Predestination/Election (pt. 1) - digg this
First off, let me say that I loves me some interwebs. You run into all sorts of interesting people, learn all kinds of interesting things and get into all manor of interesting discussions. I got into one such discussion on Casey's blog about predestination and election. Casey and I don’t see eye to eye and that’s fine. This is not an issue that’s going to be won or lost on the web. It’s been a hot topic for quite some time. But I like going back and forth on stuff like this, because it challenges me to really think about it.
During that discussion one of the commentors said something to the effect that even Charles Spurgeon found the idea of predestination/election unpalatable. That didn’t sound right to me. I’m no Spurgeon expert so I went to the Pyromaniacs blog and consulted with them. It was confirmed that Spurgeon was indeed Reformed in his theology though he did “despise” hyper-Calvinism (pre-destination unto damnation) as much as he did Arminianism (free will to choose or reject God).
Then Frank Turk responded to my query with this,
However, (and we should have t-shirts made to this effect) nobody should really care what Spurgeon thought about anything: we should only be concerned to know and accept what God has Himself taught about the subject of salvation -- who is saved, why he saves, how he saved, when he saved, whether one needs to be saved, etc.Of course Frank couldn’t be more right. After all, none of us were baptized in the name of Spurgeon/Calvin/Arminius/etc. He went on to say a great deal more that was incredibly edifying and uplifting, for which I am thankful. Both he and Phil Johnson were very gracious in responding to my queries and I learned quite a bit. More on that to come.
While mulling all of this over in my head I threw a post up on my new message board and began to chat with Pinakidion. He challenged me to define predestination as I understood it. My reply was, “Basically the idea that God chooses whom he will to become Christians. Outside of his intervention we lack the ability to choose him. So God predestines whom he will to salvation. For me it's not about what color socks I'm going to be wearing this morning. Though God certainly knows that, he doesn't choose it for me.” This, as Pink said, is a sort of limited predestination that carries with it its own challenges to work through. It could be argued that God is Lord of All or not Lord at all. This is pretty much in line with what I understand the PCA church to believe (the Lord of all part). Everything I’ve heard taught there is very much an unlimited Lordship/sovereignty. I don’t know that I can believe however that God needs to predestine the socks I wear in order for him to be sovereign over the universe. So why do we need to be “choosen”?
For me it starts at the idea that man is “totally depraved”. This does not mean, as it may sound, that we are as bad as we could be. It doesn’t mean that man can’t perform good works for his fellow man. It simply (heh) means that man is unable in and of himself to choose God over sin. We are slaves to sin and we are dead in our transgressions. That’s pretty strong language that the Bible uses to show us where we were at in relation to God. The only way out of death or slavery is to be bought or regenerated. So that seems pretty clear. With me so far? Agree/disagree? Let me hear it.
Total Number of Comments: 17
I'll toss a couple of heathen pennies into this discussion.
Since I'm a hard determinist, I believe all of our choices are illusionary. Whether they be which socks you choose or which religion you choose makes no difference. If there is an all-knowing, creator God, then It made all choices for everyone at the moment of creation.
Indeed, divine foreknowledge is incompatible with freewill. If God knows that tomorrow you are going to wear your favorite lime-green socks with the purple zig-zags, then you will have no real choice in the matter. It may seem like a choice, but that is only because of your own ignorance of the future.
It's tough for most religionists to accept but logically it is inescapable: Either we have no freewill or there is no omniscient God.
Hey sid,
Since you offered, I am curious why divine foreknowledge equals predetermination.
I can see why predetermining one thing leads to predetermining everything. I can follow that logic. I just can't see foreknowledge = set in stone.
Hello Pinakidion,
Suppose that God knows that tomorrow Scott will 'choose' those lime-green socks of his. You know, the ones with the purple zig-zags? Presuming perfect knowledge, it would be impossible for Scott to make any 'choice' other than those lime-green socks. In other words, there really isn't any choice in the matter. Scott's actions will infallibly conform to God's perfect knowledge.
Does that help at all?
1. God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). 2. God's foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. 3. God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. 6. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. 7. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. 8. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. 9. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. 10. Those who do persevere are God's elect. 11. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. 12. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. 13. We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God's commandments (1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).
IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS
1. Predestination is not predetermination :
"Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved." (St. Augustine, Persever 14:35)
Predestination is God's decree of the happiness of the elect. God's infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God's foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.
2. Election is a consequence of God's foreknowledge :
By definition, the ELECT are those whom God infallibly foresees will be saved (Rom 8:28-30). By this definition, it is impossible for the elect to be lost, precisely because God foreknows who will not be lost. But since election depends on God's infallible foreknowledge, we simply have no way of knowing whether or not we are in that category -- God knows with certainty His elect, but we do not. The elect are predestined in the sense that God knows them, and enables them by grace, to be saved.
3. Free will can resist and reject God's grace :
"You stiff-necked people...you always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). The angels possessed grace and perfectly intact intellect, and yet many of them freely sinned and rejected God. Adam and Eve possessed grace and a perfectly intact nature, and yet they freely sinned. How much more so is it possible for the born-again Christian, who possesses grace but also a wounded nature and a darkened intellect, to sin also. Paul mentions sins which keep a man from the Kingdom of God: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, greed, and so on (1 Cor 6:9-10).
When Jesus was expressly asked what one must do to gain eternal life, he answered, "keep the commandments," and went on to list the moral commandments of the Decalogue (Matt 19:16-21). Revelation describes those whose lot is the burning pool of fire and sulfur, the second death: "cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste" and so on (Rev 21:8). Aren't born-again Christians capable of these sins? And if they die in these sins, how can they possibly inherit heaven? If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well. Surely we can harden our hearts and resist the Holy Spirit.
4. We cannot confuse Election with being "Born Again" :
The set of those who are "born again" (in Catholic and historic Christian understanding those who have been regenerated "of water and Spirit" in the Sacrament of Baptism -- John 3:3,5; Acts 2:38) is not necessarily co-extensive with the set of those who will persevere and gain eternal life. Born-again Christians can and (sadly) do fall away. Otherwise free will and (mortal) sin are merely fictitious for a Christian during this life of testing and pilgrimage. Otherwise all the language in Scripture of persevering to the end in order to be saved (cf. Matt 10:22; 24:13; Phil 2:12-13) makes no sense.
MICKY - http://micky-clontarf.blogspot.com/
I, MICKY, AM A GIFT TO ALL PEOPLE.
Just a thought:
If one's eternal destination is truly predestined then all of life is all about presdestination. Nothing else really matters.
Really, the words "well done good and faithful servant" have no real meaning in a predestined world.
Hi Micky and welcome! How did you find me?
Keep it going guys. I'll be back later with some comments on your... comments.
Hello Micky,
Thanks for numerically organizing your post. It makes responding much easier.
1. Saying doesn't make it true. Predestination is predeterminism. One who is predetermined to 'elect' salvation has no choice in the matter. God knows now that person X will go to heaven. Thus person X is only capable of making choices that will get him/her there. Those future choices are determined by God's current knowledge. The same applies to all of God's precognitions. Thus if God knows everything, then everything is predetermined (which is the same things as predestination).
To claim otherwise, you'd have to show an intrinsic difference between predestination and predeterminism. You did not do so in your comment.
In fact, the more I read through your comment, the more I noticed that it is completely void of rational argument and is simply a regurgitation of certain Christian doctrine. While this may be perfectly acceptable to the believers here, it's completely useless to nonbelievers like myself. I'm not interested in the the content of your doctrine, but the reasons you accept it.
"We cannot confuse Election with being "Born Again""
That doesn't really make sense to me. The notion of predestination to me speaks of something that is determined by an outside force. So the Bible speaks of God both predestining (choosing) some to salvation and foreknowing those same instances. So if you're baptized that really has nothing to do with wether you're saved or not. You can't be born again and then be un-born.
If God "God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved." then why are all men not saved? Is God powerless? Was Jesus sacrifice ineffectual for all? Is God's grace not sufficient? If you answer no to all of these then logically all men should be saved.
"Free will can resist and reject God's grace"
Our will is not free. It would seem that the Bible's pretty clear on that and on the consequences of sin regarding our heart's condition. Adam and Eve and Angels are special cases are they not? They're without the stain of original sin so their will is in fact free from that.
"If one's eternal destination is truly predestined then all of life is all about presdestination. Nothing else really matters."
Here are you talking about od predestining everything?
"Really, the words "well done good and faithful servant" have no real meaning in a predestined world."
So do you think that when God says that to you if your will was free, that it was your works that made you good? As someone who believes in predestination I'd say that the only for me to do well and be a faithful servant would be if God enabled me to be so. It doesn't lack meaning just because I needed God's intervention. Either way my works aren't sufficient to merit God's good will.
sid said:
Presuming perfect knowledge, it would be impossible for Scott to make any 'choice' other than those lime-green socks. In other words, there really isn't any choice in the matter. Scott's actions will infallibly conform to God's perfect knowledge.
Does that help at all?
*******
Somewhat.
I think that this assumes that there is only one timeline. There are no such things as alternate universes.
Subatomic particles have been defined as waves of probability that take shape by observation. You may not know the position and velocity of a particle as measuring either one changes the other. This, however, doesn't change the fact that it did have a specific position and velocity before it was observed.
It is not too much of a conjecture for me, to then see existence as molding things around us by our observations. Waves of probability collapse as we observe things. However, my perceptions may not be yours as we exist in different places in space-time and are measuring different aspects.
All of this leads me to believe that there are endless universes where all possible choices have/have not been made. If observation collapses the universe into defined points, I have to believe that there are places where all ranges of a given probability collapsed in different ways.
This preserves freewill to me. Choices matter because each choice creates new worlds. My perspective is linear, but my travels through space-time are not.
God, though is still sovereign because his knowledge extends to all choices through all time and all probability. This can make him deterministic from our perspective without eliminating our own choices. From his perspective, we chose every possibility.
Weird? Maybe, but logical based on a different set of assumptions.
Let me state unequivicably for the record, in this current space time continuum I do not own any lime-green socks with purple zig zags.
I do have a pair like these though - http://etrade.daegu.go.kr/co/c/ciglove/img/oimg_GC00208412_CA00208413.jpg
Hello pinakidion,
You are referring to the now-famous Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Briefly speaking, this is physicists trying their hand at philosophy. There are many interpretations of quantum behavior, some of which are purely deterministic and some of which necessitate many-worlds, but none of which are any better than the other with respect to the data.
Really this is a side note, for this interpretation still either limits God's knowledge or obliterates freewill. Suppose, as you postulate, the Many-Worlds Interpretation turns out to be correct. Let's now consider one simple choice: Scott will either choose the rainbow colored toe-socks or the plain toe-socks. An omnipotent God knows what will happen in either case. Heck, even we have a good idea of what will happen. But knowing the outcome of a every possible choice is not the same thing as knowing which choice will be made. Either God doesn't know which possible universe will come to be actual or we have no choice as to which reality gets actualized.
Yes, it is the many-worlds interpretation. I figured you'd be familiar with it.
The fact is that Scott makes both choices. Or more correctly, both Scotts make separate choices. (This doesn't even talk about the other Scotts with a more diverse sock collection.) Both universes are actualized, though our perspective allows us to perceive only one.
Supposing the existence of an all-knowing God, he determined that both choices were made. However, 'our' Scott cannot make both choices. As such, we perceive the Scott that chose the rainbow socks, and cannot perceive the one that chose the green ones.
I realize that 10 dimensional vibrating strings can be analogous to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God, just providing an alternative.
I see. So for every choice, a new Scott in it's own universe is created. I think that has dire consequences for the Christian concept of the soul. Do both Scotts share a soul? Is a new Scott-soul created with each choice? Does that mean there ultimately going to be a ton of Scotts in heaven and a ton of Scotts in hell? Will they be able to meet each other there? "Hello Jan-25th-6:15AM-rainbow-socks-Scott, I'm Jan-25th-6:15AM-plain-socks-Scott, and this is my friend Jan-25th-6:14AM-rainbow-socks-Scott." Is another Sid created in each of Scott's choice-worlds? Also consider the shear number of possible worlds this would create. 6.5 billion people (plus billions of other animals) choosing one possibility out of several every waking minute of every day. That's a lot of Scotts and Sids (scary).
Those interesting issues aside, let's go back to freewill. You are right, I misunderstood the many-worlds interpretation. You preserve both the omniscience of God, but I'm not so sure that freewill is preserved. Scott didn't make one chose, he made all possible choices. As you point out, this would seem like freewill to us due to our limited perception. But again, this is only apparent freewill and not actual. All those possibilities were made and predetermined.
I'll try to illustrate:
Scott didn't chose the rainbow socks, he put on both socks. He is now, without his knowing, experiencing the consequences of both possibilities simultaneously. Similarly, we are also experiencing only one set of consequences.
This is FASCINATING, talking about my socks and all, but don't you guys have something better to do? No... wait... this is far more interesting.
While I do think that though the many Scotts in Heaven sounds EAXACTLY like Heaven to me, Sid makes a good point. I think the argument would be that there's but one soul and it's that that moves through the multiverse, no? That's what Scott Adams proposed when he talked about this in one of his books.
It is quite staggering. And we don't exist in some of the parallel worlds. Maybe there's a parallel Heaven for each universe. Who knows? Without the ability to perceive various parallel existences, we'd have no way of measuring it.
Sure, it would be easier if God just chose after all of that. I mean, come on, 200 Billion Scotts in Heaven? Maybe it is like Highlander and there can be only one. I'm sure that Heaven does not need 200 Billion me's, either. Sheesh, what a weird place that would be. Even I wouldn't like it.
Seriously, though, 'our' Scott is experiencing the consequences of choosing his one pair of socks (whichever they were). The other Scott cannot be perceived at all. The other Scott is dealing with the opposite choice.
Scott,
Don't think that I communicated what I was trying to say this morning.. so let me try this question that I ask of my Christian Universalist friends:
Are we just God's pets?
In your case I would phrase it this way..
Are some of us just God's pets?
Here is an excerpt from my Divine Pets post.
Some folks seem to embrace a redemption/salvation scenario where God is unwittingly portrayed having an unrelenting purpose to be with His pets forever ... nothing His pets do can change His resolve ... the pets have absolutely no part in His decision ... He loves them unconditionally and does not care what they think about anything - including Him, His Son's sacrifice and the afterlife.
I find that this model of redemption/salvation to be somewhat of an affront to humanity because it robs us of divine dignity and reduces us to people who are handicapped and unable to respond to heavenly love. But maybe that is exactly what it should be. Maybe we are all divine dogs and cats - loved deeply by their Owner but not really respected by Him ... made by Him but not really in His image ... His to play with and stroke lovingly but truly unable to be a collaborator with Him in His kingdom . I find this to view to be somewhat condescending and demeaning.
Let me know wht you think
Thx, Bob