Tackling Predestination

[Nathan_Wagar]

I think an interesting, almost throwaway passage I have seen gives a bit of a glimpse into how God may deal with us in the timeline; almost in a “contingency” fashion.

(NIV) 1 Samuel 23:1-14:1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2he inquired of the Lord, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The Lord answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” 3But David’s men said to him, “Here in Judah we are afraid. How much more, then, if we go to Keilah against the Philistine forces!” 4Once again David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord answered him, “Go down to Keilah, for I am going to give the Philistines into your hand.” 5So David and his men went to Keilah, fought the Philistines and carried off their livestock. He inflicted heavy losses on the Philistines and saved the people of Keilah. 6(Now Abiathar son of Ahimelech had brought the ephod down with him when he fled to David at Keilah.)

7Saul was told that David had gone to Keilah, and he said, “God has handed him over to me, for David has imprisoned himself by entering a town with gates and bars.” 8And Saul called up all his forces for battle, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men. 9When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod.” 10David said, “O Lord, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. 11Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O Lord, God of Israel, tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will.” 12Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will.” 13So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there. 14David stayed in the desert strongholds and in the hills of the Desert of Ziph. Day after day Saul searched for him, but God did not give David into his hands. 15While David was at Horesh in the Desert of Ziph, he learned that Saul had come out to take his life. 16And Saul’s son Jonathan went to David at Horesh and helped him find strength in God. 17“Don’t be afraid,” he said. “My father Saul will not lay a hand on you. You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you. Even my father Saul knows this.” 18The two of them made a covenant before the Lord. Then Jonathan went home, but David remained at Horesh. 19The Ziphites went up to Saul at Gibeah and said, “Is not David hiding among us in the strongholds at Horesh, on the hill of Hakilah, south of Jeshimon? 20Now, O king, come down whenever it pleases you to do so, and we will be responsible for handing him over to the king.” 21Saul replied, “The Lord bless you for your concern for me. 22Go and make further preparation. Find out where David usually goes and who has seen him there. They tell me he is very crafty. 23Find out about all the hiding places he uses and come back to me with definite information.a Then I will go with you; if he is in the area, I will track him down among all the clans of Judah.” 24So they set out and went to Ziph ahead of Saul. Now David and his men were in the Desert of Maon, in the Arabah south of Jeshimon. 25Saul and his men began the search, and when David was told about it, he went down to the rock and stayed in the Desert of Maon. When Saul heard this, he went into the Desert of Maon in pursuit of David. 26Saul was going along one side of the mountain, and David and his men were on the other side, hurrying to get away from Saul. As Saul and his forces were closing in on David and his men to capture them, 27a messenger came to Saul, saying, “Come quickly! The Philistines are raiding the land.” 28Then Saul broke off his pursuit of David and went to meet the Philistines. That is why they call this place Sela Hammahlekoth.b 29And David went up from there and lived in the strongholds of En Gedi.

The interesting thing is that God tells David what will take place if he does a certain thing, but David does not take that course of action, and so the foretold event never comes to pass. Although this is not an end-all be-all argument, I think it ably shows some of the complexities of free will vs. predestination, and how God views/constructs temporal events.

 

[mark_a]

I DON’T want to hear all the Catholics here complaining about how horrible this type of God would be and how cruel he would be to create creatures predestined not to choose him and all that.

That leaves me out.

 

[EricFilmer]

Someone once tried to convience me of the truth of predestination.

I told him that I could not believe in it, because I was not predestined to believe in it.

And yes, I was being a smart-aleck.

But that might have been predestined too…

 

[benedictus2]

Now, this person is very well meaning and seems interested in real discussion. For that reason,** I DON’T want to hear all the Catholics here complaining about how horrible this type of God would be and how cruel he would be to create creatures predestined not to choose him and all that. I agree with all of that. But that would only offend the person I’m debating and push them away from further discussion.** What I’m asking for are reasons that predestination doesn’t make sense, preferably biblical.

Thanks for the help!

-Marc Anthony

Hi Marc,

Why do you think getting him/her to think along those lines would push him away?

You could step it like this.

From the Bible : God is Love. God is not only a person who loves but Love himself.

If He has predestined some to eternal damnation, would that not be contradicting the Bible?

When I pointed this out to a Christian non-denom , his answer was , because God is not love.

I think it is important to point this out because that is where the weakness of Calvinistic predestination lie.

The Catholic’s also believe in predestination. Any discussion on predestination is also a discussion on the interplay between grace and free will.

This is a post I made on this subject two years ago.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4367691&postcount=185

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4367692&postcount=186

 

[benedictus2]

That leaves me out.
Inconvenient truths from Calvin and Luther

Thank you for that link on your signature line.

That was truly enlightening.

Peter Kreeft said that what he admired about the Church when he was on the pont of converting was that even in her darkest days, she never lowered her teaching to her practice.

Reading that link showed how the Protestant denominations lowered their teaching to their practice. It has become a religion of convenience.

This really brought home that the Catholic Church is the beacon of Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

We are all conceived in sin and deserve Hell (Gods justice) but saves some (grace and mercy) Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And where in this text does it ay that the “whom” does not mean “all”.

All this text says is that it is God’s prerogative. Nothing here indicates that it means He will have mercy on some but not on others based on eeny, meeny, miny, mo.

God has the power and ability to save everyone but chooses not to why?

If you are referring to the quotes above, it does not say that at all. you are correct, He has the ability to save all. But where does it say that HE CHOOSES NOT TO?

 

[dcastlen50]

I am very glad that for this blog. I have a good friend, a Baptist minister who is a 5 point Calvinist - I think - certainly he believes in double predestination. He did his doctoral thesis on predestination. I look forward to providing him with this blog.

Hopefully, he can add some light to the protestant view. He is a good man, and it seems attempts to be objective.

I have a complaint: why wasn’t this blog put up, I have a lot of reading to do before I am able to digest it all.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, there you go. How would one refute the claims and scriptural evidence jericho makes and is using?

How about this:

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Where does it say that this will be the only ones who have and will be chosen.

2 Tim. 1:9-10 9who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Where does it say that only a few have been predestined. all it says is the grace has been given through Jesus Chrsit,

Rom 8:28-33 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,j whok have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

I will cut it here as I am sleepy.

But note the highlighted text in blue.

Well, God **foreknew us all **because He created us all. So extend that thought to the rest of the text.

 

[thegrons]

In 1765 John Wesley gave a sermon titled Free Grace that dealt with what he called ‘the horrible decree’ of predestination. Here is an excerpt from that sermon:

Let it be observed that this doctrine represents our Blessed-Lord ‘Jesus Christ the righteous’, ‘the only-begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth’- as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied that He everywhere speaks as if He was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say He was not willing that all men should be saved is to represent Him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It can’t be denied that the gracious words which came out of His mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, He did not intend to save all sinners is to represent Him as a gross deceiver of the people. You cannot deny that He says, ‘Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden.’ If then you say He calls those that cannot come, those whom He knows to be unable to come, those whom He can make able to come but will not, how is it possible to describe greater insincerity? You represent Him as mocking His helpless creatures by offering what He never intends to give. You describe Him as saying one thing and meaning another; as pretending to love which He had not. Him ‘in whose mouth was no guile’ you make full of deceit, void of common sincerity. Then especially, when, drawing nigh the city, ‘He wept over it’, and said, ‘Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often I would have gathered thy children together … and ye would not’. Now if you say, ‘They would’, but ‘He would not,’ you represent Him (which who could hear?) as weeping crocodile’s tears, weeping over the prey which Himself had doomed to destruction.

Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian tingle. But there is yet more behind; for just as it honors the Son, so doth this doctrine honor the Father. It destroys all His attributes at once. It overturns both His justice, mercy, and truth. Yea, it represents the most Holy God as worse than the devil; as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil; liar as he is, hath never said he ‘willeth all men to be saved’. More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels for continuing in sin, which for want of that grace He will not give them, they cannot avoid. And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit ‘seeketh rest and findeth none’; so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God ‘resteth in His high and holy place’; so that to suppose Him of His own mere motion, of His pure will and pleasure, happy as He is, to doom His creatures, whether they will or not, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to Him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the most high God as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil. This is the blasphemy clearly contained in ‘the horrible decree’ of predestination.

 

[Mark2]

The idea of predestination, or God’s foreordination of events, is surely what we would today call a “category mistake”: if God is literally timeless, a temporal concept–such as that represented by the “pre” of “predestination”–simply cannot be applied to God in a meaningful way.

 

[pickguard1]

I haven’t weighed in on anything in a while but this topic is one that I struggled with a while back too.

The problem to me seems to be what predestination means, with a vast majority of people looking at it as “God chooses specific people to go to heaven and hell” much like the pagan concept of destiny, or even similar to the Muslim understanding of destiny.

Of course we as Catholics know this is incorrect. Predestination is more a function of understanding the omniscience of God, rather than His will. It is undeniable that God wills for every human to be saved. If the previous understanding were true, all would end up in heaven regardless. But we know from the words of Jesus himself that not all will enter the kingdom. So how does predestination fit in?

It is also undeniable that God KNOWS all things as well. This includes where we will end up for eternity. Since He knows if a specific person will be in heaven, we can say He has ALWAYS known that that person would end up in heaven. But is that because He willfully places that person there by His choice alone? No. He has given us free will to make the choice to conform to His will for us to be in heaven with Him, or to refuse the graces He provides. So the ultimate destination is not an independent selection made by God alone, but by our cooperation with his will (or lack thereof).

In the end predestination is simply the term used to explain that God, while giving us the tools to attain heaven in concert with His will, also has always known how we will use them, because He is, after all, God.

 

[dcastlen50]

The idea of predestination, or God’s foreordination of events, is surely what we would today call a “category mistake”: if God is literally timeless, a temporal concept–such as that represented by the “pre” of “predestination”–simply cannot be applied to God in a meaningful way.

Very enlighting!!!

 

[paul_c]

I think there were some very good points made on this subject in the last few days… To summarize:

Here is a list of facts about God and man that I think are beyond debate:

• God Made everything.
• God loves all his creation
• God knows everything that has or will happen .
• God is just and merciful.
• God gave every man life, intelligence, free will and a conscience to guide them

Here is the catholic view of salvation:

• God will give the necessary grace to those that desire it through baptism
• To stay in the state of grace, a person must avoid mortal sin and do acts of love.
• if someone falls from the state of grace through sin, our merciful God will allow them to regain the state of grace through the sacrement of reconciliation.
• If a man or woman dies in the state of grace, they will go to heaven. If they do not, they will be condemned. This is justice

Because God knows all, he knew whether the person would die in the state of grace before they existed but he did not force them to either be saved or condemned. This was of their own doing.

This process must be contrasted with that proposed by Calvin: In this system, God chooses those to save or condemn without regard to the individuals merits.

• Such a system denies God’s justice for a man is condmnned to eternal suffering or given eternal bliss through no fault or merit of his own.
• It denies God’s love because to condemn an innocent man could never be construed as love.
• It denies God’s mercy because it is clear that some are condemned without mercy
• It denies man’s free will, because nothing he does matters.

As you can plainly see, The Calvinistic approach to predestination is in conflict with much of what we know about God and man.

 

[requieroveritas]

Catholics believe in predestination, just not “double predestination” in which God “passes over” His grace to some people, thus giving them no chance at heaven.

Here are 2 articles that have helped me.

Tiptoe through TULIP by Jimmy Akin (go to the Perseverance of the Saints part)
Predestination by Dr. Ludwig Ott (whose book is used to train seminarians as I understand)

St James also says that Faith without good works is dead.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Here is the catholic view of salvation:

God will give the necessary grace to those that desire it through baptism

Sounds like, God’s the waiter and you’re the customer. If you order salvation, God will deliver it. Salvation is here determined by the will of man.

To stay in the state of grace, a person must avoid mortal sin and do acts of love.

Translation: You have to save yourself by walking the tight rope. “Acts of love” (i.e, “works”) is what prevents you from falling.

if someone falls from the state of grace through sin, our merciful God will allow them to regain the state of grace through the sacrement of reconciliation.

Since all have sinned, all have fallen. And our merciful God did restore his elect to grace by dying for them in their place, thus reconciling us to Him.

If a man or woman dies in the state of grace, they will go to heaven. If they do not, they will be condemned. This is justice.

The emphasis here seems to be on dying well more than living well.

Because God knows all, he knew whether the person would die in the state of grace before they existed but he did not force them to either be saved or condemned. This was of their own doing.

You seem to imply that if God chooses sovereignly rather than on the basis of his foreknowledge, then He’s “forcing” us. How does that follow, exactly?

This process must be contrasted with that proposed by Calvin: In this system, God chooses those to save or condemn without regard to the individuals merits.

This system was actually proposed by Paul. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good, or evil, God had already sovereignly chosen. (Romans 9:10-13)

Such a system denies God’s justice for a man is condmnned to eternal suffering or given eternal bliss through no fault or merit of his own.

“Is there any injustice on the part of God? May it never be!” (Romans 9:14). Neither Paul, nor Augustine nor Aquinas nor Calvin believe God is unjust for not having chosen everyone. It would only be unjust of God not to choose everyone if he were under an obligation to do so. But who can obligate God? Who can hold a standard of justice over God and judge Him accordingly? “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God” (Romans 9:20). Please read Romans 9. Please?

It denies God’s love because to condemn an innocent man could never be construed as love.

You err because you suppose any of us are “innocent.” God does not condemn the innocent; rather he declares that “there are none righteous, none.” God condemns the unrighteous (i.e., everyone not in Christ).

It denies God’s mercy because it is clear that some are condemned without mercy

That God saves anyone is a mercy! In fact, God says his elect will come from every nation, tribe and tongue. God is waiting patiently for the full number of the elect to come to fulfillment. The number of the elect is probably higher than we can imagine. But it’s probably no where near what many churches–including yours–hopes for. (My goodness, you can be an ethical atheist and according to Catholicism, you still might be saved.)

It denies man’s free will, because nothing he does matters.

Absolutely not. Paul rules out that inference in Romans 6:1-2. Further, the idea that we have “free will,” is a secular concept imported from philosophy. The Bible teaches us that the will must be set free, not that the will is already free. Nevertheless, the Bible still holds us responsible. So God is sovereign and human beings are morally responsible for their actions. But “free?” Not until regeneration. And then “if the Son sets you free, you’ll be free in deed!” (John 8:36)

As you can plainly see, The Calvinistic approach to predestination is in conflict with much of what we know about God and man.

As I can plainly see, you know neither Calvin nor Aquinas, who also taught unconditional election, without drawing the inferences that you draw. You should look into what people on your own side are saying about our “total inability” to respond to God’s grace apart from God’s initiative. That’s not just Calvin who said this. It’s your own church’s view. No one, in their natural state, is capable of saving himself by choosing. There needs to be a prevenient act of grace, even in Catholicism, for someone to even desire baptism. No one just says, “I think I’ll be baptized,” unless the Holy Spirit is already moving in that person–so said Calvin, so says Rome (and rightly so.)

With all due respect, you need to do some homework on this issue.

 

[thegrons]

The bible clearly teaches that men have free will; men are free moral agents with the intrinsic ability to subject every motive that their minds are presented with to reflection and judgement - and then freely chose to do P or ~P. Your comments on free will being an import from secular philosophy are simply wrong.

Secondly Calvin, Augustine, all of the greats have appealed to secular philosophy because philosophy is a god-given gift of reason. Logic, albeit secular is the study of the laws of reason and how God expects us to think.

If men are not truly free, then God is not just (according to the justice that He sets forth in the bible).

TULIP which is the acronymn to describe Reformed theology is completely at odds with the bible, from Total Depravity to Perserverence of the Saints. This doctrine has a sort of coherence and validity to it; yet it is unsound. Thousands flock to the teaching because it doesn’t demand any faith on behalf of the believer and allows for a Christian to live in sin from craddle to grave - and most Christians today find this appealing.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The bible clearly teaches that men have free will; men are free moral agents with the intrinsic ability to subject every motive that their minds are presented with to reflection and judgement - and then freely chose to do P or ~P. Your comments on free will being an import from secular philosophy are simply wrong.

I agree with your assessment here, except fro the word “free” or “freely.” If you look at the Bible as a whole, you’ll see that there are a lot of things intrinsic to fallen man that mitigate against the notion of a “free” will. We are moral agents capable of specifying good or evil and of choosing one or the other. But the choice isn’t ultimately “free.” To give an analogy, an addict in the face of having to choose between giving in to his/her addiction or resisting it, will almost always give in. The will is decisively inclined in one direction and can hardly be said to be “free,” at least in the way we typically understand freedom, i.e., as in a freedom from compulsion.

Secondly Calvin, Augustine, all of the greats have appealed to secular philosophy because philosophy is a god-given gift of reason. Logic, albeit secular is the study of the laws of reason and how God expects us to think.

I have no problem with philosophy, but I do have a problem with too facilely making scripture conform to the framework of the freewill vs determinism debate of philosophy, whether secular or sacred.

If men are not truly free, then God is not just (according to the justice that He sets forth in the bible).

That’s a non-sequitur and seems to be born out of the conviction that ultimately it is God’s goodness that is at stake as if God needed be gotten off the hook. The Bible gives us theological anthropology of man mired in sin and utterly unable to save himself through free choice. In fact, you might say man “freely chooses” sin when left to his own devices. God, therefore, isn’t unjust for allowing man to go in the direction of his natural inclinations. Since God is under no obligation to save anyone, there can be no injustice on the part of God if He only decides to save some.

TULIP which is the acronymn to describe Reformed theology is completely at odds with the bible,

There are a lot of Catholics who defend a version of TULIP very similar to that of Calvin. Would you agree with this version of TULIP?

T = total inability to respond to grace unless God first enables us to do so.
U = Unconditional election to heaven (but conditional reprobation) as Aquinas taught.
L = Limited efficacy of the atonement. Christ died sufficiently for all, but only efficaciously for some.
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace. The grace God gives to those he elects, will be efficacious in them at some point in time.
P = perseverance of those who cooperate with grace until the end.

Thousands flock to the teaching because it doesn’t demand any faith on behalf of the believer and allows for a Christian to live in sin from craddle to grave - and most Christians today find this appealing.

You obviously have no understanding of TULIP as Calvinists define the term. Anyone who would choose to live in sin from cradle to grave could hardly be considered among the elect. As for demanding faith, it demands far more. It demands taking God’s sovereignty seriously and our sinfulness seriously as well.

 

[thegrons]

Regarding the view that Calvinism breeds laziness is a true statement. I am a campus preacher and debate this issue with lazy sinful Christians who believe that Grace is a free ticket to keep your favorite sins and be in good standing with God too. I also have a friend who is a Presbytarian minister and he will debate with me that you will not stop sinning until you die.

Regarding TUILIP: I will link a 25 page paper to my website today to elaborate on Calvinism because I cannot refute it on this thread www.preacharizona.com

T-I disagree with this; men never lost their free moral agency in the fall. I don’t subscribe to Augustinian original sin. Man has the ability to respond to Christ. Jesus said that men will not repent because they love the darkness more than the light.

U- The bible is replete with scripture that God desires all men to be saved and if He only elects a few, then there is an incoherence between His desires and what He has ordained. Sort of a despot god.

L- I subscribe to the moral government theory of the atonement whereby Christ substituted in suffering versus puinishment. God did not have to punish sin; nor did He punish Christ for our sins, rather Christ sacrificed Himself for our sins and God will accept His death in place of the punishment due us if we repent and walk in the Spirit. This is not a penal substitution as taught by Calvin.

I-God’s grace can be resisted and is by every sinner.

P- only those who finish the race and endure until the end shall be saved. God’s grace is no guarantee that one will persevere.

Calvinism is a nice tight deterministic school of thought and I believe that Augustine’s worldview was influenced by his fatalism while he was a manichean. Again I can’t truly refute this argument on this thread but go to www.preacharizona.com and I will post a link under theology titled Reformed Theology.

Peace Brother,

Grons

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You obviously have no understanding of TULIP as Calvinists define the term. Anyone who would choose to live in sin from cradle to grave could hardly be considered among the elect. As for demanding faith, it demands far more. It demands taking God’s sovereignty seriously and our sinfulness seriously as well.

The good thief certainly did not live a good life before his death; he himself said he deserved what he got. But he was still, according to your theology, predestined for Heaven.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The good thief certainly did not live a good life before his death; he himself said he deserved what he got. But he was still, according to your theology, predestined for Heaven.

Yes, a great a example. But I suspect you weren’t trying to make my point for me, so help me understand what this example is doing for your argument or against mine.