predestinarianism doesn't make sense

[FireDragon76]

I read a book about OCD and John Bunyan, and his struggles with his own personal doubts and sins (he tended to worry alot that he was not among the elect), and I'm convinced that predestinarianism causes as many problems, if not moreso, than the Roman Catholic covenantal nomism and legalism the Reformers criticized.

How can one of the elect know if they are elect or not, if election has nothing to do with anything we do in this life? And if somebody was a non-elect, shouldn't they live however they please, since they will never be elected by God? And if one is elect, shouldn't they in turn again live however they please, since their actions have nothing to do with their election? It seems to me election is one of those distinctions that has dubious pastoral implications, other than buttressing systematic theology claims.

I attend an Episcopal church myself, somewhat influenced by the Reformed tradition (in a moderated way- you won't find people preaching on predestination too much, just occasionally hinting at it) ,and I'm puzzled how Predestination can be a "sweet, unspeakable comfort" as the old Articles claim (not that most Episcopalians consider them unquestioned statements of faith anymore). Maybe I'm missing something.

I suppose on the positive side, the actual Articles of Religion are very vague about how Predestination works, as compared to alot of the Reformed confessions, but Articles of Religion also emphasize the regenerative activity of the Holy Spirit and putting to death the flesh, somewhat different from the idea that God predestines freely without faith or works. They also do not explicitly affirm "double predestination" as far as I can tell, and they also state that the doctrine of predestination must not be held to contradict the Bible in general. But some Anglicans tend to read a very Calvinistic interpretation into the articles.

 

[twin1954]

I read a book about OCD and John Bunyan, and his struggles with his own personal doubts and sins (he tended to worry alot that he was not among the elect), and I'm convinced that predestinarianism causes as many problems, if not moreso, than the Roman Catholic covenantal nomism and legalism the Reformers criticized.

How can one of the elect know if they are elect or not, if election has nothing to do with anything we do in this life? And if somebody was a non-elect, shouldn't they live however they please, since they will never be elected by God? And if one is elect, shouldn't they in turn again live however they please, since their actions have nothing to do with their election? It seems to me election is one of those distinctions that has dubious pastoral implications, other than buttressing systematic theology claims.

I attend an Episcopal church myself, somewhat influenced by the Reformed tradition (in a moderated way- you won't find people preaching on predestination too much, just occasionally hinting at it) ,and I'm puzzled how Predestination can be a "sweet, unspeakable comfort" as the old Articles claim (not that most Episcopalians consider them unquestioned statements of faith anymore). Maybe I'm missing something.

I suppose on the positive side, the actual Articles of Religion are very vague about how Predestination works, as compared to alot of the Reformed confessions, but Articles of Religion also emphasize the regenerative activity of the Holy Spirit and putting to death the flesh, somewhat different from the idea that God predestines freely without faith or works. They also do not explicitly affirm "double predestination" as far as I can tell, and they also state that the doctrine of predestination must not be held to contradict the Bible in general. But some Anglicans tend to read a very Calvinistic interpretation into the articles.

Is there a question in there somewhere?

 

[Iosias]

How can one of the elect know if they are elect or not, if election has nothing to do with anything we do in this life?

Good question; I would say that one knows that one is elect if one has faith and has been baptised. God has elected Jesus and the Church in him, through baptism we are united with Christ and it serves as a mark of our elect status.

 

[Skala]

predestinarianism doesn't make sense

I guess the Apostle Paul wrote a bunch of nonsense then.

 

[AMR]

How can one of the elect know if they are elect or not, if election has nothing to do with anything we do in this life?

Your post is indicative of many common misunderstandings of the Reformed and/or Calvinistic doctrines of grace.

We are given full assurance of our election.[FONT=&quot]That we can be certain (genuinely know) of our full assurance, without any sort of extraordinary revelation, is clear from Scripture. We need to trust God's word, not our fickle feelings, when He says "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is through the Scripture that the Spirit bears witness to us that we are God's adopted children. The underlying text of the New Testament for "assurance" means "full assurance, certainty". The word (pleroforia) with this clear meaning appears only four times in the New Testament: 1 Cor. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5; Heb. 6:11; 10:22.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Assurance is the necessary implication of knowledge, assent, and trust, that is, true saving faith. Answer your doubts with faith, seeking refuge in Christ, The Good Shepherd. Let your faith in the sure promises of God and what Christ accomplished fight the doubt.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Therefore I would have you to close with Christ in the promise, without making any question whether you are in the faith or no; for there is an assurance which rises from the exercise of faith by a direct act, and that is, when a man, by faith, directly lays hold upon Christ, and concludes assurance from thence." (Src: Fisher, MMD)[/FONT]

And if somebody was a non-elect, shouldn't they live however they please, since they will never be elected by God?

A person who is unsaved and knows it may certainly live as they have lived, but that is not to say that their fate it fixed no matter what they may do. Why? All who genuinely seek the righteousness of God will not be turned away.

 

[FireDragon76]

Your post is indicative of many common misunderstandings of the Reformed and/or Calvinistic doctrines of grace.

OK, thanks for engaging with me on this topic.

[FONT=&quot]Assurance is the necessary implication of knowledge, assent, and trust, that is, true saving faith. Answer your doubts with faith, seeking refuge in Christ, The Good Shepherd. Let your faith in the sure promises of God and what Christ accomplished fight the doubt.[/FONT]

Well, I think I believe, at least I want to believe... but it just doesn't feel like I believe, if that makes sense.

A person who is unsaved and knows it may certainly live as they have lived, but that is not to say that their fate it fixed no matter what they may do. Why? All who genuinely seek the righteousness of God will not be turned away.

In my mind, when Calvinism has been explained to me, unconditional election sounds like there is no general promise like that on the part of God to anyone, since election is in the secret will of God. Perhaps you could explain further.

I go to a conservative Episcopalian church where sometimes the preaching is quasi-monergistic in tone at times, perhaps like Lutheranism, yet other times it is not - this is how Anglicanism is, often times the preachers have different perspectives. I'm sure none are strict Calvinists but it doesn't resonate with me. I just don't feel like God has grabbed hold of me and won't let me go, however much it is preached. It's something I've thought about talking to the church about, as I feel the message is inconsistent. Some of the clergy are influenced by the Charismatic movement, or N.T. Wright, others sound like they have Reformed Baptist backgrounds.

Frankly, this type of preaching situation doesn't sit well with me. For the past 3 years I've delt with some horrible stuff in my personal life that really shook my faith, the fluffy generalized Christian preaching just seems unhelpful to me. A lot more guidance would be nice, I've sometimes thought about seeking out a more narrowly doctrinal church with more consistent preaching.
As it is, sometimes I consider the sermons to be beyond worthless and I've thought about "de-churching", since alot of my faith is actually sustained now days by praying at home and doing my own devotional reading. I've thought about complaining to the church about the preaching there, and submitting a request for more uniformity in the "message" behind the sermons.

 

[AMR]

In my mind, when Calvinism has been explained to me, unconditional election sounds like there is no general promise like that on the part of God to anyone, since election is in the secret will of God. Perhaps you could explain further.

Unconditional election is no bar to the sincere offer of the gospel. We do not know who is elect or reprobate. We are admonished to preach the gospel and God will accomplish His eternal purposes, for it is the great work of the ordained servant to invite to the wedding and to close the marriage.

As one of the Puritan divines, James Durham, once noted:
We cannot allow you an hour’s time to advise…close with Him presently, or you may never have the like opportunity.… The King is on His throne…His servants invite in His name. Come, therefore; come without further lingering.

When the gospel comes, the offer of Jesus Christ is made to all who hear it. We do not know who will be made able to hear or who will be left in their spiritual death.

Frankly, this type of preaching situation doesn't sit well with me. For the past 3 years I've delt with some horrible stuff in my personal life that really shook my faith, the fluffy generalized Christian preaching just seems unhelpful to me. A lot more guidance would be nice, I've sometimes thought about seeking out a more narrowly doctrinal church with more consistent preaching.

[FONT=&quot]We should join the church that is most true to God’s word rather than the one that is most entertaining and fun. However, we should not hop from church to church with a critical spirit, always finding something to gripe about, only to leave in pride and anger. Not only is this attitude contrary to Reformed theology, it is also against the pleasant Christian virtues of humility, patience, and submission.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]If you notice that the church of which you are a member showing or begining to show the marks of the false church, it is your calling to arouse this church, by the appointed means, to conversion (Hosea 2:1). [/FONT]

Yes, our faith may be shaken at times. Read now the WCF on the matter of our promise of perseverance:

Chapter XVII - Of the Perseverance of the Saints.

[FONT=&quot]I. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (Psalm 14:4; 36:3; Job 21:14,15; Matthew 25:41-43,45; 23:3).

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father (2 Tim. 2:18,19; Jer. 31:3); upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:10,14; 13:20,21; 9:12-15; Rom. 8:33-39; John 17:11,24; Luke 22:32; Heb. 7:25), the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them (John 14:16,17; 1 John 2:27; 3:9), and the nature of the covenant of grace (Jer. 32:40): from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof (John 10:28; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 2:19).

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins (Matthew 26:70,72,74); and, for a time, continue therein (Psalm 51 (title) and Psalm 51:14): whereby they incur God's displeasure (Is. 64:5,7,9; 2 Sam. 11:27), and grieve his Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts (Psalm 51:8,10,12; Rev. 2:4; Sol. 5:2-4,6), have their hearts hardened (Is. 63:17; Mark 6:52; 16:14), and their consciences wounded (Psalm 32:3,4; 51:8); hurt and scandalize others (2 Sam. 12:14), and bring temporal judgments upon themselves (Psalm 89;31,32; 1 Cor. 11:32).​

[/FONT]