Predestination?

by Zico 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  reneeisorym

  Everytime I talk about this I end up getting this answer: "It doesn't really matter -- we'll find out one day" I really hate that answer.

  God had to know ... I agree with you .. He isn't all-knowing if he doesn't know all .. rofl

  I believe we were predestined but that our choices were still real when we made them. At least they really felt real. And if we didn't make the choice, what was the point in all of this? (this leads to the wonder of why does evil exist if free will does not?) So I end up in this loop of thinking -- If God knew that "insert name of unsaved here" was not going to choose Him, why did he create that person?
• 

  Warlock

  Predestination? I'll leave it as a question. I need to examine the issue. I've thought about it, but never really examined it........................like a good little Dub.

  Warlock
• 

  Zico

  Predestination certainly raises some difficult questions on God's morality Renee, which is perhaps why many Christians (such as the ones who tell you that it doesn't matter) and also the Jehovah's Witnesses, tend to avoid it.
  
  I wouldn't know how to deal with this either, but I think it's a cop out to say that it means God can't have predestined us.
• 

  reneeisorym

  Romans 8:

  28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

  29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

  30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

  Eph 1:

  4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

  5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
• 

  Zico

  Those are some pretty clear scriptures, which I don't think a JW could deal with. In Romans 9, it seems Paul gave basically a similar answer as those other people gave to you:
  
  10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
  
  14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
  "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
  and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
  
  19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
  
  22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
  "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
  and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and,
  "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
  'You are not my people,'
  they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]
  
  In summary: 'It's for God to know, and us to find out' ... ?
• 

  reneeisorym

  Oh that's a good one too. I knew there was another chapter that was pretty clear.

  One other point that I have heard used that's pretty good is this: God chose the nation of Isreal over the other Gentile nations in the times before Jesus. Why wouldn't he use the same rule and choose some and not others in this day?
• 

  Narkissos

  About the "election" or "choosing" of Israel, I can't help thinking that much of the "mystery" (or "scandal," depending on the perspective) is a direct consequence of the reinterpretation of religious talk in the wake of the major shift from poly-/henotheism to monotheism by the time of the Exile.

  "Yhwh is Israel's god / Israel is Yhwh's own people, special inheritance etc." was nothing extraordinary when the same could be said of Kamosh's relationship with Moab for instance (Judges 11:24; cf. Deuteronomy 32:8f).

  The exact same traditional sentences instantly became extraordinary when Yhwh was thought of as the only God -- meaning that the Creator of the whole universe had chosen one people among all, leaving all the others "godless".

  It seems to me that the Pauline reinterpretation of those notions (and their application to Gentile Christians) is better understood as provisional and (mysteriously) utilitarian, i.e. working toward a (potentially, at least) universalistic end -- iow, Israel was chosen for a purpose, Christians are chosen for a purpose, and this purpose ultimately extends to all mankind / world / universe. This is apparent, imo, from the conclusion of the whole doctrinal development in Romans (especially the "election/predestination mystery" in chapters 9--11):

  Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience,
  so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (11:30-32)

  The (post-Pauline) epistle to the Ephesians extends the horizon to inclusive cosmic reconciliation:

  He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

  I think the doctrine of election / predestination makes much better sense from this larger perspective.
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  I think one of your premises may be flawed.

  this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our Universe) and so before God created time

  What do you meen that time is a product of our universe? There are two main theories about time:

  1: Time is linear and part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence, and time itself is something that can be measured.

  If that's the case, then I can see why you think time was created. But that opens up a hole can of worms that makes everything illogical when you add an entity that isn't bound by it. To the point that a belief in god is almost ridiculous. (I don't think I need to elaborate on that statement... just try thinking about it for a while.) Time travel is possible, and that also causes a lot of paradoxes. (I think there's no such thing as a real life paradox, so I reject this definition. However it also has it's own distinct benefits.)

  2: Time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. Time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. Rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system.

  In this case, (The one I believe personally.) Everything, including god, is bound by time, because it's a concept like math and logic. Time travel is impossible. And a belief in god is much more logical. Basically everything just makes more sense. 'Before' and 'After' always apply. However, it get's pretty confusing when you try to thing of an infinite past.

  ---

  Neither theory is more widely accepted than the other, so for this thread to work, I think we'll have to agree on a definition as a group. (I mean agree on one, we all have to use it, although I believe the second theory, I'm perfectly happy to agree on the first one and only use that one in this discussion. But I can see this turning ugly, or at least really confusing, if we don't do that first.)

  I vote, that since this is Zico's thread, he should be allowed to decide the nature of time... (That sound's fun!)

  Lore

  I should also point out that god predicting the future is equally possible using both theories... just through different meens. (The first requires god to teleport to the future, check everything out and then come back. The second requires god to use his omniscience to analyze everything in the universe and basically perform the most complex algorithim EVA'.)
• 

  Zico

  Hi Lore, I was aware when I wrote the post that time as ‘a product of our universe’ was an over-simplification, but the science of time wasn’t really my focus. Your first theory was the one I had in mind whilst I wrote the post though, my thinking being that time would have been created at the time that the universe was created. I’m having difficulty perceiving time as a ‘concept’ so I’m going to have to stick to the first theory for now, for fear the discussion going over my head.

  To the point that a belief in god is almost ridiculous

  Almost but not quite?

  I don't think I need to elaborate on that statement... just try thinking about it for a while.

  You may have over-estimated me here Lore, can you elaborate please?
• 

  LittleToe

  And yet even as humans we have to allow for the concept of "infinity".

  I have two opinions on the subject of biblical theology. One bound by the canon of 66 books and one that is not.

  When I bind myself I come to the conclusion that God exists in an omnipresent fashion that transcends known time and space. From this perspective the universe with its "time" is just a teardrop in the infinite expanse (the use of the word "expanse" is an intentional oxymoron) of eternity. In this view a Panentheist view is also permitted. Taking a strictly Chriso-biblical view, Calvary becomes the focal point for this long-running "event", where perchance it might be expressed that time touches eternity when the unstoppable object of "God the Son of God" meets the immovable object of Death. Returning to the subject of the thread and Zico's original premise I believe that predestination makes the best sense of all the diverse texts. This leads me, broadly speaking, to a Calvinist theological position.

  When I free myself from such strictures I realise that its a load of hogwash that provides a mental framework from which I can observe and make some kind of "labelled" sense of the world seen and unseen. Many religions and philosophies attempt to do exactly the same thing, with remarkably similar results. But it leads me to the question "does it actually matter?" Whether God dwells in eternity or not is surely irrelevant to my current existance? Whether I actually have freewill and choice, or merely imagine that I do surely has little effect on the outcome? Whether death is actually an end or merely a transition might perhaps be something that concerns me but is inevitable anyway.

  I've debated such topics for well over five years on this forum, and I still enjoy the exercise, though only find it meaningful if you apply certain bounds and strictures, such as exemplified in option one above. But inside of me there continues a thirst that is not sated by this. Intuitively I believe that "God" is bigger than all of this, uncontainable in terms of human reasoning. But even this view is hogwash, as its impossible to approach labelling something with which there is nothing to compare. How do you realistically visualise the labels "eternity", "infinity", "Universe", "God"?

  Substitute "hogwash" with "vanity, vanity, all is vanity" and you have a few extra lines from Ecclesiastes. Thus I remain an "unorthodox Christian" to those who would ask my religious persuasion. I remain a moderate Calvinist" to those who would ask me my doctrinal persuasion. But to all others I would suggest that I am merely a reasonably freethinking "human".

  Ross, at his philosophical best and simultaneous worst.