Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[LordUther]

All looks fine to me.

It seems a rather sad doctrine to me, giving no hope to anyone but those elect that God has chosen to save.

A genuine question here, and I admit my understanding of this doctrine comes totally from what I have read in this wiki answer. If God has already decided who is to be saved and no man can thwart that, why do you feel the need to preach the gospel to others? What good can it do them? If I have been elected to saved then I will be saved, if I have not then surely it doesn't matter what church I belong to, my damnation will be the same.

[danielwoods]

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.

The defense, if that's what we want to call it. I'd call it an explanation. For God's omnipotence coupled with predestination and Ex Nihilo creation is found in free will.

The moment any being creates a truly free will (or more specifically a moral free will), then the potential for evil has been created. The only possible way to "create" an unconditional love relationship, is to create a free willed being. So God creating us as such, has given us this freedom. IF that is what God did, given us true moral freedom to choose right and wrong, then he no longer is ultimately responsible for our actions, which is why he can say in Romans 8:^{28 "}And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

²⁹ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

³⁰ Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

[bluebell]

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

This is my question as well.

How could a God who would purposefully creates a being just to burn for all eternity be considered loving, merciful, or just?

Being super nice to a handful of people doesn't, in my opinion, make up for finding joy in killing off billions of others, especially if they only 'deserve it' because you set it up that way.

[bluebell]

It seems a rather sad doctrine to me, giving no hope to anyone but those elect that God has chosen to save.

A genuine question here, and I admit my understanding of this doctrine comes totally from what I have read in this wiki answer. If God has already decided who is to be saved and no man can thwart that, why do you feel the need to preach the gospel to others? What good can it do them? If I have been elected to saved then I will be saved, if I have not then surely it doesn't matter what church I belong to, my damnation will be the same.

Another good question.

Why would God care if anyone was Mormon, for example (if Mormonism is as horrible as some Calvinists believe), or Buddhist, or Muslim? Such people are obviously going to go to hell no matter what according to TULIP doctrine, so what does it matter? Why fight against other religions?

[Vance]

The defense, if that's what we want to call it. I'd call it an explanation. For God's omnipotence coupled with predestination and Ex Nihilo creation is found in free will.

Nah. True free will and ex nihilo creation are incompatible.

The moment any being creates a truly free will (or more specifically a moral free will), then the potential for evil has been created. The only possible way to "create" an unconditional love relationship, is to create a free willed being. So God creating us as such, has given us this freedom. IF that is what God did, given us true moral freedom to choose right and wrong, then he no longer is ultimately responsible for our actions, which is why he can say in Romans 8:^{28 "}And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

²⁹ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

³⁰ Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

That is all fine and good. But it doesn't change the fact that "free will" and "ex nihilo creation" are incompatible. One can not exist with the other. So choose one, and stick with it.

[danielwoods]

Nah. True free will and ex nihilo creation are incompatible.

That is all fine and good. But it doesn't change the fact that "free will" and "ex nihilo creation" are incompatible. One can not exist with the other. So choose one, and stick with it.

Please explain how it is that God cannot create out of nothing, a true free will being?

[Vance]

Please explain how it is that God cannot create out of nothing, a true free will being?

Simple. The will He creates from nothing is EXACTLY what He makes it to be. No more, no less. It can NEVER be more or less than EXACTLY what He made it to be. It, then, can NEVER be "free" from what He made it to be. Any desire in it to sin, is the desire to sin that He made it to be. No more, no less. Any desire in it to do good, is the desire to do good that He made it to be. No more, no less. It can NEVER be independent or "free" from what He made it to be.

So, creatio ex nihilo and true free will are totally and completely incompatible. So, choose one and stick with it.

[Stone holm]

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

I suspect that the doctrine had its origin in dealing with omniscience. Calvin came down on the side of omniscience and the rest just flowed from there.

[Damien the Leper]

I posted this in the Mars Hill thread and decided to post it here:

Thank you, jwhitlock, for making an irrefutable demonstration that sensational & misleading characterizations of others' beliefs isn't a phenomenon unique to the non-LDS. In your most recent post, you've done the thread a real service--which should be clear to all but the most partisan. And please know that even after your butchery of the biblical doctrine of predestination--you're still not my enemy nor the enemy of my church. So if that was your hope & intent: FAIL

:0)

--Erik

EPIC FAIL, Erik. Foreknowledge is NOT predestination. Predestination is a heresy that robs humans of their ability to choose God. In our path to salvation we are declared righteous, not made righteous. This is where Total Depravity absolutely fails and fails absolutely. The following four points of the T.U.L.I.P. heresy are completely dependent upon the first.

If God has already elected those who are going to heaven, then why evangelize, seek to be saved, or even follow God's path? Your traditional Calvinist would proclaim, "Because God told us so!" But if God has already elected those who will be going to heaven, no amount of influence from Christians will change who is elected or not. Evangelism may be the means of how God saves the elect, but our conscience decision to not evangelize will not affect the elect. The interesting counter-argument would be when Calvinists say to non-Calvinists, "But why bother evangelizing... God already knows if a particular person will ever accept the message or not." However, foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and God transcends time.

If God predestined everything, then there is no use in praying for your friends or family. Basically, God has already predestined the events and no appealing to God will likely change his mind- it has already been predestined and cannot be changed.

If God predestined everything, then God created sin. This is where Calvinists disagree among themselves. There are several camps; some that believe every little detail has been predestined, those who believe that God predestined all major events (including salvation), and those who believe that God only predestines those who will be saved. I suppose this point would address the first camp; If indeed God did predestine every little thing, then God did create sin. He caused man to act a specific way knowing in advance what it would lead to.

If man is totally incapable of good, then man cannot truly be remorseful or repentant.

If man is totally incapable of good, then man cannot be faulted for his sins.

If God predestined everything, then there is no such thing as randomness. (Now that's an interesting research topic..)

If God predestined everything, then why eternally condemn the non-elect? After all, it is not their fault.. they were predestined to be damned! This concept is called double-predestination. The logic is rather simple: if God only allows the elect to be saved, and God predestined the elect, then by default, God predestined everyone else who is not elect to be eternally condemned. Most Calvinists believe it, but there are quite a few who don't. Thomas Aquinas' view was that God does not in fact damn those whose inherent sin would normally be condemning; God simply "passes over" those who he chose to not predestine. While this view is also somewhat arrogant, (how arrogant it is for us to believe we were predestined while our neighbor might not be), it simply doesn't make sense. The bible clearly states otherwise. (never mind that little verse that says "whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life")

Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect. Calvinists would point out verses such as John 10:11, Acts 20:28, and John 15:13-14, which states that Jesus died for his friends. However, Jesus promptly then states that we are his friends if we obey his commands. Clearly, though, Jesus died for everyone. Verses decribe Jesus as the savior of the world, the savior of all men, and etc. Specifically, 1 John 2:2, which states that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

Once-saved-always-saved is a farce. One only has to read the very last two verses of James (James 5:19-20) to see why. "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. " Calvinists typically don't have a response to verses like these other than to falsely argue that "well, the sinner must not have ever really been born from above to begin with." It is not unfeasible for someone to be whole-heartedly devoted to God for a majority of their lifetime and then suddenly snap and turn totally against God in his heart. For example, suppose Billy Graham were to all of a sudden denounce God and start worshiping Satan. Calvinists would suggest that Billy Graham must not have ever have been saved whereas any other rational person would say that he once was a great man of faith whose heart was totally devoted to God but then suddenly snapped.

[Stone holm]

I posted this in the Mars Hill thread and decided to post it here:

If God knows the outcome for each individual 100% in advance then mortals are predestined

[Damien the Leper]

If God knows the outcome for each individual 100% in advance then mortals are predestined

No. Such an assertion limits the ability to make a choice. If I choose God all the way to my death bed, by Calvinist standards, God may not have chosen me.

ETA: Or it invalidates my choosing God.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Valentinus

[bluebell]

If God knows the outcome for each individual 100% in advance then mortals are predestined

No.

Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same thing.

I can know what my child is going to do in a certain situation with 100% accuracy, but that does not mean my child was 'destined' to act as he did. Neither does it mean that I had any involvement in the choice he made.

Edited August 7, 2013 by bluebell

[Stone holm]

No. Such an assertion limits the ability to make a choice. If I choose God all the way to my death bed, by Calvinist standards, God may not have chosen me.

ETA: Or it invalidates my choosing God.

You misunderstood. If God knows the outcome then the outcome is predetermined what is what is, and life is a farce.

[Stone holm]

No.

Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same thing.

I can know what my child is going to do in a certain situation with 100% accuracy, but that does not mean my child was 'destined' to act as he did. Neither does it mean that I had any involvement in the choice he made.

Yes they are.

[bluebell]

Yes they are.

To be destined to do something means that it is out of your control and you are incapable of choosing something different. That is not the same thing as knowing something is going to happen before it does.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes they are.

Etymologically, historically, and theologically they are not.

[Stone holm]

Etymologically, historically, and theologically they are not.

Will have to agree to disagree.

[bluebell]

Will have to agree to disagree.

I don't mean to violate the 'agree to disagree' agreement (it's definitely useful when opinions are clashing and there is no way to resolve the issue).

But since this doesn't seem to be an issue of opinion but rather things that are founded in facts (like definitions of words and doctrines for example that have been well defined for decades if not centuries), could you explain how you personally get around the etymological, historical, and theological differences between these two concepts to make them mean the same thing to you?

[Stone holm]

To be destined to do something means that it is out of your control and you are incapable of choosing something different. That is not the same thing as knowing something is going to happen before it does.

If it is known that you are going to do something by God then it is your destiny and nothing can change it basically by definition. Although I do not believe in creation from nothing, it is possible to create something that you do not know for sure what it will do. Omniscience also puts Heavenly Father in the awkward spot of intentionally allowing mortals to come down here knowing that specific individuals are irrevocably destined to commit acts the consequences of which are worse than if they had never been born. I believe that Heavenly Father knows all that it is possible to know, but knowing for a 100% certainty what an individual human will do must be beyond Him else free will is destroyed and He winds up in an untenable ethical position.

[CV75]

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

Is predestination something like, "I feel more like I do now than when i got here"?

[stemelbow]

If God created all things out of nothing and before doing any creating knew precisely what the outcome was for each of his creations (he was/is omniscient), then anything anyone does is all due to what God conceived of for that person.

So if there is no predestination but God is omniscient, then there is no creation ex nihilo. if there is creation ex nihilo and no predestination then God is not omniscient.

Sadly this problem extends far beyond calvinism. Nearly the whole of Christianity has this problem on their hands.

You get a free pass on this LDS Christians, but you're not free from other problems.

Edited August 7, 2013 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

If it is known that you are going to do something by God then it is your destiny and nothing can change it basically by definition.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't actually mesh with what these words mean.

Predestination means that something was pre-determined or, in other words, 'determined, decided, or established in advance'. It can also mean 'to influence or sway towards an action'.

That is not the definition of foreknowledge though. All foreknowledge is, is knowing something beforehand.

I can know it's going to rain, without rain being predestined to occur, for example. I can know i'm going to get an A on a paper for school without getting the A being my destiny.

Also, you seem to be hung up on the notion that if God knows you are going to do something, then it will happen (so, in your mind, that has translated to mean it HAD to happen). But saying something will happen and saying something HAD to happen are actually completely different concepts.

If I speed in my car, then I WILL break the law. I didn't HAVE to break the law though. If such was the case then that would imply that I had no choice in the matter-that my actions were predetermined and thus breaking the law was outside of my control.

Since it is completely within my control though, the law breaking was not my destiny but my choice.

Just because something will happen doesn't mean it has to. Going back to the definitions above, knowing something beforehand (foreknowledge) does not equate to something being established or determined in advance. This is why foreknowledge doesn't equate to predestination.

Omniscience also puts Heavenly Father in the awkward spot of intentionally allowing mortals to come down here knowing that specific individuals are irrevocably destined to commit acts the consequences of which are worse than if they had never been born.

It is only a warped and incorrect definition of what foreknowledge is that creates this 'awkward spot'.

Knowing that some individuals will choose to commit acts that will have dire consequences is not the same as an individual being irrevocably destined to do so.

It is not at all unethical to allow people to choose badly if they want to, even if you KNOW they will do so. The choice still completely comes from the will of the individual and so the observer (regardless of their foreknowledge) can never justly be held responsible for it.

[Stone holm]

You keep saying this, but it doesn't actually mesh with what these words mean.

Predestination means that something was pre-determined or, in other words, 'determined, decided, or established in advance'. It can also mean 'to influence or sway towards an action'.

That is not the definition of foreknowledge though. All foreknowledge is, is knowing something beforehand.

I can know it's going to rain, without rain being predestined to occur, for example. I can know i'm going to get an A on a paper for school without getting the A being my destiny.

Also, you seem to be hung up on the notion that if God knows you are going to do something, then it will happen (so, in your mind, that has translated to mean it HAD to happen). But saying something will happen and saying something HAD to happen are actually completely different concepts.

If I speed in my car, then I WILL break the law. I didn't HAVE to break the law though. If such was the case then that would imply that I had no choice in the matter-that my actions were predetermined and thus breaking the law was outside of my control.

Since it is completely within my control though, the law breaking was not my destiny but my choice.

Just because something will happen doesn't mean it has to. Going back to the definitions above, knowing something beforehand (foreknowledge) does not equate to something being established or determined in advance. This is why foreknowledge doesn't equate to predestination.

It is only a warped and incorrect definition of what foreknowledge is that creates this 'awkward spot'.

Knowing that some individuals will choose to commit acts that will have dire consequences is not the same as an individual being irrevocably destined to do so.

It is not at all unethical to allow people to choose badly if they want to, even if you KNOW they will do so. The choice still completely comes from the will of the individual and so the observer (regardless of their foreknowledge) can never justly be held responsible for it.

If God knows 100% that someone is going to do something, under what conceivable definition could it possibly be said that said individual was not destined to do something. God is not just an observer.

[bluebell]

If God knows 100% that someone is going to do something, under what conceivable definition could it possibly be said that said individual was not destined to do something. God is not just an observer.

It is the reason WHY someone is going to do something that makes the difference.

Is he going to do something because it was predetermined before he was even born that he would (predestination) or is he going to do something, which God knew he would do even before he was born, because he has used his agency to make that choice (foreknowledge)?

When it comes to the choices we make, God is just an observer. He teaches us and tries to help us choose the right, but in the end, our choices are 100% ours.

[stemelbow]

It is the reason WHY someone is going to do something that makes the difference.

Is he going to do something because it was predetermined before he was even born that he would (predestination) or is he going to do something, which God knew he would do even before he was born, because he has used his agency to make that choice (foreknowledge)?

When it comes to the choices we make, God is just an observer. He teaches us and tries to help us choose the right, but in the end, our choices are 100% ours.

I can agree with what you say if creation ex nihilo was not involved. If creation ex nihilo then God conceived of your choices before you were around to make them. In this case foreknowledge is really just predestination. He designed your very choices before you were, given the creation ex nihilo and God is omniscient