The Misses and I are currently working our way through a study on the doctrines of grace. In the book we are reading, we recently read a chapter on God's foreknowledge of all events (past, present, and future). One of the arguments the author seems to be making can be summed up with the following:
--- Foreknowledge implies certainty. Certainty implies foreordination. ---
Now I am not saying that I disagree with the above. Common sense dictates that this must be true. For example, if I were a teacher giving a pop quiz to my students. For me to have foreknowledge of the quiz answers, I must be certain of the questions on the quiz. For me to be certain of the questions on the quiz, I would have had to have predetermined what they were going to be, whether I created them myself or selected them from a teacher resource book.
What I am attempting to explore with this line of thought (and hopefully discussion) is if there is another possibility, one which we have not considered, such that the summation above is actually a non sequitur argument. Which is to say that though foreknowledge does imply the certainty of events, does certainty really imply foreordination? And the bigger question - Does God's foreknowledge prove foreordination?
I suppose my whole problem with this seemingly common sense observation is that it is just that-common sense, and more specifically common sense from the perpspective of a finite mind. Certainly I have considered that I am overthinking this, but I cannot shake this verse
Isaiah 55:8“ For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
It just seems to me that by applying our logic and understanding, we are limiting God's power. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Oh snap! Did Zai just post a question that would allow me to possibly tie theology and philosophy in relation to predestination? Wow, and it's not even Christmas!
My mouth watered as I read through your post, Zai. Excellent issues to think about.
First, foreknowledge does necessitate foreordination if it's any real type of knowledge at all, and in God's mind, if something is known, it's with the highest degree of certainty. God is not subject to anything, so He did not ordain anything to come pass in response to anything He foresaw. However, God has never not known what He would foreordain.
Second, no object, substance or person could exist nor could any event come to pass if God did not create it or ordain it, that is, will it into being. For in Him "we live and move and have our beings" (Acts 17) and "in Him all things consists" (Col 1). God does not only brings things into being, as in creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), but wills them to continue existing.
Logic alone disproves the Arminian doctrine of conditional election, that is God looking into the future to see who would believe in Christ and then choose them for salvation. One, it assumes that things exist apart from God in that He sees a universe filled with people able to choose Christ. A universe that He would not have at that point willed into existence unless He decides to ordain that particular universe with those particular situations.
Second, for God to have options of different universes to choose from, it's still an "unconditional election." He could have opted for other universes in which different people would be saved through coming to faith in Christ. In that case, God would have selected one group of individuals He saw coming to faith in a hypothetical universe over other possible outcomes if He were to create other universes.
Everyone still with me? I admit that may have sounded a bit abstract. Maybe go back and read it again if you didn't follow my line of reasoning. I'll post more to explain myself further if needed.
And onto your last point, Zai, concerning God's thoughts not being our thoughts. The Isaiah passage is not saying that God is not a God of logic and reason. God created us in His image, in analogy to Himself, as creatures of reason so that we could communicate with Him. Since the Fall, we fail to utilize logic and reason correctly, but that does not mean that logic and reason are themselves fallen. They carry metaphysical sustenance since they reflect the nature of God, like other laws God has embedded in nature. And like those laws, such as gravity, they remain intact.
With that said, reason is something the Bible assumes we have. It gives analogies, syllogisms, either/or arguments, if this/then that arguments, and more. The most fundamental law of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.
In an issue as elementary as obedience and disobedience, the law is demonstrated. No one can obey and disobey at the same time and in the same sense. We depend to know the difference in what God commands us to do, which implies not doing the opposite. The same when God commands what we're not to do, it implies not to do the opposite.
If we depend on the law of non-contradiction in governing our own actions and words, how can God not function in the same way? If He didn't, we wouldn't be able to trust Him at His word. As R.C. Sproul stated, if God did not hold to the law of non-contradiction as a God of logic, then in God's mind Christ could be the Christ (A) and the anti-Christ (non-A). How could we then understand or even trust God at His word. After all, if His ways were not our ways in the sense of logic, that would mean He could violate the very laws He has put into our minds to make sense of the data we are given.
All this is not to say that God is bound by man's logic. God gave logic and the principles of knowledge that we use as reflection of His nature. He is not a "god of confusion." He is an orderly Creator. The same with His moral laws, they are not arbitrary but a reflection of His nature. We should not lie because it tells mistruths about our God whose essence is truth.
As a God of logic, He is not bound nor mocked. The ability to go against logic is a deficiency rather than a sufficiency. We have an immutable God who will never go against logic because that would be to go against His very nature, which would be a contradiction itself.
God's thoughts not being our thoughts is meant more to show that God does not do things in the same way we do. To man, for God as the second person of the Trinity to become a man, live a perfect life and suffer God's wrath for human sin in the place of man and then rise from the grave sounds like foolishness. But it's through the foolishness of this message that God has ordained to bring about the salvation of sinners. The plan of redemption concocted in the mind of God is something no human mind could conjure up, much less expect or comprehend.
However, that is the reality, and it's through preaching this gospel of a sovereign and infinitely wise God sending His Son to die for His people that we bring God glory. Out of all the possible universes He could have brought to pass, God chose to glorify Himself through this one, the best of all possible worlds in the end. His ways indeed are not our ways.
Paul said it best after contemplating similar matters:
"'Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?'
'Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?'
For(F) from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11:33-36).
Excellent reply Haze. I was right with you on pretty much everything, but I would appreciate if you could comment a bit more on your paragraphs "Logic alone disproves the Arminian doctrine of conditional election..." and "Second, for God to have options...".
If the second paragraph is the realization of the point you were headed to with the first, then I understand, but if not, a bit more comment I think would help straighten me out. :)
I absolutely agree that God uses logic and reasoning. Evidence is certainly present all around us with the logical way (primarily the cause/effect relationship) in which the systems of the world (and cosmos) work. My post was more along the lines of exploring the possibility of God’s use of a higher form of logic, or a system of logic that we cannot understand. However, as you point out that we are created in His image, it certainly seems logical that He utilize the same reasoning faculties He provided us, though clearly with the advantage of infinite understanding.
Thanks, Zai. I anticipated having to follow through on a couple of points since propositions like these are so difficult to condense.
Let me clarify what I meant in saying that logic alone disproves the Arminian view of election.
First, classical Arminianism holds that in God choosing those in Christ before the foundation of the world, God looked down the corridors of time to see every person who would repent and trust in Christ. Seeing that, God then predestined the salvation of each of those persons. They base this view on texts such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:29-30.
J.I. Packer explained the difference between the Calvinist view of election and the Arminian view by saying the following:
The Arminian says, "I owe my election to my faith." The Calvinist, on the other hand, says, "I owe my faith to my election."
Now, let me qualify what I meant in my last post in saying logic alone disproves the Arminian view. I am not saying that Scripture is not needed. That's the first reason we disagree with Arminianism; it's not compatible with the testimony of Scripture. But, in addition to the Scripture's incompatibility with the system, logic reveals its shortcomings of Arminianism, with a high degree of certainty I might add.
When examining the Arminian doctrine of election, you must realize that they're proposing a universe that hasn't come into existence yet. They're saying that God looks into the future of a universe He hasn't yet ordained to come about. After all, if He had ordained that universe and all it contains and all that happens within it, then He would have also ordained all the conversions of those who would come to faith in that universe.
It's almost as if they're separating the decrees of God. In other words, they hold that He ordains the creation and other events, but not salvation. That comes later, the Arminian would say, but as we Calvinists know, all things are intertwined, even the sparrow doesn't fall apart from the Father's will (Matt 10:29-30). God, in bringing about His redemptive purpose, ordained a sequence of events, not isolated happenings.
Therefore, in holding that God chooses or elects based upon the sinner's foreseen response to the gospel, the Arminians have God looking into a "hypothetical" universe. Yes, hypothetical in the mind of God, but hypothetical nonetheless. And could a universe exist if God does not will it to be, that is, give such a universe the ability to exist? It's as if this universe could somehow exist and be thought of apart from God, like it's floating around in the realm of ideas for God to look into.
In other words, they're saying that God looks into an "idea" of a universe in which sinners respond to the gospel -- an idea that somehow exists independently. The idea of such a universe cannot exist apart from the mind of God, much less could the universe itself exist. If such a universe were to exist, God would have to will it into existence. If it were only a universe that would hypothetically exist and not eventually and actually exist, then such a universe was never going to exist in the first place since God could only look into the future of a universe that would be actual rather than hypothetical.
Let me qualify the previous paragraph in saying that God knows all possibilities imaginable in any situation imaginable. I'm not limiting God in stating the above. He knows such circumstances only as they are, which is hypothetical and not actual. Therefore, He knows all possibilities in their hypothetical sense because He knows they will not be actual. Whew!
With all that said, I'll try to sum up my first point with this:
How can God look into "the future" unless it is actually the future? The future implies a universe and all the events leading up to it, and those cannot exist apart from God. God has to ordain the future for it to actually be the future. The Arminians have God looking into a future He has not sustained.
Such a view falls on its face because it's saying God waits to see what happens before He ordains anything -- when those things cannot happen unless God wills or permits them to. It's like saying, God predestines once He has seen what He has predestined come to pass.
I may have made this more confusing. Hopefully, you're still with me. I apologize to everyone if that was redundant it times, but it really took me that length of text to both think through it and to explain it sufficiently.
And in explaining the second paragraph you asked about, if God were to choose based on foreseen faith, as the Arminians hold, it would remain an "unconditional" election in one sense. God would be choosing one universe out of other possible universes with sinners responding to the gospel. Therefore, He would be choosing one universe in which certain sinners come to Christ over another universe where it's possible for other sinners to come to saving faith.
God would then be electing one universe over another, whereas He could have chosen another universe. Hence, it remains an unconditional election because it would be up to God's preference.
After typing all of that, I'm not sure if this post helped anyone. If nothing else, it allowed me to think the issue through to the point of verbalization. Not to mention, it kept me occupied at work when there was nothing else going on.
Let me know your thoughts, Zai.
Zai, ignore this if it's confusing.
Concerning God and Logic. I had to wrestle with a similar issue in college. Mine was God and religious language. forgive the differences, but the solution is the same.
Problem: How do we know we're talking about God? We have love. We have (at least some) power. We have mercy, and we have justice.
How do we know that we're actually talking about God and not just making up some super-human who has these qualities, but perfectly?
We are created in the image of God.
God is loving. Therefore, we know what love is. We have (some) love because God first has all-love.
God is all-powerful. Therefore, we know what power is. We have (some) power, because God first has all power.
The same goes with other attributes, right down to reason.
God is reasonable. We understand logic and reason because God first is reasonable, and he has given us reason as a part of our being created in his image.
Now, Since God is more powerful than us, and is more loving than us, God may very well operate at a "higher" or "better" (forgive the lack of better words) form of reason to ours, but it WILL NOT go against any reason that we can understand.
Ex.:
I don't know exactly why God decrees tornados to ravage schools and kill people. I don't know why God has it in his sovereign plan that gunmen go to schools and kill people. I don't know why babies are born diseased and deformed.
I DO know that 2 + 2 = 4. 2+2 will ALWAYS = 4. IF (and i stress IF here. i am merely speculating) God operates at a "higher" reason, 2+2 will still be 4 to God.
That make sense?
If we can understand when an argument is contradictory, then the argument IS contradictory. To God, the argument will still be contradictory.
I understand that 2+2=4. I do not understand that Hurricane Katrina + New Orleans = Good.
I know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to his purpose.
make sense at all? or am i rambling pointlessly?
As R.C. Sproul said: "I certainly agree that God is bigger than logic and faith is higher than reason...What I want to avoid is a God that is smaller than logic and faith that is lower than reason."
Reason + Us being able to understand it = created in the image of God.
hope that didn't make things more confusing, --Elijah
Post a Comment