predestination and damnation

[Big_Al]

I was listening to a preacher on the radio and during his sermon he went off on a tangent to discuss predestination. This was in response to a question he had received from someone who was stating that they prayed strongly for something but it never seemed to appear.

This preacher then said that in the doctrine there was the case of predestination. He described God as all knowing, omnipresent and omnipotent, and that because of this, everyone was under God's will, and that some were predestined to go to Heaven and others were (even before their birth) predestined for Hell.

The point he made was that for those that God had already conscribed to Hell, no matter what they did or how hard they prayed, their destiny was preordained and that those people never received any interaction with God because he had already (from the beginning of time) decided they weren't worth it.

This line of thinking really bothers me so I have done a little background reading and indeed, the Calvinists have such a doctrine (to the extent I can discern it).

This really contradicts the present day view of God as being an open redeemer who turns no one away. In addition to this, it also raises the question as to whether or not anyone can seek salvation since you are at the mercy of something that was predestined to occur.

Anyone want to straighten me out on this?

 

[Epiphoskei]

I was listening to a preacher on the radio and during his sermon he went off on a tangent to discuss predestination. This was in response to a question he had received from someone who was stating that they prayed strongly for something but it never seemed to appear.

This preacher then said that in the doctrine there was the case of predestination. He described God as all knowing, omnipresent and omnipotent, and that because of this, everyone was under God's will, and that some were predestined to go to Heaven and others were (even before their birth) predestined for Hell.

The point he made was that for those that God had already conscribed to Hell, no matter what they did or how hard they prayed, their destiny was preordained and that those people never received any interaction with God because he had already (from the beginning of time) decided they weren't worth it.

This line of thinking really bothers me so I have done a little background reading and indeed, the Calvinists have such a doctrine (to the extent I can discern it).

This really contradicts the present day view of God as being an open redeemer who turns no one away. In addition to this, it also raises the question as to whether or not anyone can seek salvation since you are at the mercy of something that was predestined to occur.

Anyone want to straighten me out on this?

This view is called hypercalvinism. It's not a Calvinistic doctrine. The Calvinist position is that man's heart is innately hardened towards God and it requires a miracle of God for man to believe the Gospel. God's decision to do so is thus unconditional, since man will never have the desire on his own to ask God to be saved. That position you described is not Calvinistic because it believes that men still may call upon God for salvation without being softened by God.

Hypercalvinism is usually the result of taking a foundationally Arminian worldview and adding in predestination without a foundationally Calvinistic framework within which to put it. That scenerio presumes that man isn't totally depraved and stubbornly unwilling to pursue God at all costs. Calvinism does, and therefore would never dream that people who call upon God for salvation will be passed over because they are unelect. The unelect hate God and would never call on him for salvation.

 

[Big_Al]

This view is called hypercalvinism. It's not a Calvinistic doctrine. The Calvinist position is that man's heart is innately hardened towards God and it requires a miracle of God for man to believe the Gospel. God's decision to do so is thus unconditional, since man will never have the desire on his own to ask God to be saved. That position you described is not Calvinistic because it believes that men still may call upon God for salvation without being softened by God.

Hypercalvinism is usually the result of taking a foundationally Arminian worldview and adding in predestination without a foundationally Calvinistic framework within which to put it. That scenerio presumes that man isn't totally depraved and stubbornly unwilling to pursue God at all costs. Calvinism does, and therefore would never dream that people who call upon God for salvation will be passed over because they are unelect. The unelect hate God and would never call on him for salvation.

That is my point. It seems to be to be a chicken-egg thing. Given that the individual seeks God but is denied Him because of some predestination "?curse?" then suggests that the deck is stacked against that poor soul and despite that person's efforts, he/she is trapped in a web not of their own making (unless you accept such things as reincarnation which might account for carrying prior stigma into life. The preacher said that since God creates all, that He created the predestined individual and that He knew when he created him/her that was where they were going to be disposed of at.

 

[Epiphoskei]

But in Calvinism individuals don't seek God until after God does a work on their heart which he only does to those who have been elected to begin with. The scenerio you're pondering doesn't ever happen, except according to hypercalvinism, which is frankly heresy.

 

[Big_Al]

But in Calvinism individuals don't seek God until after God does a work on their heart which he only does to those who have been elected to begin with. The scenerio you're pondering doesn't ever happen, except according to hypercalvinism, which is frankly heresy.

OK, that tells me what I needed to know. Thanks

 

[david_x]

I was listening to a preacher on the radio and during his sermon he went off on a tangent to discuss predestination. This was in response to a question he had received from someone who was stating that they prayed strongly for something but it never seemed to appear.

This preacher then said that in the doctrine there was the case of predestination. He described God as all knowing, omnipresent and omnipotent, and that because of this, everyone was under God's will, and that some were predestined to go to Heaven and others were (even before their birth) predestined for Hell.

The point he made was that for those that God had already conscribed to Hell, no matter what they did or how hard they prayed, their destiny was preordained and that those people never received any interaction with God because he had already (from the beginning of time) decided they weren't worth it.

This line of thinking really bothers me so I have done a little background reading and indeed, the Calvinists have such a doctrine (to the extent I can discern it).

This really contradicts the present day view of God as being an open redeemer who turns no one away. In addition to this, it also raises the question as to whether or not anyone can seek salvation since you are at the mercy of something that was predestined to occur.

Anyone want to straighten me out on this?

God doesn't turn away any that seek him earnestly, but some never will.

 

[ittarter]

But in Calvinism individuals don't seek God until after God does a work on their heart which he only does to those who have been elected to begin with. The scenerio you're pondering doesn't ever happen, except according to hypercalvinism, which is frankly heresy.

If you are at all familiar with historic instances of Calvinism, your theological model results in the same confusion, lack of assurance, and fear as what you pejoratively label "hypercalvinism."

I am thinking specifically of the islands in Western Scotland, for the past few hundred years However, there are also examples from North America.

In the Calvinist system, people wonder whether they are among the elect or not. If they are, then nothing they do matters, because God has ordained that the elect will be saved. If they aren't, then nothing they do matters, because those not elected will be damned.

This contravenes substantial portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, such as Deuteronomy, the synoptic gospels and the letter to the Hebrews.

 

[Epiphoskei]

If you are at all familiar with historic instances of Calvinism, your theological model results in the same confusion, lack of assurance, and fear as what you pejoratively label "hypercalvinism."

I am thinking specifically of the islands in Western Scotland, for the past few hundred years However, there are also examples from North America.

In the Calvinist system, people wonder whether they are among the elect or not. If they are, then nothing they do matters, because God has ordained that the elect will be saved. If they aren't, then nothing they do matters, because those not elected will be damned.

This contravenes substantial portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, such as Deuteronomy, the synoptic gospels and the letter to the Hebrews.

As I said, hypercalvinistic thought is what occurs when one adds predestination to a fundimentally Arminian set of presuppositions. This characterization demonstrates exactly what I mean.

In a Reformed framework, Libertarian Free Will is rejected for an understanding of man wherein what he does must be consistant with his own heart, and his own heart, in a Godless state, is opposed to God. God replaces the heart of stone with the heart of flesh for those whom he has chosen. This new heart follows after God. Therefore, those who follow after God have already experienced incontrovertable proof of their election. Those who lack assurance may gain it by judging whether they bear the fruit which is in keeping with repentance.

Now not only is that end statement, that we gain assurance by observing our fruit, in no way different from the teaching of all Christian groups, Calvinist or not, with the exception of antinomianism, which is heresy, but moreover, if after recieving what in the Calvinistic system is incontrovertable proof of election one still doubts one's election, it is because one is still thinking like an Arminian. Only the Arminian is permitted by his framework to believe that his desire to follow God does not require election.

 

[ittarter]

In a Reformed framework, Libertarian Free Will is rejected for an understanding of man wherein what he does must be consistant with his own heart, and his own heart, in a Godless state, is opposed to God. God replaces the heart of stone with the heart of flesh for those whom he has chosen. This new heart follows after God. Therefore, those who follow after God have already experienced incontrovertable proof of their election. Those who lack assurance may gain it by judging whether they bear the fruit which is in keeping with repentance.

I will grant that this is true for superficial ethical systems that are concerned with dos and don'ts. However, Jesus' metaethics focus on why we do things, the motivation we bring to the table, and so forth. Thus the fruit of conversion is somewhat hidden and garners endless introspection to ascertain whether or not one's motivations are "pure." And of course, they are never entirely pure, since salvation is unfinished prior to the general resurrection. So the communicant is left wondering whether or not his/her desires are pure enough to warrant assurance in a divine work on his/her heart.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I will grant that this is true for superficial ethical systems that are concerned with dos and don'ts. However, Jesus' metaethics focus on why we do things, the motivation we bring to the table, and so forth.

If anything this militates in favor of a Calvinistic perspective. Libertarianism may appear reasonable in areas of dos and don'ts, but it's seriously more dubious that we can control our motivations in a libertarian sense. Man's inability to tame his heart requires that any Godliness be a result of anticedent divine work.

Thus the fruit of conversion is somewhat hidden and garners endless introspection to ascertain whether or not one's motivations are "pure." And of course, they are never entirely pure, since salvation is unfinished prior to the general resurrection. So the communicant is left wondering whether or not his/her desires are pure enough to warrant assurance in a divine work on his/her heart.

And this is not a difficulty for all branches of Christianity? Outside of antinomian heresies where you say some prayer in the past and have no need of perseverence, all Christian sects teach that assurance can only be on the basis of observing fruit. But whereas the Arminian et. al. may only be assured that he is presently in the grace of God if he has fruit, the Calvinist is assured not merely that he is presently in grace, but that such a grace is evidence of eternal election, and need not fear that tomorrow, or the day after, he will find that he has fallen out of the grace of God, because he will be preserved until the end in accordance with the eternal decree of election.

Every Christian has assurance for today in his fruit, but only the Calvinist may be reasonably convinced he has assurance of tomorrow.

 

[peace4ever]

I was listening to a preacher on the radio and during his sermon he went off on a tangent to discuss predestination. This was in response to a question he had received from someone who was stating that they prayed strongly for something but it never seemed to appear.

This preacher then said that in the doctrine there was the case of predestination. He described God as all knowing, omnipresent and omnipotent, and that because of this, everyone was under God's will, and that some were predestined to go to Heaven and others were (even before their birth) predestined for Hell.

The point he made was that for those that God had already conscribed to Hell, no matter what they did or how hard they prayed, their destiny was preordained and that those people never received any interaction with God because he had already (from the beginning of time) decided they weren't worth it.

This line of thinking really bothers me so I have done a little background reading and indeed, the Calvinists have such a doctrine (to the extent I can discern it).

This really contradicts the present day view of God as being an open redeemer who turns no one away. In addition to this, it also raises the question as to whether or not anyone can seek salvation since you are at the mercy of something that was predestined to occur.

Anyone want to straighten me out on this?

What he said is all biblical so he is correct. The key is that only God knows who's condemned and who's called for eternal life. So salvation is open to anyone who wants it.

 

[ittarter]

And this is not a difficulty for all branches of Christianity? Outside of antinomian heresies where you say some prayer in the past and have no need of perseverence, all Christian sects teach that assurance can only be on the basis of observing fruit. But whereas the Arminian et. al. may only be assured that he is presently in the grace of God if he has fruit, the Calvinist is assured not merely that he is presently in grace, but that such a grace is evidence of eternal election, and need not fear that tomorrow, or the day after, he will find that he has fallen out of the grace of God, because he will be preserved until the end in accordance with the eternal decree of election.

Every Christian has assurance for today in his fruit, but only the Calvinist may be reasonably convinced he has assurance of tomorrow.

This really isn't as complicated as we are making it out to be. I'm not saying there isn't a way out. All I'm saying is that Calvinism has led many, in the past, to have trouble in the area of assurance. Yes, they can work past it, but the point is, there's something to work past.

I don't think it's the same as non-Calvinist Christianity. Arbitrary election to salvation, if the fruits are primarily internal rather than external, leads to two questions: How do I know I'm among the elect? and, What can I do to be among the elect? The answer to the first is, You can never be entirely certain. For non-Calvinist Christians, this motivates one to persevere until the end. HOWEVER, because Calvinists strongly insist, in answer to question 2, that no one can do anything to be elected, this results in a pointed quandary.

Yes, we can do a logical dance and make the problem disappear, even a logical dance based upon Calvinistic values, but I repeat again, the point is that we have to do a dance, that the problem DOES exist and needs solving.

I don't think I will have anything else of value to say on this issue, so it might be my last post on this thread. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Epiphoskei]

This really isn't as complicated as we are making it out to be. I'm not saying there isn't a way out. All I'm saying is that Calvinism has led many, in the past, to have trouble in the area of assurance. Yes, they can work past it, but the point is, there's something to work past.

I don't think it's the same as non-Calvinist Christianity. Arbitrary election to salvation, if the fruits are primarily internal rather than external, leads to two questions: How do I know I'm among the elect? and, What can I do to be among the elect? The answer to the first is, You can never be entirely certain. For non-Calvinist Christians, this motivates one to persevere until the end. HOWEVER, because Calvinists strongly insist, in answer to question 2, that no one can do anything to be elected, this results in a pointed quandary.

Yes, we can do a logical dance and make the problem disappear, even a logical dance based upon Calvinistic values, but I repeat again, the point is that we have to do a dance, that the problem DOES exist and needs solving.

I don't think I will have anything else of value to say on this issue, so it might be my last post on this thread. Thanks for your feedback.

The "working through" you're describing is a fundimentally non-Calvinistic manner of thinking however, so as I have said before, it does not happen on account of Calvinistic thinking, but residual Arminian thinking. Yes, the Arminian who becomes a Calvinist needs to abandon every last vestige of Arminain Libertarianism.

 

[Yab Yum]

If it is unknown how God predestines us why are the beatitudes directed specifically to those who possess certain characteristics?

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5).

If we have to stick with sensus literalis, He doesn't say - blessed are those who my Father has predestined by his grace to be meek.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Nor does it say blessed are those who made themselves meek. To say that God blesses those having certain characteristics in no way establishes why certain traits are posessed one way or another. But I doubt the beatitudes have anything do to with matters of predestination, unless we are prepared to state that salvation is restricted to those posessing the various virtues which are blessed. So much for the salvation of undeserving sinners by grace alone.

 

[ittarter]

The "working through" you're describing is a fundimentally non-Calvinistic manner of thinking however, so as I have said before, it does not happen on account of Calvinistic thinking, but residual Arminian thinking. Yes, the Arminian who becomes a Calvinist needs to abandon every last vestige of Arminain Libertarianism.

Ahem... You do realize that Calvinism is a theological model, which means it's human beings thinking about God... right?

So when Calvinists encounter a problem, like "God is absolutely sovereign yet not responsible for evil. How can this be?" they have to become "Arminian libertarians" for a moment and hash out a logical solution. They have to use their brains and "work through" the apparent contradiction. Right?

In C.S. Lewis' words, just because I ask someone to pass me the salt doesn't mean I'm a libertarian. I think you've stretched the significance of a word to an all-encompassing state, which it is normally intended to carry.

Perhaps you can tell me what the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian libertarian" mean to you.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I am not opposing working through problems, I am objecting that unless one is a Libertarian, there is no problem to be worked through.

Libertarianism is the belief that the product of the will cannot be determined, determinism (Calvinism) is the belief that the product of the will is the ultimate product of man's nature with his circumstances.

In a Libertarian system election is seen as an obstical to those who wish by their libertarian choice to othewise be saved, in Determinism, the unelect don't want to be saved, so what do they care about election anyway?

 

[ittarter]

I am not opposing working through problems, I am objecting that unless one is a Libertarian, there is no problem to be worked through.

Libertarianism is the belief that the product of the will cannot be determined, determinism (Calvinism) is the belief that the product of the will is the ultimate product of man's nature with his circumstances.

In a Libertarian system election is seen as an obstical to those who wish by their libertarian choice to othewise be saved, in Determinism, the unelect don't want to be saved, so what do they care about election anyway?

Hardly! There are lots of examples of people who seem to want to be saved, but according to Calvinists, based on whether or not this desire perseveres, they may or may not be among the elect. Thus the will, by itself, is hardly evidence of election.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Hardly! There are lots of examples of people who seem to want to be saved, but according to Calvinists, based on whether or not this desire perseveres, they may or may not be among the elect. Thus the will, by itself, is hardly evidence of election.

Seeming to want to be saved is first, not the same thing as wanting to actually be saved, let alone wanting Christ, and second, not a virtue. Many people want to escape hellfire, but that's not the same thing as wanting Christ.

 

[ittarter]

Seeming to want to be saved is first, not the same thing as wanting to actually be saved, let alone wanting Christ, and second, not a virtue. Many people want to escape hellfire, but that's not the same thing as wanting Christ.

It doesn't matter. Neither wanting to be saved, nor really really wanting to be saved, nor appearing to want Christ, nor really really wanting Christ, may be distinguished from each other except in absolute retrospect (i.e. once you're dead). Since assurance operates on the basis of present indicators, the problem remains.