Double predestination (John Calvin) and Bondage of the will by Martin Luther

[hedrick]

Calvinism is not primarily a deduction from God's foreknowledge or control of history. It's really a result of the Augustinian concept that people are sufficiently helpless that they can only be saved if God saves them.

Those that God saves are saved; those that he doesn't aren't. Salvation involves our wills, since God operates by regenerating the will to the point that it can and does respond. But it doesn't start with our decision, but with God's decision to save us.

I'm not arguing for or against this position. I have some concerns about it. But it's important not to see predestination as mechanistic: God the divine watchmaker making some people to be saved and some not, and then history plays out according to that plan. For Calvin, it involves God's personal activity with those he has chosen as his.

 

[greyhawk.444]

Calvinism is not primarily a deduction from God's foreknowledge or control of history. It's really a result of the Augustinian concept that people are sufficiently helpless that they can only be saved if God saves them.

Those that God saves are saved; those that he doesn't aren't. Salvation involves our wills, since God operates by regenerating the will to the point that it can and does respond. But it doesn't start with our decision, but with God's decision to save us.

I'm not arguing for or against this position. I have some concerns about it. But it's important not to see predestination as mechanistic: God the divine watchmaker making some people to be saved and some not, and then history plays out according to that plan. For Calvin, it involves God's personal activity with those he has chosen as his.

Then, presumably Calvin's theory of predestination must be different from the Absolute predestination of Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will)?

 

[hedrick]

Then, presumably Calvin's theory of predestination must be different from the Absolute predestination of Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will)?

It's been decades since I read Bondage of the Will, but as I recall the issue there was the same. Luther believed that we were hopeless to do anything for our salvation, and that God had to step in to save us.

It was certainly an implication of this that where God didn't step in people were damned. But I don't think either Luther or Calvin started out with some concept of God's absolute power or the determinacy of history. They started with the understanding that without God having intervened in their lives they would have been lost.

You can object to where they went from there, but I think it's important to understand the intent of the doctrine. For Luther there was another motivation. He was unable to have any confidence in his salvation. As long as anything rested on him, he could never be sure he had done enough. Having it rest of God's work solved the problem for him, because he could trust God where he couldn't trust himself.

That's actually a solution that has some problems with it. At least within the Reformed tradition it raised the question of how you could have confidence that you're elect. But it does appear that for Luther, and presumably others, it worked.

 

[black.hawk]

The problem the Calvinist has with these verses is that not a one of them remotely comes close to suggesting God unconditionally predetermine certain individuals to be lost or saved against the individual's will.

No, I don't think that God would unconditionally predetermine certain individuals to be lost or saved against the individual's will; but God created each individual with certain propensities, so that some individuals are more likely to be saved than others on account of their individual tendencies to sin or not to sin - I think that Calvin merely suggested that certain individuals have greater propensity to sin than others, which makes them more vulnerable.

Having created each individual God has simply put each individual into "auto pilot" and left each person to their own device - So it wouldn't be true at all to say that God is ultimately culpable for the sins of Fallen Man - That is, God did not make Adam Fall, nor made Judas betray Jesus, nor made Peter deny Jesus; but each individual has been created with certain propensities, such as one's susceptibility to temptation (Adam), propensity for treachery (Judas), or cowardice in the case of Peter who denied Jesus.

You think you are 'free' to choose between good and evil? But a person who chooses strawberry over chocolate ice cream isn't really 'free' to make that choice, but he made that choice as one would expect of an automaton or computer program whose algorithm is constant.

 

[TheSeabass]

No, I don't think that God would unconditionally predetermine certain individuals to be lost or saved against the individual's will; but God created each individual with certain propensities, so that some individuals are more likely to be saved than others on account of their individual tendencies to sin or not to sin - I think that Calvin merely suggested that certain individuals have greater propensity to sin than others, which makes them more vulnerable.

Having created each individual God has simply put each individual into "auto pilot" and left each person to their own device - So it wouldn't be true at all to say that God is ultimately culpable for the sins of Fallen Man - That is, God did not make Adam Fall, nor made Judas betray Jesus, nor made Peter deny Jesus; but each individual has been created with certain propensities, such as one's susceptibility to temptation (Adam), propensity for treachery (Judas), or cowardice in the case of Peter who denied Jesus.

You think you are 'free' to choose between good and evil? But a person who chooses strawberry over chocolate ice cream isn't really 'free' to make that choice, but he made that choice as one would expect of an automaton or computer program whose algorithm is constant.

God did not create man with a "sin nature" where that nature controls man causing man to passively sin against his own will. Men are sinners for they actively choose to sin of his own free will. Calvinism makes man a victim of sin and not culpable for the sin man chooses to commit.

 

[shakewell]

- Since, he gave people 'free will' to decide for themselves - it means that God doesn't actually know what each and everybody would choose tomorrow, or next week, or next year etc.

Baloney. It doesn't mean any such thing.

Presupposing, that God has perfect knowledge about each and every individual in the future, then it means that the future is set in stone, and nothing we can do here in the present tense could ever change the end result.

I have perfect knowledge of what Bob had for supper last night. The historical fact is set in stone; Bob can't not have had what he had. He chose what to eat with his free will. My post-knowledge has no effect on what his choice was.
God's foreknowledge and our post-knowledge work the same way. Knowledge is just knowledge, nothing more.

 

[sdowney717]

Baloney. It doesn't mean any such thing.


I have perfect knowledge of what Bob had for supper last night. The historical fact is set in stone; Bob can't not have had what he had. He chose what to eat with his free will. My post-knowledge has no effect on what his choice was.
God's foreknowledge and our post-knowledge work the same way. Knowledge is just knowledge, nothing more.

God foreknows what man can not know, unless God tells Him what is going to happen. Prophecy of future events is set in stone, since God has foreordained things to occur and who can resist His will?

What He has determined to come to pass, will come to pass. Bob's dinner last night likely has no eternal significance, but your coming to Christ did and does have eternal significance to both you and God, so some things are important.
For every believer who is saved, then this is true.
None of this is true for the unsaved. We are elected to become saved according to Him foreknowing us with His great love towards us. and when the time is ripe for us, He harvests us into His barn. He accomplishes this by making us begotten again so that we have a true living hope and an eternal inheritance which can not be undone. Read 1 Peter 1. Everyone begotten again comes to Christ and is His child. Naturally if you are born, you have a father, and supernaturally if begotten again by Him, He is your Father, and you then His child. We all had natural parents, by Him making us born again, we are then adopted into His family. All parents choose their adopted children, and He chose us..

Ephesians 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

 

[shakewell]

Bob's dinner last night likely has no eternal significance, but your coming to Christ did and does have eternal significance to both you and God, so some things are important.

My knowledge of what Bob had for supper last night has EQUAL significance and importance to God's knowledge of my eternal destination, as pertaining to the meaning of the word 'knowledge'.

 

[black.hawk]

I have perfect knowledge of what Bob had for supper last night. The historical fact is set in stone; Bob can't not have had what he had. He chose what to eat with his free will. My post-knowledge has no effect on what his choice was.
God's foreknowledge and our post-knowledge work the same way. Knowledge is just knowledge, nothing more.

But still, there are other factors which are foreordained over which we have no control - Such as the colour of Bob's hair, his name, and place of birth etc. His social background or upbringing is also foreordained since he has no choice regarding such factors, which define WHO he is, or WHAT he is likely to do.

Such circumstances define WHO we are, and serve to constrain WHAT we are likely to do at any given moment.

So, although Bob may have preferred Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding last night another person such as Krisnan may have preferred Chicken Korma instead. Both Bob and Krisnan are constrained by their experience, social background or upbringing; and their 'choice' is more limited than you seemed to suggest.

A third person such as Tony Patel would be just as likely to have Roast beef or Chicken korma since his experience is different from Bob and Krisnan; but then again, he is unlikely to restrict his 'choice' to one or the other given that his experience is wider than the other two.

So, WHAT you are likely to 'choose' is on average constrained by the specific circumstances of your background or upbringing.

Theoretically, there is nothing to stop you eating spiders for supper, but it's extremely unlikely that you would make such a 'choice' if it doesn't reflect your social background or upbringing.

So, you are not as 'free' as you like to think since we are constrained by the specific circumstances of one's background, experience or upbringing. Such circumstances are preordained over which we have no control whatsoever.

 

[shakewell]

But still, there are other factors which are foreordained over which we have no control - Such as the colour of Bob's hair, his name, and place of birth etc. His social background or upbringing is also foreordained since he has no choice regarding such factors, which define WHO he is, or WHAT he is likely to do.

I don't ordain what Bob had for supper last night, I know what Bob had for supper last night. Know is know, nothing more.

So, you are not as 'free' as you like to think since we are constrained by the specific circumstances of one's background, experience or upbringing. Such circumstances are preordained over which we have no control whatsoever.

None of those things alter the freeness and functionality of the God-created will.

 

[sdowney717]

I don't ordain what Bob had for supper last night, I know what Bob had for supper last night. Know is know, nothing more.


None of those things alter the freeness and functionality of the God-created will.

When people discuss foreknowledge, as the meaning is commonly thought, they run down a rabbit trail.
God's 'foreknew' in scripture like Romans 8 and 1 Peter 1, is the idea of Him foreknowing us as in a relationship, not the foreknowing of what things the person did.

I don't deny that God also foreknows what we did or will do, but in context, 'those He foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to Christ', is that He foreknew them as being His people is the emphasis, not what they did.

This is actually a not so subtle point regarding being chosen in Him from before the foundation of the world.

 

[sdowney717]

now Isaiah 46, is more inclusively including God's predestining of all things.
God can not deny Himself, God knows all things that will occur before any of them happen as He is the author of all things that happen according to His will.
And God's will can not be resisted in a way that will change the outcome of what God has predetermined will happen.

8 “Remember this, and show yourselves men;
Recall to mind, O you transgressors.
9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

 

[shakewell]

God's 'foreknew' in scripture like Romans 8 and 1 Peter 1, is the idea of Him foreknowing us as in a relationship, not the foreknowing of what things the person did.

The word "foreknew" says nothing about how the relationship comes about; only that it exists.

 

[black.hawk]

None of those things alter the freeness and functionality of the God-created will.

But there is no Scriptural basis to support the idea of free will - This is something you have made up.

 

[sdowney717]

The word "foreknew" says nothing about how the relationship comes about; only that it exists.

Yes, we have verses in Ephesians that tells us the why and the when it came about.
It is interesting to think that God loved us with such a great love that He made us born again, and determined to do that for us before the foundation of the world as He chose us in Him. You know the fall in Eden was predetermined by God to occur, as Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

With God the end is as certain as the beginning. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the First and the Last. And our life is hid with Christ in God.

 

[shakewell]

But there is no Scriptural basis to support the idea of free will - This is something you have made up.

Wrong.

 

[shakewell]

Yes, we have verses in Ephesians that tells us the why and the when it came about.

A word is a word. Verses are verses. "Foreknew" isn't verses; it's a word.

 

[black.hawk]

Wrong.

Rubbish - There is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[black.hawk]

A word is a word. Verses are verses. "Foreknew" isn't verses; it's a word.

Rubbish.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Romans 9

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

Matthew 25

34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Revelation 13

8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Now, the above passages are a reference to "Absolute or double predestination", so that God had long since decided which individuals would be saved or not - Which was decided long before He created the world.

So, then this is is what it means to be chosen, prepared, or predestined in the above passages - As this is directly referring to "Absolute or double predestination" (saved or not saved) according to the ontology of Martin Luther and John Calvin.

However, there are some Christians here who have made the mistake of refuting "Absolute or double predestination" based misquoting, or misinterpretation of the following:-

2 Peter 3

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.


But of course, God doesn't want anybody to perish, but we need to interpret this passage in the wider context of Christian cosmology - So that God has created each and every individual with specific impulses, inclinations, and tendencies - So that some people are predisposed, and naturally more inclined to disbelieve or reject Christ than others.

Also, God is omniscient with perfect knowledge about the future, and knows every last detail about future events - So the future is effectively set in stone - and the future also co-exists besides the present tense - Although trapped inside this 4-dimensional space-time continuum we are unable to perceive the future.

Now, God not wishing anybody to perish is like your husband or doctor who has urged the woman to quit smoking l'est she should die of lung cancer - Which is the most likely prognosis for chain smokers, and the nearest equivalent to God's Absolute foreknowledge about what would happen to anybody who is a chain smoker.

Thus, God has created different people with differing impulses, inclinations, and tendencies, and he knows the end result of such tendencies as to whether they are saved or not.

Now, God not wishing anybody to perish is consistent with the Theory of Absolute or double predestination - As those who are damned would be damned by their so called 'free will' working in tandem with their natural impulses, inclinations and tendencies.

So, now do you see how 2 Peter 3:9 - And such similar verses in the Bible - do Not in anyway contradict the Theory of Absolute Predestination; but on the contrary, the above passage is wholly and perfectly consistent with the Ontology of Absolute predestination - Presupposing, that we understood this passage correctly in the wider context of Luther and Calvin's absolutism?

So, therefore God has predestined individuals to be saved or not by virtue of his Creatorship - Since, he created individuals with specific impulses, inclinations, and tendencies - So that some are more prone to be damned than others - But this is perfectly consistent with God not wanting anybody to perish - Since he created humankind for the sake of love, so that each and every individual would have a special place and role in the creation - But it is such individualism which are the basis of most people falling by the wayside, according to Matthew 7:13, 14 - The downside of individual tendencies (Which will lead to most people's destruction) was never intended by God when he created Man - Hence, 2 Peter 3:9 is still true, and perfectly consistent with the Ontology of Absolute Predestination - That every event in the universe was preordained by the Creator.

Now, here is further evidence of Predestination:-

John 6

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”


That is, no one can be drawn to Christ, to believe and follow him unless they have been specifically chosen, prepared, or predestined by the Creator.

Whether saved or not, your position in the Ontology is constant and cannot be changed - Since, the virtual reality of this universe - Philosophical idealism - is underpinned by a Super-complex algorithm which is CONSTANT.

Discuss.

Election has degrees. Some are elected to serve and some to rule.