what choices will be made. How would such a passive observer's knowledge change the nature of the choices that were made, which previously were absolutely free choices?
Calvinists typically make the point that God's foreknowledge cannot be based on his simply knowing the future, because he knew it prior to these future events, and thus could only know it because he decreed that it would be so. Thus God's foreknowledge rest entirely in his own purposes, and is not in the least bit contingent upon man's actions — but on the contrary, it is God's foreknowledge that determines what man's actions will be.
Thus, we are left with to logically conclude that man's sinful actions originate entirely with God, and are not in the least bit contingent upon any choice of man — including Adam's sin, because his fall was also foreknown "before" there was anything to foreknow other than God's eternal purpose. If this view were true, God would be without a doubt the source of sin; and man's actions being completely predetermined by God, to speak of free will is meaningless, because God's will is completely determinative.
Any Calvinist willing to own up to these conclusions? If not, explain why. You can argue that your view is correct based on Scripture—but you should at least just come out and admit that you believe God is the author of sin. If you cannot admit that, then you must explain foreknowledge in terms in which God is not the only active participant, simply playing out in history what he alone had decided to do.
CP: I wonder if you might provided the biblical texts for you statement that God works all things according to His eternal purpose and foreknowledge?
FJ:
(Acts 2:23) Him, being delivered by [1] the determined purpose and [2] foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands , have crucified, and put to death.
(Romans 8:29) For whom He Foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also Glorified.
Thus, we see four stages, laid out in a chain like sequence—and what is the first link in the chain? Foreknowledge.(Romans 8:29) For whom He Foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also Glorified.
Just for good measure, 1st Peter 1:2:
..elect according to the foreknowledge of God the father....
If God is in absolute control of men's hearts, why does he then command men to make for themselves a new heart (signifying a new disposition of the will)? It would be as senseless as a puppeteer commanding his puppet to get up. How does God cause men to do evil?
CP: Not being privy to the counsel of the Almighty, I do not know the details of the mechanism(s) that God uses to predetermine the free choices men make.
FJ: And yet you are sure that God determines every choice, not because he foreknows them, but because he decreed them? Who filled you in on that counsel of the Almighty? But the haughty Assyrians were not sisters of charity before they invaded Israel my friend. They were already proud.
CP: As predetermined to be so by God, yes.
FJ: So God decreed that the Assyrians would choose evil, not because he foreknew that they would choose evil, but simply because he decreed that it would be so? If so, then God is the author of sin, and the Assyrians are completely passive. And Foreknowledge — you left that part out. That's the problem here. Too much focus on one aspect of verses like this, and too little to the parts that don't fit your views.
CP: According to my Greek sources, the word prognosis used here and elsewhere in the NT carries with it a sense of predetermination, of prior choice, and not just mere perception (cf. Rom 8:29). In 1 Pet. 1:20, the word is used in relation to none other than Jesus Christ. Surely God our Father did something a little more active than just perceiving the death of His Son?
FJ: Here is what my Greek source says on the subject (Kittle's TDNT, abridged):
Proginosko, prognosis. The verb means "to know in advance," and in the NT it refers to God's foreknowledge as election of His people (Rome 8:29; 11:2) or of Christ (1st Peter 1:20), or to the advance knowledge that believers have by prophesy (2nd Peter 3:17). Another possible meaning is "to know before the time of speaking," as in acts 26:5. The noun is used in the LXX in Jdt. 9:6 for God's predeterminitive foreknowledge and in Jdt 11:19 for prophetic foreknowledge; Justin uses it similiarly in "Dialogue with Trypho 92.5, 39.5"
Just to aid you Protestants, here are the quotes from Judith:
(9:6) the things you decide on come forward ad say, "Here we are!" All your ways are in readiness, and your judgement is made with foreknowledge.
(11:19) I will lead you through Judea, till you come to Jerusalem, and there I will set up your judgement seat. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and not even a dog will growl at you. This was told me, and announced to me in advance, and I in turn have been sent to tell you.
As for 1st Peter 1:20, let's look at it: (11:19) I will lead you through Judea, till you come to Jerusalem, and there I will set up your judgement seat. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and not even a dog will growl at you. This was told me, and announced to me in advance, and I in turn have been sent to tell you.
He indeed was foreknown before before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.
The contrast in this verse is clear, God knew beforehand, what was revealed to us in Christ in these last times. Two other examples of how the Petrine epistles use this term have been cited—and both of them are clearly in reference to knowledge that is prior to something. In this case, the knowledge is prior to the manifestation of Christ in time.
CP: Surely your view demands that the foreknowledge of God is a passive thing, mere intellectual perception of something happening - to which God then reacts to. The universe is a series of random events that God somehow molds to His purpose.
FJ: God is not passive, but neither is he the mover behind all choices or actions. He gives no man strength for lies, says Sirach. In your view, he determines those lies and decrees them from the foundation of the world, and only foreknows them because he determines them, not the other way around. Thus your view would make God the author of sin.
CP: God doesn't do anything until man does something first.
FJ: God does plenty prior to man's doing something—but in your view, God is the only active participant. All others are passive, doing only what God has decreed. I have not said that God has no influence on men—in fact, if you wish to discuss it, we can talk about the doctrine of synergy.
If you found this little exchange interesting and would like to read the entire exchange, you can do so by clicking HERE.
God bless!
