Calvinism Predestination Doctrine

[roman2819]

I know some pastors and Christians (even in this forum) who believe that John Calvin has been misunderstood. But whatever Calvin said or didn't mean to say, the biblical truth can be derived from reading 70 verses in Ephesians chapters 1,2,3 in context. Many people misinterpret predestination because they zoomed in on the words "He predestined us" or "you were chosen" to mean God chose individuals. But read Ephesians says that God had preplanned to reach out to Gentiles, ie God predestined the plan, not the person individually.

Ephesians 1:1 God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... (v4) For He chose us in him before the creation of the world ... In love (v5) He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,... (v11) In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... (v12)in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = "We" and "us" refer to the Jewish Christians . Jews who confessed their sins were first to be saved in Jesus

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... ch 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... 12 you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
= "you who are Gentiles" clearly means Paul was referring to Gentile Christians. "You" does NOT mean individuals Paul explained that formerly, Gentiles were excluded from God but now ....

Ephesians 2 13 But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ...:14 For He ...has made the two groups one... 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations His purpose was to create... one new humanity out of the two... and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... ..
Chapter 3:16 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= but now Gentiles can be saved if they confessed their sins, Jesus' atonement has made both Jews and Gentiles to be both one people of God. This was a very big deal - even a culture shock back then -- because previously (from Abraham or David's time), Gentiles had no part in God, and Jews considered them to be unclean. But now, both Jews and Gentiles have same access to God -- anyone who confessed their sins to Jesus can be saved. The mystery (Eph 3:16) is that when God reached out to Jews first, He had (mysteriously or unknown to anyone) planned ahead or PRE-PLANNED to offer salvation to the Gentiles too. This is what predestination mean in context of the Bible.

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles; in context, it does NOT mean God choose to save individuals. Jesus never teach that God chose individuals to be redeemed. But unfortunately, some people focus on 3 words "He predestine us" and believe the idea of individual predestination.

In Book of People , Acts and others, there are verses that say "God choose us". During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead they said God chose them -- this is out of humility. In ancient times, people on earth -- Jews, Persians, Babylonians, Chinese -- were more humble towards God and heaven. So to say they are chosen by God is a figure of speech. Such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, culture and context.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I know some pastors and Christians (even in this forum) who believe that John Calvin has been misunderstood. But whatever Calvin said or didn't mean to say, the biblical truth can be derived from reading 70 verses in Ephesians chapters 1,2,3 in context. Many people misinterpret predestination because they zoomed in on the words "He predestined us" or "you were chosen" to mean God chose individuals. But read Ephesians says that God had preplanned to reach out to Gentiles, ie God predestined the plan, not the person individually.

Ephesians 1:1 God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... (v4) For He chose us in him before the creation of the world ... In love (v5) He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,... (v11) In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... (v12)in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = "We" and "us" refer to the Jewish Christians . Jews who confessed their sins were first to be saved in Jesus

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... ch 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... 12 you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
= "you who are Gentiles" clearly means Paul was referring to Gentile Christians. "You" does NOT mean individuals Paul explained that formerly, Gentiles were excluded from God but now ....

Ephesians 2 13 But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ...:14 For He ...has made the two groups one... 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations His purpose was to create... one new humanity out of the two... and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... ..
Chapter 3:16 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= but now Gentiles can be saved if they confessed their sins, Jesus' atonement has made both Jews and Gentiles to be both one people of God. This was a very big deal - even a culture shock back then -- because previously (from Abraham or David's time), Gentiles had no part in God, and Jews considered them to be unclean. But now, both Jews and Gentiles have same access to God -- anyone who confessed their sins to Jesus can be saved. The mystery (Eph 3:16) is that when God reached out to Jews first, He had (mysteriously or unknown to anyone) planned ahead or PRE-PLANNED to offer salvation to the Gentiles too. This is what predestination mean in context of the Bible.

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles; in context, it does NOT mean God choose to save individuals. Jesus never teach that God chose individuals to be redeemed. But unfortunately, some people focus on 3 words "He predestine us" and believe the idea of individual predestination.

In Book of People , Acts and others, there are verses that say "God choose us". During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead they said God chose them -- this is out of humility. In ancient times, people on earth -- Jews, Persians, Babylonians, Chinese -- were more humble towards God and heaven. So to say they are chosen by God is a figure of speech. Such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, culture and context.

No.
It is each individual christian elected by God.

 

[roman2819]

No.
It is each individual christian elected by God.

You read 3 to 5 words only and ignore context and mistaken it to mean individual predestination.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

You read 3 to 5 words only and ignore context and mistaken it to mean individual predestination.

Actually, I read the whole bible to discover the God is restoring sacred space in believers, and ignore those who hate God, His election and predestination.

 

[roman2819]

Actually, I read the whole bible to discover the God is restoring sacred space in believers, and ignore those who hate God, His election and predestination.

So now you go read 70 verses in ephesians chapters 1, 2, 3 , see the main point that Paul was explaining , and understand what the word predestined mean in context of the subject matter.

 

[Jonaitis]

If it's nothing new, why catholic and Lutheran and Anglican and many other groups rejected it? Do you think other groups are ignorant and didn't know much about Augustine or the reformed got it wrong?

Do you think that these groups hold divine authority? So why wouldn't they be fallible? Your statement suggests that, because they don't believe it, then it must not be true. I could say that the Trinitarian doctrine was one of many views of the Godhead before the third century, and at some point, Arianism was extremely popular. Doesn't mean anything just because they didn't agree with the Trinity.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Do you think that these groups hold divine authority? So why wouldn't they be fallible? Your statement suggests that, because they don't believe it, then it must not be true. I could say that the Trinitarian doctrine was one of many views of the Godhead before the third century, and at some point, Arianism was extremely popular. Doesn't mean anything just because they didn't agree with the Trinity.

Have you worked out how other groups" teaching about limited atonement compared to the reformed tradition? I'm giving you clue how a tiny denomination is exclusively holding a view that most of the Christian outside of the denomination don't hold. Wouldn't it encourage you to study more since there was a controversy (arminian) within that tiny denomination?

 

[Jonaitis]

Have you worked out how other groups" teaching about limited atonement compared to the reformed tradition? I'm giving you clue how a tiny denomination is exclusively holding a view that most of the Christian outside of the denomination don't hold. Wouldn't it encourage you to study more since there was a controversy (arminian) within that tiny denomination?

Yes, I have, that's what led me out of Arminianism, which is more relatively new than you think.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Yes, I have, that's what led me out of Arminianism, which is more relatively new than you think.

what about lutheran, Molinism and wesleyan view?

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Yes, I have, that's what led me out of Arminianism, which is more relatively new than you think.

 

[roman2819]

Note for Mods: I did originally post this in the "Denomination Specific Theology" section but was advised I'd get a better response in this section. I apologise if I have broken any rules by reposting my question here, please delete the other thread if you need to.

Hi everyone!

I recently met a Calvinist and they were talking about their belief in predestination, I didn't really understand the teaching, I should have asked more questions! Anyway it did seem like a very important part of their beliefs. I was hoping there were some Calvinists on here that could offer some insight into the doctrine for me? I'd like to understand from a Calvinist point of view, if someone wouldn't mind explaining it to me, that would be awesome.

Thanks so much for reading.

Instead of wading through all the complex ideas about "individual predestination" with its vague and mind-boggling jargons, we just need to read Ephesians chapters 1,2 3 and understand what predestination mean in CONTEXT. We need to interpret 70 verses and understand the point -- which is NOT individual predestination. Many people zoomed in on the words "He predestined us" or "you were chosen" to mean God chose individuals, but in context the 70 verses were really saying that God had preplanned or predestined to reach out to Gentiles, ie God predestined the plan (to offer redemption to Gentiles), not predestinate to redeem any person individually.


Ephesians 1: (v4) To God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... (v5) For He chose us in him before the creation of the world ... (v11) He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,...(v12) In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = Jewish Christians were the first to be saved in Jesus. As a Jew, Paul used the word "we" and "us" when he refer to Jewish Christians. When he spoke about the Gentiles, he said "you" and "you who are Gentiles" (1:13, 2:11, as follow):

1:13: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... 2:11: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... (12) you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
= "you who are Gentiles" clearly means Paul was referring to Gentile Christians. "You" does NOT mean individuals.

Ephesians 2: (v14) But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ... (15) For He ...has made the two groups one... (18) by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations His purpose was ... to in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... .. Ephesians 3: (16) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= Previously (from Abraham or David's time), Gentiles had no part in God, and Jews despised them as unclean. But after Jesus' atonement, Gentiles can be saved if they confessed their sins. This was a very big deal - even a culture shock back then. The mystery of God's will (Eph 3:16) is that when He chose Jews first to be His people (back during Abraham's time), He had mysteriously or unknown to anyone, planned ahead or PREDESTINED THE PLAN to offer salvation to the Gentiles too. This is what predestination mean in context of the Bible.

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles; in context, it does NOT mean God choose to save individuals. Jesus, during His earthly ministry, never teach that God chose individuals to be redeemed. But unfortunately, some people focus on 3 words "He predestine us" and believe the idea of individual predestination.

In Book of Peter, Acts and others, there are verses that say "God choose us" which seem to mean He handpick who to redeem. This is where culture and language matter: During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead, they humbly said God chose them, this is a prevalent attitude of humility towards God. In ancient times, people on earth -- Jews, Persians, Babylonians, Chinese -- were more subservient towards God and heaven. So to say they are chosen by God is a figure of speech. However, such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, as well as culture and context.

 

[roman2819]

Thank you so much for your replies, this is really helpful

Actually all you need to read and understand is the Bible, specifically Ephesians chapters 1,2 3. There are about 70 verses there which explain predestination in context. Predestination has been misunderstood because people zoomed in on the words "He predestined us" or "you were chosen" to mean God chose individuals. Usually, most explanations of "individual predestination" are filled with vague jargons and mind-boggling words. By contrast, the biblical truth of predestination is clear and simple: God predestined the plan (to offer redemption to Gentiles), not predestinate to redeem any person individually.

Ephesians 1: (v4) To God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... (v5) For He chose us in him before the creation of the world ... (v11) He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,...(v12) In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = Jewish Christians were the first to be saved in Jesus. As a Jew, Paul used the word "we" and "us" when he refer to Jewish Christians. When he spoke about the Gentiles, he said "you" and "you who are Gentiles" (1:13, 2:11, as follow):

1:13: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... 2:11: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... (12) you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
= "you who are Gentiles" clearly means Paul was referring to Gentile Christians. "You" does NOT mean individuals.

Ephesians 2: (v14) But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ... (15) For He ...has made the two groups one... (18) by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations His purpose was ... to in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... .. Ephesians 3: (16) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= Previously (from Abraham or David's time), Gentiles had no part in God, and Jews despised them as unclean. But after Jesus' atonement, Gentiles can be saved if they confessed their sins. This was a very big deal - even a culture shock back then. The mystery of God's will (Eph 3:16) is that when He chose Jews first to be His people (back during Abraham's time), He had mysteriously or unknown to anyone, planned ahead or PREDESTINED THE PLAN to offer salvation to the Gentiles too. This is what predestination mean in context of the Bible.

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles; in context, it does NOT mean God choose to save individuals. Jesus, during His earthly ministry, never teach that God chose individuals to be redeemed.

In Book of Peter, Acts and others, there are verses that say "God choose us" which seem to mean He handpick who to redeem. This is where culture and language matter: During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead, they humbly said God chose them, this is a prevalent attitude of humility towards God. In ancient times, people on earth -- Jews, Persians, Babylonians, Chinese -- were more subservient towards God and heaven. So to say they are chosen by God is a figure of speech. However, such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, as well as culture and context.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually all you need to read and understand is the Bible, specifically Ephesians chapters 1,2 3. There are about 70 verses there which explain predestination in context. Predestination has been misunderstood because people zoomed in on the words "He predestined us" or "you were chosen" to mean God chose individuals. Usually, most explanations of "individual predestination" are filled with vague jargons and mind-boggling words. By contrast, the biblical truth of predestination is clear and simple: God predestined the plan (to offer redemption to Gentiles), not predestinate to redeem any person individually.

Ephesians 1: (v4) To God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... (v5) For He chose us in him before the creation of the world ... (v11) He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,...(v12) In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = Jewish Christians were the first to be saved in Jesus. As a Jew, Paul used the word "we" and "us" when he refer to Jewish Christians. When he spoke about the Gentiles, he said "you" and "you who are Gentiles" (1:13, 2:11, as follow):

1:13: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... 2:11: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... (12) you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
= "you who are Gentiles" clearly means Paul was referring to Gentile Christians. "You" does NOT mean individuals.

Ephesians 2: (v14) But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ... (15) For He ...has made the two groups one... (18) by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations His purpose was ... to in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... .. Ephesians 3: (16) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= Previously (from Abraham or David's time), Gentiles had no part in God, and Jews despised them as unclean. But after Jesus' atonement, Gentiles can be saved if they confessed their sins. This was a very big deal - even a culture shock back then. The mystery of God's will (Eph 3:16) is that when He chose Jews first to be His people (back during Abraham's time), He had mysteriously or unknown to anyone, planned ahead or PREDESTINED THE PLAN to offer salvation to the Gentiles too. This is what predestination mean in context of the Bible.

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles; in context, it does NOT mean God choose to save individuals. Jesus, during His earthly ministry, never teach that God chose individuals to be redeemed.

In Book of Peter, Acts and others, there are verses that say "God choose us" which seem to mean He handpick who to redeem. This is where culture and language matter: During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead, they humbly said God chose them, this is a prevalent attitude of humility towards God. In ancient times, people on earth -- Jews, Persians, Babylonians, Chinese -- were more subservient towards God and heaven. So to say they are chosen by God is a figure of speech. However, such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, as well as culture and context.

Curiously, the translations I have read of Ephesians 1, 2, and 3 do not contain any mention of "the plan" as having been predestined. It is rather like taking John 3:16 and determining that "the world" refers to planet earth and not human individuals.

Perhaps you could enlighten me with direct quotations where it states clearly that God predestined "the plan". Thank you.

 

[roman2819]

Curiously, the translations I have read of Ephesians 1, 2, and 3 do not contain any mention of "the plan" as having been predestined. It is rather like taking John 3:16 and determining that "the world" refers to planet earth and not human individuals.

Perhaps you could enlighten me with direct quotations where it states clearly that God predestined "the plan". Thank you.

The KJV and New KJV do not have the word plan, they used the word counsel instead. However, the NIV and NASB - being more modern translations than KJV - use the word "plan". The ESV, interestingly, use "plan" and "counsel". In context, the 3 chapters (about 70 verses) explain how God offered redemption to the Gentiles through Christ's atonement ie it was not about individual redemption. Context matters, not just a word.

ESV translation: [1:9-11]:
9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will

NIV translation: [1:9-11]
9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment--to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

KJX [1:9-11]:
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will

New KJV [1:9-11]:
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

NASB: [1:9-11].
9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He set forth in Him, 10 regarding His plan of the fullness of the times, to bring all things together in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. 11 In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance with the plan of His will.

 

[ladodgers6]

The Biblical Importance of the Doctrine of Preterition

Geerhardus Vos ​

The Presbyterian, 70, 36 (September 5, 1900): pp. 9-10. One of the gravest symptoms of the revision movement in the Presbyterian Church today consists in the absence of serious appeal to scriptural authority for the changes of confessional statement that are advocated. From the attitude assumed by man, one would be led to think that no longer the infallible Word of God, but public sentiment, the so-called Christian consciousness, has become the recognized rule of faith among us. Consequently there is reason to fear that the spirit in which revision is sought forebodes greater evil to the church than any material modifications of creed to which revision may lead. Even if the Calvinistic system of doctrine embodied in our standards were seriously mutilated in result of the present movement, so long as the great body of believers feel themselves in conscience bound to yield unquestioning faith to the Bible, there is always hope for a rehabilitation of the principles temporarily abandoned. But when once the sense of allegiance to the Word of God as the only authoritative rule of faith has become weakened, or, while still recognized in theory has ceased to be a living force in the minds of believers, then the hope of a return to the truth once forsaken is reduced to a minimum.

Among the elements of Calvinistic belief now under attack on account of the popular disfavor into which they have fallen, the doctrine of preterition occupies a conspicuous place. So far as we are aware it is seldom asserted openly that this doctrine must go because it has no basis in the Scripture. The worst that thoughtful and theologically informed minds venture to say against it is that it represents but a logical inference from other truths and that in such delicate matters the church may well content itself with summarizing the direct utterances of the Word of God, leaving it to the science of theology to draw the further inferences from these primary data. Even such a statement, however, utterly fails to do justice to the biblical facts. It is true that the Bible also teaches the principle of preterition, by way of implication, as a corollary of certain other fundamental doctrines. No more is necessary than to combine the two single truths, that all saving grace, inclusive of faith, is the supernatural gift of God, and that not all men are made recipients of this gift, to perceive immediately that the ultimate reason why some are saved and other passed by can lie in God alone. In so far every confession which adheres to these two primary facts—and no Calvinistic confession could for a moment hesitate to do so—is also bound to imply the doctrine of preterition. But the Scriptures give us much more than indirect warrant for upholding the principle here at issue. In the first place, it should be observed that the absoluteness with which the Bible subsumes all events under the sovereign decree of God extends to sinful developments as well as to the morally good activities of men, and that consequently the human unbelief of the gospel which prevents the salvation of many is as truly subject to a divine decree as the faith by which others are saved. No matter whether we call this decree and act of preterition, or give it some other name, the general Bible doctrine on the allcomprehensiveness of the divine decree forces us to recognize it as a reality.

In the second place, the Scriptures speak in particular terms of that part of the divine decree which has specific reference to the non-salvation of some, terms as strong and unequivocal as any that are used to describe the corresponding act which appoints men unto salvation. It is easy to be misled on this point by the scarcity of biblical statements representing the decree of preterition as an eternal act in the mind of God, especially within the limits of the Old Testament. But a moment's reflection will show that this applies equally much to the Old Testament doctrine of election. Both election and preterition are by preference viewed in the Old Testament as they emerge in the actual control of the issues of history. It is God acting in result of His eternal will, rather than willing in advance of His temporal act what this stage of revelation describes to us. Keeping this in mind, we perceive that preterition is as frequently and as emphatically spoken of as its counterpart, not only in national and collective relations, but also with reference to individuals, sometimes with so little attempt at guarding against possible misapprehensions that the appearance results as if the decree somehow were the efficient cause of unbelief instead of merely permitting and controlling it for its own holy ends as it really does. In the New Testament, while the historical mode of viewing the decree as passing over into realization is not abandoned, the eternal background of the same, as it exists above all time, and ideal world in God, is more clearly revealed.

In the third place, the Bible still more pointedly calls attention to the necessary place which preterition occupies in the general decree of God pertaining to salvation, when it defines the act of predestination with eternal life, as is one of its fundamental aspects an elective act by which certain persons are singled out from among a greater number of individuals. The specific sense of both the Hebrew and Greek terms rendered by "election" results from the prominence they both give to the element of discrimination implied in the divine choice. While, therefore, predestination as the appointment to the goal of eternal salvation can be logically conceived without the the correlate of preterition, it is difficult with the idea of election. This idea is of such a nature that it cannot even be completed in thought without positing at the same time the idea of preterition. For this reason it is an utterly futile endeavor to attempt to construe a formula which shall adequately reproduce the scriptural doctrine of election, and yet leave unexpressed the correlated doctrine of preterition. This becomes specially significant in view of the fact that the term "election" strongly preponderates over all others in the scriptural references to the decree of salvation. In a divine revelation, where nothing is insignificant, there must be assumed to exist a special motive for the preference thus given to one among the many terms that stood at the Holy Spirit's disposal. In other words, if the Bible thinks it necessary to teach us not merely that Christians are predestined by free grace into eternal salvation, but also thinks it necessary persistently to reminds us how this appointment of some into life took place from among a number of others who were sovereignly passed by, then this can only mean that in the view of God the principle of preterition is essential to the expression of the most important aspect of the decree of salvation.

Nor does the Bible leave us in doubt as to why such great practical importance for our instruction is attached by God to the discriminating element in predestination. The motive is none other than to impress most profoundly upon the mind of believers the conviction of the absolutely gracious character of their redemption. No stronger way of bringing this out is conceivable than by showing in actual experience that under entirely equal conditions, as viewed from the human standpoint, one man is saved, another is left unsaved in his sin. To use the classical statement of the Apostle Paul on this very same problem (Rom. 9:11f.): "For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the elective purpose of God might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." This is far from saying that the motive here disclosed is the only one that determines God in the mysterious act of election. There may be many other motives, all equally wise and holy, entering into His choice and which it has not pleased Him to reveal to our finite understanding. But this one motive He has made known to us, and thereby also indirectly taught us, that whatever other reasons for His sovereign decree may exist, they can have nothing to do with anything meritorious possessed by one man above another. Thus the sole purport of the doctrine of preterition as presented to our faith in the Scriptures is the exaltation of the grace of God. Can a church which professes preeminently to uphold the gospel of free grace refuse to echo this part of God's revelation in her confession? And can it be safe for any church to erase from her creed a mode of expressing the divine grace, which God Himself has used to instruct us, on the plea that she deems its use unpopular and inexpedient? Shall man be wiser than God?​

 

[Bones49]

There are two things that lead to this, I think.

The first is an understanding that we are so corrupted by sin that we're unable even to respond to an offer from God unless he's first prepared us. Note that this *doesn't* mean that he forces people either to sin or to follow him. It's just that without his grace there's no realistic possibility of following him. And once he's renewed us to the point where we can respond, why wouldn't we?

Arminius, and with him many non-Calvinists, actually agreed with much of this. He agreed that without God's grace acting first, there's no way we could respond. However he objected to the logical implication. If anyone renewed by grace would respond to God, then that means that only reason someone would be lost is that God didn't renew them.

It's obvious why that would be troubling. However Arminius' alternative had troubling implications as well. Since he agreed that we had to be converted by God's grace, but he didn't want to make God responsible for who is saved, he had to say that in addition to be prepared by God's grace, we had to make a free response. Some people did and some didn't.

Calvinists noted that this introduced a contradiction into the whole system, since Arminius started out by agreeing that if it were up to us, we'd reject God; we need his grace. But in the end Arminius' system made the difference between those who responded and those who didn't something about the people themselves. It appears that some people weren't as helpless as others, since it only took a nudge from God, and they'd complete the work. (There's another logical problem: if God is omnipotent, and he can forsee everything, then he's going to know whether he nudged a given person hard enough or not. So in the end it seems like it's up to God.)

You often get the impression that Calvinism and Arminianism are the only real options. Calvinists tend to see everyone else either as Arminians or down-right Pelagians (those who think we can be saved on our own without grace). I think in practice a lot of people who think they're Arminians actually aren't. I think they deny the premiss on which Calvin and Arminius agreed: that we're so broken that only God's grace can get us to the point where we can even respond to the Gospel. The problem is that it's not clear how to avoid Pelagianism if you take that road. To avoid the problem I noted above with Arminianism, you may have to reject God's omnipotence.

Or you can just accept universalism. But then you have all those teachings by Jesus about judgement.

There's no alternative that is completely attractive and doesn't lead to things that seem unscriptural. Saying that it's all in God's hands seemed best to Calvinists. Indeed one scholar thinks a major motivation for Calvin is that he wanted to be able to say (at least for Christians) that everything we experience is from God, meant for our long-term benefit. It's a bit hard to say that if there are rogue agents out that operating independent of God.

I've looked at the alternatives pretty carefully. I think the only way to avoid predestination and maintain logic is either to deny God's omnipotence or accept universalism.

Interesting thoughts.
Particularly thinking about your comment at the end that 'the only way to avoid predestination and maintain logic is either to deny God's omnipotence ... I would say that if you take the three doctrines of (1), predestination, (2) God's omnipotence (3) God's love, that only two of these can be true at any one time. If we accept predestination, and God's omnipotence, then he is not loving, in that he had the power to save everyone, but chose not to use it. If we accept predestination and God's love, that means he lacks the omnipotence to save everyone, even though he desired to do so. If we take God's omnipotence and love, then predestination cannot be correct, because a God who can do anything, and also loves everyone, then could choose to save everyone.

This thesis seems correct to me, but is perhaps you can enlighten me to the flaw in my thinking.

 

[Bones49]

The Biblical Importance of the Doctrine of Preterition

Geerhardus Vos ​

The Presbyterian, 70, 36 (September 5, 1900): pp. 9-10. One of the gravest symptoms of the revision movement in the Presbyterian Church today consists in the absence of serious appeal to scriptural authority for the changes of confessional statement that are advocated. From the attitude assumed by man, one would be led to think that no longer the infallible Word of God, but public sentiment, the so-called Christian consciousness, has become the recognized rule of faith among us. Consequently there is reason to fear that the spirit in which revision is sought forebodes greater evil to the church than any material modifications of creed to which revision may lead. Even if the Calvinistic system of doctrine embodied in our standards were seriously mutilated in result of the present movement, so long as the great body of believers feel themselves in conscience bound to yield unquestioning faith to the Bible, there is always hope for a rehabilitation of the principles temporarily abandoned. But when once the sense of allegiance to the Word of God as the only authoritative rule of faith has become weakened, or, while still recognized in theory has ceased to be a living force in the minds of believers, then the hope of a return to the truth once forsaken is reduced to a minimum.

Among the elements of Calvinistic belief now under attack on account of the popular disfavor into which they have fallen, the doctrine of preterition occupies a conspicuous place. So far as we are aware it is seldom asserted openly that this doctrine must go because it has no basis in the Scripture. The worst that thoughtful and theologically informed minds venture to say against it is that it represents but a logical inference from other truths and that in such delicate matters the church may well content itself with summarizing the direct utterances of the Word of God, leaving it to the science of theology to draw the further inferences from these primary data. Even such a statement, however, utterly fails to do justice to the biblical facts. It is true that the Bible also teaches the principle of preterition, by way of implication, as a corollary of certain other fundamental doctrines. No more is necessary than to combine the two single truths, that all saving grace, inclusive of faith, is the supernatural gift of God, and that not all men are made recipients of this gift, to perceive immediately that the ultimate reason why some are saved and other passed by can lie in God alone. In so far every confession which adheres to these two primary facts—and no Calvinistic confession could for a moment hesitate to do so—is also bound to imply the doctrine of preterition. But the Scriptures give us much more than indirect warrant for upholding the principle here at issue. In the first place, it should be observed that the absoluteness with which the Bible subsumes all events under the sovereign decree of God extends to sinful developments as well as to the morally good activities of men, and that consequently the human unbelief of the gospel which prevents the salvation of many is as truly subject to a divine decree as the faith by which others are saved. No matter whether we call this decree and act of preterition, or give it some other name, the general Bible doctrine on the allcomprehensiveness of the divine decree forces us to recognize it as a reality.

In the second place, the Scriptures speak in particular terms of that part of the divine decree which has specific reference to the non-salvation of some, terms as strong and unequivocal as any that are used to describe the corresponding act which appoints men unto salvation. It is easy to be misled on this point by the scarcity of biblical statements representing the decree of preterition as an eternal act in the mind of God, especially within the limits of the Old Testament. But a moment's reflection will show that this applies equally much to the Old Testament doctrine of election. Both election and preterition are by preference viewed in the Old Testament as they emerge in the actual control of the issues of history. It is God acting in result of His eternal will, rather than willing in advance of His temporal act what this stage of revelation describes to us. Keeping this in mind, we perceive that preterition is as frequently and as emphatically spoken of as its counterpart, not only in national and collective relations, but also with reference to individuals, sometimes with so little attempt at guarding against possible misapprehensions that the appearance results as if the decree somehow were the efficient cause of unbelief instead of merely permitting and controlling it for its own holy ends as it really does. In the New Testament, while the historical mode of viewing the decree as passing over into realization is not abandoned, the eternal background of the same, as it exists above all time, and ideal world in God, is more clearly revealed.

In the third place, the Bible still more pointedly calls attention to the necessary place which preterition occupies in the general decree of God pertaining to salvation, when it defines the act of predestination with eternal life, as is one of its fundamental aspects an elective act by which certain persons are singled out from among a greater number of individuals. The specific sense of both the Hebrew and Greek terms rendered by "election" results from the prominence they both give to the element of discrimination implied in the divine choice. While, therefore, predestination as the appointment to the goal of eternal salvation can be logically conceived without the the correlate of preterition, it is difficult with the idea of election. This idea is of such a nature that it cannot even be completed in thought without positing at the same time the idea of preterition. For this reason it is an utterly futile endeavor to attempt to construe a formula which shall adequately reproduce the scriptural doctrine of election, and yet leave unexpressed the correlated doctrine of preterition. This becomes specially significant in view of the fact that the term "election" strongly preponderates over all others in the scriptural references to the decree of salvation. In a divine revelation, where nothing is insignificant, there must be assumed to exist a special motive for the preference thus given to one among the many terms that stood at the Holy Spirit's disposal. In other words, if the Bible thinks it necessary to teach us not merely that Christians are predestined by free grace into eternal salvation, but also thinks it necessary persistently to reminds us how this appointment of some into life took place from among a number of others who were sovereignly passed by, then this can only mean that in the view of God the principle of preterition is essential to the expression of the most important aspect of the decree of salvation.

Nor does the Bible leave us in doubt as to why such great practical importance for our instruction is attached by God to the discriminating element in predestination. The motive is none other than to impress most profoundly upon the mind of believers the conviction of the absolutely gracious character of their redemption. No stronger way of bringing this out is conceivable than by showing in actual experience that under entirely equal conditions, as viewed from the human standpoint, one man is saved, another is left unsaved in his sin. To use the classical statement of the Apostle Paul on this very same problem (Rom. 9:11f.): "For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the elective purpose of God might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." This is far from saying that the motive here disclosed is the only one that determines God in the mysterious act of election. There may be many other motives, all equally wise and holy, entering into His choice and which it has not pleased Him to reveal to our finite understanding. But this one motive He has made known to us, and thereby also indirectly taught us, that whatever other reasons for His sovereign decree may exist, they can have nothing to do with anything meritorious possessed by one man above another. Thus the sole purport of the doctrine of preterition as presented to our faith in the Scriptures is the exaltation of the grace of God. Can a church which professes preeminently to uphold the gospel of free grace refuse to echo this part of God's revelation in her confession? And can it be safe for any church to erase from her creed a mode of expressing the divine grace, which God Himself has used to instruct us, on the plea that she deems its use unpopular and inexpedient? Shall man be wiser than God?​

Why does the doctrine of God's grace require us to also believe the doctrine of predestination, and as you say preterition? Why can God not graciously save some, without having them been predestined to receive that grace?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interesting thoughts.
Particularly thinking about your comment at the end that 'the only way to avoid predestination and maintain logic is either to deny God's omnipotence ... I would say that if you take the three doctrines of (1), predestination, (2) God's omnipotence (3) God's love, that only two of these can be true at any one time. If we accept predestination, and God's omnipotence, then he is not loving, in that he had the power to save everyone, but chose not to use it. If we accept predestination and God's love, that means he lacks the omnipotence to save everyone, even though he desired to do so. If we take God's omnipotence and love, then predestination cannot be correct, because a God who can do anything, and also loves everyone, then could choose to save everyone.

This thesis seems correct to me, but is perhaps you can enlighten me to the flaw in my thinking.

One alternative to this line of thought is universalism. With universalism God is completely omnipotent. He exercises predestination in having predestined all of humanity to be saved. His perfect love is not compromised by the charge of partiality in that nobody is excluded from His love.

 

[hedrick]

One alternative to this line of thought is universalism. With universalism God is completely omnipotent. He exercises predestination in having predestined all of humanity to be saved. His perfect love is not compromised by the charge of partiality in that nobody is excluded from His love.

The usual concern about this is how Christ is then the savior. Furthermore, it can’t be discussed here.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The usual concern about this is how Christ is then the savior. Furthermore, it can’t be discussed here.

I agree entirely. Universalism opens an enormous can of worms. For the record, I am not a universalist myself.