Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Free will and predestination are logically incompatible. Free will means "under no compulsion", and compulsion is everywhere in world that is predestined.
This is an incredibly complicated issue, and there is no consensus on how exactly to reconcile the two even within the Church. We do know dogmatically that both a) man has free will and b) God predestines some to eternal life.
"The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possess an infallible knowledge of man’s future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man’s future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind. As a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God‘s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man’s freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church—both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas—attempt to solve in different ways." - Free Will - Catholic Encyclopedia
You are saying that God's anger is caused by something other than "not getting His way." but something else - injustice, which is not a thing that keeps God from getting His way. If that is right, then when injustice happens it isn't an example of God "not getting his way". In fact, you would have to say that injustice is his way. I am not saying that's true, but only pointing out the logical conclusion of the idea that God is angry about things that are not opposed to His will.
I would say that nothing happens outside of God's permissive will.
We witnessed God get angry in the person of Jesus Christ when He overturned the moneychangers' tables in the temple. God could have disallowed the entire event to occur if He had so decreed, thereby nipping the problem in the bud. For reasons unknown, He allowed it to take place and to make His anger known.
You said anger is the result of not getting our way.
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
God, at any time, can take the reigns of any situation and any person. But He does allow us some free will. And we will sin. And He doesn't like it.
If I read this right, part of the time we are under God's control, but then sometimes God lets us take the wheel and drive. When this happens we sometimes drive badly - steer the car in a direction God didn't want it to go, so to speak - - and it angers Him. That implies, doesn't it, that God didn't know we would drive badly? - - that the car smashing through the guardrail was never part of the divine plan unfolding in the world?
If something like that can happen - - if events can disturb His plans, then he doesn't know the future. Maybe that is because he voluntarily surrenders His omniscience and gives man the Godlike power of determining the course of future events.
We witnessed God get angry in the person of Jesus Christ when He overturned the moneychangers' tables in the temple. God could have disallowed the entire event to occur if He had so decreed, thereby nipping the problem in the bud. For reasons unknown, He allowed it to take place and to make His anger known.
We are all predestined to eternal life as Spirits with God. What happens here is purely a prologue. I personally see it as a spiritual pregnancy whose experiences are forming our spiritual body (character). As for the above episode, we interpret it as anger because that is what it would be if we did it. But it was merely showing us that defiling His temple with commerce displeases God. Luther reiterated that to the Roman Catholics!
To review a centuries-old debate, there is great difficulty in trying to explain why God, with His all-encompassing knowledge, power and goodness, should be angered by the actions of people. Anger is the result of not getting your way. If God is angry, something must have happened to thwart His desire . . . and that flies in the face of God's omni-attributes.
At this point, someone says, "Yes, but God voluntarily surrenders his omni-attributes to give man free will - - the ability to thwart the holy desire."
My answer to that is this: If God wants to surrender His Omni-attributes for the sake of free will, while allowing all the sin he foresaw in ages past to continue unchecked, then God's desire is not thwarted, and one wonders what there could be to be angry about.
No, it's not predestination vs free will. (I prefer the term 'volition' as the term 'free will' carries some philosophical baggage for some people). Predestination and 'free will' are not in conflict with each other.
God's foreknowledge does not inhibit man's free will or volition. God knowing something in advance does not affect what a man decides to do. A perfect example exists in 1 Samuel 23:1-13. David and his men were fleeing from king Saul who wanted to kill David. God told David to go and attack the Philistines who were fighting against Keilah. David was to deliver Keilah from the Philistines. God had promised David that He would deliver the Philistines into David's hand.
Having delivered the inhabitants of Keilah, this came to the attention of King Saul who believed that God had delivered David into his hand because David and his men were shut in a walled city with double gates and bars and could not escape. So Saul prepared to go to Keilah and take David and his men.
David learned of Saul's intentions and asked God by means of the ephod if Saul would come to Keilah as he had heard and God said yes. Then David asked if the men of Keilah would deliver David and his men to Saul. And again, God told David that yes, the men of Keilah would surrender him to Saul.
So in His foreknowledge God told David that Saul would come to Keilah and that the men of Keilah would surrender David and his men to Saul. God saw the future and told David what would happen. Except that neither of the things God said would happen happened. The reason? David simply took his men and left Keilah. Saul heard that David had left and so called off his plan to go to Keilah.
God hadn't made a mistake. He told David what was going to happen. But because David made the decision (volition at work) to leave Keilah, what God foresaw would happen didn't happen. David's volition was not hampered by God's foreknowledge.
So what that passage shows is that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination. Predestination and foreknowledge are separable.
As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser puts it,
''The theological point can be put this way. That which never happens can be foreknown by God, but it is not predestined since it never happened.''
''Since foreknowledge doesn't require predestination, foreknown events that happen may or may not have been predestined.''
The Unseen Realm, Michael Heiser, p. 65
And so, no, God does not have to surrender his 'omni-attributes' for the sake of man's free will.
Regarding God's 'anger,' I believe that to be anthropopathic language or language of accommodation - ascribing to God human feelings which He doesn't actually have but such language is used in order to help the finite mind of man understand the policies of eternal and infinite God.
To review a centuries-old debate, there is great difficulty in trying to explain why God, with His all-encompassing knowledge, power and goodness, should be angered by the actions of people. Anger is the result of not getting your way. If God is angry, something must have happened to thwart His desire . . . and that flies in the face of God's omni-attributes.
Another excellent thread and great OP.
God's sovereignty is 100% independent of His children. When we sin, it doesn't diminish God in the slightest. We could not conceivably detract from His majesty. Therefore, He has no cause to be angry with us for our disobedience. I believe He is saddened because of our sins, but they do not otherwise have any intrinsic bearing on Him.
People act as if He is a king whose power is affected by the choices of His subjects to disobey Him. There is no need for Him to punish us in order to get some kind of satisfaction from the notion that we have somehow injured Him and the punishment He doles out somehow compensates for the hurt or insult we have caused.
He wants us to live righteously for one reason and one reason alone: He wants us to be able to get to the point where we can enjoy the same kind of happiness He enjoys. His concern is for our welfare, not for His glory. The glory, after all, is His no matter what we do.
To review a centuries-old debate, there is great difficulty in trying to explain why God, with His all-encompassing knowledge, power and goodness, should be angered by the actions of people. Anger is the result of not getting your way. If God is angry, something must have happened to thwart His desire . . . and that flies in the face of God's omni-attributes.
At this point, someone says, "Yes, but God voluntarily surrenders his omni-attributes to give man free will - - the ability to thwart the holy desire."
My answer to that is this: If God wants to surrender His Omni-attributes for the sake of free will, while allowing all the sin he foresaw in ages past to continue unchecked, then God's desire is not thwarted, and one wonders what there could be to be angry about.
God handed all he created, life everlasting, never sick or any bad.. Not as robots with no free will. So he wants one to choose with their own free will to listen to his advice on every matter possible. Our creator knows whats best. He handed it to all on a silver platter in Eden and prior. They kicked him in the teeth and rebelled against a single thing he asked them not to do. They chose this system for all concerned now. And Jesus said- satan is the ruler of this world( system of things)
Gods kingdom rule will cure it all. Its not far off for all of creation. Men are destroying this system quickly.
Our creator knows whats best. He handed it to all on a silver platter in Eden and prior. They kicked him in the teeth and rebelled against a single thing he asked them not to do.
Wow! I couldn't disagree more. If God truly knows what's best (which I agree He does), He could easily have prevented the whole series of events that transpired in the Garden of Eden from taking place, and He would have done if He is truly powerful and truly loving.
Adam and Eve did not "kick Him in the teeth." They put His plan for humankind into motion. What God wanted for us was something far, far better than to remain in blissful ignorance throughout eternity. Adam and Eve did not thwart God's Plan. They did exactly what God knew had to happen in order that we all be able to attain Life Eternal in His presence someday. The "Fall of Adam" was indeed a "feliz culpa," a fortunate fall that will, in God's time, lead to an eventual glorious ascent for all of us.
God's sovereignty is 100% independent of His children. When we sin, it doesn't diminish God in the slightest. We could not conceivably detract from His majesty. Therefore, He has no cause to be angry with us for our disobedience. I believe He is saddened because of our sins, but they do not otherwise have any intrinsic bearing on Him.
People act as if He is a king whose power is affected by the choices of His subjects to disobey Him. There is no need for Him to punish us in order to get some kind of satisfaction from the notion that we have somehow injured Him and the punishment He doles out somehow compensates for the hurt or insult we have caused.
He wants us to live righteously for one reason and one reason alone: He wants us to be able to get to the point where we can enjoy the same kind of happiness He enjoys. His concern is for our welfare, not for His glory. The glory, after all, is His no matter what we do.
That God has wrath, anger, and justice against sin is clear in just a few verses.
Nah 1:2, God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
Nah 1:3, The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
Psa 5:5, The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Psa 5:6, Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
Psa 7:11, God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
...Predestination and 'free will' are not in conflict with each other.
God's foreknowledge does not inhibit man's free will or volition. God knowing something in advance does not affect what a man decides to do. . . .
A perfect example exists in 1 Samuel 23:1-13.
Your example of how free will and predestination are compatible is that God told David what would happen if David did X. So David did Y instead, and so something different happened. You used the term "foresaw" to describe how God projected hypothetically for David what would have happened if X.
That's not foreseeing, that's analyzing a purely abstract, what-if scenario. It was never a viable future because God knew beforehand that Y, and not X, would happen. To foresee is to know what will happen, and so Y (the thing that happened) was the thing foreseen, not X (the thing that didn't happen).
If you hold on faith that David's choice was free I respect that. But I don't see a rational basis for calling it free when it was chiseled in stone from before time began.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
