Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was in another thread were this topic came up. I have had the opportunity to discuss this topic in the past but it has been a while. I mainly think of the TULIP mode when this topic come ups. I know there are a few varieties out there.

Lets recap TULIP.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

Most objections to and attacks on Calvinism focus on the "five points of Calvinism," also called the doctrines of grace, and remembered by the mnemonic "TULIP."^[26] The five points are popularly said to summarize the Canons of Dort,^[27] however there is no historical relationship between them, and some scholars argue that their language distorts the meaning of the Canons, Calvin's theology, and the theology of 17th-century Calvinistic orthodoxy, particularly in the language of total depravity and limited atonement.^[28] The five points were popularized in the 1963 booklet The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. The origin of the five points and the acronym is unknown, but they do not date before the 19th century, and they were very cautiously if ever used by Calvinist apologists and theologians before the booklet by Steele and Thomas.^[29]

The central assertion of these points is that God saves every person upon whom he has mercy, and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or inability of humans.

• "Total depravity," also called "total inability," asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be).^[30] This doctrine is derived from Augustine's explanation of Original Sin.^[31] While the phrases "totally depraved" and "utterly perverse" were used by Calvin, what was meant was the inability to save oneself from sin rather than being absent of goodness. Phrases like "total depravity" cannot be found the Canons of Dort, and the Canons as well as later Reformed orthodox theologians arguably offer a more moderate view of the nature of fallen humanity than Calvin.^[32]
  

• "Unconditional election" asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.^[33]
  

• "Limited atonement," also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is intended for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect.^[34] The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.^{[citation needed]} At the Synod of Dort, both sides agreed that the atonement Christ's death was sufficient to pay for all sin and that it was only efficacious for some (it only actually saved some). The controversy centered on whether this limited efficacy was based on God's election (the view of the Synod and of later Reformed theologians) or on the choice of each person and God's foreknowledge of that choice (the view of Arminius).^[35]
  

• "Irresistible grace," also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."^{[36][unreliable source]}
  

• "Perseverance of the saints" (or preservation) of the saints (the word "saints" is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who are exceptionallyholy, canonized, or in heaven) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return to the faith.^[37]
  

So with that out of the way we can now begin the discussion.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

About the 'unconditional election' part-

Why doesn't God choose to extend mercy to all his creations? Why create someone just so they can be damned?

About the 'total depravity' part-

How is just to damn someone for something they have no power over? If someone is totally depraved due to the sin of Adam and Eve, then how is it just to damn them for someone else's sin?

I'd really like to hear from people who actually believe in the TULIP.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

About the 'unconditional election' part-

Why doesn't God choose to extend mercy to all his creations? Why create someone just so they can be damned?

About the 'total depravity' part-

How is just to damn someone for something they have no power over? If someone is totally depraved due to the sin of Adam and Eve, then how is it just to damn them for someone else's sin?

I'd really like to hear from people who actually believe in the TULIP.

Before I respond more I would like more people that believe it to join in.

[danielwoods]

About the 'unconditional election' part-

Why doesn't God choose to extend mercy to all his creations? Why create someone just so they can be damned?

Not really a calvinist, but do understand it for the most part.

And God's mercy does extend to all his creation. However, some choose to be damned. God, based on his foreknowledge predestines those who choose him.

About the 'total depravity' part-

How is just to damn someone for something they have no power over? If someone is totally depraved due to the sin of Adam and Eve, then how is it just to damn them for someone else's sin?

I'd really like to hear from people who actually believe in the TULIP.

No one is judged for the sin of Adam and Eve. It is the state we were born into, but it isn't what we are judged for. We are judged based on our own decisions.

[bluebell]

And God's mercy does extend to all his creation. However, some choose to be damned. God, based on his foreknowledge predestines those who choose him.

Then this confuses me-

God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

No one is judged for the sin of Adam and Eve. It is the state we were born into, but it isn't what we are judged for. We are judged based on our own decisions.

If it is Adam and Eve's fault that are natures are sinful, then wouldn't all of our sins against God stem from the choice they made in the garden?

Edited August 6, 2013 by bluebell

[Vance]

However, some choose to be damned. God, based on his foreknowledge predestines those who choose him.

That doesn't sound like Calvinism as described above.

God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

Just sayin.

[Paloma]

I was raised in a Presbyterian church whose roots were in the Calvinist Reformed tradition. I never heard of TULIP until I was a young adult when I listened to a Presbyterian minister (who also taught at a Divinity College) explaining how the TULIP acronym does not reflect our beliefs.

The OP here lists the description of TULIP as found in wiki.

On wiki, TULIP is introduced with this foreward:

"Most objections to and attacks on Calvinism focus on the "five points of Calvinism," also called the doctrines of grace, and remembered by the mnemonic "TULIP."[26] The five points are popularly said to summarize the Canons of Dort,[27] however there is no historical relationship between them, and some scholars argue that their language distorts the meaning of the Canons, Calvin's theology, and the theology of 17th-century Calvinistic orthodoxy, particularly in the language of total depravity and limited atonement.[28] The five points were popularized in the 1963 booklet The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. The origin of the five points and the acronym is unknown, but they do not date before the 19th century, and they were very cautiously if ever used by Calvinist apologists and theologians before the booklet by Steele and Thomas."

Presumably there are individuals or churches who would accept and defend TULIP, but I've never met any in my reasonably extensive Christian journey and interactions.

Edited to say that the poster above (Daniel Woods, I believe) is more "spot on" with real Calvinist belief.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Paloma

[danielwoods]

Then this confuses me-

God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

The bolded portion?

Why would God withhold mercy from those not chosen?

The way I understand it, is it has to do with his foreknowledge. He already knows what choice we will make, though we still exercise free will. Based on this knowledge, he allows those (or withholds mercy) to make that choice.

If it is Adam and Eve's fault that are natures are sinful, then wouldn't all of our sins against God stem from the choice they made in the garden?

No. True our natures are the result of their sin (as is the nature of the whole universe). However, fault or guilt or what we will be judged by is according to what we do with what we have, not what Adam did. Some in this life have very little power/abilities etc. They won't be judged according to what they don't have, but what they do with what they have.

[danielwoods]

That doesn't sound like Calvinism as described above. Just sayin.

Right. It doesn't sound quite the same, as Calvin was speaking from God's perspective. Similar to Ephesians 1:^{4 "}According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

In essence, when God decided to create us, he knew (or foreknew if you will) all the details. Everything that would happen. The description of his fore knowledge doesn't dictate or limit our free will.

I do disagree with the idea that it wasn't based on a fore seeing of our future decision to trust in him. If that is truly what a Calvinist believes.

[Vance]

It looks like we are getting more Mormon doctrine than Calvinist doctrine being posted.

[Stone holm]

Ancestors were Covenanters (Reformed Presbyterians). Never could understand predestination as it seems to render life a farce -- not saying that life doesn't resemble a farce from time to time, but somehow I seem to doubt that God actually designed it that way. But then I do not believe in an omniscient God, the more interesting question for Mormons is omniscience since that is the real reason why Calvin came up with predestination. Mormons tend to be in a cognitive dissonance situation since we condemn predestination and then have a tendency to come around and claim omniscience.

[Vance]

Mormons tend to be in a cognitive dissonance situation since we condemn predestination and then have a tendency to come around and claim omniscience.

I am not sure how foreknowledge=predestination.

[bluebell]

The bolded portion?

Why would God withhold mercy from those not chosen?

The way I understand it, is it has to do with his foreknowledge. He already knows what choice we will make, though we still exercise free will. Based on this knowledge, he allows those (or withholds mercy) to make that choice.

How is this different than non-Calvinistic Christianity?

[danielwoods]

How is this different than non-Calvinistic Christianity?

Being an Arminianist. I guess this link (below) sums it up. Which means that my answer was incorrect. It appears that I wasn't representing Calvinism correctly. Only my understanding of it. It appears that there are a few major points that I disagree with.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

[bluebell]

Being an Arminianist. I guess this link (below) sums it up. Which means that my answer was incorrect. It appears that I wasn't representing Calvinism correctly. Only my understanding of it. It appears that there are a few major points that I disagree with.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

Thanks, that was helpful.

Any Calvinists on this board who could join the conversation? Hello? Anyone?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks, that was helpful.

Any Calvinists on this board who could join the conversation? Hello? Anyone?

I should say that we should discuss any aspect of predestination. It does not have to be the TULIP pattern. That is just one that I really disagree with the most. I would dare say those that suscribe to that definition are the most hard core of Calvinists.

I am curious how our friend Five Solas uses and understand the term.

[Calm]

I think the Calvinist TULIP doctrines totally satanic and evil.

I don't think this is helpful if you want to persuade someone their ideas may be a misunderstanding of scripture.

It sure isn't when people tell me my LDS beliefs are such.

Edited August 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[MrG]

Hi guys I am a Calvinist (all 5 points) and am happy to have a bash at some questions and points. I am going off the night now (UK) but back on tomorrow, please leave some questions and points but not too many

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi guys I am a Calvinist (all 5 points) and am happy to have a bash at some questions and points. I am going off the night now (UK) but back on tomorrow, please leave some questions and points but not too many

A bash? Well it might turn into that. So just to be clear in a nut shell you subscribe to the outline in the wiki article and feel that it is mostly accurate. I only ask this because it helps to make sure we are all on the same page as to help reduce the chance of beating up a strawman.

[danielwoods]

A bash? Well it might turn into that. So just to be clear in a nut shell you subscribe to the outline in the wiki article and feel that it is mostly accurate. I only ask this because it helps to make sure we are all on the same page as to help reduce the chance of beating up a strawman.

Have a "Bash" - (me thinks equals) "Have a go at it" (or something similar)

[sheilauk]

Hi guys I am a Calvinist (all 5 points) and am happy to have a bash at some questions and points.

A bash? Well it might turn into that.

Have a "Bash" - (me thinks equals) "Have a go at it" (or something similar)

As danielwoods says, "have a bash at it" in the UK equals take a shot at it or have a go at it. Though "bash" means hit or punch, "have a bash" doesn't mean being derogatory - at least in this context! "Bashing" something would be rude. Confusing, isn't it?

[kassie]

Predestination just doesn't cut it for me....see below. I mean....why bother if Heavenly Father has already ascertained you may not be one of the "elect?" Sounds like a lot of work for nothing....No thanks. This would be a depressing belief system, for me, at least.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 330;

“But how are they [LDS] to become saviors on Mount Zion? By building their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, washings, anointings, ordinations and sealing powers upon their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection and be exalted to thrones of glory with them."

[jwhitlock]

I agree that strict Calvinists who adhere to the letter of TULIP are hard to find. Most who see themselves as Calvinists seem to adjust the doctrines in different ways.

When it comes to predestination, however, there seem to be (from my conversations) more people who take a more literal interpretation of the term as it is contained in the New Testament than is warranted. According to LDS understanding, predestination is misused in the scriptures, and should have instead been translated as "foreordained", which relates more to having been given a purpose or mission by God as part of this life. Predestination by its strict definition eliminates agency; foreordination embraces agency. If some non-LDS have decided to redefine predestination to include agency (we make the choice) then that's a step in the right direction towards foreordination.

However, there's still a major problem with the literal concept of predestination. You can't separate predestination from the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, or the orthodox christian doctrine that we were created out of nothing, along with the christian doctrine of God's omnipotence.

In the most basic sense, if God creates us out of nothing and is omnipotent, He controls the whole process. He can't just roll the dice, so to speak, and then save or condemn the results on a whim. The best retort to this that strict predestinationalists seem to be able to come up with is that God does indeed create us so that we are responsible for ourselves. Yet that still begs the question of how that can possibly absolve God of the responsibility for what we become (we were created out of nothing according to His perfect pattern) and why a God who is a God of mercy would do such a thing, to create something that He know would burn in torment for all eternity. It's an extremely troubling concept.

If one embraces agency and the fact that we all can choose, then there are several other facts that need to fall in line with that - namely:

- God does not create us out of nothing. He organizes or clothes some part of us that is not created and has existed independent of God into what we are today.

- While God knows what is going to happen, He then must allow us to make the choice of what we become ourselves. He can allow us to make that choice and remain God because there is a part of us that has existed independently of Him.

- God is then merciful and just because His desire is to allow each of us that He has organized to become the best that we can. A God who has total control over our creation out of nothing must be ultimately responsible for those condemned to burn, and so would be an unjust and arbitrary God. That's not the God the scriptures talk about.

Note that I termed omnipotence a christian doctrine; to clarify, it is an orthodox christian doctrine. From a christian understanding, that means that God has all power to do anything He desires. There are no limitations at all.

From an LDS perspective, God is bound by laws He must obey in order to remain God. He cannot sin. He must exercise the correct balance of justice and mercy in dealing with us. A Savior was necessary because God is required to operate within the laws that govern Him; He couldn't just save us in our sins. From a predestinationalist / creatio ex nihilist / omnipotence perspective, this whole thing about a Savior is odd. It wasn't necessary; it could have been done any way God wanted it to. Such doctrines paint a picture of a capricious God that is foreign to what we actually experience in our relationships with Him where we know He loves us deeply and wants the best for us.

So I think the real challenge here is to come up with a cogent defense of predestination, creatio ex nihilo, and God's omnipotence and make some sense of it, especially given the great backdrop of the scriptures which portray a very different type of God than the god that such orthodox doctrines would have us believe exists.

[MrG]

All looks fine to me.

I was in another thread were this topic came up. I have had the opportunity to discuss this topic in the past but it has been a while. I mainly think of the TULIP mode when this topic come ups. I know there are a few varieties out there.

Lets recap TULIP.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

So with that out of the way we can now begin the discussion.

[BlueDreams]

All looks fine to me.

Kay, this is not going to have much to do with the beginning 5-points. But when I don't understand something a person does/believes, I like to get an idea of how they came to such a belief. IN summary how did you become to your current belief structure (I know, for sake of posting this will probably be inadequate, but even a basic idea would be nice)

Beyond that, my major problem is about purpose. What's the point of mankind (all of it) to create such creatures (incapable on their own to turn to God) and allow the vast majority of them to be condemned history? I mean if God is omniscient and omnipotent....and if man doesn't have much say in their salvation (or lack) He's created the circumstances that would mean we are stuck in this mess of a problem. He could have easily created a circumstance where more were saved. So out of His pleasure he created a large number of individuals (or at least the circumstances) where they will come to live, die, and burn. How is this just or merciful? Why would he find this good?

With luv,

BD

Edited August 7, 2013 by BlueDreams