8 essential components for discerning God’s will

D. Objections to the Doctrine of Election

2. On This Definition of Election, Our Choices Are Not Real Choices. Continuing the discussion in the previous paragraph, someone might object that if a choice is caused by God, it may appear to us to be voluntary and willed by us, but it is nonetheless not a genuine or real choice, because it is not absolutely free. Once again we must respond by challenging the assumption that a choice must be absolutely free in order to be genuine or valid. If God makes us in a certain way and then tells us that our voluntary choices are real and genuine choices, then we must agree that they are . God is the definition of what is real and genuine in the universe. By contrast, we might ask where Scripture ever says that our choices have to be free from God’s influence or control in order to be real or genuine choices. It does not seem that Scripture ever speaks in this way.

3. The Doctrine of Election Makes Us Puppets or Robots, Not Real Persons. According to this objection, if God really causes everything that we choose with regard to salvation, then we are no longer real persons. Once again it must be answered that God has created us and we must allow him to define what genuine personhood is. The analogy of a “puppet” or a “robot” reduces us to a sub-human category of things that have been created by man. But genuine human beings are far greater than puppets or robots, because we do have a genuine will and we do make voluntary decisions based on our own preferences and wants. In fact, it is this ability to make willing choices that is one thing that distinguishes us from much of the lower creation. We are real people created in God’s image, and God has allowed us to make genuine choices that have real effects on our lives.

Grudem, Wayne A. (2009-05-18). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (p. 680-681). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

(I know this is lengthy, but if you take the time to read it, it will be very helpful in explaining the Calvinistic position.)

C. Misunderstandings of the Doctrine of Election

1. Election Is Not Fatalistic or Mechanistic. Sometimes those who object to the doctrine of election say that it is “fatalism” or that it presents a “mechanistic system” for the universe. Two somewhat different objections are involved here. By “fatalism” is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore, it is futile to attempt to influence the outcome of events or the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort or making any significant choices, because these will not make any difference any way. In a true fatalistic system, of course, our humanity is destroyed for our choices really mean nothing, and the motivation for moral accountability is removed.

In a mechanistic system the picture is one of an impersonal universe in which all things that happen have been inflexibly determined by an impersonal force long ago, and the universe functions in a mechanical way so that human beings are more like machines or robots than genuine persons. Here also genuine human personality would be reduced to the level of a machine that simply functions in accordance with predetermined plans and in response to predetermined causes and influences.

By contrast to the mechanistic picture, the New Testament presents the entire outworking of our salvation as something brought about by a personal God in relationship with personal creatures. God “destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1: 5). God’s act of election was neither impersonal nor mechanistic, but was permeated with personal love for those whom he chose. Moreover, the personal care of God for his creatures, even those who rebel against him, is seen clearly in God’s plea through Ezekiel, “As I live , says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33: 11).

When talking about our response to the gospel offer, Scripture continually views us not as mechanistic creatures or robots, but as genuine persons, personal creatures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel. 6 Jesus invites everyone, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11: 28). And we read the invitation at the end of Revelation: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price” (Rev. 22: 17). This invitation and many others like it are addressed to genuine persons who are capable of hearing the invitation and responding to it by a decision of their wills. Regarding those who will not accept him, Jesus clearly emphasizes their hardness of heart and their stubborn refusal to come to him: “Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5: 40). And Jesus cries out in sorrow to the city that had rejected him, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Matt. 23: 37).

In contrast to the charge of fatalism, we also see a much different picture in the New Testament. Not only do we make willing choices as real persons, but these choices are also real choices because they do affect the course of events in the world. They affect our own lives and they affect the lives and destinies of others. So, “He who believes in him is not condemned ; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3: 18). Our personal decisions to believe or not believe in Christ have eternal consequences in our lives, and Scripture is quite willing to talk about our decision to believe or not believe as the factor that decides our eternal destiny.

The implication of this is that we certainly must preach the gospel, and people’s eternal destiny hinges on whether we proclaim the gospel or not. Therefore when the Lord one night told Paul, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man shall attack you to harm you; for I have many people in this city” (Acts 18: 9– 10), Paul did not simply conclude that the “many people” who belong to God would be saved whether he stayed there preaching the gospel or not. Rather, “he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (Acts 18: 11)— this was longer than Paul stayed in any other city except Ephesus during his three missionary journeys. When Paul was told that God had many elect people in Corinth, he stayed a long time and preached, in order that those elect people might be saved! Paul is quite clear about the fact that unless people preach the gospel others will not be saved:

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? … So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. (Rom. 10: 14, 17)

Did Paul know before he went to a city who was elected by God for salvation and who was not? No, he did not. That is something that God does not show to us ahead of time. But once people come to faith in Christ then we can be confident that God had earlier chosen them for salvation. This is exactly Paul’s conclusion regarding the Thessalonians; he says that he knows that God chose them because when he preached to them, the gospel came in power and with full conviction: “For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thess. 1: 4– 5). Far from saying that whatever he did made no difference, and that God’s elect would be saved whether he preached or not, Paul endured a life of incredible hardship in order to bring the gospel to those whom God had chosen. At the end of a life filled with suffering he said, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2: 10).

Grudem, Wayne A. (2009-05-18). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (p. 674-676). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

“The doctrine of divine providence involves the same conclusion. That doctrine teaches that God governs all his creatures and all their actions. That is, that He so conducts the administration of his government as to accomplish all his purposes. Here again the difficulty is the same, and is no greater than before. Foreknowledge supposes certainty; foreordination determines it; and providence effects it. The last does no more than the first of necessity presupposes. If certainty be compatible with freedom, providence which only secures certainty cannot be inconsistent with it. Who for any metaphysical difficulty — who, because he is not able to comprehend how God can effectually govern free agents without destroying their nature, would give up the doctrine of providence? Who would wish to see the reins of universal empire fall from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, to be seized by chance or fate? Who would not rather be governed by a Father than by a tornado? If God cannot effectually control the acts of free agents there can be no prophecy, no prayer, no thanksgiving, no promises, no security of salvation, no certainty whether in the end God or Satan is to be triumphant, whether heaven or hell is to be the consummation. Give us certainty — the secure conviction that a sparrow cannot fall, or a sinner move the finger but as God permits and ordains. We must have either God or Satan to rule. And if God has a providence He must be able to render the free acts of his creatures certain; and therefore certainty must be consistent with liberty. Was it not certain that Christ should, according to the Scriptures, be by wicked hands crucified and slain, and yet were not his murderers free in all they did?”

(Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. 3 vols. [Hendrickson Publishers, 1999] , 301-302)

Last one: Ryrie (a moderate Calvinist)

”IV. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.

B. It Is Inconsistent with Human Freedom

This is the same objection raises in Romans 9:19: Why can God fault anyone, since no one really resists His will if everything is part of His plan? Though it is true that God has the right to do anything consistent with His nature, it is equally true that He has chosen to exercise His rights by including the responsible and relatively free actions of people (Philemon 14; Rev. 17:13 linked with v. 17). I say relatively free simply because no one has absolute freedom, if for no other reason that the limitations of being fallen human creatures. He has made us responsible, and when we fail to act responsibly we are justly blamed.

An illustration: Does God know the day you are going to die? The answer is yes, He does. Question: Could you die a day sooner? The answer is no. Question: Then why do you eat? Answer: to live. The means of eating is essential to the end of living to the preordained day of death. From this point on the illustration can easily and uselessly get into the realm of the hypothetical. Suppose I do not eat? Then I will die? Would that be the day God planned that I should die? These are questions that do not need to be asked or answered. Just eat.

Or to change the illustration: Has God planned the answers to my prayers? Yes. Then why pray? Because those answers come when I pray.

Or again: Does God know who are elect? Of course, He elected them. Can any of them be lost? No. Then why pray and witness? Because that is how they will be saved. Will any of them fail to believe? No. Then why do they have to believe? Because that is the only way they can be saved, and unless they do believe they will not be saved. Do not let your mind ask the theoretical and useless questions. Let your mind and your life concentrate on doing what is God’s will and making sure you act responsibly.”

(Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. [Chicago: Moody, 1999] , 364).

OK, one more. :)

“If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.”

Spurgeon, “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” sermon preached 8/1/1858, http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm

Sorry for clogging up the comments. I’ll let others have a chance now. :)

Kind of…and this is where I am venturing onto sketchy Philosophical grounds.

I don’t think it’s “sketchy philosophical grounds.” I think it is far worse than that. To say that God can know something that might not happen is to say that God’s knowledge is faulty. Even open theists don’t say that. They just say that God doesn’t know all things. But everything God knows must happen or God knows something incorrectly. Then he is not all-knowing.

Acts 4:27-28 says that God ‘predestined’ to do what Pilate and Herod did. What is the greek term there for ‘predestined’? Is this the predestined as in “He knew and therefore decided to act in accordance with that” (which is my understanding of it) or predestined as “decreed that it must occur in that way” (as Chip and JohnBrian interpret it)? Is that term used somewhere else in the NT?

It doesn’t matter what the term is. The point is that God knew it ahead of time and therefore it had to happen. It wasn’t not going to happen. But the word is proorizo, and it means to predestine (Rom 8:29, 30; 1 Cor 2:7).

What I’m saying is that I’m not sure that there is such a thing as ‘God must’. If God is the only truly free being in the Universe (because He is the only one that is truly Faithful and True - Revelation 19:11), then is there any such thing as a ‘must’ with Him?

Again, you are venturing onto dangerous grounds, and due, perhaps in large part, to your definition of freedom. I think someone asked you earlier what a free will was, and I don’t know if you answered. God’s freedom is his self-determination. He is limited only by himself, and yes, there are things he “must” do by virtue of his nature, and there are things he cannot do by the same reason. You mentioned two of them. There are more, such as he cannot lie, he cannot overlook sin, he cannot be unloving, etc. Part of these would be connected to him being unable to deny himself, so that’s a pretty broad category.

But I think the bigger point and problem for you is to deal with what God’s knowledge actually is and requires. When God knows something, it has to happen as he knows it. And that was my point from the beginning. If God knows X, then X cannot not happen. To put something practical on it, if God knows Joe will be saved, Joe can’t change his mind. If God knows from eternal past that Joe will not be saved, Joe has no chance; he can’t change his mind. Otherwise, God’s knowledge is incorrect. So my point to Mark was that be removing it from God’s decree to God’s knowledge doesn’t solve the very problem it is intended to solve.

In the final analysis, God’s knowledge is comprehensive. He never learns or forgets. He knows all things infallibly. Therefore, what he knows must happen.

I like that Berkhof quote and some of the others, but disagree with the Calvin quote - thanks for sharing. I can list a couple of ‘counter quotes’ later, but don’t have time now and am not really sure that I want to get into quote stacking at this point - I want to stay with Scripture for now. We also haven’t even touched on the reprobation side of Calvinism yet, which is a different matter that I’m trying to avoid.
Greg said:
You are simply wrong about Pharaoh. Please look up those verses I listed again. In Ex. 4:21 and 7:3, God specifically tells Moses he will (in the future) harden Pharaoh’s heart. These verses are before the first instance of Pharaoh hardening his heart in 8:15.

Actually, correlation (that this act will occur) does not imply causation (therefore it must occur), as I have said before although not so plainly. Maybe I should have said that first and let it go at that. :)

Wikipedia:

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “with this, therefore because of this”, and “false cause”. A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”).

This is otherwise referred to as a ‘false cause’ (definition from a Philosophy class online - notes are here):

I. False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally “after this, therefore because of this”) the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.

2. Non causa pro causa: (literally “no cause for a cause”) in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of “false cause.”

Furthermore, you’re still not dealing with the early passages in Exodus that I referenced. Exodus 7:13, 23; Exodus 8:15, 19, 32; Exodus 9:32 all indicate that Pharoah hardened his own heart. While there are passages that say that God will harden Pharoah’s heart (4:21, 7:3), none of them until Exodus 9:32 say that God did it Himself. They just note that his heart was hardened, as the Lord said it would be, in 7:13, 22, 8:15, 9:7.
So while I’m am saying that my explanation may not make logical sense, it seems that the system you hold to is also (arguably) faulty in both the way it addresses the texts in question and in the hermeneutical approach to those texts.
I’m enjoying the back and forth, Greg. Thanks for pushing me to think harder about this.

[Larry]

Kind of…and this is where I am venturing onto sketchy Philosophical grounds.

I don’t think it’s “sketchy philosophical grounds.” I think it is far worse than that. To say that God can know something that might not happen is to say that God’s knowledge is faulty. Even open theists don’t say that. They just say that God doesn’t know all things. But everything God knows must happen or God knows something incorrectly. Then he is not all-knowing.

Acts 4:27-28 says that God ‘predestined’ to do what Pilate and Herod did. What is the greek term there for ‘predestined’? Is this the predestined as in “He knew and therefore decided to act in accordance with that” (which is my understanding of it) or predestined as “decreed that it must occur in that way” (as Chip and JohnBrian interpret it)? Is that term used somewhere else in the NT?

It doesn’t matter what the term is. The point is that God knew it ahead of time and therefore it had to happen. It wasn’t not going to happen. But the word is proorizo, and it means to predestine (Rom 8:29, 30; 1 Cor 2:7).

It absolutely does matter what the term is and how we define it, especially if that term is the crux of the disagreement. I’m willing to admit that I might be mistaken on how I interpret this term, but that doesn’t mean that the term is whatever I want it to be. The laws of grammar and hermenutics are still in force, last I checked.

I will look at proorizo later when I have time - thanks for supplying the term.

What I’m saying is that I’m not sure that there is such a thing as ‘God must’. If God is the only truly free being in the Universe (because He is the only one that is truly Faithful and True - Revelation 19:11), then is there any such thing as a ‘must’ with Him?

Again, you are venturing onto dangerous grounds, and due, perhaps in large part, to your definition of freedom. I think someone asked you earlier what a free will was, and I don’t know if you answered. God’s freedom is his self-determination. He is limited only by himself, and yes, there are things he “must” do by virtue of his nature, and there are things he cannot do by the same reason. You mentioned two of them. There are more, such as he cannot lie, he cannot overlook sin, he cannot be unloving, etc. Part of these would be connected to him being unable to deny himself, so that’s a pretty broad category.

But I think the bigger point and problem for you is to deal with what God’s knowledge actually is and requires. When God knows something, it has to happen as he knows it. And that was my point from the beginning. If God knows X, then X cannot not happen. To put something practical on it, if God knows Joe will be saved, Joe can’t change his mind. If God knows from eternal past that Joe will not be saved, Joe has no chance; he can’t change his mind. Otherwise, God’s knowledge is incorrect. So my point to Mark was that be removing it from God’s decree to God’s knowledge doesn’t solve the very problem it is intended to solve.

In the final analysis, God’s knowledge is comprehensive. He never learns or forgets. He knows all things infallibly. Therefore, what he knows must happen.

Again, we’re in agreement until that last phrase. I’m not willing to make God’s perfect knowledge the cause of all actions, and I’m not, as some are saying, an Open Theist or Pelagian. I’ve brought more Scripture to this discussion than almost anyone as far as I know. I feel like I’m pulling out all kinds of Biblical passages and everyone else is resorting to systematic theologies and quotes and rules of logic, and it’s a little frustrating.

It absolutely does matter what the term is and how we define it, especially if that term is the crux of the disagreement.

My point is that it doesn’t matter whether it means “foreordain” or simply knew ahead of time. Either way, God knew it before it happened, and therefore, it had to happen. There was not chance it wasn’t going to happen.

No, I am not saying that God’s knowledge is ‘incorrect’, and it bothers me that you make that allegation. God simply knows of things that, for whatever reason, didn’t happen. That is on top of the fact that He always and absolutely knows what did actually happen.

But he knows these things that didn’t happen as things that weren’t going to happen. In other words, he knows possibilities, but he knows them as possibilities, not as actualities. It’s about the nature of God’s knowledge. He actually knows all things—whether actual or possible. But he knows them in their respective categories. If God can know something as actual and that something not happen, then God’s knowledge is incorrect. If God knows something as actual, then that something has to happen.

I’m not willing to make God’s perfect knowledge the cause of all actions, and I’m not, as some are saying, an Open Theist or Pelagian. I’ve brought more Scripture to this discussion than almost anyone as far as I know. I feel like I’m pulling out all kinds of Biblical passages and everyone else is resorting to systematic theologies and quotes and rules of logic, and it’s a little frustrating.

I didn’t make God’s knowledge the cause of all actions. That’s actually another discussion. And Open Theism is not a category on par with Pelagian.

The point is that what God knows has to happen. Otherwise, God’s knowledge is wrong.

You have brought a lot of Scripture to be sure, but who disagrees with the Scripture? You have cited the very passages that Calvinists cite to show exactly what you are saying—that man is responsible for his actions.

So I will try to bow out here. I need to move on to other things.

Jay, Greg,

Have enjoyed silently following the to and fro on this topic. I also have limited time to participate but wanted to throw my two cents in at this point.

As with Jay, I have some serious apprehensions about some of the conclusions and inferences people make (generally of the Calvinist persuasion) regarding God’s responsibility in this whole discussion. For the sake of simplicity, let me start with what is obvious …

God in no way can be held directly accountable for sin. If He were to directly violate His own character in any way, He would instantly cease to be Who He is. Therefore, regardless of the terminology, in every situation in the course of human history where a sinful thought of action has occurred, mankind is solely responsible for the commission of said sin. So what of God’s involvement in the situation …?

Given our agreement on God’s foreknowledge of every situation that would occur and of every human response, sinful and otherwise, it is well within His ability (obviously) to providentially work situations together where an individual is put on the spot to make a choice. In His foreknowledge He knows that this one will choose to sin, but it will work together in His ultimate plan to achieve His good. Is God responsible for superintending the situation to get to that point? Yes. Is God responsible for the sin that occurs? No. Man’s sinful nature is the active agent in commission of the sin.

Some people might have a great problem with the fact that this concept of God’s unfolding plan through the ages relies on His “staging” of situations where the next “step” is in response a previous human action. But how does this impinge on the nature of God. It’s not a perfect example because there never will be one but maybe this is a reasonable description?

Visualize God’s plan of the ages like an infinite domino fall (where the dominos are all positioned and then fall in a cascading nature). In this scenario the dominos ultimately make the choice which way they will fall once they are “triggered” — yes this defies physics but pretend that they are knocked in a certain manner but ultimately can decide which way they will fall. However, the domino Master, in His omniscient knowledge of how each domino will choose to fall in each situation, lays out the entire masterpiece in such a way that each “trick” or “goal” He is trying to achieve happens perfectly and the whole drama unfolds exactly as He desired. He positioned the pieces in such a way that His foreknowledge of each response would bring about the desired results, but He was not responsible for the actual choice that each domino made. How this all works, I don’t know. But it seems to sync with what I read in the domino Master’s “manual”.

Larry, I appreciate that you’re bowing out and have enjoyed the discussion. I’m glad you’re asking me tough questions. I know that you’re done, but I did want to clarify one thing. When you said:

But he knows these things that didn’t happen as things that weren’t going to happen. In other words, he knows possibilities, but he knows them as possibilities, not as actualities. It’s about the nature of God’s knowledge. He actually knows all things—whether actual or possible. But he knows them in their respective categories.

I believe and understand that as well. I realized that I never mentioned that, and felt like I should note (once again) that I think we are really a lot closer than it may seem.
MDLeys, thanks for weighing in. I actually thought about a similar example, and agree with you that it does seem to make the most sense, but as with all analogies, does break down in parts.
I’ll wrap up this post with another Bible quote, from Romans 11 this time:

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

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 from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

[MDLeys]

Jay, Greg,

Have enjoyed silently following the to and fro on this topic. I also have limited time to participate but wanted to throw my two cents in at this point.

As with Jay, I have some serious apprehensions about some of the conclusions and inferences people make (generally of the Calvinist persuasion) regarding God’s responsibility in this whole discussion. For the sake of simplicity, let me start with what is obvious …

God in no way can be held directly accountable for sin. If He were to directly violate His own character in any way, He would instantly cease to be Who He is. Therefore, regardless of the terminology, in every situation in the course of human history where a sinful thought of action has occurred, mankind is solely responsible for the commission of said sin. So what of God’s involvement in the situation …?

Given our agreement on God’s foreknowledge of every situation that would occur and of every human response, sinful and otherwise, it is well within His ability (obviously) to providentially work situations together where an individual is put on the spot to make a choice. In His foreknowledge He knows that this one will choose to sin, but it will work together in His ultimate plan to achieve His good. Is God responsible for superintending the situation to get to that point? Yes. Is God responsible for the sin that occurs? No. Man’s sinful nature is the active agent in commission of the sin.

Some people might have a great problem with the fact that this concept of God’s unfolding plan through the ages relies on His “staging” of situations where the next “step” is in response a previous human action. But how does this impinge on the nature of God. It’s not a perfect example because there never will be one but maybe this is a reasonable description?

Visualize God’s plan of the ages like an infinite domino fall (where the dominos are all positioned and then fall in a cascading nature). In this scenario the dominos ultimately make the choice which way they will fall once they are “triggered” — yes this defies physics but pretend that they are knocked in a certain manner but ultimately can decide which way they will fall. However, the domino Master, in His omniscient knowledge of how each domino will choose to fall in each situation, lays out the entire masterpiece in such a way that each “trick” or “goal” He is trying to achieve happens perfectly and the whole drama unfolds exactly as He desired. He positioned the pieces in such a way that His foreknowledge of each response would bring about the desired results, but He was not responsible for the actual choice that each domino made. How this all works, I don’t know. But it seems to sync with what I read in the domino Master’s “manual”.

Again, I don’t really see how this solves the problem. And more importantly, it doesn’t appear to find support in Scripture. Acts 4:28 says God “determined beforehand” the death of Christ including the actions of everyone involved, not God “arranged all the puzzle pieces and dominoes so everything would fall into place perfectly based on the free actions of sinful men.”

[Jay] It absolutely does matter what the term is and how we define it, especially if that term is the crux of the disagreement. I’m willing to admit that I might be mistaken on how I interpret this term, but that doesn’t mean that the term is whatever I want it to be. The laws of grammar and hermenutics are still in force, last I checked. I will look at proorizo later when I have time - thanks for supplying the term.

Strong’s, EDNT, Louw & Nida, Thayer’s, and TDNT all agree that it means to determine in advance (predetermine), predestine, foreordain.

• EDNT says, “There are 6 occurrences in the NT, all referring to the predestination of events and peoples by God before all time or before their concrete historical time.”
• TDNT says, “This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Gk. Bible only 6 times in the NT in the sense ‘to foreordain,’ ‘to predestinate.’ Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proorizein is a stronger form of horizein [to set a limit, to appoint]…The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history with Jesus Christ as the goal.”

The word is used in Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11.

Jay, I do appreciate your willingness to engage on this issue, and I’m grateful for your desire to protect God’s righteousness and holiness by making sure our theology doesn’t make Him the author of sin. We may not come to an agreement, but this exchange has been sharpening.

I gave exams earlier in the week and it takes a while to grade!

Greg, I appreciate your point about proorizo. The thing is, look at the context of all the verses. What I see is God predestining believers for salvation. i do not see God pre-determining every event in history, even the most small detail.

Acts 4:28 This is talking about how God predetermined the actions of the Jews and Gentiles to crucify Jesus. This is speaking of specific event that God definitely did arrange. What makes you think you can go from the specific case of crucifixion to the general case of everyday actions with this verse?

Romans 8:29-30 In verse 28 God works all things for the good of those who love God. That is not the same as He predetermined everything. This is also only talking about the elect, not people in general. In vs 29 God predestines us to be conformed to the image of His Son. That is salvation, sanctification, glorification, etc…not what path I drove to work today.

1 Cor 2:7 This predestined is the spiritual wisdom God would impart to believers in Christ, through Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Eph 1:5 We have been predestined to adoption through Christ. You can speak of election, but not detailed pre-decision of every event in history.

Eph 1:11 Talking about the inheritance we have in Christ (glorification). God works all things according to the purpose of His will. Once again, God’s will, if you define it to be everything that does happen, includes sinful acts. He works all actions as a tapestry to His purpose, but this verse does not say that He made every decision or predetermined them.

**I accept that God does pre-plan the minute detail of some events. I accept that He could do that for all events, He is not limited in any way ( like in Molinism or Open Theology). My point is the Scripture no where says that God does exercise that level of pre-destination. It suggests that He works through us to accomplish His will, but we are free to make many decisions, even sin. He works them so that His hand is not held back (Daniel 4:35). But, I do not see that every decision was pre-decided by Him.

Some try to equate God foreknowing every event is the same as Him pre-deciding every event, and I reject since the Scripture no where makes that claim that I have found.