|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Predestination
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
What do you think the New Testament understanding of predestination or election is?
I don't get it.
e.g.
romans 8:28-39 28 We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. 30And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
and or:
10 Then the disciples came and asked him, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’ 11He answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 13The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.” 14With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: “You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. [Matthew 13:10-14]
and/or the heardening of the heart of Pharaoh.
It doesn't make any sense.
Why would God choose only some to understand and believe and be saved?
Why bother creating them at all if you foreknew who would not receive salvation and therefore condemn the to Hell?
[Edited to clarify scripture citation. Mamacita, Host]
[ 05. July 2014, 20:00: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
My own take is that the text is referring to the apostles, those who were predestined and appointed to build the Church up from scratch. There is no way that God who loved us so much as to send us Jesus to show us the way, and be sure to reach out and send the message of the good news to the whole world, would on the other hand have rejected some from before their birth.
It's our humble attitude that's important for revelation, and for receiving from God. Those with hard hearts or with inflated egos have not been given these by God, but they must inevitably create barriers between them and understanding, belief, and salvation.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
IMHO (also the traditional Lutheran position) predestination is a topic best left alone; but if you must think about it, take Staupitz' advice and look at it "through the wounds of Christ." Any so-called logical conclusion that makes it look like God does NOT truly "desire all people to be saved" is to be rejected, no matter what violence this does to logic. Even if it makes your head explode.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
My feel is that the NT understanding would be the same as the OT understanding, which it takes over without qualification: that God appointed and authorised individuals and sometimes nations to perform tasks associated with ruling God's creation in a way that countered the forces seeking to rebel and undermine that creation. In other words this is about purpose (a calling), less about status. It assumes the obvious fact to those then that creation was not working well – there were rebellious forces all around and God needed to do something to counter them.
The issue of salvation – skewed somewhat by centuries of tampering! - may be linked to this, but has neither a primary nor a direct association. “Vindication” is perhaps a better word in the context of appointment/authorisation.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMHO (also the traditional Lutheran position) predestination is a topic best left alone; but if you must think about it, take Staupitz' advice and look at it "through the wounds of Christ." Any so-called logical conclusion that makes it look like God does NOT truly "desire all people to be saved" is to be rejected, no matter what violence this does to logic. Even if it makes your head explode.
I wholly agree, and have posted a bit about free will and such things on the free will/determinism thread. I agree with Boethius on such matters--we have free will but God sees us from a point of view transcending past, present and future, and thus He knows the decisions we make in what we presently (but imperfectly) perceive as the "future," which I am sure plays into the mix of (from our point of view within time) matters of "pre"destination.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I think I probably go along with that.
I must confess that I have enormous problems with the whole concept of predestination, which appears to be far too deterministic and easily slides into a belief in a god (sic) that is little more than a bigoted ogre - something to be feared and appeased rather than Someone to be loved and worshipped.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I think we have to be careful when it comes to this subject. We have to be careful not rashly dismiss something which might seem to our liking. I would say that scripture teaches both free will and predestination and therefore we should hold to both, albeit in tension with one another.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]...we have free will but God sees us from a point of view transcending past, present and future, and thus He knows the decisions we make in what we presently (but imperfectly) perceive as the "future," which I am sure plays into the mix of (from our point of view within time) matters of "pre"destination.
That's pretty much how I would see it too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that scripture teaches both free will and predestination and therefore we should hold to both, albeit in tension with one another.
The difficulty with that, as far as I can see, is that it is very hard to have any concept of predestination which doesn't negate any real sense of free will.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I agree with Oscar the Grouch. At least in the common meanings of the words, predestination and free will seem to be two contradictory concepts. How is it possible to hold them both in tension?
I read the other day that people sometimes try to find a middle way between the two, but actually free will - our free choice, albeit made possible by God's grace towards and 'wooing' of all people - is the middle ground. Predestination is on one side and on the other is the idea that it's all down to our choice without any grace from God towards us.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Much of the problems arising from these concepts resolve if we realise God beats Time not the other way around. God doesn't just KNOW what we might do but acts across time and not necessarily sequentially in our terms! "pre" and "destined" are likely contemporary in God terms.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Much of the problems arising from these concepts resolve if we realise God beats Time not the other way around. God doesn't just KNOW what we might do but acts across time and not necessarily sequentially in our terms! "pre" and "destined" are likely contemporary in God terms.
I don't think this helps, sorry. Either God chooses (in advance, or completely outside of time if you want) whether each person ever to be born will spend eternity with him, or each person makes that decision for themselves. I don't see any middle ground.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
SCK, that's where I am, too.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I believe that any theology which imagines God as damning people when they might have otherwise begged to be let in... imagines a God I simply cannot believe in.
I think that 2 Peter 3:9 is an example of God's attitude towards everyone: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
If God is, indeed, unwilling for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance, then however He sorts it out, outside time or otherwise, I think He cannot be saying, "Right, I'm just going to damn these people over here, but I could have saved them if I really cared about them." Therefore I believe the door must be locked by us, not by Him, and whatever those verses about "fore"knowledge and "pre"destination may mean, they cannot possibly mean that the God Who, out of love for everyone, was willing to sacrifice His Son by death on a cross was willing to callously pitch some people into Hell without giving them some chance to receive Christ's saving grace.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I believe that any theology which imagines God as damning people when they might have otherwise begged to be let in... imagines a God I simply cannot believe in.
Same here. Although, IMO, it's more important to say that such a god seems incompatible with the character of Jesus (who is our ultimate revelation of what God is like) and with the biblical statement that 'God is love'.
For this reason, I will subject to close scrutiny any Bible passage that seems to suggest predestination, to see if any other interpretation is feasible.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oh, come, come, gentlemen. There is always some middle-ground. There is always a both/and rather than an either/or position.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I don't see how we can't hold each in tension at all. I'd also suggest that we need to bear the context in mind with the Romans references - the apostle Paul is constructing an elaborate argument to show that salvation isn't restricted to Israel but has now been extended to the Gentiles through the life, death and resurrection of Christ - and in order to do so he has to demonstrate that it has always been by grace through faith and not by observing the 'works' of the Jewish Law.
This leads him into some elaborate footwork along the way - Abraham being justified by faith, Pharoah's heart being 'hardened' in order that God's purposes might be fulfilled.
The 'Jacob I loved but Esau I hated' references also have to be seen in context. As far as many of the Jewish midrashes or Rabbinic glosses and commentaries were concerned, Esau actually comes out right in the end - and you can see this in the story itself where Esau and Jacob are reconciled. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Esau's eternal destiny - rather than he'd sold his birthright and that was irrevocable. Nevertheless, good came out of it ...
The weakness with the free-will side, of course, is that it can lead to an over-emphasis on our own efforts rather than divine grace. There is an equal and opposite problem with the more 'monergist' viewpoint and that can lead to over-determinism (as in hyper-Calvinism) and the view that we are simply sock-puppets.
I can't see why a middle-way between both extremes isn't possible. It's possible to hold truths in tension.
If we believe that Christ is both 100% fully God and 100% fully man - and not 50/50 or 60/40 or 70/30, 80/20 etc ... then why should it be such a problem accepting that both predestination and free-will (or synergia rather?) are both true at one and the same time?
Why do we have to get overly binary and dualistic about the whole thing?
Why can't it be both/and rather than either/or?
We are dealing with divine mysteries here for goodness sake.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The weakness with the free-will side, of course, is that it can lead to an over-emphasis on our own efforts rather than divine grace... I can't see why a middle-way between both extremes [free-will and hyper-Calvinism] isn't possible. It's possible to hold truths in tension.
I missed this off my previous post but I think classical Arminianism avoids that over-emphasis on our own efforts and indeed is the middle ground - we choose whether or not to follow Christ, but without God's attitude of grace towards us (towards all people) the choice in favour of Christ simply would not be possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If we believe that Christ is both 100% fully God and 100% fully man - and not 50/50 or 60/40 or 70/30, 80/20 etc ... then why should it be such a problem accepting that both predestination and free-will (or synergia rather?) are both true at one and the same time?... We are dealing with divine mysteries here for goodness sake.
I think such an approach bends the meaning of words so much as to make them useless, sorry. We can 'get away with it' in terms of describing the nature of Christ because he is a unique life-form; something that applies to all other life-forms does not necessary apply to him because he is God, the creator and sustainer of the universe.
But how can 'predestination and free-will (or synergia rather?) [be] both true at one and the same time'? It seems like a logical impossibility unless some of the terms are being used with meanings that they don't have in any other context. (Which isn't a viable approach, IMO.) I think we have to admit we don't know, or come down on one side or other of the argument. 'Both / and' is, in this case, useless fence-sitting, IMO.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Only if you believe the only available options are Arminianism on the one hand and Calvinism on the other.
This isn't an issue to the Orthodox because they are neither. Although they are closer to the Arminian position than the Calvinist one, of course.
I can see what you are getting at but there are other theological issues and concepts where a both/and rather an either/or position apply. It's not just Christology.
For instance, we can take a view of the Real Presence in the eucharist that is neither a full-on transubstantiation type view (as in the RCs) nor a Zwinglian memorialist one.
There are plenty of other examples.
I agree with you that classical Arminianism puts forward the view of 'pre-venient grace' - that we can only believe and only 'work out our salvation' by divine grace and agency. Sure.
But I'm not convinced that either a classic Arminian position nor a classic Calvinist one entirely fits the scriptural data. You've got to do some nipping and tucking to make either of them 'fit'.
Consequently, I feel that there must be a 'more excellent' way and whilst I still have some difficulties with the Orthodox approach to these things one of the aspects that I do admire with them is the way that the whole Calvinist/Arminian debate becomes redundant.
It's almost worth becoming Orthodox purely for that reason ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
So we can get away with saying, 'It's a holy mystery' and have the full sanction of the Church for doing so ...
More seriously, I have seen it posited by some Orthodox that the Eastern and Western views on this one are actually complementary rather than necessarily opposed to each other.
But I'm not sure that's a particularly common or popular view in their neck of the woods.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Ah, so do you mean 'neither... nor' instead of 'both... and'? In which case, I understand and appreciate your position; although I think it's still helpful to try and say what alternative view it is that you're putting forward.
I mean, sure, on some issues and at some points we have to say 'I just don't know'. But your 'both... and' position seems to me, on many issues, like you're trying to have your cake and eat it. For example, with this question of predestination / free will, you believe (perfectly reasonably, IMO!) that each position has problems. But instead of wrestling with those problems, ISTM you would rather kind of duck the issue and try to make out that both can be true.
But I don't think both can be true. I think we have to admit defeat, or lean towards one side or other. And with an issue like free will / predestination, I think it's particularly important to wrestle and try to come to some kind of viewpoint - because the answer has much to say about the nature of this God to whom we devote and submit our lives.
Fundamentally, that's why I desperately want Arminianism to be true; because the obvious alternative (predestination) unavoidably (IMO of course) makes God a capricious, brutal monster. If anyone can show how predestination can be reconciled to 'God is love' then I'm all ears...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Is God all knowing? If not he is not the same God I believe in any way. If he is, then he knew what we would do even before foundation of the world and to each he preordained their fate knowing how they would use their freewill, everlasting life to those who loved him and judgement to those that hated him. This is what predestination means, that he knew this from eternity before he had even created the first molecule etc.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Ad Orientem but that's fore-knowledge rather than predestination as such?
But if you are describing predestination in such terms then I don't have an issue with it at all.
The problem with the predestination point of view in the Calvinist conundrum is that whilst it follows logically from the rest of the schema, it tends to stretch things beyond what we can legitimately infer from the scriptures ...
Although, to be fair, moderate Calvinists say that God 'gave them up' ie. sinners - to the consequences of their sin - rather than somehow 'willing' it for them from the beginning as it were.
Also, what's wrong with wanting my cake and eat it?
I can live with ambiguity and tension. We are surrounded by it. Let's get sued to it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Ad Orientem but that's fore-knowledge rather than predestination as such?
Agreed. Using the word 'predestination' to describe what Ad Orientem said is unhelpful, IMO, because we already have the word 'foreknowledge' for this purpose and most people mean something different by 'predestination'.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, what's wrong with wanting my cake and eat it?
I can live with ambiguity and tension. We are surrounded by it. Let's get sued to it.
What's wrong is that you can't have your cake and eat it! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) It's like saying something (say, a car) is both black and white. It could be partly black and partly white, in which case we can talk about which parts are white and which parts black. Or it could be grey - somewhere between black and white, but not really being either. Again, we could discuss whether the car is mostly black or mostly white, or somewhere in the middle.
Or the car could be neither black nor white at all, of course. But what we can't say is that it is simply both black and white. That cannot be the case, and I think the same is true of predestination / Arminianism.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But I don't think both can be true. I think we have to admit defeat, or lean towards one side or other. And with an issue like free will / predestination, I think it's particularly important to wrestle and try to come to some kind of viewpoint - because the answer has much to say about the nature of this God to whom we devote and submit our lives.
... If anyone can show how predestination can be reconciled to 'God is love' then I'm all ears...
I think you're very right about this. All I would add is that the answer to the freewill or predestination dichotomy also has a huge influence on how we see ourselves as followers of Christ. Ultimately, I believe, predestination leads to a very pessimistic and restrictive view of humanity. Whereas feee will points in a very different direction, towards freedom, responsibility and adulthood. A small child lives a "predestined" life, where everything is decided for them. Adults live a "free will" life, where they have freedom to choose and where they have to live with the results of their choices. Let's face it, I can't try and blame anyone, not even my parents, if I have chosen to marry someone utterly unsuited to me.
A few years ago, I adopted the phrase "looking through the lens of love". I decided that the best way of handling difficult bits of the Bible or challenging aspects of my faith was to look through the lens of love - to consciously consider the God of love revealed in Christ and how such a God might act or speak. I have found this really helpful, especially in such areas as this. Looking through the lens of love, I find it hard to see a God who would trample over and negate the very freedom which is part of our nature and such an essential part of our collective vision of what we aspire for ourselves and for others.
Looking through the lens of love isn't the complete answer to everything, but I have often found it to be the best place to start.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd agree with that, Oscar.
My comments on having my cake and eat it were rather tongue-in-cheek, SCK.
I used to be fairly Calvinistic but I got better ...
I never fully bought into Limited Atonement, though, so I was probably a TU IP rather than a TULIP.
But as Calvinists keep telling me, you can't remove any one of the petals without the whole thing unravelling and falling apart.
Which is fine by me.
I can certainly understand what Calvinists are out to maintain and protect and I have a lot of sympathy with their motives and where they are coming from. The problem I have with it is that it ends up boxing God in and rather than defending his sovereignty and the 'crown rights of King Jesus' it ends up hemming him into a system that is ostensibly greater than he is -- if such a thing were possible (which of course, it isn't).
There are issues on the Arminian side too, of course.
Which is why, on this particular issue, I quite like the Orthodox approach because it is neither Arminian nor Orthodox because they don't share the same Western mindset that makes these possible.
I once saw a post on an internet chat-room by an Orthodox priest who said that when asked whether the Orthodox Church believes in justification by faith or in justification for faith and works ... his answer is always, 'Yes'.
I don't see any cop-outs involved in that kind of position.
'Are you for us or for our enemies?' Joshua asked the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord.
The answer was 'Neither' - 'But as the commander of the hosts of the Lord I come to you.'
http://biblehub.com/joshua/5-14.htm
If it's good enough for the Commander of the Hosts of the Lord then a 'neither/nor' or a both/and answer is good enough for me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Okay Gamaliel, what is the Orthodox view on this then? Neither Arminianism nor Calvinism, but....
The Captain of the Hosts of the Lord had a 'but' (as it were, ahem); what's your 'but'?
EDIT - OtG, yes I like your 'looking through the lens of love' approach. Definitely.
[ 07. July 2014, 15:11: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Orthodox view is very different from the Western one as they tend to see sin as a disease to be cured rather than as a crime that needs to be punished.
Their view of original sin is different. Armininian and Calvinist positions depend on a very juridical view of the atonement and upon Western notions of original sin.
There have been threads on this.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox view is very different from the Western one as they tend to see sin as a disease to be cured rather than as a crime that needs to be punished.
Their view of original sin is different. Armininian and Calvinist positions depend on a very juridical view of the atonement and upon Western notions of original sin.
Hmm, I don't think Arminianism depends on a juridical view of the atonement, does it? Or are you saying the official / standard / common Orthodox view is universalism, and thus the question of Calvinism or Arminianism is simply moot?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
One could argue that it's both/and, of course - that the scriptures support both a juridical and penal approach and the approach which the Orthodox take - which is more about triumphing over sin and death through Christ's sinless life, his atoning death and mighty resurrection and ascension.
The aspect of the Calvinist take on predestination is that it does seek to emphasise and protect the idea of God's action in 'saving to the utmost those who come to him'.
As the 39 Articles - I think it was - put it, these things are meant for our 'comfort'.
The problem is that it becomes far too binary and dualistic. And that's when we get the horrors of double-predestination and the idea of God as some kind of inscrutable Molech.
Sure, that's a caricature of the moderate Calvinist position but such a view is never far below the surface. Conversely, one could argue, a self-righteous attitude is never far below the surface in the other schemas available to us.
That's why I think there's a balance somewhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I cross-posted ... and I also meant to say that the 'appeal' of Calvinism was ... etc rather than 'aspect of Calvinism' ...
On the Orthodox thing - yes, it can lead to universalism. But 'officially' the Orthodox aren't universalists.
I'm not a universalist either.
I just think that the Arminian/Calvinist divide and debate is all very binary and insufficiently nuanced.
Most Arminians, I would suggest, do take a juridical and penal substitutionary view of the atonement. Mudfrog is a classic Wesleyan in this respect and I think his posts on these boards reflect what most people would understand as the Arminian position.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
The OP said quote:
What do you think the New Testament understanding of predestination or election is?
This discussion has strayed from that to the general topic of predestination. If you want to discuss predestination in general, we can move the thread to Purg.
If you want to discuss what the NT says about predestination, then stick to the topic.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Hello ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Did I hear my name called?
Predestination is not something that I believe of course, being a Wesleyan.
The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is interesting. Using a Sunday School Chorus I could caricature it as a battle between "He has decided I'll follow Jesus." (Calvin) and "I have decided to follow Jesus." (Arminius)
Of course my Wesleyanism is the middle ground - for I do not believe that anyone can simply wake up one morning and, of their own free will 'decide to follow Jesus'.
Why not?
Because Wesleyans accept the T of TULIP
We would be TCUPA:
Total depravity
Conditional election
Unlimited atonement
Prevenient grace
Assurance of salvation
So, where we are the exact opposite of Calvinism in points 2 - 5 we are in total agreement with the first point - we are totally depraved, dead in trespasses and sins, unable to choose, unable to 'work up' enough faith in order to believe; unable to 'save ourselves' by choice and exercising our faith.
But we wouldn't say that sovereign saving grace is given to those whom God chooses; we would say that God only saves through grace - and this is not of ourselves - but that he also gives prevenient grace to all (because of unlimited atonement).
This grace gives the possibility of responding to the Gospel when properly heard and understood. It is then, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, that a person can then receive saving grace through the exercise of faith.
So, what is the predestination thing about?
My reading of one particular passage is that we are chosen 'in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy,' and that we are predestined to 'adoption as his sons' (Ephesians 1 v 4,5).
This isn't so much simply that God predestines certain people to be saved, but that those who do believe are predestined for holiness and sonship, not just getting our sins forgiven; it's what God has predestined for the purpose of salvation.
Christ died for all that all may be saved.
He did not die for all that all will be saved.
Neither did he did not die for some that he might save them and ignore the rest.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, what is the predestination thing about?
My reading of one particular passage is that we are chosen 'in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy,' and that we are predestined to 'adoption as his sons' (Ephesians 1 v 4,5).
This isn't so much simply that God predestines certain people to be saved, but that those who do believe are predestined for holiness and sonship, not just getting our sins forgiven; it's what God has predestined for the purpose of salvation.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of those verses and, as has already been said, it gives us a way out of God apparently making the grotesque choice to send some people into eternity separated by him (whether by annihilation or in a conscious hell).
Roger Olson, a strongly Arminian theologian, has recently published several blog posts about his views on predestination. Here is the first one, and the others follow on here.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Since you apparently are not interested in discussing Bible texts, this thread is moving to Purgatory.
Moo, Kerygmania host
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Since you apparently are not interested in discussing Bible texts, this thread is moving to Purgatory.
Moo, Kerygmania host
I quoted and discussed a Bible text!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
My feel is that the NT understanding would be the same as the OT understanding, which it takes over without qualification: that God appointed and authorised individuals and sometimes nations to perform tasks associated with ruling God's creation in a way that countered the forces seeking to rebel and undermine that creation. In other words this is about purpose (a calling), less about status. It assumes the obvious fact to those then that creation was not working well – there were rebellious forces all around and God needed to do something to counter them.
This fits well with an Open Theist pov (especially Greg Boyd) which sees God as foregoing exhaustive "foreknowledge"/ predestination in favor of creating a truly "open" or free universe. What the passages cited indicate is the truth that, while our future choices are entirely free/open, all of those free choices are known by God-- all the contingent possibilities & the multiple ramifications of each. So that in each contingent possible future God has a plan in place to accomplish his purpose-- occasionally thru the use of intermediaries (but never contrary to their will).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In seminary, when reading Richard Hooker's essay on predestination, we joked, that for the good Anglican divine, it comes down to this:
1) If you are of the elect, it is because of God, and you can't take any credit.
2) If you are of the reprobate, it's your own damn fault.
Yes, of course, it doesn't make any sense, but strangely it is appealing to me.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God cannot forgo passive knowledge of what hasn't happened. Of what doesn't exist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God cannot forgo passive knowledge of what hasn't happened. Of what doesn't exist.
Agh! There are so many double or triple negatives in that sentence I cannot tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my point!
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
yeah, but knowing me, what do you THINK?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Evensong: What do you think the New Testament understanding of predestination or election is?
Like Moo, I regret that this post has moved away from Evensong's original question (see quote), and has drifted into a general discussion about predestination.
ISTM that the meaning of predestination and/or predetermination is not coherently thought through in the NT, or the meaning was less precise or different from the way it subsequently came to be understood.
Take for example Peter's sermon at Pentecost. In Acts 2: 23 the apostle preaches: "This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." And in verses 36-7: "“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
It would seem to mean that God pre-determined the death of Jesus (God's deliberate plan), but then put the blame on the Jewish people for being his agents, incurring his wrath and condemnation. Is that what the writer of Acts is really arguing?
Furthermore, in Luke 22:3-4, the plan to kill Jesus began not at the prompting of God but when "Satan entered Judas", which might seem to be at variance with the same author's view in Acts.
I, for one, would welcome an answer to Evensong's question.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that scripture teaches both free will and predestination and therefore we should hold to both, albeit in tension with one another.
The difficulty with that, as far as I can see, is that it is very hard to have any concept of predestination which doesn't negate any real sense of free will.
This is just my attempt to harmonize the two ideas, but my sense is that God's plan for the world is predestined to come about and we have the free will to be part of it or not. The train, so to speak, is leaving the station and it's up to you whether to get on or be left behind.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:
Evensong: What do you think the New Testament understanding of predestination or election is?
Like Moo, I regret that this post has moved away from Evensong's original question (see quote), and has drifted into a general discussion about predestination.
... I, for one, would welcome an answer to Evensong's question.
I'm not sure of the distinction you're making-- how do we have a discussion of "the New Testament understanding of predestination or election" w/o "drifting" into a general discussion about predestination???
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that scripture teaches both free will and predestination and therefore we should hold to both, albeit in tension with one another.
The difficulty with that, as far as I can see, is that it is very hard to have any concept of predestination which doesn't negate any real sense of free will.
This is just my attempt to harmonize the two ideas, but my sense is that God's plan for the world is predestined to come about and we have the free will to be part of it or not. The train, so to speak, is leaving the station and it's up to you whether to get on or be left behind.
I'm still not convinced that this helps much. Much depends on what is meant by the phrase "God's plan for the world". If you define this loosely (as I certainly would), then you're simply backing free will. If you define God's plan in a more specific fashion, then you're effectively losing any sensible notion of free will.
Let me give an example. If you say "it is part of God's plan for the world that I become a missionary in Outer Mongolia", then my "free will" consists of either doing that specific thing, or stepping out of God's plan and hence living a life that is second best. There actually isn't much free will there, as I would understand the concept.
If, though, you say that God's plan is for us to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God, then that certainly gives us huge amounts of free will to do that, but I think you've lost any concept of predestination.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
To the OP, the text is inevitably predestinarian. I can't think of a single example of where it champions freewill. Jesus was predestinarian about Himself obviously and overwhelmed by the inevitable cultural corollary and fallacy of PSA with that it seems. Western culture adopted predestination from the word ('Sovereignty') go and it is championed here by the great and the good, left and right, who believe in God the Clock.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
On this doctrine Mudfrog and Olson are inerrant and infallible.
Muddy/Roger locuta, causa finita est.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
My understanding of this is formed against the background that he NT is not about what we would call doctrines but about the writers' understandings of how the messianic person was and is experienced.
God by definition has a plan that he foreknows and predestinates,the one before the other so that he can let us participate in it. But it is all to do with what he has accomplished in Christ.
In 2 Timothy Paul says of believers that we are all called with a holy calling in Christ before the world began but then in another passage Paul urges someone to make their calling and election sure.so looking at the big picture we have a responsibility in the out working of God's plan for our lives. That plan though as stated in the NT is that all come to know him and none are lost. This makes nonsense of the claim that God creates in order to condemn.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I would largely agree with Mudfrog here, though I personally lean towards universalism (though kind of on the fence).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Cliffdweller quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:
Evensong: What do you think the New Testament understanding of predestination or election is?
Like Moo, I regret that this post has moved away from Evensong's original question (see quote), and has drifted into a general discussion about predestination.
Kwesi: I, for one, would welcome an answer to Evensong's question.
Cliffdweller: I'm not sure of the distinction you're making-- how do we have a discussion of "the New Testament understanding of predestination or election" w/o "drifting" into a general discussion about predestination???
Sorry for not making myself clear. What I'm trying to get at is what the NT writers and their hearers/readers understood by words such as "plan", "predestination" and so on, because I suspect that we become engaged in discussing such concepts with meanings that post-date their use at the time. Words have a tendency to change their meaning, especially so when translated, don't they?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On this doctrine Mudfrog and Olson are inerrant and infallible.
Muddy/Roger locuta, causa finita est.
"Sarcasm?"
Sheldon Cooper
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On this doctrine Mudfrog and Olson are inerrant and infallible.
Muddy/Roger locuta, causa finita est.
"Sarcasm?"
Sheldon Cooper
Not at all - just a bit of enthusiastic hyperbole to express my agreement with another Arminian.
And anyway, I would not use sarcasm with you even if I disagreed with you Muddy, because you cop enough flak as it is.
Who is Sheldon Cooper?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
