Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are correct. It's illogical but you aren't supposed to notice apparently.So I've been trying to make sense of the doctrine of predestination as someone currently attending a Lutheran church. I've been reading through the Book of Concord and find myself in agreement with everything I've read thus far, but when I look at some of the criticisms of the paradox of single predestination I falter a little bit. It seems that one is expected to either be Arminian or Calvinist, and the Lutheran option is a "non-answer" that is illogical. But I see that not only Lutherans but many Anglican divines as well as the Catholic Thomists believe in it, so I guess I just wanted to ask about defenses or critiques about this doctrine and how your tradition views it
ImCo:
My concern about this argument stems from the verses in which GOD tells us that though HE does all for HIS pleasure, HE takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11, and also that HE wants everyone to repent and be saved, 2 Peter 3:9. IF HE truly wanted no one to die or to end in hell and yet HE knew from time immemorial that some would indeed end up in the eternal death of hell,
...then all He had to do to ensure that HIS pleasure in a no death creation would have been fulfilled was to not create those whom HE knew would end there.
You are correct. It's illogical but you aren't supposed to notice apparently.
God, simply, predestines no one to hell, as the Catholic Church teaches that He doesn't. That would make Him the author of evil, worse than Satan, to predestine a created being to eternal torment, without regard to his will IOW.So I've been trying to make sense of the doctrine of predestination as someone currently attending a Lutheran church. I've been reading through the Book of Concord and find myself in agreement with everything I've read thus far, but when I look at some of the criticisms of the paradox of single predestination I falter a little bit. It seems that one is expected to either be Arminian or Calvinist, and the Lutheran option is a "non-answer" that is illogical. But I see that not only Lutherans but many Anglican divines as well as the Catholic Thomists believe in it, so I guess I just wanted to ask about defenses or critiques about this doctrine and how your tradition views it
Passing by the angel's fall in that they are not involved in most definitions of inherited or original sin or any imputed sin from Adam, humans are indeed said to be created as being sinful in this doctrine, under the judgment of suffering and death through no choice of their own but by their creation. This fact is only escapable by doublethink, that HE can't create sinners but this doctrine say HE does but HE cannot so He Did Not so it means something else and we won't think about it anymore!!Your solution presumes that the reason someone sins has to do with the way God created that one person vs the way He created the person next to them.
Passing by the angel's fall in that they are not involved in most definitions of inherited or original sin or any imputed sin from Adam, humans are indeed said to be created as being sinful[/quo
. in this doctrine, under the judgment of suffering and death through no choice of their own but by their creation.
I have noticed a ton of Lutherans admit it's illogical and be quite proud of that.You are correct. It's illogical but you aren't supposed to notice apparently.
Or " single predestination" is incorrect also and we are misunderstanding what is meant by predestination.I have noticed a ton of Lutherans admit it's illogical and be quite proud of that.
I tend to agree with them. The Lutheran Confessions try and only present what the Bible says - and the Bible itself acknowledges some sort of predestination, but never acknowledges double predestination.
The fact that double predestination seems "logical" if one accepts "single predestination" does not mean that double predestination is Biblical - and quite frankly does not mean double predestination is the only rational option you have. There may be other options we aren't aware of due to our very limited knowledge of how the world works from eternity etc.
This is probably why I'm inclined to agree with the Lutherans. Logic is useful but it's not a test of doctrinal, philosophical or moral truth. In fact, logic can lead to the exact opposite.
So I've been trying to make sense of the doctrine of predestination as someone currently attending a Lutheran church. I've been reading through the Book of Concord and find myself in agreement with everything I've read thus far, but when I look at some of the criticisms of the paradox of single predestination I falter a little bit. It seems that one is expected to either be Arminian or Calvinist, and the Lutheran option is a "non-answer" that is illogical. But I see that not only Lutherans but many Anglican divines as well as the Catholic Thomists believe in it, so I guess I just wanted to ask about defenses or critiques about this doctrine and how your tradition views it
If you really want to get into it, you'd want to read Luther's "Bondage of the Will".
In short, God wants to save everyone. But rather than trying to answer a single question, "Why are you saved or damned?", it breaks it into two questions.
If you are saved, He created the faith in you and predestined you for salvation. In other words, salvation is monergistic, all God.
If you are damned, God wants you to be saved but you rejected Him and therefore are predestined by your own disbelief. In other words, damnation is monergistic as well only now, it is all on you.
While I agree with this, I have questions about how it relates to the inability of any sinner to do anything that will save themselves so, without grace, any and all sinners would refuse HIM...since all sinners are enslaved to sin or our Lord was babbling about that.
If grace breaks that addictive slavery it must be an active force, not a mere dangling carrot...how can it be fair if it is effective only for some but not for all???
So I've been trying to make sense of the doctrine of predestination as someone currently attending a Lutheran church. I've been reading through the Book of Concord and find myself in agreement with everything I've read thus far, but when I look at some of the criticisms of the paradox of single predestination I falter a little bit. It seems that one is expected to either be Arminian or Calvinist, and the Lutheran option is a "non-answer" that is illogical. But I see that not only Lutherans but many Anglican divines as well as the Catholic Thomists believe in it, so I guess I just wanted to ask about defenses or critiques about this doctrine and how your tradition views it
I would say that within a group there can be different ideas, even while there might be some one official claim. A group can have some official idea because of prayer . . . or because of politics.So I've been trying to make sense of the doctrine of predestination as someone currently attending a Lutheran church.
So I've been trying to make sense of the doctrine of predestination as someone currently attending a Lutheran church. I've been reading through the Book of Concord and find myself in agreement with everything I've read thus far, but when I look at some of the criticisms of the paradox of single predestination I falter a little bit. It seems that one is expected to either be Arminian or Calvinist, and the Lutheran option is a "non-answer" that is illogical. But I see that not only Lutherans but many Anglican divines as well as the Catholic Thomists believe in it, so I guess I just wanted to ask about defenses or critiques about this doctrine and how your tradition views it
...but when I look at some of the criticisms of the paradox of single predestination I falter a little bit.
I don’t think the issue here is any different from the morality of God designing a world where most people will be tormented forever. Predestination makes the problem more obvious. But is there really a difference between deciding that only a few specific people will be saved and setting up a system where he surely must know that only the same few will be saved? In both cases, assuming you believe in compatibilism (which is generally part of predestinarian theology), the people who are damned made responsible choices that produced that result. In either case, we have to assume that God has no obligation to save everyone, or even most people, so there is no moral problem with the way things are.In my opinion predestination is a quagmire. Single predestination is not logically defensible (and the merit of Lutheranism lies in the fact that Lutherans do not attempt to defend it logically). Double predestination is not morally, or even metaphysically, acceptable.
I don't think anyone has solved the problem of predestination, and I don't think anyone ever will. Heck, if someone manages to give a proper solution to the problem of predestination, this would probably mean that that she is equal to or greater than God himself (for it would mean that she has a perfect understanding of God's will and of God's providential plan). All of the historical debates, such as the Thomists vs. the Molinists or the Calvinists vs. the Arminians, result in intractable argument.
This is a great question, by the way.
I don’t think the issue here is any different from the morality of God designing a world where most people will be tormented forever. Predestination makes the problem more obvious. But is there really a difference between deciding that only a few specific people will be saved and setting up a system where he surely must know that only the same few will be saved? In both cases, assuming you believe in compatibilism (which is generally part of predestinarian theology), the people who are damned made responsible choices that produced that result. In either case, we have to assume that God has no obligation to save everyone, or even most people, so there is no moral problem with the way things are.
If you’re going to start judging God morally, I think the only acceptable theologies are universalism or open theism.
I don’t think the issue here is any different from the morality of God designing a world where most people will be tormented forever. Predestination makes the problem more obvious.
It's like if you saw a door that says all who will may enter. It's up to you. You decide to go in and there is a table with a place mat with your name on it. On the back of the door it says ordained before the foundation of timeIt's something that I personally disregard. According to the bible, predestination -at least as far as Calvinists describe it- is impossible. Also "Open Theism" as some people describe it is also impossible. In sorting through it, the only conclusion that can be reliably drawn from it is that God has a plan for humanity, that plan includes a group who will be saved, and that plan will be completed. Everything else is speculation. We know what we are required to do and we should do it. And we should do it without a lot of theological speculation that only divides.
But if it helps, one Orthodox view of predestination is found in the Confession of Dositheus, written by a Synod in Jerusalem in 1672:
We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?