Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[danielwoods]

You certainly seem to believe that God can do all sorts of contradictory things.

And yet I answered your question directly, why couldn't you do me the same courtesy?

[Paloma]

Especially when the scriptures indicate that it is His will that all men are saved. (1 Tim 2:4)

We see in Scripture that the image of God in each person includes the capacity to make moral choices. We can obey or disobey, and we can choose good or evil.

We also see in Scripture that while God gives humanity this freedom of choice, He knows the end from the beginning. In His wisdom and grace, He is working out His eternal purposes. (Philippians 2: 12-13).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is a very understandable question. As someone who considers himself a Calvinist I believe that all people who come to faith in Christ do so because God has drawn them first (John 6:44) so yes the argument could be raised why witness at all

This is a true inquiry, so please do not take offense.

1st an observation...In my years as a Latter-day Saint (34 years) I have never met, nor had conversations be they in person or on the Internet in anti-Mormon (your words) who were not Calvinist. Can you tell why this is the case. I will of course allow for the 2%'I have talked with, "not" knowing?

Now the question...Of course some above in the observation.

Anti-Mormon's often speak of the elitism of Mormonism, how God only allows the faithful to enter into his presence. This is course is not true via D&C 137 and even the causal observer can see it. How can a Calvinist claim some other belief system as being elite, when the very definition is that Calvinist's alone are the chosen?

To Mormons or even to the Baptist Church in which I was raised this is a direct conflict with John 3: 16, in short Christ died for all and all can chose him. The Bible is clear that Christ was lifted upon the cross that he might lead "all" men unto him. Just as the serpent was lifted up that "all" who will look upon it and be healed.

Edit to add...

This world also mean that you are seeking the change of all Mormons or even entire families of one you may reach but the chosen with that family. When I say "you", I speak of all Calvinist's.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[bluebell]

We see in Scripture that the image of God in each person includes the capacity to make moral choices. We can obey or disobey, and we can choose good or evil.

We also see in Scripture that while God gives humanity this freedom of choice, He knows the end from the beginning. In His wisdom and grace, He is working out His eternal purposes. (Philippians 2: 12-13).

This is one of the things that confuses me. Doesn't the doctrine of irresistible grace imply that humans have no choice in the matter (when it comes to salvation)?

Sorry to keep asking these questions of you when I know you aren't a five point Calvinist, so hopefully those who are will also respond.

[Vance]

And yet I answered your question directly, why couldn't you do me the same courtesy?

I don't believe God can do contradictory things. I am perfectly fine with the concept that God is limited in that way. To me it doesn't diminish Him in any way. Therefore, I don't believe that God creates ex nihilo. It is contrary to free will and I do believe in free will. But God doesn't need to create ex nihilo to be worthy of worship or to have "all power" (as the scriptures describe it). Ex nihilo is NOT found in the scriptures and therefore is a violation of the "sola scriptura" concept. Not that I accept "sola scriptura". Quite frankly, "sola scriptura" is self contradictory.

[Vance]

We see in Scripture that the image of God in each person includes the capacity to make moral choices. We can obey or disobey, and we can choose good or evil.

Correct.

We also see in Scripture that while God gives humanity this freedom of choice, He knows the end from the beginning. In His wisdom and grace, He is working out His eternal purposes. (Philippians 2: 12-13).

Correct. On this, we are in full agreement. Edited August 8, 2013 by Vance

[kassie]

False.

I used an example, that even programers of computers think might be possible.

Human beings are NOT computers!!!!!

[Calm]

That is EXACTLY what Daniel has been doing here. So now you have seen it.

No, I have not. I don't believe you are interpreting him correctly, but instead applying our assumptions to his argument rather than dealing with his arguments from assumptions to conclusions themselves.

[Calm]

Unless God was able to create free moral agents.

I think we agree that God is a free moral agent.

Now I can see God as being able to create free moral agents only under one condition, that he was able to impart that which made him a free moral agent to that which he created. Perhaps one could describe this as taking of his own essence and placing it within Man. When I read your comment about man being created in the "image of God", this is what occurred to me.

However, I think him being able to simply give that attribute in himself to something he created (as opposed to it being an inherited attribute in his children) may be impossible. There is no way to prove it one way or the other at this point, either way (that he can or can't) it is an article of faith.

Edited August 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

However he is ultimately in control over their wills such that all things that happen, happen according to his plan and purpose. So Calvinists believe both that God is totally sovereign yet man is morally accountable for the choices he makes.

Now this does sound like your assumptions are contradictory (God is in total control, man is morally accountable even though he isn't in total control of himself)...unless one defines morally accountable in a different way than is in normal usage.

[danielwoods]

I think we agree that God is a free moral agent.

Now I can see God as being able to create free moral agents only under one condition, that he was able to impart that which made him a free moral agent to that which he created. Perhaps one could describe this as taking of his own essence and placing it within Man. When I read your comment about man being created in the "image of God", this is what occurred to me.

Thanks, I appreciate your candor. I think we are in enough agreement here that I don't want to pick at too small of details.

However, I think him being able to simply give that attribute in himself to something he created (as opposed to it being an inherited attribute in his children) may be impossible. There is no way to prove it one way or the other at this point, either way (that he can or can't) it is an article of faith.

Right, it is an article of faith.

Curious distinction though (one God creates using his word, the other he "pro-creates" using nature?). It appears to me that this distinction stems from our different views of God's nature. Who he is, etc.

[jwhitlock]

The idea that there is a clear contradiction between creating a free-will being out of nothing isn't established by your simply claiming such is true.

It's established by the fact that it's a logical impossibility, just like saying an omniscient God can get lost.

[jwhitlock]

Not quite an accurate portrayal of those beliefs. Christian Orthodoxy doesn't rely on indefensible doctrines.

Except that I hear exactly that when I talk to a wide variety of orthodox christians.

Same. Logical contradictions such as can God create a rock to heavy to lift, have no bearing on the actual doctrine of omnipotence.

When an orthodox christian, presented with a clear logical contradiction insists that God can do it anyway because He is omnipotent, then it does indeed have bearing.

The stock answer isn't "God can do anything he wants." Rather, it all comes back to his word. But I can understand the confusion, if you attempt to view it through the lens of the "restored" gospel.

Actually that has been the stock answer. And it doesn't come back to His word; it comes back to your or my interpretation of the scriptures.

[jwhitlock]

Your claim is God can't create a free-willed being.

It's interesting how you left out the "out of nothing" clause in what you claimed I said. Please be accurate.

[jwhitlock]

I don't believe I've ever heard a nonLDS Christian claim that God can do illogical or contradictory things. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. They might say they appear to be illogical to us or contradictory or their claims that something is logical may appear to us to be wrong, but that they believe God actually does illogical things...no, I don't believe this and if this is your actual claim and I have not misunderstood you, I would appreciate a CFR to demonstrate that this occurs.

Danielwoods responses have been a prime example of this. To claim that God can create someone out of nothing and then abdicate responsibility for the results of what that being chooses because He gave it "free will" is simply a logical contradiction. It can't happen that way. You've dug down into it pretty far on this thread to understand why it can't be. And yet his response is that God can do just that.

When talking with non-LDS christians, I typically find them saying that they believe God is omnipotent (and yes, they do say that means He can do absolutely anything), and yet when presented with this and other logical contradictions, I really don't get any direct response to it.

You can say that DW works off his own set of base assumptions, and that's very true. However, those assumptions can be challenged, especially when they present logical contradictions. While one may disagree with LDS doctrine, it is rather difficult to find a logical contradiction in it. On the other hand, when you look at predestination, free will, creatio ex nihilo, and omnipotence, it has been my experience that orthodox christians really don't have any good responses to the logical contradictions presented other than to say that God can do anything.

Non-LDS christians will not typically acknowledge such logical contradictions. Instead, since their base assumption is that God can do anything, then it no longer becomes a logical contradiction in their eyes. Yet that is clearly circular logic.

What's been interesting about DW's posts is that they are consistent with what I have stated above. There isn't any clear scriptural support for predestination, creatio ex nihilo and absolute omnipotence that trumps other reasonable explanations for the same passages. Yet because such doctrines are "orthodox", then they are "clearly" (in their minds) then supported by the scriptures. More circular reasoning.

As I have stated earlier in the thread, I contend that the claim that God makes free-willed beings out of nothing, and that He is not responsible for their choices to be an extraordinary claim. It flies against logic. So there must be extraordinary evidence to back it up. We have not been presented with such evidence.

[webbles]

True to a point.

The key question is concerning moral agency. Can God create a free moral agent or not? If he can then knowing all the input/outputs wouldn't be enough.

I agree, that the programing will dictate and will reflect what the designer intended (Which is why I believe in Intelligent Design). And if the designer intended for the program to have moral agency (at say age 12), then why is it impossible for him to have designed it that way? What is the limitation here for God the ultimate programer? What is limiting him? What exactly is stopping him from programing his creations in this way?

As a programmer, I don't believe it is possible to make a "free moral agent" program. If I made a program that supposedly was a "free moral agent", I'd still be able to control it so that it isn't free. How? By taking the said program, making a duplicate, running the duplicate through a whole bunch of tests to figure out what inputs are needed for which outputs and then deleting said duplicate. I now can control the original how ever I want to. Because in the end, a program is just a black box that converts inputs into outputs.

To make a "free moral agent", you'd have to insert something that somehow uses something other than inputs to make the outputs. Can God make something like that? Sure, except He wouldn't be able to know everything about the program. Because if He knows everything about the program or what inputs will result in what outputs, it is not a "free moral agent" but instead a program (because it just converts known inputs into known outputs). It has to be able to do things that even God wouldn't know for it to be a true "free moral agent". Anything less might look like a "free moral agent" but it is pseudo-free.

[Paloma]

This is one of the things that confuses me. Doesn't the doctrine of irresistible grace imply that humans have no choice in the matter (when it comes to salvation)?

Sorry to keep asking these questions of you when I know you aren't a five point Calvinist, so hopefully those who are will also respond.

As I understand it, the doctrine of irresistible grace refers to God creating the conditions whereby He effectively calls people and gives them regeneration or new life (or spirit-quickening), guaranteeing that we will respond in faith.

Sorry I don't have much time now, and I won't be on the board for a few days now. I hope you'll hear from the five-pointers on this, too!

I realize that one answer draws out more questions and more ... To me, that is inevitably so when trying to understand the mysteries of God and His saving grace. But I think we can understand more than enough to know Him relationally, to love and serve Him, and experience His love and purposes for our lives.

[jwhitlock]

Arminianism states:

"God, by an eternal and unchangeable decree in Christ before the existence of the world, determined to elect from the fallen and sinful human race to everlasting life all those who, through God's grace, believe in Jesus Christ and persevere in faith and obedience ... Christ the Saviour of the world died for all and every human being, so that he obtained through his death on the cross, reconciliation and pardon for all, in such a way, however, that only the faithful actually enjoy the same".

Appreciate your thoughts. I did want to comment on the quote above in the context of my discussions with many fundamentalists and EVs about salvation and predestination.

Perseverance as presented here is closer to LDS doctrine than it is to what many EVs and fundamentalists believe, where there is (among many, but not all) a definite belief that once you're saved, you're always saved. Perseverance has very little to do with it. It is among that group that I most often encounter a more hard line approach to predestination having to do with the strict election or damnation of individuals by God. This is not based on choice or free will, but is something purely and solely determined by God himself for reasons we cannot understand.

In that context, your post does point out the wide variety of beliefs among traditional, fundamentalist, orthodox, evangelical, etc. christians about something that is rather foundational. When you present the concept of predestination to a group of christians, you're most likely to get a wide variety of opinions about what it really means.

[Paloma]

Appreciate your thoughts. I did want to comment on the quote above in the context of my discussions with many fundamentalists and EVs about salvation and predestination.

Perseverance as presented here is closer to LDS doctrine than it is to what many EVs and fundamentalists believe, where there is (among many, but not all) a definite belief that once you're saved, you're always saved. Perseverance has very little to do with it. It is among that group that I most often encounter a more hard line approach to predestination having to do with the strict election or damnation of individuals by God. This is not based on choice or free will, but is something purely and solely determined by God himself for reasons we cannot understand.

In that context, your post does point out the wide variety of beliefs among traditional, fundamentalist, orthodox, evangelical, etc. christians about something that is rather foundational. When you present the concept of predestination to a group of christians, you're most likely to get a wide variety of opinions about what it really means.

Yes, I understand that (i.e. your last statement), and I think that's why it's wonderful to have real dialogue where we listen to each other and try to understand where folks are coming from.

[jwhitlock]

Amen!

I wanted to give you a rep point twice now today but I've used them all up. Normally, you and I disagree on much. I think I've given you more points in the last day than ever.

This is indeed rather odd. I've agreed totally with you on two threads now. I'm trying to get my head around all of this...

[Calm]

Thanks, I appreciate your candor. I think we are in enough agreement here that I don't want to pick at too small of details.

I get that there is likely some fundamental difference on what essence is such that I may not understand how you perceive it, but agree that if we can get this far, it might be a good place to stop. Now I doubt that Vance agrees, but he is approaching the discussion from a different vantage so that isn't going to bother me.

Right, it is an article of faith.

Which means to me there is really nothing to argue about, I don't have to accept your articles of faith as binding on me, you don't have to accept mine as binding on you, neither of us have to accept them as logical or naturally following from whatever such that everyone has to agree on it...we all have articles of faith on which our faith is based that we can't really explain.

It appears to me that this distinction stems from our different views of God's nature. Who he is, etc.

I would definitely agree.

[Calm]

Thanks, I appreciate your candor. I think we are in enough agreement here that I don't want to pick at too small of details.

I get that there is likely some fundamental difference on what essence is such that I may not understand how you perceive it, but agree that if we can get this far, it might be a good place to stop. Now I doubt that Vance agrees, but he is approaching the discussion from a different vantage so that isn't going to bother me.

Right, it is an article of faith.

Which means to me there is really nothing to argue about, I don't have to accept your articles of faith as binding on me, you don't have to accept mine as binding on you, neither of us have to accept them as logical or naturally following from whatever such that everyone has to agree on it...we all have articles of faith on which our faith is based that we can't really explain.

It appears to me that this distinction stems from our different views of God's nature. Who he is, etc.

I would definitely agree.

[Calm]

Danielwoods responses have been a prime example of this.

I don't see it that way. I think you are attributing to him some pure calvinist beliefs that he doesn't hold. I may be wrong, but that the two of us have been able to come to an agreement on what he has said that makes sense to me even if I don't agree with it seems to me to be a very good indication that he is not a pure calvinist as djholmes appears to me because as much as I have admired some pure calvinists that I know, I have never been able to understand their reasoning once it gets to their assumptions.

Orthodox Christians have a wide range of assumptions about the nature of God, some have thought it through back to their assumptions, some have not (just like LDS, some have, some haven't). I think if we start applying the same assumptions to all orthodox Christians we will only contribute to the confusion, not help clear it up.

Having a large number of assumptions that one takes on faith isn't inherently problematic even if it can be unsatisfying in these kinds of discussions. LDS have tons of assumptions we take on faith as well

I think this type of discussion is very important though because it does focus attention on those very assumptions which are way too often ignored.

Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

As I have stated earlier in the thread, I contend that the claim that God makes free-willed beings out of nothing

But this is not exactly what Daniel has stated...he has stated that while God has created beings out of nothing, that God has also imparted to them something that is described as creating them in the image of God that gives them free will as God possesses it (at least in part). Maybe it's a kind of black box thing, but whatever the gift, it allows men to operate on a free will basis without God controlling every choice they make. (Hopefully daniel will stop me if I am taking this too far for his actual beliefs, my apologies if so.)

This is not a pure calvinist position from what I see.

However, those assumptions can be challenged, especially when they present logical contradictions.

I agree, but I don't see his as automatically contradicting due to what I describe above. God added something to his creation out of nothing of himself. Thus he can both make a being out of nothing and also that being, being perhaps given that special something when given the breath of life (as opposed to being formed out of dust), can have free will, in that it shares something with God, being in His image.

I get the feeling that daniel has chosen to leave it at the simple statement of faith and not worry about the mechanics so what I've said above may not apply to his position....but it does demonstrate that his position isn't inherently contradictory...though he may have other assumptions that cause it to be that I haven't discussed with him yet and which I don't believe have been brought up by him in this thread or others I've read by him.

I see another possibility where God did not take of his own essence but instead used his essence/nature to model or as a template for the free will nature of man, he recreated a part of his nature in man. That would be total creation out of nothing in the sense of 'material' but not in the sense of originality so to speak.

Now this could contradict with assumptions about the gap between God and man and whether or not man is in any way a partaker of the divine nature...but as I said, I don't think we've gone that far in the discussion yet.

Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

To me, that is inevitably so when trying to understand the mysteries of God and His saving grace. But I think we can understand more than enough to know Him relationally, to love and serve Him, and experience His love and purposes for our lives.

Eventually we all get to the point where we have to say "I don't know how that works" being mortal men talking about an immortal being at this point. However, as you've beautifully stated that doesn't mean we can't understand enough to make a fundamental connection or bond with God, whether through covenants or whatever our version is of coming face to face with Him (if you don't feel comfortable taking that last part literally, I'm great with it being symbolic in nature).