Questions

[Gus2009]

I have some questions concerning Calvinism and pre-destination that ive been mulling over the past few days. I suppose i should put them in order

1.(sort of obvious but i want to be sure i have it straight) Do Calvinist believe in pre-destination in the sense that a). for God to be truly omniscient he must know all, all things in eternity past and eternity future and b). being the creator of the universe and seeing as how He is omniscent, everything must follow His plan. Does this means that everything that happens was planned by God, including who will be saved by the Holy Spirit? Also any scripture on this issue would be of interest

2). If the answer to this first question is yes, would it not be logical to conclude that, forever into eternity past, God had certain souls planned for eventual existence, whose only purpose in existence would be to eventually go to hell and suffer eternal damnation? If this is the case, why would God create these souls? On that note, why would an all-knowing God even make a universe whose failure was predestined?

3) a).What is the relationship between the pre-destined soul and the creator? If the soul is pre-destined, then the obvious implication is that free-will for that soul would be non-existent, correct?
b). What is the effect of this reasoning on the view creator, if any?
c).Seeing as how God sees all time at once, "once" God creates the universe, wouldnt its only purpose be to run itself out in accordance with his plan as he observes and interacts with all time at once? In other words, seeing as how the universe was predestined by an omniscient being of perfect will, wouldnt the current state of existence be the only real way it couldve turned out anyway?
d).Because existence itself requires the mind of God, God seems sort like an inescapable force, always making things fall into the "lowest common denominator"(best wording i could think of at the time, not meant in a bad way) of his plan. Can Gods' will, in this view, be comparable to gravity? An "inactive", unbiased force, always making the marble eventually settle at the bottom of the bowl? In other words, did God actually have any choice in making the universe how it is? Seeing as how he is a perfect being of perfect will, is this the most perfect way it couldve been?(I suppose this sort of ties into the last question. I had a hard time wording these two to express what i meant so i had to edit them)
e). If God is omniscient and omipotent, one assumes the universe must be pre-destined. However, in Gods own omniscence, he seems to be just some sort of an immutable force, creating a universe whose only purpose is to fit his will. Not only because he made it that way, but because by the very defintion of God and his omniscience, it must work that way and had to be made that way. In a sense, doesnt this sort of make God a slave to himself? In his omniscence, he makes a universe that has to be predestined? I hope i presented these thoughts clearly. Anyway, i do have more questions but those are my main ones....

 

[Elderone]

Read the following:

1. The Westminster Confession of Faith
2. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner.

Most, if not all, of your questions will be more thoroughly answered in these two documents than here.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Those are both good suggestions by Elderone, but they are pretty 'meaty'. Perhaps an easier book for you to chew on would be RC Sproul's Chosen by God, which was the book that finally brought me to un understanding of what predestination really is, according to the Scriptures.

A key point for me was when Sproul mentions the president of a Presbyterian seminary who took pride in the fact that he was not a Calvinist. The seminary president said, "I am not a Calvinist because I do not believe that God brings some people, kicking and screaming against their wills, into the kingdom, while He excludes others from His kingdom who desperately want to be there."


I thought Sproul’s response to this was illuminating. "I was astonished when I heard those words. I did not think it possible that the president of a Presbyterian seminary could have such a gross misconception of his own church’s theology. He was reciting a caricature which was as far away from Calvinism as one could get. Calvinism does not teach and has never taught that God brings people kicking and screaming into the kingdom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there."

As long as you are studying this topic, please keep Sproul's response here in mind.

 

[heymikey80]

I have some questions concerning Calvinism and pre-destination that ive been mulling over the past few days. I suppose i should put them in order

1.(sort of obvious but i want to be sure i have it straight) Do Calvinist believe in pre-destination in the sense that a). for God to be truly omniscient he must know all, all things in eternity past and eternity future and b). being the creator of the universe and seeing as how He is omniscent, everything must follow His plan. Does this means that everything that happens was planned by God, including who will be saved by the Holy Spirit? Also any scripture on this issue would be of interest

Yes.

Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You, who shows lovingkindness to thousands, but repays the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God The LORD of hosts is His name Jer 32:17-18

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Jn 1:3

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Hb 4:13
​

2). If the answer to this first question is yes, would it not be logical to conclude that, forever into eternity past, God had certain souls planned for eventual existence, whose only purpose in existence would be to eventually go to hell and suffer eternal damnation? If this is the case, why would God create these souls? On that note, why would an all-knowing God even make a universe whose failure was predestined?

Why would they have only this purpose? Why would this be a sole purpose of God?

Paul has already pointed out there are other reasonable purposes God can put His created souls toward. He has the authority to put them to His purposes, and those purposes don't have to be things we agree with. Yet Paul proposes one specific other reason:

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? Rom 9:19-24
​

One question has always interested me here. If Paul were not a predestinarian in the way Augustine, Luther and Calvin had asserted, why did Paul answer this question this way? How would you think a non-predestinarian would answer this question in v. 19?

3) a).What is the relationship between the pre-destined soul and the creator? If the soul is pre-destined, then the obvious implication is that free-will for that soul would be non-existent, correct?

Freedom has never meant independence from God without bounds, so no, the obvious implication is that we exalt human free will far beyond credibility to think predestination contradicts free will.

Paraphrasing Calvin himself, I also have no problem when people assert that men have free will. It's just beside the point: they use that freedom to do evil, and so are bound by God's condemnation even as they proclaim their freedom. And their freedom is no more independence from the God sustaining the universe than a fish could proclaim independence from water, or we could proclaim independence from air.

b). What is the effect of this reasoning on the view creator, if any?

That God is far more gracious and patient than in other theologies, with people who constantly spit in his face and defy Him -- even His own adopted children. And yet He continues on in patience summoning them to repentance.

c).Seeing as how God sees all time at once, "once" God creates the universe, wouldnt its only purpose be to run itself out in accordance with his plan as he observes and interacts with all time at once? In other words, seeing as how the universe was predestined by an omniscient being of perfect will, wouldnt the current state of existence be the only real way it couldve turned out anyway?

God is free to bring whatever events to pass whenever He wishes. We have limited knowledge, so there are many possible ways it could've turned out from our limited knowledge.

d).Because existence itself requires the mind of God, God seems sort like an inescapable force, always making things fall into the "lowest common denominator"(best wording i could think of at the time, not meant in a bad way) of his plan. Can Gods' will, in this view, be comparable to gravity? An "inactive", unbiased force, always making the marble eventually settle at the bottom of the bowl? In other words, did God actually have any choice in making the universe how it is? Seeing as how he is a perfect being of perfect will, is this the most perfect way it couldve been?(I suppose this sort of ties into the last question. I had a hard time wording these two to express what i meant so i had to edit them)

Our concept of perfection is terribly limited, all the more so if we see it as static. God is not static.

Nor is he simply some immutable force we can predict, from some lowest common denominator, some scientific reductionism.

God created personhood, did He not? How is that a lowest common denominator? How is that even predictable from our point of view? It's not.

And we know that God is tri-personal. Even from our perspective God isn't a force, He transscends personhood, His reality is shown to us in three Persons.

So God is not a reduction. He is Transcendent.

e). If God is omniscient and omipotent, one assumes the universe must be pre-destined. However, in Gods own omniscence, he seems to be just some sort of an immutable force, creating a universe whose only purpose is to fit his will. Not only because he made it that way, but because by the very defintion of God and his omniscience, it must work that way and had to be made that way. In a sense, doesnt this sort of make God a slave to himself? In his omniscence, he makes a universe that has to be predestined? I hope i presented these thoughts clearly. Anyway, i do have more questions but those are my main ones....

I believe I've pointed out the issues here. Of course from the Omniscient by definition everything is determined (let's not get into predestination, a specific form of determinism, it doesn't seem you're catching on any concept beyond the broader determinism at this point).

Can an omniscient think of something he doesn't know? Not according to the definition of the word. Can an omnipotent create soemthing he can't control? Not according to the definition of the word.

 

[Gus2009]

Thank you, Elderone, Grinning Dwarf and Heymikey for your suggestions and answers. I will attempt to find those books. Ive already started to read the Westminister Confession of Faith on the internet. I thank Heymikey in particular for adressing each one of my questions with a specific answer, which was sort of what I was looking for. Youve put most of my questions to rest and the scripture was appreciated. On a few issues though heymikey, i think youve raised more questions for me or left some unadressed. Whether this comes from a lack of understanding on my part or something else, i would like to see, so ill try to flesh out my questions better.

[/indent]Why would they have only this purpose? Why would this be a sole purpose of God?







Paul has already pointed out there are other reasonable purposes God can put His created souls toward. He has the authority to put them to His purposes, and those purposes don't have to be things we agree with. Yet Paul proposes one specific other reason:

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? Rom 9:19-24






​

One question has always interested me here. If Paul were not a predestinarian in the way Augustine, Luther and Calvin had asserted, why did Paul answer this question this way? How would you think a non-predestinarian would answer this question in v. 19.

This makes sense. An unsaved predestined soul asking why this would be his fate is like a floor asking why he must always be stepped on. The floor serves a greater purpose, understood by the makers of the house. I think trying to answer in the form of a non-predestinarian on this topic might be a little pointless, other than as a pure mental excercise. Obviously, Paul understood that God worked predestination into a greater plan, a plan to show the glory of God to all of His creation. If thats good enough for the writers of the Bible, then obviously, as a christian, its good enough for me. This still seems to beg another question though, on purpose.

I had a freind who i used to discuss some of these issues with. He leaned more torwards predestination(i suppose i lean that way myself at times). We were once discussing why God would have created anything at all. He disagreed with a theologian who said "God was lonely". He said that, God ,being perfect, would not experience a flawed human emotion such as loneliness. I agree, i dont think God experiences lonliness, at least not as we understand it. His counter-reasoning was that all existence was created for the glory of God. I agree, at least i think so. While im not sure if most Calvinist agree with his disagreement on the lonliness issue, i do think that most would agree with his alternative, especially after reviewing some of the other threads in this section. A similar thread asked basically the same question as you responded to here. The response, everything works into a purpose for the greater glory of God, even the souls predestined for damnation. Heres where i get a bit confused though.

Lets just imagine i have an antfarm(I know what youre thinking, go with me for a second). My little brother decides to flood the antfarm with water from my sink. I want some of the ants to survive and would be happy if they acknowledged my good guesture.(theyre rather intelligent ants ). I would love nothing more from these ants than for them to live and acknowledge what i did. I let most of the ants die, however, i do save a few. Ones i had marked to be saved from death when i first bought the kit(i knew my little brother would do this to my favorite pets). I tell these ants that they were special because i picked them. Perhaps because they were cuter than the rest, maybe i save the queen. I tell them that i let the others die for some reason of non-preference, or they had some flaw that i didnt like. Perhaps, using genetics, i had genectically engineered these "special ants" to be superior to the rest. Perhaps i had pre-disposed them to have a better chance of surviving their home being flooded. I then tell these ants to be amazed by my superior intellect, they see why i am human and the dominant species. They should be amazed by the glory of my plan. They are special, i made them better and insured they would survive, not nessecarily of their own merits, but because of them. Should the ants be awed by me? perhaps. But lets just say that i knew my little brother would do this, with an absolute certainty of it long before i even bought the kit. Hes killed all my previous pets. Lets even take it a step further, if i knew he was predestined to do this with certainty, what difference would it make if i forced him to do it? What difference would it make if i flooded the ant farm myself? Should those ants be awed by superior being now? Should they see my glorious plan that i had from the very begining? What should these ants think of me?

On an even deeper level, if they were predestined to realize my glory and existence, would they even be realizing it at all? What realization does my car have of making a right turn when i am turning the steering wheel myself in that direction? If its not about a realization of a greater order and glory of God's plan, whats it about at all? Now were bordering on a nihlistic pointlessness, a god who is simply going through the motions. This is what i was trying to get at in my earlier question, though admittedly, not very well(like my spelling). You saw this as a question assuming a static god, which is probably how it came across. Static wasnt what i meant. Pointlessness was what was bothering me. And on this topic, why should a perfect being be so concerned about realization of his glory anyway? A realization that will be made by imperfect creations who, by defintion, will never fully understand it anyway. Of course, we can never completely understand God, God never intends that but why then is there so much concern about his glory coming across to us that he actually sends souls into eternal damnation so that the elect will truly understand just how omipotent and omniscient he is? Should i shoot somone to make a point about the amazing effectiveness of gunpowder, physics and engineering? Not only that, but that all existence must send the point across of his glory. Im sure most Calvinist would agree this isnt the ONLY reason for existence but the typical response ive seen for 'Why did God make anything at all?" or "why does God predestine souls to hell?" is "for His glory". Why then, is a perfect being so concerned about imperfect creations seeing his perfection? Is there a point? If realization of Himself is all God wants, why make anything at all? What better to understand perfection, then perfection itself? Not us humans who will never understand it. What then? Is he not very self-assured? I am trying not to be disrepectful to my Creator but this seems no more disrepectful than saying he is lonely. The view that some "free will" advocates take of his ,"being lonely", reason for creation makes God seems insecure. However, the simple response of "for His glory" that i see so many Calvinist take, under some thought, doesnt seem much better, at least not to me. In fact, it leads to almost the exact same place. Could there be something else to it, not yet considered?

I like the the same old sunday school answer ive been getting all my life, because He wanted companionship. Wanting companionship doesnt nessecarily mean lonliness. I go drink some coffee with my buds not nessecarily because im lonely, but because i...i dont know, enjoy the conversation. What a sinful creature like me would say to a perfect God that would be of any interest raises a question that i cant even begin to answer. Nonethless, the conversation seems much more enjoyable with a true freind who chose to come hang out with me. Im not sure if id really enjoy it with somone who i predestined to come there, and even more so, with somone whose conversation and response, i was controlling. That would be bordering on pointless.

Anyway, i hope my line of reasoning didnt come across as an argument for free will in opposition to pre-destination(like Calvin seemed to be saying, they occupy different spheres, a fish has "free will" to act in water, but for him to assume he could act outside of it would be arrogance). That isnt what it is at all. I actually agree with most Calvinist doctrine, so much you might even consider me one. No, this was more an attempt to ask a question on some of the consequences of the doctrine. Some questions ive been asking myself for a while now. So where am i misunderstanding something?

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I actually agree with most Calvinist doctrine, so much you might even consider me one. No, this was more an attempt to ask a question on some of the consequences of the doctrine. Some questions ive been asking myself for a while now. So where am i misunderstanding something?

That's kinda why I directed you to Chosen By God. Sproul spends 213 pages addressing this very topic in layperson's terms, and he communicates it so much better than I could in a forum post!

 

[heymikey80]

I think I'm going to have to arch over some broader points of the theology to reach out to the points you ask about now.

God is Personal. That's not something to be trifled-with. It sets God apart from our normal system of "objects following laws and principles about how they operate." If God's Personal (nevermind the transpersonal which we know Him to be), then He is inherently relational, and also inherently more than simply driving at concrete purposes. That doesn't mean God has a need for people; it does mean God has a want to relate to people. One theologian said it this way: "Every created thing is a result of the relationships that exist in the Trinity." (van Til)

You ask what ants should think of you, were they persons. I think the creational aspects need to go deeper, if you had the authority to rightly end their lives that would mean you had a part in their creation. If you had created them from nothing, were you to deluge them with grace or water, they would have to agree that they owed you their lives. Whatever limited view they had of you, they must compare their existence with you, to their lack of existence without you. This may take a little more subtle example, of your creating and then destroying automatons, or a town out of blocks. Taking away lives you didn't give them, inherently beggars the argument when applied to God.

There would also be no "alternate natural life" to compare with in the example. Because you had created them, not simply formed them into an ant farm society, there would truly be no "wilderness" alternative.

So what would you deserve on these terms? You'd deserve what Job said, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." For there would be no alternative.

You also focused on pointlessness, the lack of meaning. Well, we don't have any kind of meaning that is independent. Our epistemology is all based on something else, an onionskin of thoughts dependent on other thoughts. We're built to rely on something -- really someone -- else for meaning. And we don't really make meaning for ourselves. We only make thoughts, which are dependent on other thoughts. I think this is critical, because we don't find real meaningfulness within ourselves. We don't even find a meaningful source for our own existence. Suicide takes us quickly to this fact.

Why would a perfect being be so concerned with imperfect beings recognizing and worshipping Him? A good question, one asked fairly often. But here I think we also need to put it to the test. Is God really so obsessively concerned about us in punishment? I don't think so. He hasn't done much exceptional to punish us. Few would say that once given the assumptions of limited creatures defying their unlimited God, that anything below immediate obliteration would be exceptional. Yet God has been quite subtle, quite patient, quite ... restrained. I would have to say it is really our obsession reflected back upon God that makes it seem He is so obsessed with our worship.

Yet God knows what's right, and He knows how to apply judgements rightly. It's nothing for Him to sweep away rebellious lives from His sight. It's really nothing. This is not intense for Him. An infinity of power condemns a finitude of sin. This is only intensity from the finite side, not from the infinite side.

The intensity, the infinite obsession from God is actually on the grace side. It's on the side of God's favor, sending His Son for our salvation, and not in glory, but in a criminal's capital punishment. Once again it's restrained -- paradoxically even when it's infinite. And so it the result. God isn't instantly empowering us to do everything perfectly. We still sin. Again this exceptional love for us, yes, it's intense on the salvation side. But it doesn't save everyone, even though it could.

So the riddle of the grace of God comes to this: we're far worse than we ever conceive; yet we're far more loved than we'd ever hope.

 

[UMP]

I like the the same old sunday school answer ive been getting all my life, because He wanted companionship. Wanting companionship doesnt nessecarily mean lonliness. I go drink some coffee with my buds not nessecarily because im lonely, but because i...i dont know, enjoy the conversation. What a sinful creature like me would say to a perfect God that would be of any interest raises a question that i cant even begin to answer. Nonethless, the conversation seems much more enjoyable with a true freind who chose to come hang out with me. Im not sure if id really enjoy it with somone who i predestined to come there, and even more so, with somone whose conversation and response, i was controlling. That would be bordering on pointless.

God speaking:

Psalm 50: 21....."thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself:......"
This is a common mistake we make as sinful creatures.
God's ways are higher than our ways.
God needs nothing.

“In the beginning, God” (Gen 1:1). There was a time, if “time” it could be called, when God, in the unity of His nature (though subsisting equally in three persons), dwelt all alone. “In the beginning, God.” There was no heaven, where His glory is now particularly manifested. There was no earth to engage His attention. There were no angels to sing His praises. There was no universe to be upheld by the word of His power. There was nothing, no one, but God; and that not for a day, a year, or an age, but “from everlasting.” During a past eternity God was alone — self-contained, self-sufficient, in need of nothing. Had a universe, or angels, or humans been necessary to Him in any way, they also would have been called into existence from all eternity. Creating them when He did added nothing to God essentially. He changes not (Mal 3:6), therefore His essential glory can be neither augmented nor diminished.
God was under no constraint, no obligation, no necessity to create. That He chose to do so was purely a sovereign act on His part, caused by nothing outside Himself, determined by nothing but His own good pleasure; for He “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph 1:11). That He did create was simply for His manifestative glory. Do some of our readers imagine that we have gone beyond what Scripture warrants? Then we appeal to the Law and the testimony: “Stand up and bless the LORD,your God, for ever and ever; and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise” (Neh 9:5). God is no gainer even from our worship. He was in no need of that external glory of His grace which arises from His redeemed, for He is glorious enough in Himself without that. What was it that moved Him to predestinate His elect to the praise of the glory of His grace? It was “according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph 1:5).
We are well aware that the high ground we tread here is new and strange to almost all of our readers, so it is well to move slowly. Let us appeal again to the Scriptures. As the apostle brings to a close along argument on salvation by sovereign grace, he asks, “For who hath known the mind of the LORD?Or who hath been His counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?” (Rom 11:34-35). The force of this is that it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligation to the creature. God gains nothing from us. “If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? Or what receiveth He of thine hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man” (Job 35:7-8).But it certainly cannot affect God, who is all-blessed in himself. “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants” (Lk 17: 10) — our obedience has profited nothing."

A.W. Pink

The question we should really be asking ourselves is this one :

Psalms 8:
[4] "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"....

 

[Gus2009]

This is a common mistake we make as sinful creatures. God's ways are higher than our ways. God needs nothing.

I think that was understood. It was actually the entire base assumption of what you quoted and the spring board for an earlier question. Desire doesnt nessecarily imply need. God doesnt not make us out of loneliness but desire for companionship. Perhaps you could argue that desire is still a human concept that really stems from a deeper pshycological need. Perhaps you would be right. Still, it was not how i meant it.

The question we should really be asking ourselves is this one
Psalms 8:[4] "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"....

I actually did ask this very question(more or less and not near as eloquently). Apparrently im not putting my thoughts across very well but i disgress. The psalmist ask it in a such a way that you know the answer must be something beyond undeserved and more comforting than one could ever imagine. God really does have a purpose for us. I enjoyed the excerpt to UMP, it put perspective on some things.

And speaking of perspective. I think youre post pretty much answered my questions heymikey. Or at least gave me so much thought to chew on that i really have nothing else to say or ask at the time Ill think ill take youre advice grinning dwarf and read that book, it sounds like a good starting point. Thanks for the insight guys.

 

[Ryft]

I had a friend [with whom] I used to discuss some of these issues . . . We were once discussing why God would have created anything at all.

I find myself on the side of your friend in rejecting the idea that God was lonely. Not only does it seem impossible that loneliness could exist in an eternal Godhead of three Persons but I would also argue that God, as transcendent pure actuality, does not possess any potentiality (in the metaphysical sense of the term); to say that God's attributes and fundamental essence can be changed at the point of creation is to say that God is a temporal, mutable, imperfect, and contingent being. (I could detail such consequences if necessary but I suspect your mind is capable of apprehending it already). My conscience being bound to Scriptures, I am compelled to reject such an idolatry (e.g. Mal. 3:6, Psa. 50:21). As for your friend's affirmation, that the whole of creation and everything involved in its consummated history is all for the greater glory of God, I could only agree and say amen, for this is precisely what the Scriptures proclaim.

But let's critically examine your ant farm for the remainder of this post, to see if it is truly analogous.

Let's just imagine I have an ant farm. (I know what you're thinking; go with me for a second). My little brother decides to flood the ant farm with water from my sink. I want some of the ants to survive, and would be happy if they acknowledged my good guesture (they're rather intelligent ants ). I would love nothing more from these ants than for them to live and acknowledge what I did. I let most of the ants die, however, I do save a few.

As [name]heymikey80[/name] already pointed out, the proposed analogy falters on a rather crucial point. We owe our very existence, our each and every breath as well as the entire cosmos in which our existence plays out and even depends upon, to the sovereign Creator and Lord Most High. There is nothing about ourselves or the world in which we live that was not brought about and sustained by God's power. The same cannot be said for your ant farm, for the most you did was fabricate the environment to which they conformed their already existent colony. It would seem their humble gratitude for your providences would be determined by the degree of your relationship to them; as [name]heymikey80[/name] put it, "If you had created them from nothing, [then] were you to deluge them with grace or water, they would have to agree that they owed you their lives . . . Taking away lives you didn't give them inherently beggars the argument when applied to God."

But another rather crucial failure in your analogy is how it describes divine election. You had said, "I tell these ants that they were special because I picked them—perhaps because they were cuter than the rest, maybe I saved the queen. I tell them that I let the others die for some reason of non-preference, or they had some flaw that I didn't like. Perhaps, using genetics, I had genectically engineered these 'special ants' to be superior to the rest." This, I will argue, finds almost no correspondence with the doctrine of election as taught in Scriptures and Reformed theology. Let me now make my argument.

As Scriptures proclaim and Reformed theology affirms, all mankind share in the same common misery of sin and death, equally involved in ruin and who by nature are "neither better nor more deserving than others"; wherefore "God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin" as he did those angels who kept not their first estate. There are no special ants when "all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto." From my studies in Scriptures, what I have seen is that God chooses to save certain people "in accordance with his pleasure and will, to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph. 1:5-6), that it is "according to his mercy [that] he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5), that he chooses to save certain people "because of his own purpose and grace" (2 Tim. 1:9), that it depends neither on "man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Rom. 9:16). Whenever I read in Scriptures about God's having chosen to save certain people, the basis is always his own purpose, according to his own pleasure and will, all of which is expressed in his rich mercy. Never do I find the basis of his choice being anything that inheres in man himself. It does not matter if one is cuter or another is a queen. Brown eyes, green eyes, five-foot-two or brunette or Jew or Greek or male or female or slave or free—we are all together "by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery," wherefore it is "the good pleasure of God [that] is the sole cause of this gracious election" without any regard to some "possible qualities and actions of men," nor was it "founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended" (all quotations, except for biblical citations, are from The Canons of the Council of Dordrecht).

There is, therefore, no "special ants" among men recognized in Reformed theology, despite the persistent gross caricatures of its detractors. (I do not intend to imply that you are one.) The only elite is God Most High, who alone is to be praised; those who are redeemed among men are a product of God's choice based upon God's unchangeable purpose, out of God's precious grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of God's own will. From start to finish, salvation is of God. No facet of salvation—election, faith, justification, sanctification, etc—is a result of any intrinsic quality in man himself; rather, every facet of salvation is founded upon and wrought by the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus. There is nothing naturally inherent in man himself that would move God to redeem him, "for all have sinned" and Scriptures are quite clear with respect to how God feels about sin. It is for this reason—a reason we have scarcely examined—that the Son of God had to come into the world in the first place to endure and accomplish all that he did. Ergo, there is none among men that are "special ants."

If I knew he was predestined to do this with certainty, what difference would it make if I forced him to do it? What difference would it make if I flooded the ant farm myself?

Omniscience is an attribute of God, not an act of God.

Nevertheless, in an unrefined sense you are correct. If God has decreed that something should happen, can it not be said that he ultimately did it? In a way I suppose it could, for certainly the Scriptures describe such a thing. Consider Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery and his being taken to Egypt: "So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt" (Gen. 45:8; cf. 50:20, Psa. 105:17). Or consider the king of Assyria boasting about his pillaging and plundering, to which God had said, "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone" (2 Kings 19:23-28). But the Lord never forces anyone to do it against their will. Their choices are always according their will; this harkens us to the distinction of 'secondary causes' which the Westminster Confession describes. Returning to the king of Assyria, we find God saying about him, "I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. But this is not what he intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations" (Isa. 10:6-7). Or Joseph and his brothers, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good" (Gen. 50:20). One act, two intentions: one righteous, the other evil; one the First Cause, the other the secondary cause.

 

[Gus2009]

Points well taken. I do wonder however, if the antfarm analogy, with a little tweaking, would still do just fine and beg the exact same questions. Substitute "buy kit at the store" with "create in lab" or even, for the sake of argument, "create from nothing". Sure, they would owe their very existence to me, but the ants doomed to death would have gained more by never existing at all. Especially if these "ants" were destined to eternal damnation.

Sure, because of their limited scope, they wouldnt be able to see the greater purpose of my plan, much less question it. But then again, what purpose is their in forcing a being into existence who, by defintion, will never be able to understand the plan. A being, by definition, not able to see the error in his ways or change his fate. More so than that even, it is a being who was destined to have his ways flawed(and this could even be said of those who were saved). Would not a merciful God just simply never make these beings at all?

Its one thing to make a floor. Its another thing to make a floor concious and aware of the fact that he is a floor. Now the floor really does the have right to say "Why must i always be stepped on?". Responding "because i made you for that purpose" may actually be cruel and ultimately without purpose at all, especially if that fate was unchangeable.

On another point you made. You could simply substitute "cuter than others" with "reasons beyond you mere ants understanding". Not because they were special, but simply because of any reason. I choose you because _______. The argument has to change horses a little bit, but not much. Even more importantly, the same questions are still begged. "Should those ants be awed by superior being now? Should they see my glorious plan that i had from the very begining? What should these ants think of me?"

While numerous fallacies and not so perfect analogies can be found in comparing ourselves to God, humans to ants and comparing a universe created by mere will to enviroments engineered by humans, the same basic questions seem to be readily extrapolated to the bigger question. Which is, how should we feel if God really did make everything like this? I dont think this is a question beyond asking. I dont think its a question so big and also so mired in fallible human analogies that you couldnt even begin to ask it properly. I think you really can ask it, my somewhat flawed ant farm analogy aside(as indeed all analogies of this nature, comparing ourselves to God and humans to something else, will be). If it is such a question, then saying people choose Christ or saying people are elected would both be far too presumptuous.(which they may very well be). In fact, saying anything at all as to speculate would assume too much. The rules apply both ways. As far youre last point goes, i agree wholly.

 

[heymikey80]

Points well taken. I do wonder however, if the antfarm analogy, with a little tweaking, would still do just fine and beg the exact same questions. Substitute "buy kit at the store" with "create in lab" or even, for the sake of argument, "create from nothing". Sure, they would owe their very existence to me, but the ants doomed to death would have gained more by never existing at all. Especially if these "ants" were destined to eternal damnation.

The ant farm analogy won't simply be corrected based on a little tweaking. You don't ever get to deserve to have such a level of authority over life that taking it on your whim would be ethical. The specific reason for that is that you didn't create that life. Not even procreation of another life gives you such a level of authority.

To have primal authority you must be able to create: that is, the entire virtual environment and all its inputs must be yours. And as created beings we never have that authority.

For us the just taking of life is derived from higher authority; even the government deprives life based on higher cause: the preservation of other lives.

Sure, because of their limited scope, they wouldnt be able to see the greater purpose of my plan, much less question it. But then again, what purpose is their in forcing a being into existence who, by defintion, will never be able to understand the plan. A being, by definition, not able to see the error in his ways or change his fate. More so than that even, it is a being who was destined to have his ways flawed(and this could even be said of those who were saved). Would not a merciful God just simply never make these beings at all?

No. It's been pointed out that they serve other purposes beyond themselves. Therefore God is pressing their misunderstanding to a higher purpose.

Clearly a merciful God would make beings that are flawed, destined to destruction, and who don't understand the plan. In fact He has.

Its one thing to make a floor. Its another thing to make a floor concious and aware of the fact that he is a floor. Now the floor really does the have right to say "Why must i always be stepped on?". Responding "because i made you for that purpose" may actually be cruel and ultimately without purpose at all, especially if that fate was unchangeable.

Hm. Why? First of all, the definition of "unchangeable" is fraught with difficulty. I invite you to take a look at Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination". Of course in one sense every person is capable of change. There's nothing in their way but themselves.

But second, I'm trying to comprehend the first reason why this would ever be true in the first place. History is replete with villains we condemn. And yet those villains' histories are unchangeable. Are you saying it's purposeless to condemn some mass murderer after the fact, because his fate -- now realized in history -- is unchangeable? That contradicts our very experience of history. No, evil remains evil whether in the future or in the past. It's a question of whether the person chooses of himself to commit evil that dictates his response: his will to do evil is what makes him evil. It has nothing to do with the possibility that a person might find some way in himself to choose to be good.

If the future is deterministic, then there's nothing at all paradoxical in condemning those determined to be reprobate. It's only if you beg the question and begin with the assumption that the future could be non-deterministic, that you can conclude that God is somehow unjust to determine some of His creation to reprobation when they might otherwise not be.

And it'd miss the point of predestination to mistake it for fatalism. Fatalism dictates the person's future despite the human will's desire to do differently. Predestination to reprobation determines the person's future condemnation based on the way the human will was created by God.

So in the sense that the human will is capable of doing what he wants (within the bounds of human nature), predestination says "Yes" the will is definitely capable of doing what he desires to do. Thus in this sense the human will is free.

But as others have pointed out, it's no help. Because the human will itself is corrupted, so it freely chooses corruption, invariably.

On another point you made. You could simply substitute "cuter than others" with "reasons beyond you mere ants understanding". Not because they were special, but simply because of any reason. I choose you because _______. The argument has to change horses a little bit, but not much. Even more importantly, the same questions are still begged. "Should those ants be awed by superior being now? Should they see my glorious plan that i had from the very begining? What should these ants think of me?"

Were your self-aware ants aware they were totally corrupted, inside and out; and were you to say "I choose you because of what's in me, not what's in you; because of my own desire to save some of you."

The two aspects of this would be comprehended quite readily. The choice is made to shower some with favor. None deserves this favor. The lower beings should rightly be humbly grateful that the higher being chose to spare some, and not carry out justice on all.

While numerous fallacies and not so perfect analogies can be found in comparing ourselves to God, humans to ants and comparing a universe created by mere will to enviroments engineered by humans, the same basic questions seem to be readily extrapolated to the bigger question. Which is, how should we feel if God really did make everything like this? I dont think this is a question beyond asking. I dont think its a question so big and also so mired in fallible human analogies that you couldnt even begin to ask it properly. I think you really can ask it, my somewhat flawed ant farm analogy aside(as indeed all analogies of this nature, comparing ourselves to God and humans to something else, will be).

I agree you can ask it. But I don't think it offers some point which noncontradiction can leverage to conclude one side or the other.

The basic problem as we Calvinists see it is that no one really sees the depth of sin and depravity he's in. Therefore the calamities that are brought against people turn our misimpression of our own righteousness, into a misimpression that God is overpunishing us.

In Calvinist terms however, we're much worse than we ever considered.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Lk 13:1-5
​

we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom 3:9-18
​

If it is such a question, then saying people choose Christ or saying people are elected would both be far too presumptuous.(which they may very well be). In fact, saying anything at all as to speculate would assume too much. The rules apply both ways. As far youre last point goes, i agree wholly.

First, presumption is no reason against mention. Making any such assertions is not based on exacting rules of derived knowledge. That's rather obvious. No insight into human nature could be derived knowledge. We don't have access to perform science on human individuals in this way. You're saying what we can't prove, we can't talk about. But frankly we have a hard time proving the existence of meaning, of self, of physical reality, of myriad other things and concepts. Not even science is founded on a solid bedrock.

They all have presumptions. Oh, they call them different things: assumptions, principles, assertions. But they're presumptions. Plain & simple.

For a presumption to be presumptuous you have to prove the presumption is generally invalid. That's the connotation here of "presumptuous": that our presumption of election or calling or faith, based on outward appearance or discernment, is not normally applicable. But indeed it is normally applicable.

Second, We talk about such things as election and choice because to quit talking about them would be to deny their existence. And you don't do that with God-spoken concepts. No, you speak them because God has spoken them to you. In point of fact God has given the church and indeed its members quite a bit of awareness to speak on, even to act on when someone does not show outward evidences of election, regeneration, faith, justification, and sanctification. They're derived from outward phenomena. Sure. They're not perfect. Sure. But they're stated in Scripture as indicative. In fact the church is often instructed to pass judgement on the basis of outward indication. In other words, it's granted derived authority to make such judgements (Ac 7:35, 10:42, 1 Cor 5:12, 6:2-5, 10:15), even when they are provisional and may need to be corrected later.

And so we do make such judgements. We also teach on these things because God also taught us these concepts. And we're told to teach the disciples. But to say you can't talk about what you can't prove beyond doubt's shadows, that's to say you can't talk at all.

 

[Rick Otto]

"...but the ants doomed to death would have gained more by never existing at all."

Not having existed at all presents us with nothing to have gained anything.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Would not a merciful God just simply never make these beings at all?"

Mercy only exists within a context. That prerequisite context is justice. Without justice, mercy is just a meaningless word. No existence = no meaning.

Somebody said, "To have loved & lost is better than to never have loved at all." Could the same thing be said of floors?
I suspect that if a floor was created to walk on & given sentience, it would find fulfillment in being walked upon & might even describe its purpose as "To provide good understanding!"

(Well, I would if I was a floor.)

"Should they see my glorious plan that i had from the very begining?"
Very apt terminology!
You can find clues to the reason for existence, & I think they boil down to glory.
For example:
1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
And for the way things are the way they are (SNAFU) :
2Co 4:15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.



Main Entry: re·dound
Pronunciation: ri-'daund
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French redunder, from Latin redundare, from re-, red- re- + unda wave -- more at [SIZE=-1]WATER[/SIZE]
1 archaic : to become swollen : [SIZE=-1]OVERFLOW[/SIZE]
2 : to have an effect for good or ill <new power alignments which may or may not redound to the faculty's benefit -- G. W. Bonham>
3 : to become transferred or added : [SIZE=-1]ACCRUE[/SIZE]
4 : [SIZE=-1]REBOUND[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]REFLECT[/SIZE]

Very little of a specultive nature in scripture's defining & explaining of both predestination & limited atonement.