Predestination, is it coercive determinism ?

[Erose]

But that isn't what's being "claimed here."

We know what predestination means, but you have misrepresented it as including each of us KNOWING God's decision. We don't.

You don't? If I asked you whether or not you are saved what is your answer?

I suppose that's similar to the way it is with churchgoers in general. If I've heard it said that "She's in heaven now" or "She went to be with the Lord" or something similar, I've heard it a hundred times. People naturally want to be positive about it, having done what they think was right. I have never, by the way, heard a Catholic say that he expected to spend a long time in Purgatory as a penance for sins already committed and absolved by the sacrament of Reconciliation, even though that's exactly what the Church teaches.

Ok. Question can you or can you not loose your salvation?

Strictly speaking, that's right. However, Catholicism does believe in "Works Righteousness," so they are similar except for how we stand at the beginning of our lives.

Works Righteousness is a Protestant term, and is not found in Catholic theology. I guess if you define it as the righteousness that God works in us, then yes we believe it. If you are trying to insinuate that we believe we can work our way into heaven, that is an outright mischaracterization.

None of this is true. Calvinism does not lead to nihilism and I thought that by now we'd have gotten past that. What is usually charged, fairly or not, is that it leads to a certain self-righteousness, even though that would be illogical.

I think it could lead to either condition depending upon the person. If one takes Calvinistic determination to its ultimate conclusion it would depend upon the character of the person, which way he/she falls into.

But no we haven't gotten past that point because I really haven't seen an argument that is convincing.

 

[Erose]

What an impotent god that would be. So in your view it is man who determines his own eternal destiny not God? Who does that put on the throne?

That argument makes absolutely no sense. If God opens the gates of heaven so that you can come in, and you don't do so; how on earth does that make God impotent? All that happens here is that the one who chooses not to walk through that door becomes an idiot.

 

[Erose]

I challenge you to show me even one passage that says salvation is an offer rather than a gift. God never offers salvation He gives it.

For something to be a gift it requires one to freely give it, and the receiver to freely accept it. Gift giving is a two way street.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

Predestination and free will are easily reconciled when you understand that what is being predestined is not our choices (which would unarguably preclude free agency) but the world in which our free choices culminate into the greatest possible outcome. What is the greatest possible outcome? There is none other than that world which provides the circumstances which leads the largest number of souls to freely accept the grace of God through the salvation provided in Jesus Christ. From what we know about God's nature, particularly that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, this can be deductively inferred as follows:

1. Because God is omnibenevolent, He would be desire to create the world which would produce the greatest potential good
2. Because God is omniscient, He would know which world would produce the greatest potential good
3. Because God is omnipotent, He would be able to create the world which would produce the greatest potential good

Therefore the world in which we exist is that which would produce the great potential good. To repeat, this greatest good is the largest number of souls that would freely surrender themselves to God and receive His grace.

God would have had a literally infinite number of options present of worlds to create with an equally infinite number of outcomes. By His perfect nature, however, God would not create a world at random in which His will to create concurrently free and absolutely loved creatures was not accomplished. So God would have to narrow His options to feasible worlds which accommodate creaturely freedom and yet lovingly provides the circumstances that permits each person who would freely choose God to do so. Knowing God, once He had narrowed the options to the assortment of great results, He would naturally choose the greatest of these possible outcomes. So again, God is not predestining our decisions, but the creation of the world which would provide the social, environmental and personal circumstances that are necessary for each individual, in their own times and places as God foreknew, to interact with each other, their environment and God in a way that corresponds to their psychology/personality, ultimately and inevitably leading to the salvation of those who would freely respond affirmatively to God's grace in whatever circumstance they find themselves. In this sense, then, God can literally be said to have elected those who are saved, though their choices as well as those who reject God are entirely free.

As is stated in Acts 17, God placed us within our context because He knew that if given that context we would freely choose to accept Him by the testimony and in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. It could then be rightly asked "well then could God have not provided a precise set of circumstances that would be those which are necessary to win the soul of every person?", and the answer would be no. For some people, there is no such set of circumstances that would be sufficient for them to freely receive the salvation of Christ by the Holy Spirit's testimony. This is affirmed doubly in the Scriptures. First, in Daniel 12:10 concerning the course through to the end times Jesus says: "Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand." Again, concerning God's providence Paul says in Romans 9:22: "What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"

It may also seem confusing to think that God has among His human creation "objects of wrath" which He prepares for destruction, until you comprehend these points and Scriptures collectively. There are some souls which God would create that will freely reject Him under any and all circumstances, but are still necessary in the grand scheme of world history to play a role in drawing all those who will be freely saved into that salvation. God Himself illustrates this wonderfully in His statement to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:15-16: "For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

See Acts 17:26-27, Genesis 50:20, Jeremiah 25:8-14 and Judges 14:4 for more Scriptural examples on the providence of God and how it works.

 

[TillICollapse]

Competing causalities: one causality is God's causality. That causality has a determined outcome, and the timeline, historical path, etc of that causality is known and controlled. There is limited freedom of choice within that causality, so long as you are within it. You could call this causal chain "Life" with a capital L ... this is the "Life" that goes on forever, i.e. "eternity".

The other causalities, are largely what we call "the known universe" and "life as we know it": a system that, if you accept the scriptures, will ultimately become obsolete and experience being replaced with something "new", i.e. God's causality. Thus, if you accept the scriptures, seemingly the ultimate fate of the other causal chains are known, but the probabilities within them of certain choices, events, etc, are not always known by God ... because they are not His. He is in control of what is His, what isn't, He is not. He is not the author of evil, for example. Or confusion, etc and so forth. He is the God of the living, not the dead.

You have some choice, in which causal chains to participate in: which branch of history. God's chain, is known and controlled by God, it is determined as a controlled setting, with limited choice within that controlled setting. The other chains, may be known at times, but are not as strictly as controlled. Their ultimate fate is known, but are more based on probabilistic factors. "God doesn't always know" what will happen or take place in them, I would tend to think. If He did, He would be indistinguishable from the author of them.

In short: what is God's, is God's, and He controls it and knows it's path and course. What isn't God's ... isn't determined by God, but other factors (I would probably argue, a probabilistic causality).

I think this confuses people, because a human being is a mixture of *both*: their "flesh" is part of the causal chain that isn't "all God's". It is corrupted by the sin nature, part of the world that is passing away, etc and so forth. But within that flesh, is the potential for the part of a person that can participate in God's timeline: the eternal one. It is the potential for the infinite thing, within the finite thing: two competing types of causality. The infinite thing, is determined by God, yet you are still partly "flesh" and can choose "other". Life as we currently know it, is the playing out of this dichotomy.

 

[Albion]

You don't? If I asked you whether or not you are saved what is your answer?

My answer would be "I do not know."

Ok. Question can you or can you not loose your salvation?

If one believes in Predestination, he ought to believe in "OSAS." That is the logical answer, but it's also Scriptural. If one believes in free will, I'd think that he would ignore those verses which suggest Eternal Security and instead focus on the ones that seem to make one's destiny an unknown, depending upon an unspecified amount of good works and, perhaps, some other factors.

Works Righteousness is a Protestant term, and is not found in Catholic theology. I guess if you define it as the righteousness that God works in us, then yes we believe it. If you are trying to insinuate that we believe we can work our way into heaven, that is an outright mischaracterization.

To be more precise, you probably cannot achieve salvation solely by working your way there. However, your church and recent popes have asserted that even sincere pagans can be saved if they live up the moral standards of their own faith and those that are graven on the conscience given to every man by birth. Surveys have shown that most Catholic laypersons agree with that.

If that does not amount to Works Righteousness, how else could it be described?. There's no element of Faith in Christ that's involved. In addition, it has always been the case that Catholicism believes in Faith AND Works being necessary--being the process--that leads to salvation, so works are effective...and that's often termed as "Works Righteousness."

I think it could lead to either condition [nihilism or self-righteousness] depending upon the person. If one takes Calvinistic determination to its ultimate conclusion it would depend upon the character of the person, which way he/she falls into.

But no we haven't gotten past that point because I really haven't seen an argument that is convincing.

...and I have seen no argument made on behalf of the nihilism theory. That's one that seems to be completely dependent upon defining Calvinism incorrectly.

 

[BobRyan]

In order not to derail another thread and in the hope of getting responses from a wider range of Christians, I have posted this question in GT.

The original question "How is predestining ALL things not in any way deterministic ?"

The reply was:
"It is deterministic - as in He works ALL things after the council of His good and perfect will.

But determining all things that will and will not take place in His creation is not “coercive".

God's predestination of something that a man does is not the same as coercing the man to do it."

My understanding that if God predestines something then it will happen and this is the exact same thing as God determining infallibly that something will happen. The use of 'coercive' in the discussion is redundant.

What do other people think and believe ?

To know that something will happen is very different than causing it.

God may know who will blaspheme His name- but does He "Cause them to blaspheme His name"?
Is God causing sinners to sin - then punishing them for what He made them do?
Did God cause Adam to fall then doom all of humanity to the Lake of Fire - for what "HE caused"?

The bible does not teach that.

Rather the Bible teaches that God "created intelligent beings -- with the power of choice" - He gave them laws - He commanded them to obey. But not all did. God foreknows the rebellious acts that are still future - but does not author them, does not cause them - and SO is not to blame for them.

"He came to His OWN - and His OWN - received Him not" John 1:11
"God is not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3

 

[BobRyan]

My answer would be "I do not know."


If one believes in Predestination, he ought to believe in "OSAS." That is the logical answer, but it's also Scriptural. If one believes in free will, I'd think that he would ignore those verses which suggest Eternal Security and instead focus on the ones that seem to make one's destiny an unknown, .

Some truth to that -

Romans 11 comes to mind.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Matt 18 -- forgiveness revoked
32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Christ's teaching is that forgiving others is a reaction - a fruit - a result -- of having first been fully forgiven by God - experiencing full forgiveness we are expected to then go and do likewise "in the same way that I had mercy on you".

And yet -- "Forgiveness revoked"

 

[BobRyan]

To be more precise, you probably cannot achieve salvation solely by working your way there. However, your church and recent popes have asserted that even sincere pagans can be saved if they live up the moral standards of their own faith and those that are graven on the conscience given to every man by birth. Surveys have shown that most Catholic laypersons agree with that.

If that does not amount to Works Righteousness, how else could it be described?. There's no element of Faith in Christ that's involved. In addition, it has always been the case that Catholicism believes in Faith AND Works being necessary--being the process--that leads to salvation, so works are effective...and that's often termed as "Works Righteousness."

Your argument that is of the form "God's ability to save those who do not have as much of the Gospel details as Albion -- must be a works-religion", is not correct.

In Romans 2:13-16 some gentiles with no access to the Bible at all - are saved - and show the born-again new-heart experience.

Romans 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my Gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind unto Me"
John 16:8-11 - the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not just saints.

So while it is true that the "wide road" with the "many" on it -- go to the Lake of Fire Matt 7 and only the "FEW" of Matt 7 go to heaven -- it is not because God is incapable of reaching the World - or does not reach the world.

===============================================================

Where I think the RCC gets into "works righteousness" is in the area "powers" of the priests to mark the soul, to change the souls that are baptized, to forgive sins based on certain works, to come up with long lists of deeds needed to get forgiveness, absolution, indulgence from purgatory etc. The invent their own rules whereby absolution from the priest is granted but living a life "as you please" is combined. Interesting how this played out in some of the "Italian connection" family histories, where although they may be running the mob -- they have a priest that grants them absolution.

In the RCC a priest who is excommunicated "still retains the powers" to confect the body, soul and divinity of Christ in the mass.

I think it is wrong to simply "ignore all that" and then say it is only because of their Romans 2 affirmation, or it is because they take the Arminian POV rather than the Calvinist POV.

 

[Albion]

To me, that's completely messed up. First, I was describing why "Works Righteousness" is the Catholic approach, not arguing for or against it. Second, it has nothing to do with God's "ability." Third, I think you've misunderstood Romans 2 and the other citations. Fourth, the familiar SDA denunciation of the authority of priests, etc. has very little to do this, especially when it comes to the attention you paid to the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Erose]

My answer would be "I do not know."

I guess the question would be are you a Calvinist. Just asking I really don't know one way or the other. I guess the answer I would give is that "I am right now."

If one believes in Predestination, he ought to believe in "OSAS." That is the logical answer, but it's also Scriptural. If one believes in free will, I'd think that he would ignore those verses which suggest Eternal Security and instead focus on the ones that seem to make one's destiny an unknown, depending upon an unspecified amount of good works and, perhaps, some other factors.

I disagree with this on this point. I believe in Predestination, but I do not believe in "OSAS". I don't accept the idea that one becomes "predestined" at the moment that they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, which is what I would think that this line of thinking leads to.

If one is predestined for heaven, then that means that his/her name was always written in the Book of Life. So in a sense one cannot be once saved, because he/she is already always saved.

To be more precise, you probably cannot achieve salvation solely by working your way there. However, your church and recent popes have asserted that even sincere pagans can be saved if they live up the moral standards of their own faith and those that are graven on the conscience given to every man by birth. Surveys have shown that most Catholic laypersons agree with that.

The proper way to write this is that the Church recognizes the possibility of those who have never heard of Christ, or had the opportunity to learn about Him, that through the concept of "invincible ignorance", one may be saved if even though ignorant of Christ they followed the commandments of God written on their hearts, and sincerely searched for Him that they do not know.

If that does not amount to Works Righteousness, how else could it be described?. There's no element of Faith in Christ that's involved. In addition, it has always been the case that Catholicism believes in Faith AND Works being necessary--being the process--that leads to salvation, so works are effective...and that's often termed as "Works Righteousness."

It can be described through the concept of "invincible ignorance". Anyway the more one knows God's will the more that is required of that person.

Again "works righteousness" is a Protestant term, not a Catholic one. The Catholic point of view, which is taught by Trent, is that we cannot be justified by our works. Through faith in Christ, which is in itself a gift freely given by God, and His work are we justified. Were works comes into play is after justification, in that it is through our works, which can only be done through the grace of God freely given, that we grow in our faith and maintain our faith. The parable of the vine is the teaching of Christ on this subject.

The analogy of a marriage works perfectly here as well. Initially during the courting phase and up to the wedding day, one only can have faith that the person they are marrying is who they think they are right? After the marriage is complete is when the true work begins. As a spouse one must work on living for the other person, as the other person works on living for them. If someone got married, and did nothing to grow the relationship, obviously that relationship will sour and most probably eventually deteriorate into a divorce or separation.

If I as a Christian once saved through baptism, ceased to do anything to cultivate on my side a relationship with Christ, would not the same thing happen? Of course it would. God is always giving, the Holy Spirit Himself is pure Gift, so on His side the relationship is strong. But if on our side, we are not giving to the relationship, then before long the relationship will cease to be a relationship.

Anyway, when someone asks me what the Catholic position is on salvation, I always say that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity. All three are necessary, not just faith.

...and I have seen no argument made on behalf of the nihilism theory. That's one that seems to be completely dependent upon defining Calvinism incorrectly.

Ok. I concede that perhaps I am getting something wrong here. I do admit, that belief in Calvinism or really a strain of it as taught by Southern Baptists, is long gone in my rear view mirror, so there may be something I am getting wrong.

 

[Albion]

I guess the question would be are you a Calvinist.

No.

I disagree with this on this point. I believe in Predestination, but I do not believe in "OSAS".

I guess I'd say "that's interesting" since believing in the former almost requires one to believe in the latter...or at least that's what I'd think, although I do know some Christians who say otherwise. They, I think, aren't actually believers in predestination but something that is a related concept.

I don't accept the idea that one becomes "predestined" at the moment that they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior

Me neither. That wouldn't be PRE-destination would it?

If one is predestined for heaven, then that means that his/her name was always written in the Book of Life.

Right.

So in a sense one cannot be once saved, because he/she is already always saved.

That's the "once."

The Catholic point of view, which is taught by Trent, is that we cannot be justified by our works.

Not them alone. I made that point myself in the previous post. But they are part of what saves, in the Catholic view.

The analogy of a marriage works perfectly here as well. Initially during the courting phase and up to the wedding day, one only can have faith that the person they are marrying is who they think they are right? After the marriage is complete is when the true work begins. As a spouse one must work on living for the other person, as the other person works on living for them. If someone got married, and did nothing to grow the relationship, obviously that relationship will sour and most probably eventually deteriorate into a divorce or separation.

That's an interesting story, but its just a way of describing an alternative view that rejects predestination.

 

[BobRyan]

To me, that's completely messed up. First, I was describing why "Works Righteousness" is the Catholic approach, not arguing for or against it.

And my point is that you did not define works righteousness correctly - because you go after the Romans 2 teaching about gentiles that do not have access to scripture - arguing in essence that if Romans 2 were true it would be works righteousness since those gentiles do not have Bible and so could not know as much as you about the Gospel.

I point out that - problem in your post.

I don't argue that there is no indicator of works-based-righteousness in the Catholic model - just that their affirmation of Romans 2 is not an example of it.

Second, it has nothing to do with God's "ability."

Romans 2 is much more than God's "ability" to "Draw ALL mankind" John 12:32 and Convict all of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16) it is about the real life fact that this leads to the actual Gospel accomplishment of the new birth - and the New Covenant with the Law written on the heart - Heb 8:6-10.

Third, I think you've misunderstood Romans 2 and the other citations.

You have free will - you are welcomed to "think that".

I for my part am sticking with the Bible details in Romans 2.

Fourth, the familiar SDA denunciation of the authority of priests, etc. has very little to do this

There is far more in the sacraments and "powers of the priests" that are "works salvation based" than you have spent any time discussing in that post.

Your post amounts to "I don't agree with you" but you provide no texts, argument, evidence for your position.

I on the other hand am far more inclined to stick with these Bible "details"
======================


Romans 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my Gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind unto Me"
John 16:8-11 - the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not just saints.

So while it is true that the "wide road" with the "many" on it -- go to the Lake of Fire Matt 7 and only the "FEW" of Matt 7 go to heaven -- it is not because God is incapable of reaching the World - or does not reach the world.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess the question would be are you a Calvinist. Just asking I really don't know one way or the other. I guess the answer I would give is that "I am right now."

No.

Then you don't really have a basis for OSAS.

If one believes in Predestination, he ought to believe in "OSAS." That is the logical answer, .

And that's why.

- without Calvinism you can't have the errors of predestination.
- without predestination - no OSAS.

I believe God foreknows all - but does not predestine it - does not ordain it... does not author it.

One does not paint graffiti on a wall and then turn about and say
"bad brush!" .... "Bad bucket of paint!"... "I condemn you!"

Because in that situation there is a lot more rightful blame on the "hand and mind" than in the bucket of paint.

 

[Erose]

I guess I'd say "that's interesting" since believing in the former almost requires one to believe in the latter...or at least that's what I'd think, although I do know some Christians who say otherwise. They, I think, aren't actually believers in predestination but something that is a related concept.

I would say that the Church's teaching on predestination before Calvin, never included OSAS in its teaching on the matter. The Augustinian, Molinist, and Thomist views of predestination, do not accept the OSAS concept.

That's the "once."

What is the "once"? If one is eternally predestined to salvation, then there is no "once".

Not them alone. I made that point myself in the previous post. But they are part of what saves, in the Catholic view.

No. What saves in Catholic theology is God's grace. That is what saves.

That's an interesting story, but its just a way of describing an alternative view that rejects predestination.

No it doesn't. It explains the lives of the predestined.

 

[BobRyan]

I would say that the Church's teaching on predestination before Calvin, never included OSAS in its teaching on the matter. The Augustinian, Molinist, and Thomist views of predestination, do not accept the OSAS concept.

How did they define Calvinism? As TULIP?

If limited atonement is true and irresistible grace are both true as defined by Calvinism's TULIP - then with predestination you have OSAS.

Those not tied to Calvinism have not such a locked-in reason for believing OSAS no matter what the Bible says to the contrary in Matt 18, Rom 11, Matt 6, Ezek 18...

What is the "once"? If one is eternally predestined to salvation, then there is no "once".

If they are saved then they had to have been lost at one time. One does not save the already-saved.


==========================

Predestination in its broadest conception is the doctrine that because God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely sovereign, he "from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass," (Westminster Confession).

http://www.theopedia.com/predestination

==========================

Thus in that model - God does not only have knowledge of that future event - He ordains that blasphemy or whatever sin it is that is in the future.

 

[Optimax]

This ^ amounts to using the word predestination as the definition of "not predestined."

Or perhaps attempting to define "predestination" differently than scripture defines it.

 

[bling]

Any viewpoint that is going to jive with Scripture must take into account, predestination of the elect and free will. There are a few viewpoints that do account for both, I'm not sure Calvinism is one of them. I do know that the double predestination isn't Scriptural, and really just outright contradicts Scripture, especially the teaching of Ezekiel.

Catholics view that the issue of reconciling predestination and free will as a mystery, and not unlike Calvin, many have tried to come up with theories on how one can reconcile them. There is though a range within which one can have belief or opinion on this matter though.

Read my post 22.

 

[Patmos]

We know through scripture Christ died for all mankind so why would you make a claim that goes against scripture?

What claim is that ?

 

[Albion]

And my point is that you did not define works righteousness correctly - because you go after the Romans 2 teaching about gentiles that do not have access to scripture - arguing in essence that if Romans 2 were true it would be works righteousness since those gentiles do not have Bible and so could not know as much as you about the Gospel.

But I didn't do that at all! Romans 2 was not introduced by me and was not part of my reference to Works Righteousness until it was thrown up to me. Nor do I consider it the basis for either approving of or rejecting the idea of salvation by good works, either in conjunction with Faith or by itself.