Calvinism and Foreknowledge - Part 1

One In a while I'll post Max Herrera's work at the Battle for God wesbite. He has an incredible insight into the philosophical underpinnings of free will and predestination while maintaining a healthy dose of biblical exegesis. Enjoy!

Free Will/ Predestination Posted: 10 Jul 06 6:59 PM (United States) Hey Max, I recently had a new believer ask me this question and I would love to be able to give them a solid answer. If God knew those that were going to accept Christ ahead of time, why did God create those that He knew wouldn't accept Christ and condemn them to an eternity in hell? If you could hit this on two levels that would great. On one level if you could hit this in a way that I may be able to convey it to a very new believer. And two, if you could answer it from the perspective how those two biblical principles (free will/predestination) interact or co-exist with eachother. I hope I am asking my question in a way that is understandable. Thanks Max.

Response:

If God knew those that were going to accept Christ ahead of time, why did God create those that He knew wouldn't accept Christ and condemn them to an eternity in hell? This is a complex question fallacy; it is like the question "Do you still beat your wife?" It is called a complex question fallacy because there are three questions posed, but one is only allowed to answer one of the three. Let us split out the questions and make explicit that which is implicit. “WHY” Can denote the motivation for performing some action. For example: Why does Fat Albert bike every day? (i.e., what is his motivation?) Answer: Dumb Dave’s sister said that she would go out on a date with Fat Albert if he loses 100 pounds, and Fat Albert wants to go out with her on a date. “WHY” Can denote an intended goal. For example: Why does Fat Albert bike every day? (i.e., what does Fat Albert intend on achieving by biking?) Answer: He intends to lose 100 pounds. Implication: It would be morally better had God not created people if He knew that they would be loss. Summary of Questions Question 1: What was God's motivation for creating people that would end up in hell? Question 2: What was the purpose for creating people who would be loss? Question 3: Would it not be better had he only created people who would be saved? Answer to Question 1 (Motivation for . . .): The scripture does not tell us why God created things as He did. That is to say, Scripture does not tell us His motivation. Even the apostle Paul did not know why God created some who would be lost and others who would be saved, so he speaks ex hypothesi (i.e., he speaks hypothetically). Rom 9:22 "What if God, although willing to demonstrate . . . " Notice, Paul does not say: "Because God was willing to demonstrate . . ." Many Calvinists quote Rom 9:22 as if it were not hypothetical, so they claim that God wills the non-elect to be condemned and the elect to be saved, and God can do so because He is sovereign. Given that the apostle Paul did not know, and given that God has not stated His motivation, I can only say that I do not know God’s motivation. Answer to Question 2 (Intended purpose): What was the intended purpose for creating people who would be loss? I think that this question is a “category mistake.” It is akin to asking, “What does the color blue taste like?” There is a problem in the question because blue is a color; it is not a flavor. Similarly, there is a problem in the question “what was God’s intended purpose for creating people to go to hell?” God does not create people for the purpose of condemning them to hell. God creates people for the purpose that they get to heaven. (John 3:16-17) However, people by freely choosing to reject God’s plan and intended purpose condemn themselves to hell (John 3:19-20). God gives us a will to use so that we may get to heaven; however, some of us choose to abuse our will and end up in hell. By the way, “ab use” means to “fall away from the proper use.” For example, an aluminum chair is made for the purpose of being sat in. However, when professional wrestlers use the chair to smack their opponent, they ruin the chair by using the chair contrary to its intended purpose. Similarly, when people abuse their freedom, they condemn themselves to hell. God gives the ability to use our will so that we may respond to the gospel; we choose to abuse our will by rejecting the gospel. Answer to Question 3 (Would it not be better . . . In order to compare two things, there must be two things to compare. For example, I can compare an apple with another fruit, or an apple with an elephant, or I can compare two apples against each other. It is not possible to compare something with nothing because nothing does not exist, and in order to compare things, they must exist. In order to determine whether something is better or worse, there must be a difference between the things that are being compared. For example, Alan is taller than Max. If there were no difference in height between Alan and Max, one cannot say that one is taller or shorter than the other. Comparing a thing to itself will never result in a difference. For example, what is the difference between your left index finger and your left index finger? Answer: there is no difference because there is only one thing. Thereone, one cannot determine whether something is better or worse if a thing is being compared to itself. The question would it not be better had God not created those who would be loss is a category mistake because it compares something with nothing. How so? World 1 is our actual world: In this world, God created Alan and John Doe. Alan is saved and John Doe is not. World 2 is a world that God could have created: In this world, God created Alan who is saved, but He does not create John Doe because He knows that had John Doe been created, John Doe would have been loss. Which world is better? World 1 or World 2? Assuming that one can compare World 1 with World 2, one find that if Alan in World1 is identical to Alan in World2, one is comparing Alan with himself. However, there is no difference between a thing and itself. Therefore, by comparing Alan, one cannot determine whether world1 is better than world2. In other words, comparing the saved persons in World1 to the saved persons in World2 cannot help me decide whether World 2 is better than World1. What else is there to compare? Can I compare John Doe in World1 with nothing in world2? Nope, that’s a category mistake. I can’t compare something with nothing. Nevetheless, by affirming that World 2 is better necessitates that I affirm that nothing is better than something. Yet, nothing cannot be better than something because nothing does not exist. I hope that helps. I’ll get to the second part of your question later on this week, God willing. Love in Christ Max

The Trivium : The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric: Books: Sister Miriam Joseph,Marguerite McGlinn »« bethinking.org | Engage with Culture | UCCF’s Apologetics Website