Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Paloma]

I've been wanting to get back to this topic when I have a bit of time.

(Calmoriah, ... and I mention this as an aside only ...I may have been the one (or one of others also) who talked about God's sovereignty being a key element within Calvinist understanding.)

Here we are talking about predestination, and I've never seen this as a central aspect of Calvinism or "reformed" theology.

In fact, having been raised in a "Reformed" family and in a Presbyterian (Calvinist) Church, I want to emphasize that I was NOT indoctrinated or even aware of the kinds of observations and arguments that critics of Calvinism make.

Honestly, I feel much like LDS folk must feel when their critics approach them with talk about Adam-God theology and "Satan is Jesus' brother", etc. Yes, there's some basis and some truth in the observations and criticism that people make, but in my experience it bears no resemblance to the faith that I was raised in and that I've understood and lived for most of my life. Granted, I would not describe myself as a Calvinist (and I doubt that many of you would call yourselves Brighamites, etc.).

Having said that, I realize that non-LDS Christians have a tendency to use descriptives such as Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, etc. much more readily than Mormons use similar terms to identify strains of theology. These can certainly be useful, but in my experience, their usefulness is very limited. Those of us who have some deeper experience of theology do find meaning in them, but many if not most non-LDS Christians have virtually no knowledge of what these terms mean. And of course these descriptive terms refer to merely human constructs that attempt to understand and express the mysteries of God, and the ways in which God relates to humanity.

Coming back to predestination ...

I brushed up on this subject by reading Alister E.McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction pp.394-404. McGrath notes that in Calvin's Institutes, he defines predestination (which McGrath sees as a very minor emphasis in Calvin's theology) as "the eternal decree of God by which he determined what he makes of every man. For he does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others".

I admit that this sounds appalling!

McGrath notes that Calvin's discussion of predestination is significant in that it follows rather than precedes Calvin's major exposition on the doctrine of grace which includes justification by faith. McGrath writes that "logically, predestination ought to precede such an analysis; predestination, after all, establishes the grounds of an individual's election, and hence his or her subsequent justification and sanctification. Yet Calvin declines to be subservient to the canons of such logic. Why? Calvin's analysis of predestination begins from observable facts. Some believe the gospel. Some do not. The primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why some individuals respond to the gospel, and others do not. It is an attempt to explain the variety of human responses to grace. Calvin's predestinarianism is to be regarded as reflection upon the data of human experience, interpreted in the light of Scripture, rather than something which is deduced on the basis of preconceived ideas concerning divine omnipotence. Belief in predestination is not an article of faith in its own right, but is the final outcome of scripturally informed reflection on the effects of grace upon individuals in the light of the enigmas of experience."

There's lots more McGrath has to say, especially about how Calvin's minor musings about predestination were recast and developed in schools of thought after his death. There arose the 'what's often called' "hyper Calvinist" school of thought with which TULIP would be identified, and also Arminianism (Jakob Arminius reacted strongly against the principle of predestination which resulted in the doctrine of particular redemption).

Arminianism states:

"God, by an eternal and unchangeable decree in Christ before the existence of the world, determined to elect from the fallen and sinful human race to everlasting life all those who, through God's grace, believe in Jesus Christ and persevere in faith and obedience ... Christ the Saviour of the world died for all and every human being, so that he obtained through his death on the cross, reconciliation and pardon for all, in such a way, however, that only the faithful actually enjoy the same".

As I'm reading McGrath, it occurs to me that to a certain extent, the difference between the "predestination" view and the Arminian view is not great, in one sense. Both recognize the fact that people respond differently to God's grace by either accepting it with faith or with rejection of the grace that is offered. Both answer the question "For whom did Christ die"?"

McGrath points out that within the thought of some Calvinists that succeeded Calvin, the "answer to this question took the following form: "Christ died for everyone; yet although his death has the potential to redeem all, it is only effective for those who choose to allow it to have this effect." (known as limited atonement or particular redemption). McGrath says that this teaching was regarded with intense distaste by Arminianists who reacted against the way in which this answer reflected an emphasis on God's having elected certain people to salvation, and others to damnation ... a natural consequence when the concept of predestination "assumes the status of a controlling principle".

As I overlay this theological background with my personal experience at home and at church, I sense that I grew up with Cal-Arminianism, although I was raised in the Reformed (presumably Calvinist) tradition. And I suspect that that would be true for many, many Reformed Christians.

I recall my parents and church leaders stressing that "God is not willing that any should perish". And I remember an illustration of predestination (which doctrine I never heard of until I was in my late teens or early '20's) that went like this: Predestination is like the gate of salvation through which one passes. As we approach and enter the gate, we see written above: "Whomsoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life". John 1:16. And after we have passed through, we look back and see written above: "Those whom he predestined he also called". Romans 8:30.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Paloma

[djholmess]

So I see at the start of this thread people were looking for Calvinists to discuss the five points. I'm a 5 point Calvinist and happy to answer any questions in relation to them. It seems the conversation has turned into a more general conversation about predestination though. Danielwoods your position does seem to be a lot closer to classical arminism than calvinism.

Something that is helpful to understand where Calvinists come from is to see it within the wider biblical framework from which the specific five points arose (1618-19). To that end Calvinists sometimes talk about the 6 or even 7 points of Calvinism. Not that there are seven points but the extra two points reflect biblically held convictions that were largely universally held within the Churches that discussed these issues back in the 1600's which are foreign to many people today.

The first point would be the total sovereignity of God. The belief that God didn't just create all things but that he controls everything in existence. A well known modern Calvinist has a quote something like, " there isn't one maverick molecule in the entire universe." So God has ultimate control over all things, events and people.

The second point would be about God's passion for his own glory. This sounds jarring to many people the first time they hear this but simply put it is the belief that God is not an idolator. In other words he does not put anything above himself. He rightly values himself above all things (being by far the most important) and so the just and righteous thing for him to do is act in a way that reflects his own worth. What that means for creation is that Gods main or overriding purpose is to display his greatness in creation and redemption.

I guess it would also be very helpful in understanding the five points to grasp the Calvinist concept of compabatilism also called compabatilistic free will. Essentially Calvinists believe that mankind has been given a creaturely will that is free so far as creatures are free to choose according to their will. God does not coerce anyone to make choices against their will. However he is ultimately in control over their wills such that all things that happen, happen according to his plan and purpose. So Calvinists believe both that God is totally sovereign yet man is morally accountable for the choices he makes.

[Questing Beast]

Unless God was able to create free moral agents.

Indeed, God cares and hurts that some will suffer for ever.

Then "God" is a masochist? I won't be wanting anything to do with worship of THAT either....

[Vance]

False.

I used an example, that even programers of computers think might be possible.

Only in fantasy land.

[MrG]

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.

This is a very understandable question. As someone who considers himself a Calvinist I believe that all people who come to faith in Christ do so because God has drawn them first (John 6:44) so yes the argument could be raised why witness at all.

The reason is simple, more than being a calvinist I am a Bible believing Christian, the same Bible that I believe teaches this doctrine also teaches that I should share my faith with others. That means that the means God uses to draw people to Himself is His people sharing the gospel (though not always) I can be confident in my witnessing that some may well respond and I dont have to be reliant upon my own clarity of speech etc (though the clearer the better) An excellent Biblical example of this is in Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Of course there are some that take this too far and decide not to witness to people, these are hyper calvinists. I feel this is an unbiblical position.

[MrG]

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 have come to this belief very simply because I see it so clearly taught in the Bible. Its not because I like it that I believe it, really I dont, if I was God I would do it much differently.

However I do not believe I have the luxury of believing God to be how I would have Him be, rather I believe Him to be how He has revealed Himself to be (to the best of my understanding)

All of mankind exists elect or not for one purpose, to glorify God. The absolute root of calvinist or biblical teaching is a glorious all powerful God who has the right to do whatever He wants with His creation, Romans 9 gives a great explanation.

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

[Vance]

True to a point.

The key question is concerning moral agency. Can God create a free moral agent or not? If he can then knowing all the input/outputs wouldn't be enough.

I agree, that the programing will dictate and will reflect what the designer intended (Which is why I believe in Intelligent Design). And if the designer intended for the program to have moral agency (at say age 12), then why is it impossible for him to have designed it that way?

Because it can only do what he designed it to do. It is NEVER independent or "free" from what he made it desire to do. He is totally responsible for all of its actions and responses.

What is the limitation here for God the ultimate programer?

The limitation is that the program does EXACTLY what he designed it to do. It can NEVER be independent or free from what he made it to be. It will respond to input/stimuli in EXACTLY the way he programmed it to do.

What is limiting him?

The program (or individual) is limited to respond in the EXACT way he programmed it to do. That is what is limiting him.

What exactly is stopping him from programing his creations in this way?

The program (or individual) itself. It can only respond to input/stimuli in EXACTLY the manner that he programmed it. No more, no less. In this case, he knows EXACTLY how it will respond to input/stimuli because he programmed it to respond that way. He is the cause of its response to stimuli.

[Damien the Leper]

You're absolutely correct. There is a difference between God the observer (knowing what will happen with the choices we make) and God who predestines by creating us in a manner that we can only make those choices. Foreknowledge is NOT predestination.

Amen!

I wanted to give you a rep point twice now today but I've used them all up. Normally, you and I disagree on much. I think I've given you more points in the last day than ever.

[danielwoods]

Then "God" is a masochist? I won't be wanting anything to do with worship of THAT either....

Nope. Only if he enjoyed hurting people would he be a that.

[danielwoods]

Because it can only do what he designed it to do. It is NEVER independent or "free" from what he made it desire to do. He is totally responsible for all of its actions and responses. The limitation is that the program does EXACTLY what he designed it to do. It can NEVER be independent or free from what he made it to be. It will respond to input/stimuli in EXACTLY the way he programmed it to do. The program (or individual) is limited to respond in the EXACT way he programmed it to do. That is what is limiting him. The program (or individual) itself. It can only respond to input/stimuli in EXACTLY the manner that he programmed it. No more, no less. In this case, he knows EXACTLY how it will respond to input/stimuli because he programmed it to respond that way. He is the cause of its response to stimuli.

Right and if he designed it to be a free moral agent, then that is what it does and exactly is.

[Vance]

Right and if he designed it to be a free moral agent, then that is what it does and exactly is.

If you want to call it a "free moral agent" then go ahead. But that is not what it is, nor can it ever be. It is totally bound to the desires and appetites which God installed within it, no more, no less. Edited August 8, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

God does not coerce anyone to make choices against their will. However he is ultimately in control over their wills such that all things that happen, happen according to his plan and purpose.

There you go.

Daniel, did you read that?

So Calvinists believe both that God is totally sovereign yet man is morally accountable for the choices he makes.

Ok, That is something I can whole heartedly agree with.

[Stone holm]

So I see at the start of this thread people were looking for Calvinists to discuss the five points. I'm a 5 point Calvinist and happy to answer any questions in relation to them. It seems the conversation has turned into a more general conversation about predestination though. Danielwoods your position does seem to be a lot closer to classical arminism than calvinism.

Something that is helpful to understand where Calvinists come from is to see it within the wider biblical framework from which the specific five points arose (1618-19). To that end Calvinists sometimes talk about the 6 or even 7 points of Calvinism. Not that there are seven points but the extra two points reflect biblically held convictions that were largely universally held within the Churches that discussed these issues back in the 1600's which are foreign to many people today.

The first point would be the total sovereignity of God. The belief that God didn't just create all things but that he controls everything in existence. A well known modern Calvinist has a quote something like, " there isn't one maverick molecule in the entire universe." So God has ultimate control over all things, events and people.

The second point would be about God's passion for his own glory. This sounds jarring to many people the first time they hear this but simply put it is the belief that God is not an idolator. In other words he does not put anything above himself. He rightly values himself above all things (being by far the most important) and so the just and righteous thing for him to do is act in a way that reflects his own worth. What that means for creation is that Gods main or overriding purpose is to display his greatness in creation and redemption.

I guess it would also be very helpful in understanding the five points to grasp the Calvinist concept of compabatilism also called compabatilistic free will. Essentially Calvinists believe that mankind has been given a creaturely will that is free so far as creatures are free to choose according to their will. God does not coerce anyone to make choices against their will. However he is ultimately in control over their wills such that all things that happen, happen according to his plan and purpose. So Calvinists believe both that God is totally sovereign yet man is morally accountable for the choices he makes.

Wow! No wonder so many Christians fled the Calvinist traditions.

[bluebell]

So I see at the start of this thread people were looking for Calvinists to discuss the five points. I'm a 5 point Calvinist and happy to answer any questions in relation to them. It seems the conversation has turned into a more general conversation about predestination though. Danielwoods your position does seem to be a lot closer to classical arminism than calvinism.

Something that is helpful to understand where Calvinists come from is to see it within the wider biblical framework from which the specific five points arose (1618-19). To that end Calvinists sometimes talk about the 6 or even 7 points of Calvinism. Not that there are seven points but the extra two points reflect biblically held convictions that were largely universally held within the Churches that discussed these issues back in the 1600's which are foreign to many people today.

The first point would be the total sovereignity of God. The belief that God didn't just create all things but that he controls everything in existence. A well known modern Calvinist has a quote something like, " there isn't one maverick molecule in the entire universe." So God has ultimate control over all things, events and people.

The second point would be about God's passion for his own glory. This sounds jarring to many people the first time they hear this but simply put it is the belief that God is not an idolator. In other words he does not put anything above himself. He rightly values himself above all things (being by far the most important) and so the just and righteous thing for him to do is act in a way that reflects his own worth. What that means for creation is that Gods main or overriding purpose is to display his greatness in creation and redemption.

I guess it would also be very helpful in understanding the five points to grasp the Calvinist concept of compabatilism also called compabatilistic free will. Essentially Calvinists believe that mankind has been given a creaturely will that is free so far as creatures are free to choose according to their will. God does not coerce anyone to make choices against their will. However he is ultimately in control over their wills such that all things that happen, happen according to his plan and purpose. So Calvinists believe both that God is totally sovereign yet man is morally accountable for the choices he makes.

So, if i'm understanding correctly,

According to Calvinism, the purpose of this life and our existence is all about God and everything that happens in it happens because of God's complete self-centeredness (that sounds like a horrible way to put it but I can't think of a better term, sorry).

In other words, God may be love, but it's the love of Himself, and not the love of any of His creations, that rules His actions.

Is that right?

[Paloma]

So, if i'm understanding correctly,

According to Calvinism, the purpose of this life and our existence is all about God and everything that happens in it happens because of God's complete self-centeredness (that sounds like a horrible way to put it but I can't think of a better term, sorry).

In other words, God may be love, but it's the love of Himself, and not the love of any of His creations, that rules His actions.

Is that right?

Bluebell, I'm thinking that God's "passion for His own glory" as djholmess (the person you're responding to) phrased it, would have to be consistent with all of Scripture and therefore includes the deep truth that God is Love, and all of the other-centred and sacrificial descriptions of God (especially in the New Testament, but not absent in the Old Testament either).

I've always understood God's sovereignty (which is what dj is discussing, I believe) in the light of God's essential omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and especially love.

Verses such as "In him, all things hold together", "Nothing can separate us from His love", and countless others show that His sovereignty undergirds His love and care for us.

Zephaniah 3:17 says:

The Lord your God in your midst,

The Mighty One, will save;

He will rejoice over you with gladness,

He will quiet you with His love,

He will rejoice over you with singing.”

Some versions of this verse translate that 4th line to say "He will rest in His love". I've heard that that's actually a more accurate translation, and I really like it because it shows God relying on Himself and His own love for the sake of our well being.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Paloma

[bluebell]

Bluebell, I'm thinking that God's "passion for Himself" as djholmess (the person you're responding to) phrased it, would have to be consistent with all of Scripture and therefore includes the deep truth that God is Love, and all of the other-centred and sacrificial descriptions of God (especially in the New Testament, but not absent in the Old Testament either).

I've always understood God's sovereignty (which is what dj is discussing, I believe) in the light of God's essential omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and especially love.

Verses such as "In him, all things hold together", "Nothing can separate us from His love", and countless others show that His sovereignty undergirds His love and care for us.

Zephaniah 3:17 says:

The Lord your God in your midst,

The Mighty One, will save;

He will rejoice over you with gladness,

He will quiet you with His love,

He will rejoice over you with singing.”

Some versions of this verse translate that 4th line to say "He will rest in His love". I've heard that that's actually a more accurate translation, and I really like it because it shows God relying on Himself and His own love for the sake of our well being.

Then, according to Calvinism, why doesn't God elect to save everyone?

[danielwoods]

If you want to call it a "free moral agent" then go ahead. But that is not what it is, nor can it ever be. It is totally bound to the desires and appetites which God installed within it, no more, no less.

Why not just state that you don't believe God can create such beings?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

First of all, I have known people who have always loved God, always drawn to him from their earliest youth. But the limit Grace and the Idea that God has already chosen, would suggest to me that those who live in Nations where other belief systems would suggest that most if not all are damned. This "type" of thinking has led to the attempted Genocide, of 1,000,000's, the attempted extinction of Jews. In fact much of the hate speech and tactics during WWII, could be traced to the writings of Martin Luther.

If the idea of Calvinism were true, the John Lennon was my ages greatest Prophet. But he was not.

[Paloma]

:crazy:

Then, according to Calvinism, why doesn't God elect to save everyone?

Then we'd be talking about universalism rather than Calvinism!

Calvinism arose as an attempt to describe and understand the observable reality that some people believe and some people do not, within the framework of observations and revelations in Scripture.

I personally think that "isms", while they may be helpful, are fatally flawed since they are human efforts to codify and systematize things that also have a deep, unfathomable divine component.

I personally prefer to simply be a Christ follower and stick to what I see clearly revealed in Scripture. Sure, I like to ponder and try to understand different theological positions. I see a lot of value in that, as well as some danger if human explanations are held too strenuously and if there's an attempt to make things fit within a certain system.

Edited to add:

Bluebell, I realize that you're asking your question of a 'true blue" Calvinist, and I'm hardly that.

But your question did arise in response to my post, so I attempted an answer!

I think I'm coming out here running interference for Calvinists (who may well not appreciate my input! ) in much the same way I'd tend to try to offer fair and reasonable explanations of Mormonism when comments and questions surface from those who have a less respectful understanding of the LDS faith than I have. A difference is that I am a non-LDS Christian raised in the Reformed tradition, but with decidedly non sectarian tendencies.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Paloma

[bluebell]

Then we'd be talking about universalism rather than Calvinism!

Calvinism arose as an attempt to describe and understand the observable reality that some people believe and some people do not, within the framework of observations and revelations in Scripture.

I personally think that "isms", while they may be helpful, are fatally flawed since they are human efforts to codify and systematize things that also have a deep, unfathomable divine component.

I personally prefer to simply be a Christ follower and stick to what I see clearly revealed in Scripture. Sure, I like to ponder and try to understand different theological positions. I see a lot of value in that, as well as some danger if human explanations are held too strenuously and if there's an attempt to make things fit within a certain system.

Fair enough.

djholmes and MrG, could I have your thoughts on why, according to Calvinism, God doesn't elect to save everyone?

[Paloma]

Fair enough.

djholmes and MrG, could I have your thoughts on why, according to Calvinism, God doesn't elect to save everyone?

I think I anticipated your wanting to hear from a true self-professed Calvinist when I edited my post above (before I saw your response here!)

And I want to say that I appreciate your respectful questions!

Dialogue done in a spirit of genuinely wanting to understand is great!

[Vance]

Why not just state that you don't believe God can create such beings?

Why not just admit that you believe contradictory things about God?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Why not just admit that you believe contradictory things about God?

Because I don't believe I do.

[Vance]

Fair enough.

djholmes and MrG, could I have your thoughts on why, according to Calvinism, God doesn't elect to save everyone?

Especially when the scriptures indicate that it is His will that all men are saved. (1 Tim 2:4)

[Vance]

Because I don't believe I do.

You certainly seem to believe that God can do all sorts of contradictory things.