On the omniscience of God

[Bladerunner]

But that's not what the Scripture says

$$ Ro 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate ...

R

$$ 1Pe 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ...

This is again foreknowledge, preceding predestination or election.

Rom 8:29 only speaks of Salvation as in election. Nothing else.

 

[Derf]

You don't think it's "the saints" in Romans 8:27?

Sure. Why does that matter? He surely knows there will be some saints, so He predestinated them to something, as befitting saints, fellow heirs, His children...

You think the scattered twelve tribes was symbolic for everybody? You're going to go to Acts 9er jail for that take.

I don't see any reason why the foreknowledge doesn't apply to both individuals and to groups.

Of course it can and does. All individuals who believe in Christ are included in the group that He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His son.

 

[Idolater]

Sure. Why does that matter? He surely knows there will be some saints, so He predestinated them to something, as befitting saints, fellow heirs, His children...

I'm just responding to YOUR post, you said, "Foreknowledge about whom ... ?" and I'm answering you. So we agree, it's the saints mentioned in Romans 8:27—that's great. So now we can focus on the second part of your question, " ... predestination to what?" We know and agree that it's foreknowledge about the saints mentioned in Romans 8:27, so now—great—we can work on the other part. You'll remind us of it below, or 'infra' as the kids say these days.

Of course it can and does. All individuals who believe in Christ are included in the group that He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His son.

AND WHAT EXACTLY does that mean?

Some thoughts. It's for us to be basically ontologically Jesus. Meaning to say we're going to heal the sick, raise the dead, command the weather, and teach infallibly, and everything else that He literally physically did—we're going to do all that. That's basically what it means to be accurately conformed to the image of Jesus, right? We're going to flip over money changing tables and turn water to wine. We're going to be indistinguishable from Him.

Barring that, taking one step back from that bold interpretation, being conformed to the image of Jesus is for us to do what Jesus wants us to do. You can definitely argue about what that means in particular, but I think we can agree at least that whatever it means to be conformed to Jesus's image, it must comport with what Jesus actually wants us to do, and who He actually wants us to be. I think that's a principle we can agree on.

Do we agree on that?

 

[Derf]

I'm just responding to YOUR post, you said, "Foreknowledge about whom ... ?" and I'm answering you.

Ok.

So we agree, it's the saints mentioned in Romans 8:27—that's great. So now we can focus on the second part of your question, " ... predestination to what?" We know and agree that it's foreknowledge about the saints mentioned in Romans 8:27,

Yes, but what do we mean by "foreknowledge about the saints"? I'm saying it isn't expressly and personally every saint that will ever be, but rather all those saints as a group.

so now—great—we can work on the other part. You'll remind us of it below, or 'infra' as the kids say these days.



AND WHAT EXACTLY does that mean?

Some thoughts. It's for us to be basically ontologically Jesus. Meaning to say we're going to heal the sick, raise the dead, command the weather, and teach infallibly, and everything else that He literally physically did—we're going to do all that. That's basically what it means to be accurately conformed to the image of Jesus, right? We're going to flip over money changing tables and turn water to wine. We're going to be indistinguishable from Him.

Barring that, taking one step back from that bold interpretation, being conformed to the image of Jesus is for us to do what Jesus wants us to do. You can definitely argue about what that means in particular, but I think we can agree at least that whatever it means to be conformed to Jesus's image, it must comport with what Jesus actually wants us to do

Or what God the Father wants us to do, since that's what Jesus did.

, and who He actually wants us to be. I think that's a principle we can agree on.

Do we agree on that?

Yes, and maybe a combination of the two.

 

[Clete]

Yes, but what do we mean by "foreknowledge about the saints"? I'm saying it isn't expressly and personally every saint that will ever be, but rather all those saints as a group.

That’s the fundamental, paradigm level, difference between those who hold to determinism and those who don’t. Determinists tend to interpret certain passages as referring to specific individuals and meticulously detailed outcomes, while non-determinists understand them as referring to groups and generalities.

The question is which paradigm is superior to the other, which one is correct and how would we be able to know?

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.

​

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.​

These verses make it explicit: God’s authority flows from His character, not from sheer control or omnipotence. His power is trustworthy only because He is just. If we start with power or knowledge as the basis for God's greatness, we risk building a theology that justifies anything, even evil, as long as it comes from God.

If your view requires you to call something ‘just’ simply because God did it, even when it would be evil for anyone else to do, then are you really honoring God's righteousness, or just redefining it?

The determinist model often prioritizes God’s control and exhaustive foreknowledge, but if those concepts compromise the justice of God, as experienced and understood in Scripture, then what good are they?

In contrast, the Open Theist paradigm allows for God to relationally engage with free creatures, hold them truly accountable, and offer real choice, all while remaining perfectly just and loving.

So, the question isn’t just which paradigm can quote more verses. Both sides have seemingly no end to their list of proof texts. The real test is which one preserves the character of God. If righteousness and justice are the foundation of His authority, then any view that erodes those qualities is clearly inferior to one that upholds them.

 

[Derf]

If your view requires you to call something ‘just’ simply because God did it, even when it would be evil for anyone else to do, then are you really honoring God's righteousness, or just redefining it?

Genesis 18:25 (YLT) Far be it from Thee to do according to this thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked; that it hath been -- as the righteous so the wicked -- far be it from Thee; doth the Judge of all the earth not do justice?'

 

[Clete]

Genesis 18:25 (YLT) Far be it from Thee to do according to this thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked; that it hath been -- as the righteous so the wicked -- far be it from Thee; doth the Judge of all the earth not do justice?'

Calvinism, Catholicism as well as any other form of Augustinian doctrine cannot survive that single verse of scripture.

 

[Derf]

Calvinism, Catholicism as well as any other form of Augustinian doctrine cannot survive that single verse of scripture.

They can "survive" any scripture, because they don't want to admit what it says.

 

[Clete]

They can "survive" any scripture, because they don't want to admit what it says.

Yes, well, I meant survive rationally intact.

If someone doesn't care about being rational, as I just saw John MacArthur explaining (in so many words) in a video this morning) then, of course, they've insulated themselves from any possible falsifying evidence or argument.

The first two minutes is all anyone needs to watch. He admits openly that his doctrine cannot be made any sense of.